Family Visitor Visas

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 206568, 210497 and 201416 relating to family visitor visas.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I congratulate you on the honour you received in the recent honours list; it was well-deserved.

All the e-petitions we are considering deal with visitor visas for families, and we have grouped them together for that reason. There seem to be particular problems with families getting visitor visas for their relatives. Before I move on to that, I want to state the obvious for the record: every state has the right to control its borders. No one is asking for a free-for-all or for those who abuse the system to get away with it. However, people overwhelmingly want a system that is fair to people already in this country and to their visitors and that is fairly administered, with some compassion and common sense. From the public engagement we have done—I will refer to that later—that often seems not to be the case.

I must confess that I came to this issue as a bit of a novice; depending on the point of view, it is either an advantage or a drawback of the Petitions Committee that we often have to learn a new subject very quickly. I do not represent a constituency where many people have relatives abroad, so I thought that the few cases I had seen where people could not get someone in for a wedding or funeral represented blips in the system. However, having looked at the matter in some detail and talked to our petitioners—I am very grateful to them—and to others we have engaged with, I am convinced that there are serious problems with family visitor visas when it comes to the quality of decision making and how it is communicated to applicants.

We all accept that clearance officers have a difficult job to do. There are a number of things they need to consider when deciding whether to grant a visa, including people’s previous immigration history, their financial position, their economic and personal ties to their own country and whether they have been here so often that it constitutes de facto residence. Some of those things are clearly factual, while others require the exercise of judgment.

For example, when someone is applying from a country that is unstable or in a conflict zone, officers can look at the statistics for immigration compliance in that region. However, they are also told that if someone is applying from a country in conflict or where part of the country is in conflict, that

“can be sufficient reason for you not to be satisfied that the applicant is a genuine visitor”,

unless the applicant can produce evidence to show that that is not the case. One of the things cited as an example is where they have right of residence in a third country, which does not apply to many people. It is very difficult for an applicant to rebut that presumption, and we are in danger of judging people on where they come from, rather than their personal circumstances.

Officers can look at someone’s previous history to see whether they or their sponsor have attempted to deceive the immigration authorities in the past, and that is perfectly right, but they can also refuse an application when:

“It has not been possible to verify information provided by the applicant despite attempts to do so”.

I would have no problem with that if I was convinced that we were getting the quality of the decision making right in the first instance, but I do not think that is always the case.

In 2011, the chief inspector of borders and immigration looked at the New York visa section. One would not think that was a particularly difficult area, but he found that 26% of the cases did not meet the quality markers for decision making. Officers were often misinterpreting documents and were making inconsistent decisions. Although his 2012 report showed some improvement, he said there was a long way to go. In his 2014 report, he looked at various visa sections and found that 30% of decisions did not meet the quality markers. Again, officers were making very inconsistent decisions.

It is not surprising, then, that a number of cases have been raised of late in the press and by Members of this House. In May, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said in a debate that she had lost count of the number of times people had been refused visas to attend a wedding or funeral. She highlighted a rather disturbing case where a constituent of hers was waiting for a stem cell transplant, but his brother in Nigeria, who was the donor, had been refused a visa to come here.

Another case—it is not a family one, but it illustrates the problems in the system—was highlighted by The Guardian. A person who runs a charity he set up in Malawi wanted to come to meet donors and speak at the Hay festival. He was refused a visa. He applied again with support from people in the other place and the head of an international charity. He had a full programme of what he was doing, and he was still turned down. He cannot get in for a perfectly reasonable thing, even with the support of a national newspaper. I worry about the people who have not had that support.

The Hertfordshire Mercury reported the case of a father from Morocco who was unable to attend the birth of his child, despite showing evidence of flights booked into and out of the country. The most bizarre recent case I came across was that of a grandmother in Jamaica—she is a retired nurse—who had been consistently refused a visa to come here to see her children and grandchildren, despite the fact she had worked for 30 years for the NHS and was entitled to both a state pension and an NHS pension. I do not believe that anyone would think that the system was set up to stop Jamaican grannies with 30 years’ service in this country from visiting their grandchildren.

The problem is that since the Crime and Courts Act 2013, there are no appeals, except in very limited cases on grounds of racial discrimination or human rights. The Government justified that by saying that appeals were costly. They were, but a third of appeals were succeeding, which shows that the decision making was bad in the first place. Some 63% of the appeals that succeeded had introduced new information, leaving 37% where there was no new information and the appeal still succeeded. To me, that says there is poor decision making. Worse than that, new information is often introduced on appeal because the grounds for refusal are so vague that people do not know what information they have to provide until they get to appeal.

The chief inspector has commented on cases where appeals are refused because the applicant did not provide particular information, had no way of knowing they needed to provide it and were not asked to provide it. He said that was unfair. He looked at recent cases. He pointed out that in 13% of cases where visas were turned down and 56% of cases where visas were allowed, there was not enough information on file for a proper audit of those decisions to be made. If that is the case, something is going very wrong. One of our petitions asks for appeals to be reinstated precisely because of that poor decision making.

I have talked to some of our petitioners. They have clearly said that in every other public authority, there is a way of appealing decisions if the authority does something wrong. That does not exist with these cases. If a local council makes a bad decision, someone can go to the ombudsman, but that is not possible in these cases. Others think they are being denied the opportunity to, as they see it, clear their name and prove that they have not given wrong information or tried to manipulate the system. If an appeal is not a possibility, people are caught on a merry-go-round of making applications and not always knowing why they have been turned down or what information they have to provide, and often being turned down again for a different reason.

Sometimes people are caught in a trap. I want to talk about a case that was given to me by a member of staff in the House. It is the case of a British citizen who teaches in South America, who has been married to a citizen of the country where he works for six years. Five years ago they came to visit his family—no problem at all. Recently they applied again and were turned down. The only reason anyone can see is that since then they have had a baby and his wife had given up work, as many people do, to care for her child while the baby was small. They were refused, even though they provided evidence of his contract for work and the contract for their rental accommodation. The result of that was heartbroken grandparents in this country, who find it difficult to travel and who had arranged a baptism and a family holiday to get to know their grandchild, and a British family—British born and bred—who feel that the system does not work for them. It is the lack of faith in the system that has prompted the petitions.

I do not think—I have said this to the petitioners—we can grant people an automatic right to come here. There are always a few people who want to manipulate the system, but the evidence that we have indicates that that is not a particular problem with visitor visas. The Library’s information on exit checks for last year show that 96.7% of people who came here on visitor visas left at the right time. That is a slightly higher percentage than for those who come on work visas, so there does not appear to be a particular problem.

Another petition asked for a system like the Canadian super visas, whereby people are allowed to visit their families for up to two years. I think that slightly misunderstands what the Canadian system was brought in for. It was actually introduced to reduce settlement in Canada under the parents and grandparents settlement scheme, because people settling were deemed to be a bit of a strain on the Canadian medical system. I do not know whether that is true, but I do know that people have to provide £100,000 worth of health insurance, which is fine if someone is wealthy and healthy enough to be accepted, but not much help to people such as our granny in Jamaica or a young couple from South America. The petitions might not have the solutions to the problem, but they, including the one asking for the right of appeal to be reinstated, highlight issues that the Home Office needs to look at.

We conducted some public engagement with surveys of people who had signed petitions about visas. We got more than 2,000 responses and we heard the same stories again and again: mothers unable to come to a daughter’s wedding; nieces not able to come and be bridesmaids; and parents who could not come to help with a new baby—sometimes even a premature baby. Some of the stories we heard verged on the bizarre and seemed to indicate to me that the more honest people were, the more likely they were to be rejected. My general view is that villains know how to manipulate the system.

We had a grandmother, for example, who had said that she would be looking after her grandchild while the parents were at work—she was going to get to know the grandchild—and she was turned down on the grounds that that was paid work. Anyone who knows anything about grandparents knows that, far from having to pay them to look after their grandchildren, someone is more likely to be trampled in the rush to look after them. It is nonsense. We also had the case of someone in the British forces, whose mother was denied a visa to attend his passing out parade. Yet another military family, who had had their second child, were keen to get the husband’s niece over for a couple of months to help out. She had finished one set of exams, but was going back to school. She was refused a visa. The family were desperate for some help because the husband, who had served nine years in the forces, was about to deploy, leaving his wife on her own. Unless the British forces are running a concentrated visa scam, which is unlikely, I can see no reason at all for such decisions.

The people who responded to our survey understand that decisions are difficult to make. In fact, I was surprised at the number who said they would even be prepared to deposit a sum of money to be returned to them when their visitor left as evidence of good faith. They know it is difficult, but they find the whole process they are expected to go through excruciating. Some of them told us that their relatives had been so traumatised by the process, they did not want to apply again. Others used words such as, “demeaning”, “devastating”, “inhumane” and even “shameful”. Those are the words of British citizens living in this country and paying taxes here.

A family whose mother had been refused a visa twice, although she had been here before without any problem, said,

“What else can we actually do to prove that the visitor will return?”

That is a fair question. Another family, whose mother-in-law was refused a visa a couple of times—even though, again, she had been here before with no problem and left on time—said:

“I do understand that they have concerns about people coming and staying, but for genuine, hard-working taxpayers like us it seems very unfair that we are punished for immigration issues which we have no control over.”

That hits the spot. Immigration issues are being confused with issues about visitors, particularly family visitors. Because there is seldom an appeals process now, people feel they have no redress. That was highlighted for us by one of our respondents, a senior NHS doctor, who said that some time ago his mother applied to come over for the birth of his daughter. She was refused a visa, although it was granted on appeal, albeit when the child was two months old. Now his father would like to come and visit, but he has been turned down and was told that he does not have the financial resources to sustain him if he becomes ill, even though he has shown that he has health insurance. There is no appeal and the family, having shown they have got health insurance, are left wondering what else they have to show to get a visa for the father.

We heard from a businessman who employs 15 people in this country and is perfectly solvent. He could not get his mother-in-law a visa, even though she had been here before, again with no problem, and left on time. Such cases recur again and again. They cannot be seen any longer, as I admit I used to see them, as isolated incidents. They are flagging up systemic problems in the system.

Perhaps we should look at reinstating a category of family visas, as has been suggested by some of our petitioners. We should certainly look at the method of appeal, even if it is not like the old system. We need a proper method of review, but it depends on getting the decision making right in the first place and keeping the files up to date so that things can be properly reviewed.

People are not asking for anything unreasonable. All they ask for is a fair system that makes consistent decisions and tells people properly why they have been rejected; that allows them to know, when they apply again, what evidence they should produce to prove that they are genuine visitors; and that does not stigmatise people simply because of where they come from. That does not seem to be an unreasonable thing for British citizens to ask for—it seems entirely reasonable. We should not leave them as they are at the moment: feeling let down by the system and stigmatised because of issues beyond their control, when all they want to do is see their family—often to let a grandparent see her grandchildren. Surely all our children deserve that right.

As has been pointed out to me, given that we live in an increasingly global world, with people moving to work abroad—often marrying people whom they meet there—this problem will not go away; in fact, it will get worse. I urge the Minister to look seriously at how the system is operating at the moment and what we can do to make it better. Our people deserve no less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I thank all those who have spoken today, for despite what the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) kindly said, I am not an expert on the subject of the debate. In fact, the only family in my constituency that I can think of, currently, who have someone abroad are called Lingard—but I think we will let Jesse back in.

It is important that Members have spoken about individual cases. We have heard a record of poor and inconsistent decision making and failure to read documents properly. I am sorry that the Minister is not taking that on board as she should. It is not possible always to get things right in any visa system, but there are systemic problems that affect British residents, taxpayers and citizens.

We have raised the individual cases not in the expectation that the Minister will comment on them—of course she cannot—but to illustrate the problems. In her response, she confused visitors to this country with those who need visas. They are not the same thing, as we all know. She needs to take the problems with visas for families more seriously. The mistakes are not occasional. They happen frequently, as we have heard, and cause distress to people in this country who are denied contact with their families. The vast majority of people the Committee has heard from are respectable, decent British citizens who simply want to have contact with their families. That is not a big ask.

I am sorry that the Minister does not seem to see the problems, and that she does not see that there is a problem in having no appeal system. That reduces the incentive to get things right first time. It means people do not learn from mistakes because, as has been said, there is no feedback loop. I am sure that we shall return to this problem, because it affects many citizens of this country and causes them anxiety. I hope that, in time, the Home Office will recognise that and separate the issue of immigration from that of visitor visas. That is not happening now but it needs to happen fairly urgently.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 206568, 210497 and 201416 relating to family visitor visas.

Orgreave

Helen Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The IPCC has held an investigation, and if there is new evidence, it will look at the potential for further investigations. That is a matter for the IPCC, which is, by definition, independent. The hon. Lady also touched on the point that our police forces police by consent in this country. That is a two-way thing. In fact, we will be debating that subject tomorrow. It is important that the police and crime commissioner and the new leadership of the South Yorkshire police look at how they build that relationship with the public. It is also important that we and the public respect the police, as they continue to police us by consent. No doubt that will be part of the debate tomorrow afternoon.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that there should have been an inquiry earlier, because papers on Orgreave were still being released up to Christmas 2015. Those papers prompted calls for an inquiry because they showed an abuse of power in South Yorkshire police and the concocting of statements. Yes, no one was killed at Orgreave but lives were ruined and innocent people were sent to jail on remand. More importantly, in the mining areas that I know well—I am the direct descendant of generations of miners—trust in the police was completely destroyed in communities where children were previously brought up to trust and support the police. Until there is an inquiry, those wrongs cannot be righted. How can the Minister possibly keep denying us one?

[Brandon Lewis]

If the hon. Lady looks at what I have said this afternoon, she will see that I have not commented on what the previous Government did or did not do. I have stated specifically that that is a matter for those who were members of that Government to comment on, not for me. Our decision is about the Orgreave case, based on the facts that the Home Secretary and I have looked at and the meetings with the families. The hon. Lady talked about the public’s view of South Yorkshire police, and of the police in general, and it is important that we continue with the reforms and ensure that South Yorkshire police have the support they need to rebuild those relationships with the public. That is the outcome that should be right for people across the country. We should continue with the reforms and I hope that she will support us in doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady cites a number of figures in her question. It is right that a significant number of people have been identified as accessing child abuse images. I think it is true to say—I have made this point more generally in the past—that we are not yet fully aware of the scope of the problem of child abuse, either in terms of people accessing images or of child abuse that takes place, and the implications. The NCA has recently made a significant number of arrests of individuals in relation to Operation Notarise. It operates on a very clear basis to ensure that it is dealing first with those cases where it considers there is particular harm to children. It is right that it should prioritise in that way, but this issue is wider than suggested by the sort of figures she cites and wider than the response from the NCA.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of the findings of the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary on Cheshire police’s handling of rape cases; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

This is my first opportunity as the new Policing Minister to say how proud I am to be at the Dispatch Box. However, I am not proud of what was disclosed by the investigation in Cheshire.

The Government are committed to improving the police response to rape, and it is vital that police-recorded crime statistics are robust, especially for the victims of such abhorrent offences. That is why the Home Secretary asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to carry out an all-force investigation of crime recording practices—this is how the Cheshire situation arose—and I expect the police and crime commissioner and chief constable to use the findings to improve the service to victims in Cheshire.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but the chief constable was quoted as saying:

“HMIC questioned the administration process of recording the crimes at fault, not the investigations into them.”

Does that not show that he has failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation? With a chief constable who is so complacent and a police and crime commissioner who has been unusually silent on this issue, how can any woman in Cheshire have the confidence that if she reports a rape it will be treated seriously?

[Mike Penning]

No matter what type of rape it is—whether it is rape against a woman or against a male—it must be treated seriously across the country as a whole. The hon. Lady says the police and crime commissioner is being quiet, but this is a quote from him:

“I am committed to ensuring that victims are at the heart of policing”

in Cheshire. I expect him to adhere to that.

Child Sex Abuse (Rotherham)

Helen Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

One of the aspects of the work that is done that I have not mentioned so far this afternoon is that of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, now under the National Crime Agency, which is about not just protecting children and catching perpetrators who are grooming children online, but education and trying to ensure that youngsters themselves are better able to recognise what is happening to them and better able to take action.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Among the many appalling things that happened in Rotherham, which have been replicated elsewhere, were the decisions by some councillors and officers to view themselves as there to protect the institution rather than people, and the blaming of vulnerable young girls for their own abuse—I think it was in Rochdale where they were said to be making “lifestyle choices”. Will the Home Secretary ensure that each local authority reviews its procedures for dealing with grooming cases, including how it deals with children in care, how it gets young people to recognise abuse, and the training of its social workers and all those involved in corporate parenting, which is one of the most important duties of a council? Does she accept that it is not only the job of Ministers to ensure that that is done, but the responsibility of every Member of the House to make sure it is done in their own area?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady has raised precisely those issues that the work that I will be doing with the Secretaries of State for Education and for Communities and Local Government will be addressing. I have already said that action will be taken to look at the lessons that need to be learned by local authorities. Discussions have been held with the chief social worker about the whole question of social services skills and the training that is necessary for people to be able to identify these issues, but she makes an important point: as Members of Parliament we all have a responsibility for ensuring that these matters are being dealt with properly in our own areas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that those are appalling crimes. There is a call to the police about domestic abuse every 30 seconds, which is a shaming statistic for our society. There is also a cost, which is obviously a secondary consideration, of £15.7 billion a year. We have to do everything we can, as the Home Office is doing, to get a grip on this matter. Colleagues in the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office are similarly concerned and are taking action within their portfolios.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The shocking report on domestic violence by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary revealed that high levels of vacancies in domestic violence units and unsustainable case loads were leading to quotas being imposed on victims that were deemed to be high risk. Given that evidence, does the Minister accept that the Government’s hollowing out of the police force has resulted in the loss of specialist officers, inhibited the ability to pursue cases and, most importantly, left victims at risk? When will he accept responsibility for the Government’s actions, instead of blaming others?

[Norman Baker]

I am sorry to hear that contribution from the hon. Lady, because this is an issue that all Members of the House, irrespective of gender or party, feel strongly about. To politicise it in that way is not helpful. She talked about the police force, but she ought to remember that crime is down by more than 10% under this Government and that there are therefore fewer crimes to investigate. To imply that the police are unable to deal with this matter is simply not right. We attach a high priority to the matter. That has been made clear by the Home Secretary, by myself and by the action that the Government is taking.

Domestic Violence (Police Response)

Helen Jones Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) on securing this debate. She has raised a serious issue of particular concern to many women. Although the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was right to say that men can suffer from domestic violence too, and the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) rightly reminded us of the need to consider violence between same-sex couples, it is, overwhelmingly, women who suffer from domestic violence and the most serious assaults. That is a fact of life. Yet the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary makes it clear that there are some shocking failures to tackle this crime and that there is often a failure to believe the victim of the crime.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the serious nature of the issues that we are dealing with and how varied they can be. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth rightly mentioned what is happening among young girls. Anyone who has read the Children’s Commissioner report about violence in gangs should be seriously concerned. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), a former Children’s Minister, rightly highlighted the effect on children of domestic violence, which can persist down the generations if it is not tackled early enough. I commend the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) on his moving tribute to his constituent, Christine Chambers, and her daughter, who were murdered. The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) highlighted the nature of coercive control and set out clearly the nature of some of the perpetrators of this violence, which is often not properly understood.

As well as highlighting the extent of domestic abuse, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) also highlighted the failures in the criminal justice system, as did the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth did, which let victims down time and again. My hon. Friend also mentioned tackling this issue by having proper sex and relationships education in schools, which is needed.

These are difficult issues. The HMIC report, which I read recently, itemises the shocking failures. I am surprised—I say this gently to the Minister—that the Home Secretary has not yet come to the House to make a statement about this serious report and say what is going to be done about it.

We have heard the statistics this afternoon, which we can repeat over again. Two women a week are murdered by a partner or former partner. Statistically, women between the ages of 15 and 44 are more at risk from domestic violence than from cancer. Every 30 seconds the police receive a call relating to domestic abuse. If this was any other crime, it would be making headlines in the papers every day and would be leading the news, and there would be demands for action. But domestic violence is a silent epidemic, despite the fact that it accounts for one in five violent crimes, shatters families and can ruin children’s lives. If that was happening at football matches, we would hear about it every day. It is shocking that we do not hear more.

Despite the best efforts of some in the police force—I commend those officers who have taken this issue seriously—this issue is still is not being tackled properly. Indeed, in some respects the situation is getting worse. The last set of figures, for 2010-11 to 2012-13, show that reports of domestic violence to the police increased by 11% in that period, and that is only the tip of the iceberg.

During that period the percentage of successful prosecutions dropped by 14%. Some 90% of domestic violence incidents result in no further action. Although in 2009-10 the police were referring 12.1% of domestic violence incidents to the Crown Prosecution Service for decisions on prosecution, which I think all hon. Members in this Chamber would regard as unreasonably low, by 2012-13 that number had fallen to 10.5%. Figures from the Library show that only 6.3% of cases currently result in a conviction, despite the number of cases.

I have to say bluntly that, despite the Government’s action plans and their cross-departmental strategy, we are, in many respects, going backwards. The HMIC report sets out reasons for that, including some long-standing problems in the police and some that are new. However, the plain fact is that, despite the examples of good policing, of victims being protected and of perpetrators being brought to justice, there are far too many examples of poor practice, evidence not being collected, victims not being protected and arrests not being made.

The comment “This is not acceptable” appears in the report again and again, like a refrain, and underlines the extent of the failure. In fact, almost a quarter of police forces—13 in total—could not even provide the data on repeat offenders to HMIC. That is a huge failure by itself. Again, I have to ask whether we would tolerate that if it related to burglary or to any other crime of violence.

A number of items in the report are important. Although I cannot mention them all today, I want to use what time I have to deal with a couple of issues of failure from which a lot of subsequent failures emerge. First, there is often a failure to believe the victim. If I reported a burglary, or if the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster did, we would be believed. However, if we reported domestic violence we would have much less chance of being believed. The report highlights some poor practice and lack of empathy towards victims on the part of some—not all—officers and the fact that many victims feel judged when they report.

Along with that, the report highlights a failure to recognise what a number of hon. Members have spoken about: a failure on the part of some officers to understand the nature of coercive control and its impact on the victim, which is likely to make victims tell officers that they do not want to proceed with a case. Unless officers on the front line understand the psychological impact of that, they will find it difficult to act effectively.

I saw this years ago when I used to get emergency domestic violence injunctions for people. By the time the full injunction was heard, often the victim would come back and say that they did not want to proceed, as the perpetrator had promised not to do it again and everything would be all right. I knew that I would see that person again, beaten up, perhaps with a broken arm or worse injuries, because the situation was never going to change, but the victim was made to feel that it was probably their behaviour that was at fault and that their partner would change. But they never do. That is the psychological impact of coercive control and examples of poor practice show that people do not understand that.

I have spoken to victims who are not allowed out of the house without their partner and whose partner will take the phone with them when they leave, so that they cannot contact anyone, and who are not allowed to see friends. To interview these victims of violence within the hearing of their partner—asking them if they want to proceed, for example—is not to understand the psychological impact of the abuse on them and to fail to understand the nature of this kind of violence. They may also, as hon. Members have mentioned, fear that their children will be taken from them if they proceed.

Along with that often goes the failure to understand how perpetrators behave. The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster set that out well. Perpetrators are often in complete denial; they blank out the abuse. A police officer will arrive at the scene to find the perpetrator perfectly calm and the victim appearing to be agitated. The perpetrator often makes counter-accusations. There was a counter-allegation in 30% of the cases that HMIC reviewed. I have known cases where victims who have suffered repeat domestic violence have finally called the police, only for the perpetrator to make an allegation against them; the victim has been cautioned. That is outrageous.

Unless the police are properly trained to understand the issue, we will continue to see poor practice. As the report states:

“Many frontline officers, and in some cases specialist police officers, lack the skills they need to tackle domestic abuse effectively.”

Often, the police simply do not build a case. In an analysis of case files relating to actual bodily harm, the inspectors found that in only 46% of cases were photographs of the injuries taken at the time and in only 23% of cases were house-to-house inquiries made. That would be routine for any other sort of crime.

The report also found a failure to use intelligence-led policing and targeting to tackle repeat offenders and a failure to use domestic homicide reviews to tackle poor practice. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the report’s recommendations on speeding up domestic homicide reviews so that lessons can be learned.

It is that kind of failure—failure to do what we would accept as normal for any other crime—that leads many victims to think that they are not believed or taken seriously. The report states that a third of victims did not feel any safer after their dealings with the police, and that should worry us all.

Although many of the issues are of long standing, the Government cannot escape responsibility for the impact of some of their decisions. The plan to lose 15,000 police officers by 2015, with many of them already gone, is having a huge impact on the police. The inspectors highlight the gaps in the capability and capacity of specialist domestic abuse units, with high levels of vacancies and unsustainable case loads. Even worse, they draw attention to a number of cases where they have found police imposing a quota on the number of cases that they assess as high risk, based on what a multi-agency risk assessment conference or specialist unit can cope with rather than the actual risk to the victim. The inspectors are absolutely right to say that that should stop, but it can only stop if we end the hollowing out of the police service and invest in the right training and support for officers dealing with domestic abuse.

It is also important that victims are supported, if they are to see a case through. We have seen reductions in the number of independent domestic violence advisers and closures of specialist domestic violence courts, which are successful in taking a rounded approach to seeing cases through and supporting victims. Women are turned away from refuges every day and the scale of cuts to local authorities is leading to the knock-on effect of reductions in support for domestic violence services. As the report points out, even closing police stations and locating them with other services can have an impact on victims of domestic violence, who see the police station as a place of safety.

Getting better at tackling this issue requires changes, but not only to the police. There has to be a joined-up approach. The Government have to think seriously about putting the resources in place to tackle this crime. One assistant police commissioner recently said to me, “We should stop calling it domestic violence. It is violence, pure and simple—violence, the same as it would be anywhere on the street.”

I have some questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer. First, HMIC recommended a fundamental review of police training. Will he tell us how that review will be funded and what funding will be available to meet the cost of any recommendations that it makes? The report also says that outdated and antiquated information systems are hampering call handlers’ ability to access information and identify repeat victims. What will he do to assist forces in updating those systems? Will any extra money be allocated, or will it have to come out of existing police budgets, in which case I fear the updating will not happen?

In addition, there is considerable worry among many people that as victim support funding goes to police and crime commissioners, domestic violence will not have the high profile it should have. I hope he will think seriously about offering guidance for police and crime commissioners, because anecdotal evidence is already coming through of refuges and specialist support services not knowing whether their funding will be in place.

The Home Secretary said that she will chair the national oversight group and although she has called on chief constables to change—it is clear that some of them do need to change—the Government need to commit that funding and support for those changes will be provided. We cannot protect victims on the cheap or bring perpetrators to justice without the necessary funding. Women’s safety is at risk and there is less chance than there was of their attackers being brought before a court. That is a moral disgrace, but it is also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough pointed out, economic nonsense. If the cost of domestic violence is estimated to be £15.7 billion a year, there is no logic in continuing to fail to tackle it. We need police officers who are properly trained and can intervene early enough and a system to give people the support they deserve. There is an economic cost in not doing that, but also a cost in wrecked lives, broken families and fractured communities.

It is time that we treated these crimes like any other crime and used evidence-based prosecutions. There is no other crime where we expect the victim to build the case, but that is often true for domestic violence. It is up to the police, but it is up to all of us, too. Someone said earlier—it is quite true—that we need more men to stand up against domestic violence. Since we are giving commendations to our local area, I commend my local rugby team, Warrington Wolves, who participated with me earlier in the year in a campaign against domestic violence. To really tackle this issue, we need more role models for men.

We need to ensure that when violence does happen, victims are kept safe and perpetrators are brought before the courts and dealt with properly. Currently, either they are not brought before the courts or, if they are, far too many community disposals are being used for serious cases of violence.

If we are serious about tackling this issue, it is time that it was tackled in the way that any other crime would be tackled: with the police finding the evidence, passing it to prosecutors and people being brought before the courts. We cannot allow the issue to carry on in the way that it has, unchecked and often in silence, with people not willing to speak about it. The victims—those who suffer every day, and those who have, sadly, lost their lives—expect better of us than that, and they deserve better. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to reassure us that we will turn a corner in dealing with this awful crime.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) for the opportunity to debate this important topic. Members have referred to the review of domestic abuse by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary commissioned by the Home Secretary, which has brought the matter into sharp relief and raised serious questions for the police in particular. I pay tribute to hon. Members from all parties who have spoken in the debate for their worthwhile and thoughtful contributions. I will do my best to respond to each of the points raised.

I think that we can make progress and turn a corner, to pick up the last point made by the Opposition spokesperson; I think that we are turning the corner. One reason is that there is unanimity within this House that domestic abuse and violence must be tackled more seriously than they have been, particularly in the past 20 or 30 years and before that. We must consider it differently, and the HMIC report helps us in that regard.

Domestic abuse is a sinister way of undermining the trust that those in close relationships place in one another. It ruins lives and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pointed out, it can affect children significantly as well. As we know, in the worst cases it can lead to death. Domestic abuse happens every day in homes across this country. In most cases it goes unreported, which makes it difficult to know exactly how many people are affected. The crime survey for England and Wales estimates that 1.2 million women were victims of domestic abuse last year, and 77 women were killed by their partners or ex-partners.

We can take some comfort, I suppose, from the fact that that is the lowest number of intimate partner homicides since 1998, but in my view and, I am sure, that of everybody in this Chamber, one such death or loss of life is too many. I think that I speak for my colleagues not just in the Home Office but across the Government when I say that I am determined to see a society in which violence against women and girls is not tolerated, people are able and encouraged to speak out, their concerns are taken seriously and no woman or girl must suffer domestic abuse.

One or two Members have said that every 30 seconds, a victim of domestic abuse summons up the courage to call the police. When a victim reaches out for help, it is vital that the police are equipped to respond effectively and sensitively to help end the cycle of abuse, which in many cases will have been going on for years, as Members have correctly said. That is why, in September, the Home Secretary commissioned HMIC to review the police response to domestic abuse across all 43 forces in England and Wales, following a series of reports on individual domestic homicides by the Independent Police Complaints Commission that caused the Home Secretary concern that the police were not doing all that they could to safeguard victims.

As has been mentioned, on 27 March, HMIC published its findings, which made for depressing reading. The review was thorough and rigorous and showed, frankly, that the police response is not good enough and is failing victims. Crucially, it is clear that the priority that police and crime commissioners have given on paper in their crime plans to tackling domestic abuse is not in many cases, or even most, translating into operational reality.

Although the main findings have been referred to, it may be helpful if I reprise some of them. First, on leadership, the report highlights that poor management and supervision in the police fail to reinforce the right behaviours, attitudes and actions among officers. It also highlights that some officers lack the basic skills and knowledge necessary to engage confidently and competently with victims of domestic abuse. HMIC found that many chief constables and their top teams still focus more on volume and acquisitive crime reduction than on domestic abuse. Leadership on the issue is simply not present.

HMIC also identified many examples of officers who work tirelessly to keep victims safe, sometimes with little support from their wider force. I wanted to put it on the record that such people exist and are doing their best. However, there are also officers who have shown a poor attitude towards victims and failed to treat them with the empathy that they deserve. That is simply not good enough. It is clear that the police must change how they respond to victims of domestic abuse.

At nine focus groups that HMIC held with 70 victims, the majority of participants had experienced poor attitudes from responding police officers. They felt that they had been judged and not taken seriously. I was horrified that one victim told inspectors she had overheard officers dismissing her report:

“Last year one officer came out and his radio was going and I heard him say ‘It’s a DV, we’ll be a few minutes and we’ll go to the next job’. And I thought—thanks a lot, that’s my life.”

That is a significant and harrowing example of what is happening. I was also disturbed to read the account of a victim in Manchester whose 13-year-old daughter was asked to act as a language interpreter for officers investigating allegations against her father. There is no excuse for those attitudes from police officers, and chief constables must act immediately to stamp them out.

It is that failure to see domestic abuse as the serious crime it is that is stopping officers responding effectively. Basic evidence collection that could help to support a prosecution to bring a perpetrator to justice simply is not happening. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) referred to the failure to take such basic steps as capturing photographic evidence. I have been concerned about the fall-off in referrals by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service, so I was particularly worried to see that HMIC has exposed a wide variation in the number of arrests for domestic abuse crime. The arrest rate is anywhere between 45% and 90%. The report also draws out wide variation in cautioning and reveals that some forces are even routinely using restorative justice in domestic abuse cases. I am clear—I put it on the record—that if there is enough evidence to caution, there is enough evidence to charge.

HMIC also carried out a file review of 615 actual bodily harm cases connected with domestic abuse. Photographs of injuries were taken in only half the cases, and in 30% officers’ statements lacked important details about the crime scene or the victim. The Government has spent £1.4 million on body-worn cameras to help officers gather evidence at the scene. Yet HMIC has revealed that body-worn cameras are not routinely available for officers attending domestic abuse situations. Those unacceptable failures to gather evidence effectively mean that opportunities to stop perpetrators in their tracks are being missed and victims are left suffering. As the HMIC report makes clear, the police need to build the case for the victim; they should not expect the victim to build the case for the police.

HMIC has exposed similar weaknesses in police action to safeguard victims. Risk assessment tools can be seen as tick-box exercises that are slavishly followed by officers who do not have the skills to tailor their response to the situation in front of them. A third of all victims surveyed by HMIC felt no safer as a result of police intervention. In more than half the cases that HMIC looked at, there was no evidence of safety measures being considered. Police officers must understand that they have a responsibility to make victims safer, not just while they are on the scene, but once they have closed the front door and gone on to the next call. Chief constables need to take urgent action to make significant changes to front-line policing so that victims are protected and perpetrators brought to justice.

I am encouraged that the majority of chief constables have signalled their commitment to deliver lasting change in response to the HMIC review. Some forces have already taken action to address the issues that HMIC highlighted. Merseyside police identified a problem with the initial evidence collected by officers in domestic abuse cases and trained 1,500 front-line officers to improve their investigation skills. HMIC found that Lancashire constabulary has made domestic abuse “everyone’s business” and delivered an excellent service for victims in partnership with independent domestic violence advisers. That is commendable. It also shows that the police can improve their response.

That is particularly important given that some police leaders have suggested that the problem is wider than the police service and extends to other front-line agencies. It is of course true that all such agencies have a critical role to play, and we are taking steps through our violence against women and girls action plan to improve the response of all front-line professionals. However, domestic abuse is a crime and is accordingly core police business. The report is about police performance and it identifies police failures. Police leaders can and should work to address HMIC’s findings because that can and must make a difference to victims’ lives.

Some senior police officers have said in response to the findings that they cannot deliver better standards without more resource. Indeed, the hon. Member for Warrington North suggested likewise. I want to be clear: this is not about extra resource for the police service. This is about the police changing their culture and getting basic policing right, such as collecting evidence that ought to be collected and dealing with victims as they ought to deal with them. Improving how they listen to victims and getting the basics of investigation right are not to do with resources.

[Helen Jones]

The Minister is absolutely right that there have to be changes in culture, but does he not accept that to achieve that—the understanding among front-line officers about some of the realities of domestic violence and the improvement of call handling—there must also be an investment in training and equipment?

[Norman Baker]

I will come on to training, but the issue is too serious to digress into—dare I say it—a normal debate about resources for the police. The reality, to deal with that quickly, is that we have seen a reduction in crime of around 10% since 2010, which means that fewer crimes are being committed and the police have more time to investigate those that have been committed, even with fewer police officers than previously. Also, significant investment under my colleague, the Policing Minister, such as digitalisation in the police service, is freeing up a great deal of officer time by removing paperwork. Opposition or Government Members may think that this is a matter of resources, but I genuinely believe that it is not; it is about attitudes and practice in the police—as well as training, to pick up on the hon. Lady’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I am sorry, but I cannot allow that to go by without comment. Changing a call-handling system to enable call handlers to identify repeat victims, for example, is not a question of attitude; it is a question of having the right system in place, so that they can immediately check whether they have a repeat victim calling.

[Norman Baker]

It is a question of both, because if people are not taking domestic abuse seriously, they are not interested in tracking repeat matters, which was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark).

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

For clarity, before the Minister sits down, I said that it was a moral disgrace. I do not want him to attribute to me something that I clearly have not said, even if accidentally.

[Norman Baker]

I do not wish to have a dispute about that particular point, but the impression I gained from the hon. Lady’s contribution was that she was suggesting that a motivation for the Government to do more might be that we might save money. I want to put it plainly on the record that that is not a consideration in taking forward the agenda. Our consideration in taking forward the agenda is to do the right thing by those who are victims of this appalling crime.

I think we have made a good start and that the Home Secretary has made a good start following the HMIC report, to add on to all her previous work. We will take the matter very seriously and it will be subject to very close scrutiny by myself and by the Home Secretary. We are determined to do all we can to eliminate this appalling crime.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I entirely agree. It is important for victims to come forward and to have confidence in the police. Indeed, I believe that that is the trend we are now seeing. Although, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, there has been a decrease in the number of sexual assaults, there has been a significant increase in the number of rapes reported to the police. That suggests that more people are confident about coming forward, which I welcome.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister admit that, while on his watch the number of reported rapes is increasing, the number of files passed to the Crown Prosecution Service has fallen by a third, and in the Met the number of referrals is down by 43%? When will he accept responsibility for that, and admit that the Government’s decisions to remove suspected rapists from the DNA database and to cut the police force have let victims down and are allowing criminals to get away with it?

[Norman Baker]

I did expect a very authoritarian question from a Labour Member. I wonder what the Labour party’s supporters in Islington and Hampstead make of its approach to Home Office questions.

The serious issue is that the CPS is currently involved in discussions with the police about rape referral levels in a number of forces. The Ministry of Justice and others are implementing the six-point plan to which the Attorney-General referred last year. The hon. Lady may also be aware that, along with the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, I have written to all chief constables and police and crime commissioners urging them to take rape even more seriously than they do already.

Female Genital Mutilation

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on securing the debate. As my right hon. Friend reminded us, it has been a long time since we debated FGM in this House—far too long. The debate today has shown both the strength of feeling among Members of all parties and the vast reserves of knowledge among those who have spoken.

I also want to congratulate the campaigners who have done so much to raise the profile of this issue, including Daughters of Eve and Equality Now, but particularly Leyla Hussein and Fahma Mohamed, who represent the best of our young women. They have dared to confront and to speak out on an issue that many of us find it difficult to grapple with and would often prefer to ignore, and their courage ought to be commended. They are right to remind us of the terrible failure for which Governments of all colours have been responsible for 28 years. We must face up to that and accept the responsibility. We have failed British girls who are subject to this horrific abuse, and because of that failure, a child somewhere will be crying as they are cut, and a woman somewhere will be forced to endure almost unbearable pain in childbirth or sexual intercourse, or will suffer from depression or post-traumatic stress because of what has been done to her.

The report from the royal colleges, “Tackling FGM in the UK”, estimates—it is an estimate, as every hon. Member who has spoken today has said—that about 66,000 women in England and Wales have undergone this mutilation and are now living with the resulting pain and complications, and that about 24,000 girls under 15 are at risk. Yet no one has been brought to justice for what is an appalling crime. Despite the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 and its successor, the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, no one has faced a court. If people were being mutilated by someone wielding a knife in the street, there would be an outcry demanding justice for the victim. Yet the victims of FGM are mutilated in private. They are subjected to the most horrific form of child abuse and violence against women, which is so bad that it is classified by the UN as torture. Yet their perpetrators are not brought to justice.

[Ms Abbott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a difficulty with these sorts of statutory sexual crimes is that they sometimes involve one person’s word against another’s, or that they happened a long time ago? With FGM, the physical consequences are very clear and last a lifetime, which makes the failure to prosecute even worse.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I will come to how we might gather evidence. She is right. It is simply incredible that no one has yet been prosecuted. The law is fairly clear, although it is worth considering proposals from various places to look at offences preparatory to the offence of FGM and at how the law could apply when the cutter is a foreign national who then leaves the country. I hope the Minister will say whether the Government are prepared to consider that. If they are prepared to introduce proposals, we will facilitate putting them on to the statute book.

For all sorts of reasons, the existing law is not being implemented and Parliament must make it clear that it must be implemented and the necessary steps must be taken to do so. As several hon. Members have acknowledged, including my hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), this is an extraordinarily difficult area. Many girls are too young when they are cut to be able to speak about what has happened to them. When they are older, many do not wish to bring shame or trouble on their families. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington is right to say that families may believe that if they do not carry out this mutilation, they could be excluded by their community, or their daughters may find it difficult to make a decent marriage and so on.

The Government must work with those communities to improve understanding, to change people’s minds and to encourage them to come together to eradicate FGM. One family alone cannot stand against it, but a community with the right leadership can act. I recognise that, but saying that something is thought to be right or a cultural norm does not make it right. Alongside the effort to try to change attitudes, there must be an effort to enforce the law. That effort must begin by training professionals to recognise girls at risk of FGM to ensure that they are protected, and to report it when they encounter it.

I hope the Government will accept unreservedly the recommendations of the report by the royal colleges. FGM must be treated as child abuse with no ifs, no buts and no maybes, and front-line professionals, whether in health, teaching or social work, must be empowered to protect girls at risk and be assessed on the outcomes. That requires early identification of those who may be subject to FGM, even from babyhood, and especially those who are born to mothers who have themselves undergone FGM. Their children are at high risk, and should be referred for a proper safeguarding plan to be put in place for them.

Teachers are also in the front line and are often the first people a child looks to for protection. Yet a YouGov poll for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham mentioned, showed that 83% of the teachers surveyed said they had not been given any training about FGM. I know that the Secretary of State for Education has finally written to schools drawing attention to the practice following the inspiring campaign led by Fahma Mohamed and other young women in Bristol, but it is not enough by itself simply to write to schools. One in six teachers said in that poll that they did not know that FGM was even illegal in this country, so there is clearly much more to do in training.

[Ms Abbott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, sadly, teachers may have dozens of letters on their desks every week? Instead of just writing a letter, the Secretary of State should look at the whole issue of mandatory sex and relationship education in schools and, as my hon. Friend said, training. Just sending a letter to join the pile of other papers on a teacher’s desk is not enough.

[Mr Dai Havard in the Chair]

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. I have long been an advocate of compulsory sex and relationship education in schools. It is essential for our children to grow up confident in themselves and able to form healthy relationships. She is also right about training. As the documentary programme, “The Cruel Cut”, showed, if a young child turns to a teacher for help and does not get that help, it is clear that much more must be done.

Teachers have many demands on their time, but all schools need to have safeguarding plans in place and those safeguarding plans must include dealing with female genital mutilation. Teachers must be able to recognise the signs that a child is at risk or that they have already been cut, and know what to do when that happens.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was at St Brendan’s sixth form college in my constituency on Friday and I met a group of young women to talk about a range of issues. They were very strong in their support for the need for compulsory sex and relationship education. I had the opportunity to sit in at the beginning of a class where four young women from Integrate Bristol, which is at the forefront of campaigning against FGM, were explaining to a roomful of students what FGM was all about by showing them a film and encouraging them to discuss the issue in workshops. Those students were 17 and 18-year-olds, and I thought that was a valuable initiative. I was impressed by how serious they were. Hon. Members can imagine that, particularly if there are young lads in a class, they might not take that sort of thing seriously, but they all seemed to take on board the serious message that was being conveyed.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. Many young people take the issue seriously. Peer-provided information is often much better for young people than some old sod like me going in to lecture to them—[Interruption.]

[Keith Vaz]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said so far. She has heard about the initiative by the London borough of Newham, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) explained. If it is successful, and obviously we will wait to the see the outcome of the project, does my hon. Friend think that it perhaps should be rolled out in other parts of the country where FGM is a real problem?

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Ms Jones, perhaps we should record your remark as “old soul”.

[Helen Jones]

I am very grateful, Mr Havard. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said about the project in Newham was very interesting and, if my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham permits me, I hope to be able to visit it at some point. We need to learn from such initiatives about what works and what can be done on the ground.

As well as identifying young people through the education system, such as those whose mother or elder sister has undergone FGM, and making sure that robust safeguarding plans are in place, in my view, any girl or woman who presents to the health service having undergone female genital mutilation should be treated as the victim of a crime, because that is what they are. Appropriate safeguarding measures should be put in place. They should be referred to the police and to the support services, so that a proper plan of care and support can be implemented and medical evidence can be collected. We are currently not getting that approach, despite the efforts that have been made recently, because of a lack of training for front-line professionals, a lack of a joined-up approach and what I can best describe as a peculiarly British fear of offending people’s cultural sensibilities. In my view, that is the wrong mindset. Although we need to work with communities to change attitudes, our first duty—we should be clear about this—is to protect the child. That is absolutely our first duty and there should be no wavering from that.

[Ms Abbott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to be successful in protecting all British children from this abuse, we may have to take measures that perhaps initially some communities find difficult?

[Helen Jones]

That may well be true and I shall come on to how we deal with that in a moment. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me in his reply what the Home Office, which has lead responsibility for the issue, will do to ensure that other Departments play their part and that we have a proper system in place. In a parliamentary answer to me on 24 February, the Minister said that he had written to the Secretary of State for Education on the issue. Perhaps he can tell us what the response to that was and what is happening in schools to ensure that proper training and proper safeguarding measures are in place.

As has been said in the debate, in some countries—France is an example—there is systematic screening for female genital mutilation as part of normal health checks. In this country, that is often regarded as intrusive. It would, of course, involve screening a large amount of people who are not at risk as well. However, I suggest to the Minister that it might be worth establishing a task group, including people from the royal colleges, the NSPCC and other experts in the field, to look at how medical evidence can be sought and how the problems in this area can be dealt with sensitively and appropriately, so that we can avoid, if necessary, mass screenings of people who do not need to be screened, but also find medical evidence.

The report from the royal colleges stated that where there is a suspicion that a girl has undergone female genital mutilation, assessments and medicals are helpful and examinations need not be intrusive, but they are vital in providing evidence that leads to prosecution. That is very important, because we have heard several times in the debate about the difficulty of getting someone to give evidence against their own family. I absolutely understand that, particularly in certain cultures. It would be hard for me to give evidence against someone in my family, but when there is a system that links the family’s honour to the behaviour of others, it is extraordinarily difficult. However, there are ways through that if we accumulate medical evidence as well, which is what we should be doing.

To enforce the law requires two things. Yes, it requires education and publicity, so that people are clear about what constitutes an offence, but it also requires the deterrent effect of prosecutions, of people knowing clearly that if they flout the law, they will be brought before a court, and that if they are found guilty, they will pay the price. That is what we have failed to do. We must accept that we have got that wrong and look at ways to move forward.

In 2012, the then Director of Public Prosecutions chaired a round table to discuss why so few cases were being referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for charge and prosecution, and in September last year, the then DPP chaired a second round table to discuss progress on the FGM action plan. Following that meeting, he said that he believed that a prosecution under the 2003 Act was close. We were told that the CPS was reviewing decisions on prosecutions in four cases and considering whether to prosecute a more recent case, yet we still have not got anyone to court.

I hope that the Minister will tell us whether progress has been made on bringing charges in any case, and if not, what the evidential problems are. If the problem is, as I said, the unwillingness of victims or other members of the family to testify, we need to look at what use can be made of medical evidence and of statements from medical professionals, teachers and so on, who have all been in contact with the person who has been cut. If that by itself does not demonstrate the need for a much more joined-up, robust system of child protection, referral and recording of evidence right from the start, I do not know what does.

We simply cannot go on failing British girls like this—for these are British girls, who deserve exactly the same care and protection as any other British girl. We know this is happening. Newspapers report frequently that there is widespread knowledge of where it is happening, of where this torture is being carried out—and it is torture. I put it to hon. Members that, in all honesty, we have to ask ourselves, “If this was happening to white British girls, would we allow it to go on?” I think we know the answer to that. There would be a public outcry, and our black or brown British girls deserve no less protection and no less care. They are our responsibility. They are all our children.

We have to stop pretending that this is not happening. We have to stop turning our faces away from this appalling practice. We do not want to see it because it is so awful, but we have to see it in order to stop it. It is torture. It is child abuse. It has been illegal for over 25 years and it is still carried out with impunity. Let us call a halt now. Let us put in place the protection our girls deserve and ensure that in future, they can live their lives without undergoing this torture, and without putting up with the continuing pain that results. I say to the House: surely we owe them no less than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I do not have a figure in my notes, but if officials have got it, I will give it to the hon. Lady before the end of the debate. Actually, I do have the figure: 69 reports involving either direct allegations about FGM or other information on this practice have been received by the Met since the start of April last year, so it is still a relatively small number, although it is moving in the right direction.

Since I have joined the Home Office, my concerns about FGM have intensified. Although I have always been aware of and opposed FGM, the more I have learned about the practice, the more concerned I have become and the more determined to do something about it. It is one of my top priorities as a Minister in the Department. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), whose speech I very much welcomed. I think that the root of this is about male control of women—as a man, I find that rather shameful—so there are reasons for men, as well as women, to be involved in addressing this matter.

What has struck me about the practice is that it is one of the most horrible and unnecessary forms of violence against women in the world. It is an extreme manifestation of patriarchal control. As everyone knows, there are severe and long-term consequences for any girls or women who undergo it. There are not simply physical consequences, although there are plenty of those; there are also psychological consequences. That needs to be dealt with.

I also agree with the hon. Lady when she says that some parents—some mothers—will believe that they are doing the right thing. I accept that. It is a tragedy, of course, because it is totally wrong; it is totally the wrong thing to do for their children. Without getting too personal, I could not bear to think of my daughter undergoing this practice. It is an abhorrent act, and we all need to ensure that we are challenging it.

A culture change is necessary, as hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have accepted this afternoon. That needs to be taken forward. As the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said, that is not simple, but it is necessary and we have to work out how best to do so. Some of the campaigners are in a better position to convince public opinion than perhaps Ministers, shadow Ministers or anyone else is, although we have our role to play, I hope, not least when it comes to the law. I will come to the issue of prosecutions and so on later.

We have to challenge the assumptions—the lazy assumptions, perhaps—that do exist in some areas, in some communities. FGM does not make women pure or clean. It does not increase fertility. It does not assure faithfulness. It is child abuse and needs to be tackled head on. I am clear that Government action to stop FGM is vital, not just to comply with our international human rights obligations—although it does do that—but, more importantly, to protect and safeguard girls and women from this hopelessly outdated and archaic practice. It has no place in the 21st century or, indeed, in any century.

I have mentioned that the Home Office has the lead responsibility on this issue, but we are working with other Departments. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), asked what was happening in that regard. I am happy to tell her. I think she may know, but just for the record I point out that on 6 February I brought Ministers from other Departments, from across Government, together for the international day of zero tolerance to female genital mutilation, and the Ministers from all the Departments who were there signed—this is probably unique or certainly very rare in Government—a document that made this statement:

“There is no justification for FGM—it is child abuse and it is illegal.

This government is absolutely committed to preventing and ending this extremely harmful form of violence.

The government is clear that political or cultural sensitivities must not get in the way of uncovering and stopping this terrible form of abuse. The law in this country applies to absolutely everyone.”

In the document, we go on to make a number of statements that I am sure hon. Members would agree with. Let me say for the record that it was not signed simply by me on behalf of the Home Office—it was also signed by the Under-Secretary of State for Health; the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is responsible for public health; the Solicitor-General; my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development; the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who is responsible for children and families; and the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims.

Subsequently, the document was signed by a senior Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and by a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government. It was also signed by the DPP. We are determined to work cross-departmentally on this matter and we take it very seriously.

[Helen Jones]

No one would disagree with what is enshrined in that agreement, but how will it operate on the ground? Will we now see a requirement on teachers to identify those who are at risk of FGM or have undergone it and to put in place a safeguarding plan? Will we see a requirement on health workers to treat anyone who has undergone FGM as a victim of a crime and report it accordingly?

[Norman Baker]

I will give, I hope, reasonably full answers to all those questions as I work through my response. We have plenty of time. This is a serious issue, and I will address those points as I come to them, including how we will deal with the matter within Government, which is also important. I am delighted that the Minister responsible for public health has joined us for this debate.

On Saturday, we published the updated “Violence against Women and Girls Action Plan”, which contains more than 100 actions that different Departments have agreed to carry out to tackle violence against women and girls. Every three months, the Home Secretary chairs an inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which I attend as a relevant Minister, to monitor progress on the action plan. This year’s action plan has a strong focus on FGM and will be the vehicle for the Home Office to drive the work forward. I also chair separate, specific cross-Government meetings on FGM, in recognition of the need to work together.

Declarations and cross-departmental working can take us only so far, however. My colleague the Minister with responsibility for public health, who did so much to raise the profile of FGM in her role as chair of the all-party group on female genital mutilation, announced that all acute hospitals would report information about the prevalence of FGM among their patient population each month. The full report from that data return will be available from the autumn. That is an enormous step forward in understanding the extent of FGM in this country.

Linked to that, the Home Office is part-funding a prevalence study on FGM, which is designed to update the figures from the 2007 study. Even the new study based on 2011 census data will provide only an estimate of prevalence, but the data from the NHS will give us a real insight into the incidence and distribution of FGM. Those data will provide local areas with the information that they need to prioritise tackling FGM, and in time they will give us a benchmark against which to monitor the effectiveness of our actions and interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

That leads me to the next section of my response, which concerns the law. It may help to answer that question if I spend one or two minutes talking about that. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee might also want to consider that question in his investigations and see whether there are better answers than I will give this afternoon. The hon. Lady has asked a perfectly valid, rational, sensible and appropriate question.

The CPS action plan commits to raising any issues about the current law with the Ministry of Justice. The DPP wrote to Ministers on 3 February with a paper identifying possible ways in which the criminal law could be strengthened to make prosecutions for FGM not only more likely, but more likely to succeed. Those include clarifying the law in relation to re-infibulation and relaxing the definition of “permanent UK resident”—that is part of the problem—in the context of extra-territorial offences. Ministerial colleagues and I are giving careful consideration to the areas identified.

[Helen Jones]

Has the Minister considered whether, as I suggested earlier, there ought to be a law that prohibits offences preparatory to FGM or that criminalises a failure to prevent FGM? Under such a law, the presumption —to be rebutted in law, if necessary—would be that those with care of a child were the people who ought to prevent the practice from happening.

[Norman Baker]

There are other offences under domestic violence legislation that may be appropriate in this case, and we must not fall into the trap—an attractive one for parliamentarians—of thinking we need only to change the law to improve matters. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington made the point that the law has been there for 28 years. Ensuring that prosecutions are successful is about not only the law but the cultural situations that we are dealing with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

Members who are making comments from sedentary positions have not yet seen what will be in the next Session. It also ends before the general election in May 2015, so there is limited time for legislation, but we will look at suggestions. Given the fact that there is unanimity across all three parties on trying to deal with FGM, if legislative change is necessary, whatever the result of the general election, I am confident that whatever Government we have will try to move the issue forward.

[Helen Jones]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. From what he said earlier—perhaps I misheard, or missed it—I am not clear whether the Government accept the recommendations in the joint royal colleges’ report on tackling FGM. If they do not accept any, what are they?

[Norman Baker]

We will wrap up our response to that report when we look at what the Select Committee says, because I think the two are linked.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Jones Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I am sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and her experience. The Government has made it clear that online crime is as serious as offline crime—there is no difference there—and we expect the police to conduct rigorous inquiries into online offences or potential offences. There are numerous pieces of legislation that they can use including, for example, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, under which it is an offence to send communications or other articles with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

But online or offline, the Minister knows that the best way of tackling abuse and violence against women is to have compulsory sex and relationship education in schools, which teaches our children about healthy and respectful relationships. Now that this is supported by the vast majority of parents and teachers, the NSPCC, mumsnet, the girl guides—all those who work in the sector dealing with violence against women—will the Government abandon their attempts to stop it and support the amendment in the Lords that would introduce this in our schools?

[Norman Baker]

Of course, that is predominantly a matter for the Department of Education than for the Home Office. I have discussed the matter with my colleagues in the DFE, but it is worth pointing out that 96% of primary schools and 73% of secondary schools teach e-safety, either as separate lessons or embedded in others.

Stalking

Helen Jones Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate all Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in this thoughtful and well-informed debate. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who not only has the privilege of representing one of the most beautiful parts of north Wales, but has done sterling work with the all-party group on stalking and harassment to bring the offences into law. He gave a powerful introduction to the debate.

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who is no longer in her place, made some important points about the role of the courts, the sentences handed out and the need for better training. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) made some useful comparisons with the situation in Scotland, which I think we can all learn from. She also made a powerful plea to recognise stalking for what it often is: a version of violence against women, in particular, which we must not tolerate.

The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked about the personal suffering of victims. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) outlined clearly what she suffered as a result of what is—let us give it its proper name—online stalking. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), in a short but useful speech, pointed out the manipulative behaviour of many perpetrators and how convincing they can be. She also referred to the need for relationships education in schools to tackle the problem, a point I will return to in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made an important point about the role of the justice unions group in highlighting the issue. We often hear Government Members telling us what they think is wrong with trade unions, but we should also hear about their important work in such areas. I also congratulate those who worked hard to get the offences on the statute book: not only the all-party group, but my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and my noble Friend Baroness Royall, who campaigned for that relentlessly.

However, it is not enough just to put an offence on the statute book; it must also be enforced. We have heard clearly this afternoon that the law is not being enforced properly. The freedom of information request passed to Paladin, which was referred to earlier, showed that from 25 November 2012, when the law came into force, to the end of June this year 320 people were arrested for stalking offences. That was all. Of those, only 189 were charged. That is very worrying because unless there are lots of spurious complaints—no one is arguing that there are, least of all me— there must be a real problem with the training of the police and Crown Prosecution Service, which needs to be addressed. It is even more worrying when we look at the completed cases—I accept that there are few at the moment. In those cases completed by the end of June, six people received custodial sentences, and 27 were dealt with by means of a community disposal. I want to make it clear that, except in very exceptional cases, community sentences are not appropriate to deal with stalking. Stalking wrecks lives, it damages people psychologically, it affects their physical health, and it affects their social well-being. Stalking is not something that takes place at a distance. Stalkers enter people’s homes, they get into their workplaces, and they go to the places where they socialise, so a victim of stalking cannot feel safe in any aspect of their life.

Stalkers often issue threats. What is more, half of those threats are carried out. In that sense, stalking behaviour is a strong predictor of future violence. It is even stronger in cases of very serious violence, with 40% of domestic homicides following stalking behaviour that has gone unchecked. In dealing with stalking, therefore, we are not just helping today’s victims; we may be preventing serious violence and often homicides in the future.

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful and a fresh point. I should like to inform the House through her that there are many criminal psychologists in the UK who are able to treat these people. They say that roughly 95% are treatable and can be turned away from this obsessive behaviour. That adds to the point that the hon. Lady makes.

[Helen Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I will come to in a moment when I talk about prevention.

The appalling feature is the huge variation between the arrest and prosecution rates in police forces. Some examples have been given, but let me touch on a few more. Northumbria force arrested eight people and prosecuted seven. Powys arrested three and they were all prosecuted. The Met arrested 132 people, but only 71 were prosecuted. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. Whether victims receive justice should not depend on where they live. We cannot have a postcode lottery in law enforcement, and that, I am afraid, is what we are seeing at the moment. Part of the reason for that seems to lie in the failure to train police and Crown prosecutors adequately.

The National Policing Improvement Agency has produced a 20-minute online package of training—very little in itself—but up to the end of June only 27% of eligible officers had seen that package. The rates of training vary hugely among police forces, even neighbouring forces. In Greater Manchester, for example, 5,000 officers had seen it; on Merseyside, only 76. In my own area of Cheshire, it was 57. One can see a similar process with the CPS. Training has begun only this autumn, nearly a year after the law was put on the statute book.

I do not blame the front-line officers or the prosecutors for that. The blame actually lies squarely with the Home Office, which has to admit that if it cuts police numbers, as it has, there is less time to take officers off the front line for training or to update their skills, and that if it cuts 25% of the CPS’s budget, the CPS has to manage its caseloads differently and there is less time to develop training packages or to let people take time out for training. That is what we are seeing, and it is time that the Government started to take it seriously.

Another factor that needs to be clearly stated is that stalking is largely a crime against women. Yes, there are male victims and they suffer just as much as anyone else, but 80% of stalkers are men and 80% of victims are women. As such, it has to be seen as part of the continuum of violence against women—because stalking is violence. It is psychological violence that can spill over into physical violence, and it is part of the same perspective of harassing women and preventing them from speaking out, as we have seen online recently, and treating them as though they have no right to an opinion but are there merely to be controlled.

That is why I say to the Minister that although it is nice to see him here—he is a very good Minister—it would have been even better to see the Minister responsible for this area, who is the Minister for Crime Prevention, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The Minister we have here is responsible for immigration; his colleague, who is not here, is responsible for antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls. He is fast becoming the Scarlet Pimpernel of the Home Office. We see him in Committee and he disappears halfway through the debate; today, for a debate on his own area of responsibility, he is not present. The Government have to take this issue far more seriously than that.

The root cause of this sort of behaviour is an attitude prevalent in some sections of our society that, sadly, sees women as objects to be controlled and manipulated—as people who should not have an opinion of their own and do not control their own destiny. That is why the Government must not only deal with this crime but look at how to prevent it. They must consider having a proper, and compulsory, package of sex and relationships education in schools. I am sorry that they rejected our amendment to the Children and Families Bill to make it compulsory, because without teaching young people from the start that this sort of behaviour is not the norm and is not acceptable, we will never solve the problem.

The second plank of prevention, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd suggested, is in mental health services. There is no doubt that a small minority of stalkers are psychotic, and there is evidence that some might have a personality disorder, so their first contact with the criminal justice system ought to trigger a mental health referral. Mental health treatment will not be suitable for everybody, but there ought to be an assessment to see whether it is the appropriate way forward before someone’s behaviour spirals out of control and perhaps into violence.

The third thing we would like the Government to do is to make sure that sentencing guidelines are updated, because they have not been updated since 2008, and that police officers and Crown prosecutors are trained to ensure that the law is enforced. We cannot say to the victims of this crime, “You must simply put up with it”, or, “It’s not very serious.” We can no longer keep saying that there is no action we can take. This is the 21st century, not the 19th, and nobody should be subjected to this behaviour without the right of redress.

The Government have done the right thing by putting this law on the statute book in response to the campaign but, given that most victims face 100 incidents of stalking before they even report it, it is not lack of evidence that is preventing this crime from being prosecuted; it is lack of training and lack of will, and that is what we have to address. I hope that the Minister will be able to encourage us that the Government are moving towards doing so, because, to be frank, women in this country—and it is largely women who are affected—deserve better than to be told that this is behaviour that they just have to put up with. It is not, we will not and it needs to be addressed.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

First, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this well-subscribed and informative debate for Members who have had an interest in this subject for a great deal of time. This is not meant as an insult to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would have liked to have seen Madam Deputy Speaker in the Chair, because this would then have been the first debate in which I had spoken under her chairmanship. If you will forgive me, I will place on record that it was a great pleasure to be sat here quietly while she chaired the first part of the debate. I was enormously pleased by that and I am equally pleased to have been joined by you for the latter part of the debate.

I will not refer to what the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) will do after the next election, because when other Members did so it sounded terribly like an obituary. I am sure he has plenty of life left in him and plenty of exciting challenges waiting for him when he eventually departs this place, so I will simply pay tribute to him for his work not only as chairman of the all-party group on stalking and harassment, but as chair of the parliamentary inquiry into stalking law reform. I also pay tribute to the other members of the all-party group, including its vice-chairs my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne).

Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend is unable to be present for the end of the debate. I listened carefully to her excellent speech and she has done a great deal of work in this area. There was a strange irony when Madam Deputy Speaker read out the Royal Assent for the HS2 Bill, which my right hon. Friend has campaigned against in varying levels of publicness, including when she was a member of the Government and even more forcefully since. That was an interesting and spooky part of the debate, but I think she saw the ironic and funny side of it, as did the rest of the House.

Every Member who has participated in the debate has made the point that stalking is a serious crime and the various examples given—the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke from her personal experience—have illustrated that it can seriously affect people’s lives. People can be physically attacked and they can lose their homes, families, friends and jobs in a bid to escape a persistent, fixated stalker. Stalking can also take place in a relationship or after a brief relationship, or people can be stalked by a complete stranger. It varies and the response needs to take that into consideration.

The crime survey for England and Wales shows that 4% of women and 3% of men are affected by stalking in some way, so it is clearly a very important issue that affects a large number of people. The work of the parliamentary inquiry, chaired by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, demonstrated clearly that there was a gap in the law, and the Government were able—partly, I am sure, because of the excellent case that was made, but also, I suspect, because of the fortuitous timing of an appropriate piece of legislation—to introduce the new offences very shortly after the case had been so powerfully made. Legislation is, of course, not the only response and I will address some of the other issues that have been raised.

We want to work through the reforms we have already made to the policing landscape. That brings me on to police and crime commissioners, which several Members mentioned, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), and my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who particularly mentioned the Essex police and crime commissioner. Those who are elected, such as police and crime commissioners, will listen to the concerns of the public, so they provide a good opportunity to drive the issues home. Angus Macpherson, the police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon, is someone I know personally as I used to live in Swindon, my home town. He attended a stalking awareness event and made it clear that he wanted to understand the issue so that he could see whether there were any provisions that he could put in place to further support victims and stop offenders.

The Hull Daily Mail reported last December that the new police and crime commissioner there, Matthew Grove, was backing calls for tougher measures to protect stalking victims. I know more about the Hull Daily Mail now, having seen yesterday its excellent supplement celebrating the award of city of culture status to Hull. Stalking is an issue that that newspaper has taken very seriously. To be cross-party on the issue, I note that the PCC for Greater Manchester, Tony Lloyd, a former Member of this House, has welcomed the fact that the police are taking stalking seriously, and has been working closely with his police force to raise awareness of the importance of dealing with that crime. There is a great opportunity for Members of Parliament to work with police and crime commissioners and to have a democratic voice in challenging police forces that may not take the issue as seriously as they should. The vast majority of police and crime commissioners have made violence against women and girls a priority in their policing plans, which is an important first step.

I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and he does not always agree with me, but on this subject I can agree with him. He said that one role of the Government was to try to bring organisations together. We have issued information to police and crime commissioners so that they are better equipped. We have also hosted an event for them, which I suspect will not be the last, bringing together police and crime commissioners and enabling them to hear from the voluntary sector, for example Paladin, an organisation that was mentioned by almost every Member who spoke in the debate. I echo the appreciation expressed for the work of Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards, who are paying close attention to this debate. They were able to be present and take part in the day. That is the start of the engagement with police and crime commissioners, and it will continue.

The College of Policing is the other new feature in the policing arena that will help, by driving consistent training across police forces in England and Wales. This month the college’s training package on stalking and harassment won the silver award for “excellence in the production of learning content” at the E-learning awards. It is based on powerful scenarios developed with the help of victims and their families, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said. The training package is available to all police officers and staff. Since last October it has been used about 44,000 times, which represents about a third of police officers, so that is some progress but clearly, picking up the right hon. Gentleman’s point, we want all police officers to be trained. The national policing lead on stalking and harassment, Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan of Greater Manchester police, has written once to all chief constables and will continue to do so jointly with the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure a consistent message to the law enforcement community for both the police and the CPS, so that the issues are taken seriously.

Much of the debate about police and crime commissioners focuses on the “police” part of their role, but the most significant benefit that they can bring is the “and crime” part. It is their role in their police areas to bring together all parts of the criminal justice system—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the voluntary sector—and to bang heads together so that there is a properly joined-up approach in local areas. That is one of the most significant things that police and crime commissioners can do, and it is one of the reasons we set them up. The Crown Prosecution Service has made its training mandatory this year. More than 1,000—or about 45%, I think—of its lawyers have completed the training, which is a good start, and we obviously want the rest of them to do so.

[Helen Jones]

Will the Minister tell the House whether he has any explanation for the discrepancy between the number of people arrested and the number of people actually charged?

[Mr Harper]

I will come on to the guidelines issued by the CPS, but that matter to some extent depends on the details of individual cases. Normally, decisions are based on how realistic a prosecution is and what evidence there is, as well as the public interest test. I do not know whether different prosecution rates relate to the ability of the police to put cases together, or whether some forces are more likely to make arrests than others. Without looking at the information, I simply do not know the answer to the question.

An advantage in the devolved criminal justice landscape —the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock referred to the experience in Scotland—is that police forces in England and Wales could look at the Scottish example to see what lessons can be learned. The systems are of course different and not directly comparable: the criminal justice legislation is different and, for example, harassment legislation has not been put in place in Scotland. We should, however, look at whether different parts of the UK are doing things better, and if they are, we should happily learn from them. That is a benefit of devolution of which we should take advantage.