Family Migration Rules

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for securing this debate, and I congratulate him on doing so.

I served on the all-party inquiry with the hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Member for—is it Stretford?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Sarah Teather]

I have actually got the hon. Lady’s constituency correct.

Many of us on that inquiry were really horrified by what we found, despite my own experience as a constituency MP and having encountered the frustrations of an awful lot of my constituents as they tried to deal with the new rules. Of course, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall said, the new rules have been in place for a year now and there is no doubt that they are proving a significant source of frustration and tension for family life without providing any obvious and immediate benefit to the UK. When the Minister responds to the debate, I will be very interested to see if he can tell us what benefits he considers the new rules have brought to the UK, because they are not immediately obvious to me; I can see many of the harms but I cannot see many obvious benefits.

The first thing that is very apparent about the new rules is that they represent a distinct philosophical shift in approach from the old rules. The system used to be tilted in favour of family life, subject to certain basic conditions being met, such as the ability to support a spouse coming into the UK and the ability to meet a basic income threshold, which was pretty much tantamount to a basic income threshold that we would expect around income support levels. Now, the system is tilted entirely in the opposite direction, and against family life, unless someone can meet certain requirements to demonstrate that their spouse who is coming into the UK is desirable in some way and meets some extra criteria. So rather than having a system that was very much about keeping families together, the system now is about serving an overall objective on immigration policy, with family life being significantly relegated in importance. Of course, it is not only family life that is being relegated in importance, but relationships, children’s best interests, basic human compassion and a certain level of common sense.

The consequence is that we have created a system that is highly inflexible and incredibly rigid, and that fails by its own narrow criteria in terms of preventing a burden falling on the taxpayer. What do I mean by that? The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall raised many of these issues, as did a number of the Members who intervened on him. One of my own reflections from having been on the all-party group’s inquiry was, “If you’re self-employed, woe betide you. You might be earning a fortune, but it’s incredibly difficult for you to demonstrate that you meet the Government’s criteria.” Money must be in certain very specific bank accounts; it must be accessible in a very specific way. Parents’ wealth is disregarded, so someone may have a very wealthy family who are more than willing to support them but that is not taken into account.

As the hon. Gentleman said, someone may have wealth tied up in other ways; for example, it might be tied up in capital. Once again, however, that is not adequate under the new rules. It is only someone’s earned income in the UK that is taken into account, so even if someone has been earning a small fortune abroad that is not taken into account. Equally, even if someone’s spouse earns a small fortune, if they come to the UK that is not taken into account either, and nor are their projected future earnings. Even by the incredibly narrow criteria of wanting income to be the most important factor and wanting people to demonstrate a level of wealth that the Government have decided is desirable, the system at the moment fails to deliver.

That is not to mention the hidden costs, which were highlighted by hon. Members in a number of interventions—the costs that are incurred by refusing someone permission to come to the UK. The obvious ones that we heard about during our inquiry were around caring burdens, particularly if the person who is here in the UK has some health problems, or if they have very young children and they have been separated from their partner. They might be able to go back to work if their partner was here in the UK to share child care. Without the partner, however, it is much more difficult.

Then there are the obvious things that the rest of government knows about. For example, if people are separated from their partner and families are divided up, the effects on mental health and on children failing to bond with one parent or another have a wide-ranging impact on behaviour and educational attainment. Of course, none of those more subtle things is taken into account either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Kate Green]

rose—

[Sarah Teather]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) first.

[Sarah Teather]

The classic story that we heard in the inquiry was that people are going somewhere else in Europe to make a home, and waiting until their partner gains EU citizenship there. During that time they donate their skills, wealth and significant social contribution to another European country, and they may or may not return to the UK.

[Kate Green]

It was a pleasure to serve with the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on the Committee. Does she agree that one reason why these rules may be being applied so rigidly is a lack of confidence in the decision-making powers and abilities of Border Agency officials, and that investment in training them to make sensible decisions, rather than imposing blanket rules, would be a fairer and more sensible approach?

[Sarah Teather]

I think it would. I have to say that it would be wiser if we were not being driven entirely by an objective to keep numbers down, but that is perhaps another story.

I should like the Minister to respond to what I am now going to say about the best interests of children. When I was a Minister in the Department for Education, we committed the Government to standing by and meeting our commitment on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and to take into account children’s best interests when decisions are made. What account is being taken of that now by the Minister’s Department, as it looks at the rules and their impact? Has any assessment been done and has any discussion been had with Department for Education officials on this point? If he is unable to answer that question today, I should be grateful if he wrote to let me know.

The impact of the rules on bringing in grandparents and elderly dependants is just as shocking as that of the spousal rules. Almost no approvals have happened since the new rules came in. It was described to me by one lawyer as a ban masquerading as a rule, which is probably a rather more effective way of describing the problem. If almost nobody can come in, that demonstrates what the Government want to do, and it might have been more honest if that had been done in the first place. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), who is no longer in his place, intervened on the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall and made a similar point. It is almost impossible to meet the rules. People must have a high income and must be clear that their family member will not have recourse to any kind of benefits, and sign something to say that that will not happen. They must also demonstrate that the family member is so sick that they must come here, and cannot possibly have their care needs met in the country where they are, even if they were to pay for it.

Almost nobody will meet those criteria. One lawyer said that he had been thinking through all the possible scenarios and the only example that he came up with where somebody might meet such criteria was if they had an elderly dependent relative in Monaco and had enough money here to meet the first part of the rules, but because care is so expensive in Monaco they would not be able to afford to pay for it there. That would probably be the only way we would allow such people to come to the UK. If we are going to have a ban, let us at least be more honest about it.

The consequences of the rules were drawn to our attention in the inquiry most notably by the British Medical Association, which said that they were among the biggest challenges in planning resourcing around consultants and senior doctors, many of whom are second-generation south Asian and want to bring a relative. For example, two people who are partners, both of whom may be highly paid consultants capable of supporting an elderly dependent relative but with no means of meeting the rules, might end up moving to Singapore. If such highly trained, highly valued people go somewhere else to work so that they are able to be with their family members, that is a significant drain on our national health service.

The current system seems to me to be inhumane and lacking in basic common sense. It cuts across a whole set of areas that the Government say are a priority: it cuts across our commitments on family policy, on early intervention and on our obligations under the UNCRC. We heard in our inquiry that the rules disproportionately affect those from poorer communities in the UK, such as Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, and that women, who struggle to earn the same wages as men, are particularly affected. The system affects not only those people but many highly paid British citizens who may never have thought that they would meet the full force of the immigration system preventing them from having a happy family life. I strongly urge the Minister to review those rules properly and to reconsider them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, Mr Owen. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for arranging it, and for serving as vice-chair of the inquiry. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who added a great deal of value to our discussions. I also thank Migrants Rights Network, which was useful and supportive in briefing the inquiry committee and gathering evidence for us, and the many people who shared their experiences, either in person or in writing.

For me, as for other hon. Members taking part in the debate, this is a constituency issue. Many of the constituents who have talked to me about the rules’ effect on them and their families are particularly upset, because they have been preparing for family weddings, or have planned for a long time to bring a relative back to care for them. They feel strongly that the rules cut across their strong attachment to the importance of family ties and family life. We recognise, as other hon. Members have said, the need to manage migration and protect the public purse, but the rules must be fair to families, and effective. We have heard of many instances where they were neither.

I recognise that the income threshold, at £18,600, is at the lowest end of the range suggested by the Migration Advisory Committee to take households out of reliance on benefits. However, as the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—and other hon. Members have said, the threshold will have a differential impact on different sponsors, and it will create a significant disadvantage for those who, by definition, are likely to be on low earnings. That includes women sponsors, who typically will be on incomes lower than men’s. They often work part time; also, taking time out of the labour market to care for family members may have depressed their ability to progress at work. Young people will also be disadvantaged. Let us not forget that many who want to bring in a spouse will be young, because they will be starting out on their adult and family life.

The people who would want to make such an application are often precisely those whom the rules will most effectively work against. Others who will be disadvantaged are those who struggle to earn well—people with low levels of qualifications, people with disabilities and those outside high-pay areas such as London and the south-east. Last week in my constituency, I was told of a young woman who has been forced to take three jobs to try to meet the income requirement and bring in her spouse.

It is important to understand that we are not talking just about poorly paid, poor-quality, low or entry-level jobs. The inquiry committee heard evidence from the Royal College of Nursing that health care workers can typically earn between £14,153 and £17,253, so they would be below the income threshold of £18,600. Pay levels in many other sectors, such as retail, security, administration and customer service, and in the public sector, are likely to mean people will not meet the threshold. That is unfair to UK sponsors, many of whom have lived here all their lives—people who are British-born, of British families—who cannot fulfil the income requirement. Those people make a valuable contribution to the economy and provide services that we all depend on. They are being told, in effect, that they cannot carry on living in their own country with their spouse. They are shocked and surprised to find that out.

As to the impact of the rules on the public purse, the picture is more complicated than the Government’s analysis and impact assessment may suggest. The Government suggested in their assessment that there would be savings to the overall welfare state—health, benefits, education and so on—of £660 million over 10 years. However, we must remember that most migrant partners would work and pay taxes. They would therefore be contributing to the public purse. Evidence presented to the committee by researchers at Middlesex university suggests that by preventing up to 17,800 migrant partners from coming to the UK and working here, the income requirement could lead to a cost to the UK Exchequer and economy of as much as £850 million in lost economic activity.

The Government impact assessment took account of tax forgone by reducing the number of migrant partners entering the country, but failed to consider the loss of the wider economic benefits of partner earnings: lost output, lower consumption and spending in the economy, and the loss of their overall economic contribution. Nor is it clear that the benefits bill will reduce as the Government expect.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

If the resident person was on a very low income, so that they qualified for housing benefit, and they were joined by a partner who was in work, would not the benefit be set aside and no longer claimed? That is a different picture from the one that the Government always go on about, of people depending on housing benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

That is right, and that is one of the perversities in the operation of the rules. Some families who could be floated off benefits if there were two adults in the household are being forced to remain on benefits because a second earner will not be coming to support the family—which may be a family with children. The hon. Member for Brent Central alluded to the fact that in some cases parents are forced to rely on benefits because they cannot share the responsibility for care of children with the other parent. Also, not being able to bring a spouse into the country to share the balance of parenting and working will affect the ability of the parent who is already here to enter the labour market or increase their working hours. We know sharing those roles is a feature of lifting families out of poverty; those two sets of earnings are important in keeping families off out-of-work benefits.

Quite a large part of the Government’s assessment of the benefits that would be affected has to do with benefits for children—child benefit and child tax credit. They are paid for children who are British citizens. In some cases they will continue for those children, but in a family in which only one parent is here to support the child; so the overall benefits impact is rather more complicated than the Government suggest.

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Did she find that mostly, in the case of people who gave evidence to the inquiry committee and wanted to bring in male spouses, those spouses wanted to work when they arrived, not sit at home? Obviously, they could not claim benefits, because it would be against their undertaking, but most want to arrive and work, so they would soon be over the threshold anyway.

[Kate Green]

That is right. Indeed, we already know that migrant male workers are more likely to be in work than non-migrant people of working age. The history of migrants, and particularly male migrants, arriving in this country is that they want and intend to work, and contribute to our Exchequer and the wider economy. Women migrants may be less likely to work than non-migrant adult women, but their earnings tend to be a little higher; so, again, the labour market picture is more complicated than the simple notion that may have been assumed—that a spouse coming to this country will simply be dependent. In fact, the opposite is often the case.

As the hon. Member for Brent Central said, we need to recognise some of the more indirect costs that we are piling up for society. I absolutely agree with her about the potential long-term impact on the public purse of separating children from their parents for long periods. We know that separation can have long-standing and detrimental effects on children’s health, including their mental health, and on their educational attainment and behaviour, all of which will increase costs to the public purse down the line. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England has made a strong case for children’s right to have their best interests taken into account as one of the factors considered by the Government, but it is important to recognise that not only a moral and legal but an economic case can be made in relation to children. The Government should also consider the long-term economic impact.

The committee and I ask Ministers for a much more comprehensive review and assessment of the fiscal and economic impact of the policy, in both the short and longer term. The rules are causing hardship. They are riddled with inconsistencies. In some cases, I believe them to be discriminatory under our equalities legislation, and in terms of protecting the public purse, it seems that they may in fact be having a perverse effect. For those reasons, the committee strongly urges the Government to take the time to conduct a full review of the impact of the new rules on families and communities, and specifically to examine further the effect on the public purse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The point I was making was about people who come here when they are not entering into a genuine marriage. I will not have a chance now to find the data. If the hon. Gentleman had asked me earlier, or made a speech, I would have been able to find them before the end of the debate. I want to try to answer the questions that hon. Members have already asked.

I turn to some matters that will address the point made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock). There are some areas where we have been flexible already. I had a meeting with the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who were here earlier. We looked at some flexibilities, which I agreed to take away and consider. They were about the length of time for which savings must be held if they arise from the realisation of an asset that can be clearly traced to that family. The example that was given to me was someone selling a property that was clearly their property. I also said I would consider the situation where people hold savings in an investment-based account, such as a stocks and shares ISA, and whether that counts as cash.

I am prepared to consider whether we can put in place some rules that are not vulnerable to abuse. The best argument was the example of a couple, one of whom would be working here but was insufficiently skilled to meet the criteria to apply under the tier 2 scheme. I thought one of the examples in the report was a bit odd. I struggled to see how someone who earned £400,000 a year and had £3.5 million of assets could not come here on a tier 2 visa, or would be unable to organise their finances sufficiently to meet the rules. If people can get here under a tier 2 visa, that is fine. However, clearly there are people who could make a contribution but could not meet those criteria.

The situation is not quite as straightforward as people say, because we must guard against abuse. If all people have to do is to show a piece of paper saying that they have a job offer, I know from the number of cases I have seen that it will not be long before people are setting up vague companies and offering jobs that do not exist. There must be a way of putting in place processes that do not lead to abuse. I think that is worth doing and I am prepared to go away and do so. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said that I listen, and I do. I see details of cases that colleagues write to me about, and I am keen to ensure that the rules are fair. They have been in force for less than a year, and we have already made some changes to make them more flexible.

Another suggestion was to have a different income level across the country, and the Migration Advisory Committee looked at that. We do not have a regionalised benefit system, with the exception of housing benefit. Most benefits are consistent throughout the UK. The logic for having a different income limit would mean a different benefit system throughout the United Kingdom. I do not know, but I am guessing that most Members who argue for a regional income level to be taken into account for this process would probably not be in favour of a regionalised benefit system.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

I have only 50 seconds left and I have not covered all the points. Let me pick up two specific points. The hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) asked whether there had been any discussion with the Department for Education on children’s best interests. Yes, there has been. Our family consultation and the statement of intent that we published were discussed with all relevant Departments in the way that one secures agreement across Government. Our rules and policy on leave outside the rules take into account a child’s best interests. I will give an example. In exceptional cases, those circumstances can be taken into account. Since I have been doing this job, I have authorised the grant of leave outside the rules to an applicant who, with their British partner, was unable to meet the income threshold but had serious concerns about the health and welfare of a child.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, particularly as, like him, I have constituents who use that trust. We have a national health service, not an international health service. The rules governing migrant access to the NHS are too generous and ineffectively applied, meaning that they are open to abuse. That is why the Government propose reforming the residence test that governs free NHS access, and are proposing options under which temporary migrants would make a contribution before they used our health service— either through an up-front NHS access fee, or through comprehensive health insurance. We also intend to end free unrestricted access to general practitioners by visitors and illegal migrants, and to introduce measures better to identify patients who must be charged.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The impact of the migration rules on the benefits bill can cut two ways. This afternoon, the all-party group on migration, of which I am a member, published a report showing that some British families have been forced to claim benefits because a spouse who could support them cannot be admitted to this country. Will the Home Secretary consider the report of the all-party group carefully, especially the impact of the family migration rules on benefits claims?

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government look carefully at all-party group reports on areas that relate to, or affect, the Home Office. On the changes that we propose to access to public services, and on the whole issue of people coming to join families, there is a principle, which is about being able to ensure that where people are accessing public services, they are services that they have contributed to. This is a great concern for many members of the public, and it is right for the Government to tighten it up.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I was saying, Mr X needs to return to the UK to look after his elderly parents who are recovering from cancer. They used to go on a fairly regular basis to visit him, his wife and child, but they are now too ill and infirm to visit. Mr X has a professional job in Thailand, which he has held down for a long time. It is a decent salary according to local rates, but it is not the equivalent of the £18,600 earnings limit in the UK. It is enough to provide him with the same living standards in Thailand as he would have if he were on that sort of salary in the UK—it is obviously a lot cheaper to live there. Under the new rules, Mr X will have to leave his wife behind while he finds work in the UK, which he is not prepared to do—by which I mean not that he is not prepared to find work, but that he is not prepared to leave his wife behind. They are now considering moving to Spain instead, so that he is reasonably close to his parents and it will be easier for his wife to join him, perhaps becoming a Spanish national, which would then allow them to enter the UK.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is describing a situation that we on the all-party group inquiry into family migration have heard several times. Does she agree that there is a further nonsense to the situation she describes? If the family is not able to come in and look after the parents, instead of the family providing care, this will pile costs on for public social care and public health services.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, as she always does. If I understand the Government’s ideological position on this issue, they want to support families and very much approve of carers taking on responsibility for elderly parents or others within their family network. The rule that we are talking about operates to prevent that from happening.

The second case features Mr Z and Ms Z who came to see me in my constituency surgery a few weeks ago. They were married in the UK in March 2011. She is a British citizen and her husband, who had been living and working in the UK for six years under a valid work permit, is South African. He was in highly paid professional work in the UK, but soon after they married, he was made redundant. Although he could probably have secured another job at a similarly high salary in the UK, they decided to take a chance and move to Cape Town for a couple of years.

After two years in South Africa, however, they have decided that they want to return to the UK, but the rules changed while they were away. He will not be allowed to join his wife in the UK unless she earns more than £18,600—despite the fact that he is a highly skilled computer programmer who could expect to earn perhaps £60,000 a year in the UK. Before they left for Cape Town, my woman constituent was earning £26,000 a year as a pub manager. As she has been out of work for two years in Cape Town, however, there is a gap in her CV, so she is unlikely to be able to walk straight back into a manager’s position, although she aspires to do so in a couple of years’ time. Wages in the pub trade are not particularly high, so it is likely she will start on a salary below £18,600. As I said, they would have a joint income as a family of about £75,000 because her husband could get a well-paid job, but under the new rules it is based on her income, so he would not be able to join her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The previous requirement, which I think has been alluded to, was that applicants had to be “adequately maintained”. The courts generally interpreted that to mean income equivalent to the level of income support for a British family of that size, which was about £5,500 a year for a couple at that time. Our view was that that level of income was not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and did not provide adequate assurance that UK sponsors and their migrant partners could support themselves and their children over the long term.

The previous regime also required quite a complex assessment, both for applicants and caseworkers, of current and prospective employment income and other financial means. It made decision making difficult, as was highlighted by the independent chief inspector’s report of 24 January on the processing of applications under the old rules for spouses and partners. Again, that was partly why we wanted a financial requirement that was clear and transparent; applicants would know where they stood, and we could make clear and timely decisions.

The minimum income threshold is £18,600 a year, with a higher amount with those sponsoring dependent children—it is £22,400 for those sponsoring one child and an extra £2,400 for each further child. We based that on the expert advice of the independent Migration Advisory Committee. It gave us a range of figures and that was at the low end. Its figures went up to about £25,000, a level at which someone would be making a net contribution to the Exchequer. The £18,600 level we settled on is broadly the income at which a couple, once settled here, cannot access income-related benefits. It is not an exact match, but it was as close as we can get. Our approach broadly says, “If they are here earning that amount of money, they are going to be able to stand on their own two feet and not expect the taxpayer to support them.”

[Kate Green]

I understand the logic the Minister is outlining, but when benefits are assessed for a household they are assessed on a household basis. So this approach does not appear to address the point that has been made about ignoring the income of the incoming spouse.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, which I am coming on to address. In most cases—this comes back to the point about representations—including one of the cases the hon. Member for Bristol East raised and the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), there is often an alternative way, through the immigration rules, of someone getting to the United Kingdom. So the reason we do not take into account—

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend makes the important point that, as working parents, we rely on certainty in regard to child care and to schools. The decision on whether a school is open is one for head teachers—they can assess things better on the ground—but his point is well made and I will certainly ensure that it is brought to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department for Education.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Yesterday, six mothers wrote to The Guardian to object to the Government’s real-terms cuts to maternity pay and other pregnancy and child-related benefits. Having babies costs money, and low-paid mums are set to lose £1,300 during pregnancy and their baby’s first year as a result of the real-terms cut to statutory maternity pay, cuts to other pregnancy support and cuts to tax credits. The real-terms cut to SMP alone equates to the price of 24 nappies a week to a low-paid mum. The Prime Minister said that his Government would be the family-friendliest ever, but does not that promise sound hollow now that they are helping millionaires more than mums?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady has to realise that, in a time of difficult economic circumstances, which is certainly what the coalition Government inherited, we have had to make some tough decisions. The tough decisions that we have made are about helping women into work, and helping them to get the skills they need to ensure that their families are financially independent. She will of course be aware that, in April 2011, the child element of the working tax credit was uprated by £180 above inflation, and that the reforms to the tax system have already set us on the path to taking 1 million women out of tax. Surely she should be supporting those changes.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and I congratulate him on his work in bringing his provision to this point. Before I entered the House, I served as a lay magistrate for 16 years and in cases of people driving under the influence of drugs, was always struck by the complete uncertainty about how we applied the law, compared with the dead certainty in relation to people driving under the influence of alcohol. I therefore welcome the clarity that this provision starts to bring.

I would like to talk about several aspects of the Bill. They are by no means the only elements that have come up this evening, but I want to focus on the issues relating to diversity and sentencing. I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) in welcoming the amendment inserted in their lordship’s House specifically to introduce a focus on the position of women within the criminal justice system. That provision did not have Government Front-Bench support in the House of Lords, but, given that last week in his oral statement about transforming rehabilitation the Justice Secretary specifically said, in response to a question from me, that he accepted that the specific circumstances and needs of women had to be addressed, I hope, now that this provision has been passed in their lordship’s House, that Ministers will see no reason not to adopt it.

I was pleased to see provisions on judicial diversity and to hear the Home Secretary highlight them in her opening speech. As she said, there has been progress on the diversification of the judiciary, but much more needs to be made. The provisions in schedule 13, on the tie-break and the possibility of full-time equivalent appointments to the senior judiciary, are welcome. In particular, however, I want to comment on the duty now on the Lord Chancellor to encourage diversity in the judiciary contained in paragraph 10. That is certainly a welcome exhortation, but it is important that it not be left at mere words and that substantive progress be made. Willing the end is not the same as willing the means.

It is clear where some of the barriers and blockages lie. As right hon. and hon. Members have commented, women and ethnic minorities are particularly poorly represented in the judiciary. That is not so much the case in the tribunals and lay judiciary, so it speaks in part to difficulties that the Bar and solicitor professions have in developing a pipeline to find more diverse members of the judiciary. I would be interested to hear what work Ministers envisage doing with the Judicial Appointments Commission and the professions to start to strengthen professional routes for women, minorities and other groups with protected characteristics.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, it is important to have a judiciary that reflects the make-up of society. It is, without question, an issue of public confidence. It also broadens the perspectives that are brought to bear on judicial decisions, as Lady Hale herself highlighted in her submission to the review of the Judicial Appointments Commission. That is an important and valuable reason why we have a number of judges judging more challenging cases, and is a lesson we ought to reflect in the appointments process more generally.

I am concerned that when these provisions and other allied amendments were debated in the House of Lords, Lord McNally made great play of the role of the public sector equality duty in underpinning this clause and the other provisions on judicial diversity. When Lord McNally spoke, the public sector equality duty was a settled and fairly clear duty. Since that debate in June 2012, the Government have of course announced a full review of the duty, which leads me to ask how we can be sure that the very best provisions of that duty will be embedded in the judicial appointments process.

It is worth noting that the Judicial Appointments Commission has welcomed the public sector equality duty as a framework for working on diversifying the judiciary. It has been absolutely explicit in saying that it does not regard it as a tick-box exercise. It is important that we do not lose what has been good in offering a framework for diversification of the judiciary as the review of the duty continues. That is more of a concern now that the requirement to carry out equality impact assessments in relation to policy is being removed.

I am pleased to see specific provision for restorative justice in the Bill. That represents a good start—a good first step in legislative recognition of the value of restorative justice. There have been a number of comments today on the importance and challenge of persuading victims who may feel torn about whether to participate in such a process. I invite Ministers to look carefully at how the concept of restorative justice can be extended, so that it does not necessarily mean the offender meeting his or her victim. Prison Fellowship, whose work I have had the privilege of seeing in Styal prison, has been able to extend the concept so that victims, not necessarily of the women serving the sentences in the programmes they are running, are nonetheless able to act as proxy victims to enable the concept of restorative justice to be extended more widely. It is a powerful programme that deals with serious offenders. I hope Ministers will see the provisions in the Bill as a first step to learning what works effectively in restorative justice, and to looking for opportunities to extend the concept over time.

I want to say a few words about the provisions on non-custodial sentences and the focus on punishment in those sentences, which in most circumstances is now the norm. I recognise that there is a real issue of public confidence regarding community sentences, which is regrettable when they are so much more effective in terms of reoffending rates than short-term custodial sentences. That confidence will not be helped if we start to get the balance of sentencing provisions wrong so that the focus on rehabilitation and reducing the offending is lost and crime rates start to rise. I therefore ask Ministers to tell us how they expect to monitor the impact of this provision and ensure that a proper, rounded approach to sentencing is sustained as it begins to take effect. In my 16 years’ experience as a sentencer in the lay magistracy, it was rare that punishment was not an element of the sentences we imposed. Surely the most important test, however, is the outcome of a sentence. The outcome we want above all is that the offending behaviour stops. I therefore hope that the impact of this policy will be carefully monitored with that in mind.

On the provisions relating to location monitoring, as others have said, technological and other developments have enabled the use of electronic monitoring to be widened and extended since it was first introduced a decade or so ago. There are also some real civil liberties and information-sharing concerns about the use of these techniques. It is clear that on its own it is not a particularly effective method of reducing reoffending. It is also important that, in seeking to monitor and manage the whereabouts of an offender, we do not put members of the public, particularly those close to that offender, at greater risk. I highlight concerns about this provision when, for example, domestic violence has been an issue. I hope that Ministers will perhaps comment on that, and certainly bear it in mind.

The Bill contains a number of important provisions that open up an avenue to new thinking. I hope that this is not seen as a definitive and ultimate position in relation to steps that can be taken to reduce reoffending and improve protection of the public. There are interesting developments, but it is important that their efficacy and effect are carefully monitored. I hope Ministers will give us the assurance tonight that it is in that spirit that they are brought forward in the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am not entirely certain which cases the hon. Lady is talking about. If she is talking about the issues that were raised in the chief inspector’s report when he found some unopened post, she will know that he has confirmed in his report that that has now all been cleared and those cases are being dealt with.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

6. What assessment she has made of the effect on family migration of the new immigration rules which came into force in July 2012.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

The new family immigration rules are expected to reduce burdens on the taxpayer, promote integration and tackle abuse. That was clearly set out in the impact assessment that we published in June 2012. We will of course keep the impact of the rules under review in terms of how we are achieving those objectives.

[Kate Green]

Children’s well-being may be at risk if the family migration rules perpetuate family separation by preventing a parent from joining his or her family here in the UK. What is the Minister doing to monitor the impact of the family migration rules on children’s well-being?

[Mr Harper]

The purpose of those rules is very straightforward—it is to make sure that people who wish to bring somebody who is not a British citizen into the country are able to support them out of their own resources rather than expecting them and their family to be supported by the taxpayer. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, and it was very well supported in the consultation, but we will keep its impact under review, as I set out in my earlier answer.

Human Trafficking

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Havard, and I congratulate all the hon. Members who have spoken, especially the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), both on his opening speech and on all his work on the issue. It has been a privilege to listen to all colleagues’ speeches.

Human trafficking is despicable. It denies our common humanity. It strips its victims of their human dignity, threatens their safety and well-being and denies their human rights. The fact that it continues in civilised society shames every one of us. I welcome the focus that the work of the all-party parliamentary group has given to the issue, and I am pleased that we are debating the first report of the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking.

The debate can send a powerful signal from Parliament that we abhor and absolutely condemn the practice. I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) called it: it is modern-day slavery. We cannot live with such a state of affairs. Listening to some of the speeches in this debate, particularly those made by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), I felt how little we have progressed as a society; those speeches could have been given in the House 150 years ago, and similar speeches probably were.

We have discussed many aspects of the problem and the different purposes for which people are trafficked: forced labour, domestic servitude or sexual exploitation. We have talked about who is trafficked: children, women and men, often desperate to make a better life for themselves. Sometimes, they arrive in this country with no idea that they face the fate of being forced into servitude.

We have talked about the global dimension of trafficking, but I endorse right hon. and hon. Members’ comments that whatever the source country, although it is right that we consider actions to help prevent trafficking from those source countries, the problem also lies significantly in this country. We could hear no more powerful description of the challenge that we face at home than the truly shocking experience described by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).

I want to repeat some of the points made in the debate that I hope the Minister and the interdepartmental ministerial group will address as they pursue their work. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) highlighted, there is a tension between enforcement and protection. There is also particular concern about the fate of trafficked children. Where the authorities become aware of such a situation, the overriding consideration must be to protect the child’s best interests and welfare. No one disputes that, but too often we fail in practice.

Children suffer from a wall of general disbelief that can face those who seek to report their experience. The pervading culture of scepticism takes a particularly pernicious form when a young person is not even believed to be a child. Although there are no statutory guidelines, the UK Border Agency’s policy is that where there is doubt about a young person’s age, they are to be given the benefit of that doubt, presumed to be a minor and entitled to the special protections that we afford to those who are under age. However, that does not always happen in practice.

I invite the Minister to comment on what steps are being taken to reinforce the message to all decision makers and enforcement agencies, including the UK Border Agency and the police. I point out that those agencies are not necessarily always the best equipped to make decisions about the best interests and welfare of children. It is of concern that there is no mandatory training for those who deal with trafficked children. Will he comment on that? As colleagues have highlighted, we too often fail trafficked children, particularly when they come into our care system, where much more effort is necessary to address their special needs.

The culture of disbelief and responses that are often more about enforcement than protection are felt by more people than just children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South said, they are also felt by those who have been sexually exploited.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady is making some important points. Does she not agree that it is strange that a child from an EU country who comes into this country would actually want the Border Agency to recognise them as an adult, because they would be better looked after than a child?

[Kate Green]

It is clearly a terrible irony that we are incapable of looking after children and meeting their needs properly. It is of particular concern that when children are identified as children and enter the state care system their needs are so inadequately met. I hope that the Minister will discuss that, because it is a genuine concern for right hon. and hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South discussed those trafficked for sexual exploitation. Some of his points were also highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who has done powerful work in the field. The debate about how best to protect those engaged in sex work through criminal law is a live one, and there are undoubtedly differences of view about criminalisation. It is important that we learn lessons from international experience, including experiences on our own doorstep, in Scotland. Will the Minister tell us whether the UK Government are considering the criminal law on sex work, particularly its application to trafficked sex workers?

The Minister will also be aware of the Home Office-funded national “ugly mugs” programme, which encourages sex workers to share reports of violent perpetrators. I would welcome his assurance this afternoon that the very modest funding for the programme will continue. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough on the shockingly low number of prosecutions and the lenient sentences that result when a prosecution and conviction ensue. I invite the Minister to comment on whether victims’ concerns, which make them hesitant even to report their experiences, can be traced back to that. If they feel that the law will treat them as criminals, rather than victims, and they hear about the lenient sentences and low number of prosecutions when stories are told, they will be unlikely to report their own experiences.

We discussed those trafficked into the labour market—both the formal and the grey labour markets. There are examples of good practice, which we have not talked about. Companies signed up, including during the Olympics, to the tourism child protection code of practice and to take action on corporate supply chains as a mechanism for enforcement, which has been touched on. Those steps are welcome, but I hope that the Minister will say what more the Government will do to encourage more businesses to follow suit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk promoted a Bill to legislate along the lines of the Californian approach. Given the Government’s lack of enthusiasm for regulation, I fear that the Minister will be reluctant to adopt such legislation. He must surely accept that, if Government intervention is to be avoided, business needs to take rigorous and more determined action. There is clearly a role for the Government in promoting that.

[Michael Connarty]

My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I received a letter today from McDonald’s—Big Mac—apologising for being part of the trail. It pointed out that it hired Noble Foods, which then hired a company called McNaught’s—a Gangmasters Licensing Authority licence holder. Other people have now been arrested and charged for using basically gangsters to enslave the workers in the chicken factories that Noble Foods got its eggs from.

[Kate Green]

It is welcome that McDonald’s and other high-profile national and international companies are aware of the issue and prepared to take action and be exemplars. I would be interested to hear what steps the Government are taking to work with business to promote more such action.

The institutional framework was also touched on by hon. Members this afternoon. As was pointed out, the UK is required under the EU directive to implement a national rapporteur function, and the interdepartmental ministerial group is the mechanism created to do that. Many speakers highlighted the deficiencies in the model. It is not clear that a Government body can effectively and independently evaluate the Government’s own policies. Such a body will not necessarily be sufficiently proactive and has no statutory ability to require information from Departments.

The national reporting mechanism appears to be of limited effectiveness in identifying the true scale of the problem. The Government’s wish to withdraw from the EU arrest warrant potentially weakens our ability to deal with people trafficked within the EU, those trafficked within the UK and those trafficked through the UK to other EU countries. I invite the Minister to comment on that.

I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government intend to monitor, guarantee and strengthen the effectiveness of the structures that have been put in place. Trafficking—slavery—is abhorrent and intolerable. We must have the most robust and effective processes in place to stamp it out. I am glad this important debate has taken place this afternoon. With all right hon. and hon. Members, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Before the Minister begins, may I say that I would like to give Mr Bone two or three minutes to respond at the end? Please keep interventions short.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am very pleased to agree with my hon. Friend and the Home Affairs Committee on that matter.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Some women asylum seekers end up on the detained fast-track procedure because they have been reluctant to disclose sexual violence and abuse. How can Ministers ensure that the system will be sensitive to such women’s experiences?

[Mr Harper]

One of the things that the UK Border Agency is attempting to do is make sure that the system is more sensitive to those who have suffered sexual violence and have been trafficked. It has recently published some information about how it goes about doing that through training its front-line officers and its caseworkers. I take that matter very seriously, and will ensure that the UK Border Agency pays great attention to it. If the hon. Lady has any particular concerns about specific cases, I am of course happy to discuss them with her at any time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

As I said earlier, the Home Office has compiled statistics on recorded hate crimes in England and Wales for the first time. Only 4% of hate crimes were based on religion—the vast majority were race-based—but we take all hate crimes very seriously, and where we can further improve not only the compilation of data but the practical consequences and the way in which that information is used to tackle such crimes, we shall do so. I shall give serious consideration to the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that later this week the Government will propose an amendment to the Equality Act 2010 which would remove the good-relations duty from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Does the Minister share my fear that that will weaken attempts to attack hate crime and to promote harmony between different sections of the community?

[Mr Browne]

No, I would not draw that conclusion, but I assure the hon. Lady and every other Member that we are very serious about tackling hate crime. It takes many different forms, and we want to ensure that robust procedures are in place to ensure that the police take effective action.

Domestic Violence

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Thank you for allowing me to open the debate, Mr Williams, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate an important topic that, sadly, I have become all too familiar with since entering Parliament. I, and all MPs no doubt, often meet the victims of domestic abuse, in constituency surgeries or other settings, and also regularly meet those who work with the victims. The topic is one of immense sensitivity, which throws up a range of different and difficult issues that make tackling domestic abuse extremely challenging, in specific cases and overall.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee), who had hoped to lead this debate and must take credit for securing it. Both of them will be following it with interest, and I pay tribute to their work on this important issue. I also pay tribute to the huge number of people, especially volunteers, from around the country who devote time and much more to be there for the victims of domestic violence. Their work is commendable beyond words, and I want to put on the record how highly we appreciate their work and that we recognise it in Parliament.

I hope that the debate will provide an opportunity for hon. Members to express their concerns about areas where not all is being done to protect the victims of domestic abuse. The Government are concerned about such violence and are already offering a huge amount of support. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate.

Domestic violence is close to my heart, because I have seen at first hand how it tears families, communities and people apart. Those who have followed my short career in Parliament will know about the Justice for Jane campaign, which has been successful in changing the law better to protect women and men who may be the victims of domestic abuse.

On 28 June 2011, I introduced a Bill to change bail laws, following the murder of Jane Clough, a nurse who lived in Barrowford in my constituency. She was murdered by her abusive partner, Jonathan Vass, for having the courage to speak to the police about the repeated rape and other abuse to which he subjected her. He had been released on bail by a judge, against the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, when he tracked Jane down and killed her, stabbing her 71 times and then slitting her throat as she lay bleeding on the ground.

My Bail (Amendment) Bill would have conferred on the prosecution a right of appeal against controversial judicial decisions to grant bail—a right that did not exist at the time. In October 2011, almost a year ago and following a hard-fought campaign, the Government agreed to support the Bill, and this year they introduced amendments to achieve its aim to protect the victims of domestic violence in future.

The provisions of my private Member’s Bill are, thankfully, now law. That was a huge achievement for Jane’s parents, John and Penny Clough, and all those involved in the Justice for Jane campaign. The courage shown by John and Penny in the face of such a terrible loss has been incredible. I raise the case to demonstrate one of the barriers, thankfully now removed, that existed for victims of domestic violence when they tried to protect themselves. I hope that this debate will shine a light on other barriers faced by victims and how the Government and we in Parliament can help them to overcome them.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is opening such an important debate this morning, and I echo his recognition and acknowledgement of Jane Clough’s family’s fight to improve the law. Does he agree that it is shocking that as many as 20-plus incidents of domestic violence may occur before a victim has the courage and confidence to report it? Does he also agree that there is real urgency for action to address that?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I agree totally with the hon. Lady. Lancashire probation service told me only yesterday that it estimates that an average of 35 incidents of domestic violence occur before a victim contacts anyone—the police or another agency—for help.

East Lancashire has considerable support for victims of domestic violence, and I have had the benefit of visiting some of the centres that offer advice and support to victims. Pendle women’s refuge has been open for 25 years. It is run by Pendle borough council, and extended its facilities six years ago. Sixty families have been accommodated at the refuge in the past year, but there were 178 applications in the same period, with many cases involving problems such as substance misuse and severe mental health issues. Despite the problem of resources, refuge staff try to accommodate as many families as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that incredibly important point. The Government are doing an awful lot of work to ensure that the abuser is now made homeless, rather than the victim, because for so many years in domestic violence cases, reporting the abuse led directly to homelessness for the victim. That was the immediate consequence, and it was a huge issue associated with domestic violence that needed to be addressed.

Another concern is the uneven service around the country. As I have explained, in my area, voluntary agencies and Government agencies are working together to provide a very good service. In the north-west as a whole, we are very well supported. As a parliamentary answer in July informed the House, the north-west will have 12 Government-funded independent sexual violence advisers—ISVAs—from next year. However, London will have only eight and the north-east only six. That seems like an imbalance.

Back in January 2009, a report from the campaign group End Violence Against Women found that one in four local authorities in Britain had no specialised support services for women who had suffered violence. I hope that the Minister can provide us with an update on improved access throughout the country. Perhaps the new police and crime commissioners will want to deal with those regional imbalances when they get into office.

There is also a concern that the services available can focus solely on the woman as the direct victim of domestic abuse and often fail to take into consideration the impact on other members of the family, especially children. Research by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children estimates that 14% of children under the age of 18 will have been exposed to domestic violence in the UK and cites research studies that estimate that, in 30% to 60% of domestic violence cases, the abusive partner also abuses children in the family. Where domestic violence is present, rates of child abuse and neglect are up to 15 times higher than the national average.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that members of the wider family are affected. Does he share my concern that one consequence of local authority funding cuts is that work with the perpetrators of domestic violence is increasingly coming under pressure and programmes are being closed? Does he agree that, as much as we work with the victim and the victim’s immediate family, we need to focus attention on preventing such violence from happening in the first place?

[Andrew Stephenson]

We definitely do. That is a valid point. One reason why I am talking in particular about the effect on children is that many of the children who see domestic violence at home and for whom that becomes almost a normal daily routine will go on to abuse their children or become violent themselves. We therefore need to consider the wider societal impacts of domestic violence in the home.

A report published in July by the Centre for Social Justice if anything paints an even worse picture than the NSPCC. The CSJ claims that 25% of children in the UK witness domestic violence. It emphasises the psychological damage caused to children and the cycle of abuse, as generations repeat that parental behaviour. It points out that almost two thirds of child witnesses of domestic abuse show more emotional or behavioural problems than the average child. The damage can extend to post-traumatic stress disorder and, less predictably, can even affect IQ levels. The CSJ claims that, on average, children with experience of domestic abuse are 7.25 points lower than others. One of the report’s authors, Dr Samantha Callan, summed it up by saying:

“The impact on children of being a witness of domestic abuse is underplayed even though they are more likely to fail at school, develop anti-social behaviour and go on to harm their own children.”

The report made several recommendations to improve children’s outcomes in domestic abuse cases, including therapeutic provision for children in schools, proactive help for children who have witnessed abuse—instead of the reactive approach of waiting for signs of mental health problems—and better training for social workers.

We have not mentioned the violence that happens within teenage relationships. Again, according to a recent NSPCC report, 25% of girls and 18% of boys report experiencing some form of physical violence from a partner, 11% of girls and 4% of boys report severe physical violence and 72% of girls and 51% of boys report some form of emotional violence from their partner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in the debate. As we have already heard, domestic violence is unlike any other crime. Home is where we are supposed to be safe. If we are mugged in the street, are in a car crash or are robbed at work, we go home, but for victims of domestic violence, home is where they are most unsafe. A common theme for perpetrators of violence is that it is the victim’s fault—“If only you were a better wife, mother, lover, cook, cleaner, this would not happen to you.” Women end up harmed not only physically, but psychologically, with their confidence at rock bottom and trust gone.

As has been said, it often takes many attempts for a woman finally to leave her partner. They may leave and go back, and leave and go back, which can be extremely frustrating for those trying to support people going through that process. We must recognise the difficulty; they are leaving someone who has been a fundamental part of their life, whom they loved—or still love—and who may be the father or mother of their children. When they finally take that step, the most important aspect is to ensure that they stay safe and build a new life. Many women have to move many miles away from their home and from all their networks of friends and family.

Bolton is lucky to have two fantastic domestic violence projects. One is the Fortalice refuge, which not only provides a roof, but counselling, support, education projects and play and youth work for the children. Children are of course themselves traumatised. They have had to leave their home, friends, family and possibly pets, and will also have been witnesses to domestic violence. Whether or not they have actually seen the mum or dad being hit, if they are in the house, they will know very well that something is going on—they hear the screams and see the bruises the next morning. Such children need support. Fortalice can provide play and youth workers who support the children and do therapeutic work to help them through their trauma.

The completeness of the project, with counselling, education and support for children, is at risk from funding cuts. It is also at risk due to the possibility of the services being retendered, with cheaper providers having to be used, and due to the universal credit and housing benefit changes, which will mean that the refuges are less viable.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend mentioned retendering services. Does she agree that a concern of the specialist providers is that generic providers, which can perhaps provide the services more cheaply, are increasingly coming into the market, but they do not have the same experience and sensitivity that is so important for protecting victims of domestic abuse?

[Julie Hilling]

I absolutely agree. It is important that experts work with people who are experiencing domestic violence, whether they be men or women. I agree with the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) that there is not enough support or refuges for male victims of domestic violence. We need experts who are extremely aware of what happens to victims of domestic violence and who have the skills to work with such people to build their confidence and help them through the traumas they have experienced. Just another housing provider coming in will mean that such holistic services will not be the same, and we risk that happening.

Bolton does not have any spaces for male victims of domestic violence. We have only hostels for them to go to, where they will often be with people who are drug or alcohol users. It is not an environment where they can feel safe, build confidence and access support. We clearly need to do more work that area.

Another project in Bolton is Paws for Kids—a misnomer in many ways, because everybody thinks that it is an animal charity, and part of it is. It started as a rescue service for the pets of women experiencing domestic violence. Many women will not leave their homes because they are frightened for the animals that they would leave behind. Pets cannot be taken into refuges. Paws for Kids started by providing a pet fostering service, and it has developed. It now has independent domestic violence advisers and a safe haven project. A woman goes into a refuge, gets support and is then re-housed, but, as I said earlier, she will often be re-housed in an area where she has no contacts whatsoever—no friends and no family. It is one of the riskiest times for a woman to return to a violent partner, and the Paws for Kids safe haven project provides support, friendship and activities for women to settle back into the community.

Paws for Kids is at risk. It gets funding from various streams, but its main funding is disappearing. In the past it had money from the Department of Health, the Home Office and the local authority, but it is at risk of losing its IDVAs next April. One of its IDVAs works particularly with ethnic minority women in Bolton. That post currently has no funding whatsoever. We know that women have been hard hit by the Government’s actions, and no more so than in the field of domestic violence. We need to ensure that funding is coming through to support such projects.

I spoke to representatives from Paws for Kids this morning. They said. “If you’re going to say anything, please talk to MPs about the need for a joined-up approach and support across the piece.” Paws for Kids is working with vets to get them to pass on information to women or report problems. Often, a dog that is a repeat returner to the vet is being abused. Perpetrators of domestic violence use pets as weapons—in fact, they use all sorts of things as weapons. We need the joined-up approach. It is not enough to have just a refuge, a safe haven or a pet fostering service; it is about how we join up services to ensure that women and men are supported through their whole journey.

I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about how he will ensure that there is funding going forward for all such services, so that victims of domestic violence are not doubly disadvantaged, not only by being victims, but by being unable to get the support they badly need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

I might just about accept what the hon. Lady says, but I regret the overtone of class rhetoric that she allowed to creep into her comment. Blackpool North and Cleveleys is an area with a high degree of social deprivation, and the vast bulk of the issues that I encounter on the doorstep are a function of poverty. I accept that domestic violence happens across the classes, and across all divides; but where, in my constituency, it is really a problem that holds back children’s achievement in school, it is a function of poverty. That is why the Prime Minister’s attempts to deal with the troubled families issue should be welcomed and not dismissed as an exercise in class politics.

Perhaps I may explain a little more clearly why the issue is of interest. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston made the point about refuges having to retender; however, I suggest that local authorities should take a broader view and consider the outputs of refuge centres and, as 4Children suggests adopt a payment-by-results approach to reducing family violence. That is in its policy document.

[Kate Green]

One of the problems for refuges, in achieving that, is that often they work with women for very short periods. Women may spend only days in the refuge. It is important that we should not rush down the route of a payment-by-results model, which might put the emergence of provision under even further financial pressure.