Violence against Women and Girls

Debate between Mims Davies and Jess Phillips

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called in this important debate to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I welcome this general debate being called by the Government on such a topical issue as we return to the Chamber in the new year. It is important that there is a significant focus on women and girls being heard in every single community. I agree with the Minister: enough is enough. That is one of the most magnificent campaigns the Home Office could have come up with, and I applaud all those who work in the Department on this important issue and who are focused on protecting women and girls in every nation, region and community.

I heard people being congratulated in business questions on their awards in the new year honours. One of those was Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who I had the pleasure of working with, and I know that Ministers will enjoy working with her.

Let us all agree in the Chamber this afternoon and say clearly that we do not accept any abuse directed at us as Members of Parliament, Ministers and people speaking up for women and girls, such as that we have seen in recent days. There are women and girls in our communities who want to know that we are here and are focused on keeping them safe. When it comes to domestic abuse or any kind of criminality aimed at women and girls in our community, criminality is criminality, wherever it is found. Domestic abuse, wherever it is, must continue to be tackled. It cannot remain untackled; it must always be uncovered. I welcome the measures that the Minister outlined in her speech and the strategy, in terms of education, support and the pursuit of justice, particularly in respect of deepfakes and intimate images.

I appreciate the focus on halving violence against women and girls, but that is not enough. Let us focus on pure eradication—that is one thing that those from all parts of the House can agree on. We can equally agree on how wonderful Dawn Dines is. She has led the Stamp Out Spiking campaign and brought such energy to it. In my brief time working in the Department, I wanted to see a focus on an updated spiking law, so let us celebrate with Dawn when that comes through.

We very much welcome the protection orders that have been brought forward. On behalf of my party, I want to thank and applaud all the charities, groups and networks that support survivors and victims, so that there is always someone to turn to. I would like to reiterate that: there is always someone to turn to, so please speak out. All too often, people feel that they will not be heard. Sadly, there is a leap from rhetoric to intimidation and then potentially to violence when it comes into the political arena. We need to ensure that that does not seep down into what victims feel might happen to them if they come forward and speak out.

Our men and young boys are key, as the Minister said. This is a partnership. Everything in life and in the community is a partnership. I have the honour of co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on men and boys’ issues, and I ask the Minister to update the House on the men and boys ambassador and the ministerial work being done on this.

It is the duty of any Government to keep their citizens safe, and I am proud of the work of the outgoing Conservative Government. We did our utmost to fulfil that job. In the face of the pandemic and the war on our continent, we focused on ensuring that our constituents felt safer and that our commitment to this never wavered. Progress is best made when a Government build on the foundations of the previous one; perhaps this fixing of the foundations is one area that we can agree on. It was therefore a little bit disappointing to see in the Labour manifesto—some of us did read it—that

“For too long, violence against women and girls has been ignored.”

I do not think that is the case, but let us not have 50% of it ignored; let us have the whole lot eradicated. Let us ensure that the voices and the asks of the women and girls in our communities are listened to.

In the last 24 hours there has been a vote on victims of grooming gangs, which was very difficult. We need to set the record straight on why the Opposition are strongly focused on getting agreement that no stone should be left unturned on this issue. The previous Government accepted 18 of the 20 recommendations in the important Jay review, and it is disappointing that the legislation could not be agreed on before the change of Government, although it was put forward in the wash-up—a techie term, for people watching. Ultimately, we wanted to tackle the issue, and my party is again determined to work with the Government to get this moving.

The last Conservative Home Secretary to focus on grooming gangs was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), who rightly set up the taskforce that led to 500 further arrests and over 4,000 more victims protected. In all the hubbub of the last day or two, what is important is that the questions of victims and survivors are answered on the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.

The taskforce set up under the Conservative Government worked with 43 forces in England and Wales on supporting investigations into child sexual exploitation and grooming. It is right to give our police officers on the frontline the support they need to tackle this scandal. The Minister rightly talked about justice, but it must start with coming forward to the police. I completely agree with her: the crucial step of coming forward and saying what has happened is the bravest and hardest thing imaginable for a young child or woman who knows that the people around them should have been protecting them. We need to ensure that the police are there for them.

As a vital next step, let us all agree to collect the data on ethnicity. Let us not shy away from this. Let us get it and share it. This is at the heart of the matter. People feel that political correctness should not hold us back. To protect all victims from sexual abuse and abhorrent crimes, no stone should be unturned. This is further and wider than what IICSA investigated, which is why my party believes that a further-reaching inquiry is urgently needed. There was nothing in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, nobody in the Chamber should feel that they cannot raise on the Floor of the House, without fear or favour, something that is happening in their constituency. That is what we come here to do.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

No one should ever feel afraid of raising any issue in this Chamber with me or anybody else. To reiterate, the ethnicity data is collected. It was published for the first time in November, and I am not entirely sure why the Opposition keep insisting that it has not been published. To be honest, the data that had started to be collected under their Government is not good enough, and we will be working to improve it, but ethnicity data is collected and published.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for coming to the Dispatch Box to give that undertaking to the House. Our friend Sajid Javid and others were keen to ensure that that was out there. I am sure that will reassure the House.

Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill

Debate between Mims Davies and Jess Phillips

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th December 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Jess Phillips]

Is the Minister aware that if someone who has a job tries to get into a refuge, it is almost impossible to pay the cost of living in that refuge? The vast majority of people who live in a domestic abuse refuge are benefit dependent. In case after case, year after year, if women in work come forward, the decision is to leave their job or get out of the situation; and nothing has been done about that. Although the issue is important in jobcentres, the current situation is discriminatory.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. That is exactly why the EDAC and working with employers is vital.

[Jess Phillips]

What about the benefits system?

[Mims Davies]

I will come to that. It is vital for employers to have that advice, so that they can understand such a situation and support people—if those people are in work, or if they are coming out of a refuge situation and want to go into work. I am very aware of the benefits situation that the hon. Lady mentioned; it is part of my new portfolio and something I am looking at. I will be happy to engage with the hon. Lady. It concerns me deeply as a woman. If I were in that situation, it would be difficult to move forward. I take her point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

Very much so. This legislation is important for anyone in a perilous situation at home. To be clear, such abuse is criminality in the home. If it took place on our neighbour’s front lawn or down the precinct, it would be criminal. Whoever is involved and however it is brought about, it is criminality. For anyone involved in domestic abuse—anyone perpetrating it, male or female, and whether on a male or a female—it is criminality, fair and square. Those people it is happening to should be empowered and supported to come forward. I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point.

Let me make some progress. I will discuss why the Bill came about, which we have touched on briefly. The CMS processes and policies are regularly reviewed and kept in line with best practice. The Department commissioned an independent review of the way in which the CMS supports survivors of domestic abuse, because we want to take practical steps to ensure that those who have suffered domestic abuse can use the CMS safely and with confidence.

We have learned lessons from customers’ experiences and acted on their feedback. We have consulted with stakeholders, some of whom we have heard about today. The Independent Case Examiner—ICE—who is the complaints arbitrator, highlighted a case where a paying parent was allowed access to direct pay, despite there being a non-molestation order in place. That is incredibly worrying. We need to make sure we have aligned our policy in accordance with the ICE view that that was inappropriate, despite the paying parent paying their maintenance in full and on time.

We are not complacent with this. The day-to-day policy sits with my noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Stedman-Scott. She is very strident that the CMS must be at its best. We must learn when things go wrong, and we must be strident in pursuit of parents doing the right thing for their children. We can all agree on that.

The collection charges are applied to all CMS collect and pay cases. The charges are 20% on top of the liability for the paying parent, and 4% of the maintenance received for the receiving parent. I appreciate and understand colleagues’ points. The charges were originally introduced to provide both parents with an incentive to collaborate. Running the collect and pay service incurs costs to the taxpayer. It is therefore reasonable for most parents to contribute towards running this service.

However, we recognise that many parents who the Bill aims to support could be among the most vulnerable groups, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye has said. Full consideration is being given to exempting victims of domestic abuse from collection charges, although collection charges do not form part of the primary legislation and are set out in secondary legislation. We are clear that charges on the whole are the right approach, but we are willing to consider, and are rightly considering, where exemptions may be appropriate. I hope that reassures the Committee.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley asked about domestic abuse training. We have substantially strengthened the CMS procedures and processes to support customers experiencing domestic abuse, and to help them to tell us what is going on. I hope this reassures the hon. Member: with particular input from Women’s Aid, a programme of domestic abuse training has been designed and delivered for all CMS caseworkers. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member knows different and is concerned, I am happy to hear more from her and from Women’s Aid.

Let me provide some details. The training recognises that domestic abuse can take various forms, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch. It can be physical, psychological, emotional and financial. The training gives appropriate signposting to domestic abuse support groups, and advice on contacting the police if necessary. If customers do not feel able to do that, they are asked whether they are content for the Child Maintenance Service to do so on their behalf. We are strident in making sure that those people engage with us and are supported.

[Jess Phillips]

As a professional in this area, even from the description of the training I have concerns about the line being taken. For example, I would never tell somebody that I was going to call the police unless there was a genuine threat to their life in that moment. The training is not designed or delivered by Women’s Aid; there has been a conversation with Women’s Aid. I urge the Department to have independent specialist training by professionals.

[Mims Davies]

I am telling the Committee the steps we have taken to secure better training for the people on our phones, but I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point and that her for it. A complex needs toolkit has been developed for caseworkers that includes clear steps to follow to support customers who are experiencing abuse. The toolkit is regularly reviewed and strengthened on the basis of customer insight to ensure that we evaluate the effectiveness of the guidance and training on domestic abuse. This is a complex area that I cannot cover fully in Committee, but I am happy to take the hon. Lady’s points, including on Women’s Aid, to the service as a challenge. I hope that comforts her.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Mims Davies and Jess Phillips

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very good point, unfortunately. The thing that we might get, as the leave campaign said, is a squashing of workers’ rights; the thing that we will not get is £350 million going into the NHS. If only there was a level of consistency in what we have been promised.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I have always enjoyed working on the Women and Equalities Committee, which has been incredibly harmonious, listening to both men’s and women’s voices. I understand the spirit of new clause 100, but I find it faintly objectionable—I know who I am addressing this to in using that phraseology—to criticise our Prime Minister in talking about women’s rights and equalities, because she has led the way on tackling female genital mutilation, making sure that workers in particular areas have better life chances, and tackling coercive control. May I implore the hon. Lady to believe that Conservative Members, particularly our Prime Minister, do believe in the rights of those both male and female?

[Jess Phillips]

I have absolutely no doubt that some Conservative Members care about women’s rights, but I have lots of evidence to suggest that some absolutely do not, and need, frankly, a good, strong talking to by our Prime Minister. It is because I know how committed the Prime Minister has been to dealing with issues of violence against women like FGM, and cross-border issues to do with FGM, that I cannot understand why she would whip her party not to vote for this.

When Ministers are at the negotiating table thinking about the competitiveness of the UK economy, what will be high on their list? Will it be how to ensure that we protect and enhance workers’ rights or women’s rights—I think we can see the answer on the Government Front Bench—or will it be to undercut our EU neighbours by becoming a low-regulation, low-tax economy? The esteemed High Court justice Dame Laura Cox has said:

“Some of the basic rights that we now take for granted—pregnancy and maternity rights, part-time workers’ rights, equal pay for work of equal value—are all at risk if the UK becomes a low regulation economy.”

Is that the true destination of these negotiations? Can the Minister give us an assurance that powers in the great—or otherwise—repeal Bill will not be used to remove any equality and employment rights at a later date? Will the rights of part-time workers, pregnant women at work and women fighting for equal pay really be safe with them, whatever happens?