Domestic Violence (Police Response)

Debate between Mary Macleod and Philip Davies

Thursday 10th April 2014 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Ms Clark, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) for granting it.

Why are we holding this debate and why is the issue important? First, we need to consider the context of and the facts about domestic abuse. Last year, 77 women were killed by their partners or ex-partners, and each of those horrific incidents carries with it a story of fear and abuse, often over many years. It does not matter where in the country one is; abuse takes place in so many homes and communities that we must address it. I am pleased to see a mix of male and female colleagues here, because I stress that the issue affects men, women and children, and the men affected are often forgotten. According to the survey done of England and Wales last year, there were 700,000 male victims, but I would say that that is probably an under-representation of the real numbers, as men are less likely to come forward and say that they have been victims of domestic abuse or violence. We should consider trying to change that perception.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the comments that she just made. To reinforce her point, the report stated that only 10% of men said they would tell the police about an incident of domestic violence, compared with 27% of women. Undoubtedly, men under-report domestic violence, although the figures for both men and women are still considerable.

[Mary Macleod]

I completely agree. Those numbers are sad, showing that people, especially men, do not yet feel that they can come forward. Additionally, abuse and violence against men is still more accepted: “It’s all right for a woman to hit a man.” Work must be done at all levels and across communities to say that that is completely unacceptable, just as it is unacceptable for a man to hit a woman.

The current crime survey showed 1.2 million female victims in England and Wales, but again, as my hon. Friend says, that is an underestimate. There has been an increase, but that may be partly due to the fact that more people feel that they can talk about the problem. Recent figures for England and Wales show an increase of 37% over the past five years, and the Metropolitan police in my constituency in west London report 41%. The figures are complex for the reasons that I have mentioned, but it is enough to know that it is a major issue in communities in this country and around the world.

It is also disturbing that one in three girls and 16% of boys aged 13 to 17 report having experienced some form of sexual violence, which highlights how much we need to do from a young age in our schools and communities to say that such violence should not be tolerated, especially now in the age of the internet, cyberabuse, sexting and digital means of communication, which are having an impact as well. At the moment, the cost to the UK economy is estimated at about £16 billion a year. If we can do something, not only will it transform people’s lives and change their futures, but it will help with the mountainous cost to the UK economy.

On any given day, more than 7,000 women and children in England are resident in a refuge. We do not have enough refuges; I am not sure whether there is a refuge for men in the country. I feel passionate about the subject because of those statistics, and because the world’s first refuge was set up in my west London constituency, in Chiswick, by Erin Pizzey in 1971. That is partly why I got so involved in the issue. Sandra Horley as chief executive of Refuge, as well as Women’s Aid and the many other organisations in the area, do incredible work to support women and children.

I have spoken at a number of conferences and visited several refuges to speak to the women and children there. They all have moving stories to tell, and one’s heart goes out to them, but that also highlights how important it is for us as Members to speak in schools and communities. I try to do so. At every school that I go to, whether primary or secondary, I talk about it, as I do in the churches, mosques, gurdwaras, Islamic centres or Hindu temples in my constituency. Wherever I am, I bring up such issues, because I feel that it is important to talk about them and get everyone engaged in supporting them. All stories are different. Just this morning, I received an e-mail from a constituent who fears for her safety and that of her son and is desperately seeking help to move to a different part of the country. Those are the people whom we absolutely need to help.

This debate is timely, because it follows a number of key publications: the Police Foundation report “Are we doing enough of the right things to tackle domestic abuse?” in November 2013; the Home Office report “A call to end violence against women and girls: Action plan 2014”; the report by the all-party parliamentary group on domestic and sexual violence, “Women’s access to justice: From reporting to sentencing”, which was supported by Women’s Aid, in March this year; and the recent report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, “Everyone’s business: Improving the police response to domestic abuse”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Macleod]

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

The Mayor of London has developed a strategy on violence against women and girls for 2013 to 2017. The Metropolitan police have identified a senior officer to lead on domestic abuse, and established a continuous improvement initiative known as Operation Dauntless. One of the strands of the operation is targeting domestic abuse perpetrators and managing their behaviour to reduce reoffending. The top five highest-risk perpetrators in each borough will be identified, and tactical plans will be put in place.

The HMIC report on the police response focused on four key aspects of the issue, and showed that we cannot be complacent and that there is much more to do. They were whether a force is effective in identifying victims of domestic abuse—particularly repeat victims and vulnerable victims; whether the initial force response to victims is effective; whether victims of domestic abuse are made safer as a result of the police response and subsequent action; and whether the force has the appropriate systems, processes and understanding to manage domestic abuse and risk to victims in the future.

The study identified some good points. Domestic violence and abuse are a much higher priority—they are a top priority for the Metropolitan police in my constituency in the London borough of Hounslow. Another finding was that 79% of victims were happy with the initial police response. Multi-agency partnership working has become more commonplace. That is the right approach, and can include multi-agency risk assessment conferences and safeguarding hubs.

Eight forces were singled out for particular praise, and I am sorry that the Metropolitan police was not among those. They are Lancashire, Dorset, Durham, Warwickshire, Norfolk, Northumbria, Suffolk and Thames Valley; they were felt to be doing a reasonable job. In Hounslow the police hold a weekly one-stop shop where victims can seek advice. There are monthly multi-agency risk assessment conference meetings. Four independent domestic violence advocates are on hand, and there are action-trigger plans for repeat cases. The police have issued TecSOS phones to the most vulnerable victims, so that they can seek help at the push of a button.

Operation Dauntless contributed to the fact that more than 200 more domestic violence cases were investigated last year, so it made a difference.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend’s list did not include West Yorkshire police, the force in my area; but I have spent a lot of time out with the West Yorkshire police and have always found that they take domestic violence seriously as a crime. It is one of their top priorities. The report showed that for every 100 incidents of domestic violence that they went to, 88 arrests were made. That shows that they take the matter seriously. We should not think of forces as either failing or succeeding; there are many shades of grey in between.

[Mary Macleod]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I listed some police forces that appear to be doing well, but even they can improve. My police force and borough treat the issue seriously, and they know that they must treat it as a top priority for their local community, but there is still more that we can do to encourage them to improve.

Private Landlords and Letting and Managing Agents (Regulation) Bill

Debate between Mary Macleod and Philip Davies

Friday 25th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am pleased that we agree on the main thrust—that the vast majority in the sector are good people trying to do the right thing, with no intention of being bad to their tenants. That is where I am coming from, and I am delighted that it is where the hon. Gentleman is coming from as well. We differ on the best way to help those people do what they are doing. I do not think that piling on extra regulation and cost is the way. He does. That is our genuine disagreement.

The consequences of such regulation would be terrible for some of those landlords. The good people, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, might well have to sell their properties because they cannot afford the extra costs and regulation—perhaps to one of the unscrupulous landlords whom he is trying to stamp out. That would be another terrible unintended consequence of what he is trying to do. The good people are probably, by definition, not making as big a return as those who are not so good. Such a transfer of property would not be to the hon. Gentleman’s or the tenant’s advantage.

In February this year, the Office of Fair Trading concluded that the demand for rental properties was increasing. In 2010-11, the lettings market accounted for 16.5% of all housing in England, which equates to 3.6 million households. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North mentioned, that represents an increase from 2 million in 1999.

Government figures suggest that the number of households in England will grow by an average of 232,000 a year until 2033. There is also a general trend of increasing rental in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Meanwhile, mortgage lending has decreased following the financial crisis, so demand for properties to let may be outstripping supply. That is why it is essential that we do nothing that could lead to a reduction in the supply of private rented accommodation—all that will do is stop people having their own homes to live in.

The results of a National Landlords Association tenants survey of September last year showed that just under 37% of respondents stated that they intended to remain in private rented housing as their long-term housing solution; it seems that they are perfectly happy with their situations. Some 42% responded that they had lived in their current private rented property for more than four years, compared with only 20% who said that they had lived there for less than one year. Again, that is evidence that people are satisfied.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time when many are struggling to get on the housing ladder, it is important that we encourage as many private rental landlords as possible to rent out properties, so that there is more choice? Availability is limited, especially in cities such as London.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She knows a great deal more than me about the problems facing people in her constituency and the rest of London. As ever, she is a great champion of their needs. She clearly recognises that the last thing we want to do is choke off the private rented sector, which is what the Bill would do.

Last year, the Department for Communities and Local Government published a guide for local authorities called “Dealing with Rogue Landlords”. It illustrated many of the remedies already available to deal with what the hon. Member for Mansfield accepted was the small number of problem landlords. The document set out a wide range of powers to tackle the problems associated with criminal landlords. Those powers were enhanced by the Localism Act 2011.

There is other relevant legislation. The Housing Act 2004 allows for a housing health and safety rating system, an evidence-based system used to assess housing conditions in all residential property. That set a minimum standard for all residential properties, ensuring that they are safe and habitable. It comprises an assessment of the presence and severity of 29 hazards, including excess cold.

As a result of the 2004 Act, local authorities have a duty to take enforcement action to secure necessary improvements where those serious hazards are present. They also have the discretionary power to intervene where less serious category 2 hazards are present. To determine the most appropriate form of action, local authorities can consider the extent of the vulnerability of the persons in the accommodation.

The local authority can carry out an assessment of the home and look at the likelihood of an incident arising from the condition of the property and what the harmful outcomes may be. That seems an incredibly useful tool for what the hon. Gentleman refers to as “dealing with rogue landlords.” There is mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation. There is already a statutory duty on local authorities to license larger, higher-risk houses in multiple occupation of three or more storeys housing five or more unrelated persons.

Private landlords must be deemed fit and proper persons if they are to be granted a licence by the local authority. Breach of a licence condition is already an offence, subject to a fine of up to £5,000. Letting or managing a property without a licence is a criminal offence subject to a maximum fine of £20,000. There is also the additional licensing of houses in multiple occupation. Poor conditions and bad management practices can be dealt with by local authorities, which can introduce schemes subject to local consultation. There is also selective licensing—a discretionary power to license all privately rented properties in a designated area deemed to suffer from low housing demand and/or significant and persistent antisocial behaviour.

Furthermore, local authorities are required to provide a robust evidence base for introducing a scheme, and once they have introduced it they have substantial powers. There are special interim management orders to take over the management of individual privately rented properties that give rise to significant problems if landlords do not take action themselves. Local authorities can require approval from a residential property tribunal to do that, but the power is there if there are terrible landlords. There are planning contravention notices for when there may have been a breach of planning control. There are temporary stop notices, enforcement notices, stop notices, breach of conditions notices and injunctions that can be obtained from the High Court to restrain any breach. There are also powers of entry and article 4 directions. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 can be utilised if landlords have been using proceeds of crime in relation to local housing, and it allows specific financial investigation powers for the public sector. Lots of assets have been recovered from people using that tool.

We already have lots of legislation and regulation on the statute book that can help to deal with what the hon. Gentleman would call rogue landlords and the kinds of activities they undertake. In fact, the Department should be commended for its document, which gave people a very clear guide as to exactly what powers local authorities have. Perhaps local authorities have been unaware of what powers they have to deal with rogue landlords in the private sector. A better starting point than more legislation might be to ensure that local authorities are using the powers they already have in existing legislation to deal with the issues that he is trying to deal with.

On the register and the registrar, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any idea of how much registration would cost and how much the registrar who is administering all this would be paid. Would it be a full-time or part-time role? How would the person be selected for the post? Would the role be advertised to the general public? Would it be a Government appointment? Would the landlords themselves, who were paying into this scheme, be able to appoint the person they wanted to run it? It cannot be a political post; it would need to be independent. How long would the role last for? All sorts of questions about the nitty-gritty of some of the things in the Bill need to be considered.