Violence against Women and Girls

Debate between Fiona Mactaggart and Mary Macleod

Thursday 12th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I think that part of the reason for this situation is that we do this education too late. I do not know whether the hon. Lady’s school was a primary or a secondary school, but if we did it in primary schools, with which parents have a more intimate relationship, it is more likely that parents would do it. I think that we should do it in primary schools.

In Slough earlier this week, I talked about this issue at a meeting—a kind of youth question time for parliamentary candidates and their MP. A young woman came up to me and said, “Do you know what? The PSHE I got was much too late. It was when I was in year 10 or 11—something like that. Actually, it’s in year 7 that you are trying to make your first relationships with boyfriends.” I had the impression that she had been a victim of exploitation. She did not say anything that implied that she had been, but the fact that she wanted to take me into a corner and talk to me about this made me feel that she had been vulnerable and had not known what to do about her vulnerability. My anxiety about the welcome announcement from the Secretary of State is that this education will not happen young enough.

I used to teach year 6 in primary school. Some of my colleague teachers—this was a lifetime ago—were frightened of doing sex education, so I tended to be the person who did it, but I think that we have gone past that. It is really important that before girls have boyfriends and develop a sense of their own sexuality, they are able to have these conversations with trusted adults who can advise them on ways to be resilient to exploitation.

[Mary Macleod]

I want to give the right hon. Lady this example. I ran the London domestic abuse summit, in Chiswick, with the Home Secretary. I invited a couple of students from each of my local secondary schools, and some of the schools came back and said, “Sorry, we think it’s inappropriate.” I think that there is some work to be done to educate teachers that this is a very important issue and they have to play their part in it.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The hon. Lady is right to say that we need to educate teachers. I used to be a teacher educator—a teacher trainer—and it is true that we gallop through so much training for teachers so fast that we do not train them in how to teach this. Primary school teachers in particular can feel anxious about teaching it, but in my view it should be mandatory at every level of a child’s education.

Children should have relationships education from the age of five. At five, children will be talking not about sex and sexuality, but about what to do about bullies and about sharing toys. Those are very important lessons about relating to other people that at the moment schools avoid. Not every school does so, but it is not mandated, as part of the national curriculum, that schools have to teach this, and many parents do not have the confidence to teach it. As a result, we leave our children vulnerable because they do not know how to protect themselves. The best form of protection against exploitation is self-protection. The police cannot be there all the time; mum cannot be there all the time. We need to develop young adults who can keep themselves safe and who know how to resist exploitation.

International Women’s Day

Debate between Fiona Mactaggart and Mary Macleod

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I have been reflecting on the function of Back-Bench debates. It is important that we get things out of them rather than just listen to ourselves. This is a debate about an issue on which there is not an enormous difference between parties. The first task of such debates is to move culture on; the second is to do things and get allies to change things; and the third is to advance policy.

On shifting our culture in relation to the role of women, I want to give the media some faint praise. It is great that the BBC has aired the documentary about the rape and murder of a woman in India. It is deeply shocking that the documentary has been banned in India and utterly horrifying that Mukesh Singh, who was responsible for the murder, suggests that women are more responsible for rape because they go out late at night and look pretty, as though men are helpless in the face of how women look. We can use this Chamber to make it clear to each other, the UK media and India that that attitude to women is unacceptable, that it damages the reputation of India internationally, that we are standing up against it and that we are proud that we have shown the documentary in the UK.

The media have done another helpful thing in relation to women and politics. Michael Cockerell’s recent programme about this House started with two young women MPs. It was very important to be able to see that the activists and Members in this House who represent constituencies are not just fusty old guys in suits—I speak as a fusty old woman in a suit—but represent some of the different parts of our society. It is a failure in democracy that people are becoming less committed to believing that it is the best way to run a country or, as Churchill put it, the worst form of Government except for all the others. People feel less comfortable about it and I think that one of the ways in which we can make them feel more comfortable is by letting them see people like them in this Chamber. It is a big challenge for all of us to make sure that the diversity of all our communities is represented in Parliament.

When Mr Speaker was in the Chair, he challenged us to name women whose portraits should be in this place. I nominate Baroness Ros Howells from the other place, who did so much, following the fire that killed so many teenagers in Deptford, to bring that evil murder to light and get justice for the community. Perhaps Mr Speaker will read Hansard and commission a portrait of her.

I started by talking about the rape and murder in India. We have to focus on how many women are murdered, because it is a terrible problem across the world and in the UK. The recent Femicide Census showed that 694 women had been killed by men over four years and that 46% of them were killed by men they loved.

[Mary Macleod]

Does the hon. Lady agree that domestic abuse statistics in the UK are still intolerable? Two women a week still get killed in the UK by a partner or former partner.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Yes, I do—that is absolutely horrifying—and I am really worried that the reduction in quality refuge provision for women who are at risk means that more women will be murdered.

As I have said, we should not just shift our culture and understanding, but change things. I invite every Member to vote on Tuesday week for a real change for a very vulnerable group of women: domestic workers who are grossly exploited by their employers. The other place has tabled an amendment to the Modern Slavery Bill and we have an opportunity to support it when it comes back to this House. I am absolutely certain that the Government have no intention of doing that, but following this debate we could decide that our commitment to those women—bold, brave women who have their passport taken away and are expected to sleep on the kitchen floor and, in some cases, to work for 24 hours for no money—is more important than our commitment to our party Whip. If we did that, we would demonstrate that this debate expresses solidarity among women—because, overwhelmingly, domestic workers are women and they are enslaved here in Britain—that we will not put up with it and that we will be prepared to stick out our sharp elbows and make a difference for that group of women.

As I have said, the third role of Back-Bench debates is to advance policy. Over the past few years I have been banging on about older women—a category that I never particularly expected to get into, but it crept up on me and bit me on the bum. It is a real issue that the peak earning point for men comes when they are in their 50s, while the peak earning point for women comes when they are about 40. The narrowing of the pay gap is being achieved not by Government policy, but by history, because, although it has narrowed for younger women, it is enormously wider for older women.

It is great for Government Members to say, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has, “Look at all these people we’ve taken out of tax,” but if we look at women’s income, we will see that the majority of them have not benefited from that. The average pay of women entrepreneurs—lone, self-employed women—is £9,600, according to the Office for National Statistics. That group of women has not benefited one jot from the increase in personal allowance.

Domestic Violence (Police Response)

Debate between Fiona Mactaggart and Mary Macleod

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.

Violence against Women and Girls

Debate between Fiona Mactaggart and Mary Macleod

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The responsibility of families does not get rid of the responsibility of the education service.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that some schools are already taking a lead on this issue and teaching it, and that that, along with partnership working with the police, is incredibly important? That is what I find in my London borough of Hounslow.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Yes, of course there are schools that are doing this well. The problem is that we do not have a comprehensive system—I will go into the details later—that guarantees excellent sex and relationships education. It is unsafe not to have such a system in schools, and that is my argument.

UN Women

Debate between Fiona Mactaggart and Mary Macleod

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Macleod]

I agree entirely; that is a very good point.

In conclusion, I want to talk about violence against women—another subject that is extremely close to my heart, first, because it is a major issue for me in Hounslow in my constituency and, secondly, because Refuge was set up in Chiswick in my constituency. My hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) have discussed this subject very well and have laid out some of the major issues that we face. There have been more than 1 million female victims of domestic abuse in England and Wales in the last year. That is a huge figure. We need to talk about the problem more, and to try to speak to the next generation in schools and elsewhere to convey that domestic violence is completely unacceptable.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

rose—

[Mary Macleod]

I am almost finished, so I shall not give way.

The Home Secretary has spoken firmly on the issue of violence against women and girls, saying that our

“ambition is nothing less than ending all forms of violence against women and girls.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 52WS.]

I also congratulate the Mayor of London on what he has done to quadruple the number of rape crisis centres in London. We have a duty to keep talking about what women have achieved across the globe and about the challenges and issues that still exist. That is why this debate is so important. By collaborating and working together we can achieve so much more and deliver a real change across the world.