Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Baker and Helen Jones

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

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

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

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

[Norman Baker]

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

Domestic Violence (Police Response)

Debate between Norman Baker and Helen Jones

Thursday 10th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Jones]

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

[Norman Baker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

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

[Norman Baker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

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

[Norman Baker]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Baker and Helen Jones

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

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

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

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

[Norman Baker]

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

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

Female Genital Mutilation

Debate between Norman Baker and Helen Jones

Monday 10th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Norman Baker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Jones]

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

[Norman Baker]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

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

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

[Helen Jones]

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

[Norman Baker]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

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

[Helen Jones]

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

[Norman Baker]

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

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Norman Baker and Helen Jones

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I am not quite sure what was in the Lords thoughts. Other examples were given—bellringers and so on—and nobody in this country would want, in any way, to limit the activities of bellringers. I fear that the Government’s honest attempt to deal with genuine antisocial behaviour has been misconstrued, either inadvertently or otherwise, but we are where we are. We have accepted the form of words—“harassment, alarm or distress”—which was wanted by their lordships.

The next set of amendments in this group relate to under-18s. Lords amendments 3, 4 and 12 enable an applicant for an injunction to apply to the youth court for permission to have cases involving respondents, who are both over and under 18 years of age, to be heard together in the youth court if it is in the interests of justice to do so. If the youth court does not grant the application, the hearings will be separated, with the adults in the county court and the under-18s in the youth court. By linking these hearings, we will help to put victims first.

Lords amendment 10 brings us to the prohibitions that can be included in an injunction where the respondent is under 18. As originally drafted, clause 12 meant that the injunction could be used to exclude a respondent of any age from his or her home in cases of violence or risk to others. However, in the Lords, concerns were expressed, by my Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Hamwee, on whether it would ever be appropriate to exclude under-18s from their own home on the grounds of antisocial behaviour. Lords amendment 10 limits the exclusion provisions to injunctions where the respondent is over 18. Where it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from the family home, there are sufficient powers in other safeguarding legislation to ensure that that is possible without the need to resort to an injunction.

Other amendments and provisions in this group relate to tenancy injunctions, the criminal behaviour order, dispersal powers, the public spaces protection order, the recovery of possession of dwelling houses and the issuing of statutory guidance. I will be very happy to pick up on any questions that Members have on any of those particular matters.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining how the Government do not intend to oppose the Lords amendments, although it is interesting that he bows to the wisdom of the Lords on this issue, but not on miscarriages of justice. The Lords amendments, particularly on the threshold for injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance, improve the Bill, taking the threshold from “nuisance and annoyance” to “harassment, alarm or distress”, but overall we feel that the Bill still weakens the powers against antisocial behaviour, which is of growing concern to people. It is a badly worded Bill thrown together on the usual principle of, “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it”, which the Government seem to operate under. Large parts of the Bill will not offer people the protection they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respond to some of the points that have been raised in a very wide-ranging debate. As you will appreciate, we are considering a huge range of disparate measures, so I will do my best to make sense of them. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson’s general support, even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) says, we are not clear whether they are accusing us of being too draconian or too weak in our response to antisocial behaviour. As they are accusing us of both, perhaps we have got it about right.

I know that the Opposition are wedded to the ASBO, but the simple fact is that, although it may have been useful on occasions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has said—I am not saying it has not—it has generally been a failure. In 2012, the 1,329 ASBOs issued represented a decrease of 68% since 2005. Up to the end of 2012, 58% of ASBOs were breached at least once and 43% were breached more than once. Where ASBOs were breached, they were breached five times on average, and the breach rate for under-18s was 69%. Defending a continuation of that arrangement is not a sensible approach for anyone in this House who is as sensible and concerned as everybody should be, and is, about tackling antisocial behaviour.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) also referred to the use of hotels and other such premises for child sexual exploitation and, in particular, for grooming. She wanted to know how the law stood on that matter. If she looks at Lords amendment 77, she will see that subsection 1(b) of the new clause we propose refers to

“conduct that is preparatory to, or otherwise connected with, child sexual exploitation.”

I believe that provision is sufficiently wide as to provide reasonable grounds for the police to take action.

[Helen Jones]

That was precisely my concern; I fear that it is difficult to prove a grooming offence, because of the nature of the offence. I asked the Minister this earlier, but will he keep this under review and, if necessary, come back to the House with further proposals?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to keep anything like that under review. Everyone in this House shares a dislike of and distaste for the reprehensible child exploitation activities that some people engage in. Of course there are other evidential trails that the police can use. Grooming often takes place online, and so sometimes evidence can be accrued and then added to the use of a hotel, which then gives the police reasonable grounds for taking action. Of course we will keep matters under review, because we want to ensure that we eliminate all such cases as far as it is possible to do so. We share that objective across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

On the face of it, if no offence has been committed or pursued, there is no case to answer. However, I imagine that responsible owners would want to take into account the activity that has taken place or the attack on the individual that has occurred. Of course it is always open to people to take civil action if they believe that that is the appropriate course of action. If I find out any further details, I will drop my hon. Friend a line on that particular matter.

The hon. Member for Warrington North referred to the issue of firearms ownership and guidance, particularly in relation to domestic violence. I assure her that we take both issues extremely seriously. Indeed I am spending a great deal of time on those two issues in my ministerial role. I want to make it plain that the law sets out that the police must consider whether a firearms or shotgun applicant can possess a gun without danger to public safety or the peace. The detailed criteria are set out in the firearms guidance, which can be amended when we believe it to be necessary. On 31 July last year, we took action to strengthen the guidance for the police on domestic violence specifically, and published new, more detailed guidance. For the avoidance of doubt, if there is an expectation or an understanding that someone has been involved in domestic violence, I would expect in most if not all circumstances the police to refuse to issue a licence to that particular individual.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being generous in giving way. If the Government accept that that should happen, can he explain why they are so opposed to having it written into law?

[Norman Baker]

The Opposition, as we saw during their time in government, appear to believe that the only solution to anything is to create a law about it. If laws and statutory guidance already exist and it is common practice for certain processes to be followed, it might not be necessary to create a law to achieve the aim that she wants. The question that she should be asking me is whether we have put in place a mechanism to achieve the aim that she rightly identifies, and the answer to that is yes. We do not need to create further legislation to deal with something that has already been dealt with satisfactorily under present arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Norman Baker and Helen Jones

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

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

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

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

[Norman Baker]

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

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Norman Baker and Helen Jones

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Norman Baker)]

I will be brief because, as Members will recall, clause 104 introduces a new offence of forced marriage. The new offence is an important part of our efforts to stamp out that appalling practice, and will send a clear message that it will not be tolerated. I am pleased the Scottish Government has also decided that forced marriage should be a criminal offence, and new clause 9 introduces a similar provision for Scotland. Breach of a forced marriage protection order is already a criminal offence in Scotland, so there is no need for a similar amendment to mirror clause 103, which makes that the case in England and Wales. The other amendments in the group are consequential on new clause 9.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I was not in the Chamber yesterday, so may I welcome the Minister to his new post and let him know that any conspiracy theories he comes up with about me will probably be true?

The Opposition accept the need to deal decisively with forced marriage in Scotland, as in England, and we are pleased that the Government are extending to Scotland provisions that make forcing someone into a marriage a criminal offence. We therefore support the new clause and its consequential amendments. It was clear from evidence taken in Committee that there are differing views on the issue, and some who are active in the sector oppose the use of criminal law in that area because they believe it would deter victims from reporting what is happening to them. That is an understandable view, but not one I share. Victims of forced marriage are British. They are of many ages, although many are young people. British boys and girls, of whatever colour, deserve the same protection as every other British boy and girl.

It is important to make the point that forced marriages are not about religious beliefs—they are not condoned by any of the major faiths, whether Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Forced marriages are about abuse, often of children. What we condemn as abuse in any other sector of society cannot be condoned because of the colour of a person’s skin, their ethnic background or their parents’ culture. I am therefore glad that new clause 9 will make coercing someone into a marriage a criminal offence in all parts of the UK. I hope we will give young people, their communities and others the confidence to challenge forced marriage and to stand up and say no, knowing that they are supported by the law throughout the country, and, I would hope, by others in the community.

It is fair to say that, in some respects, Scotland has moved ahead of the rest of the UK on the matter because, as the Minister has said, breach of a forced marriage protection order is a criminal offence in Scotland, as it will be in the rest of the UK when the Bill becomes law. It is therefore clearly right that new clause 9 extends the criminal offence of coercing someone into a marriage into Scottish law. However, the UK Government and the Scottish Government need to do much more. No forced marriage protection orders have been issued in Scotland since its current legislation came into force, and yet no one would seriously argue that there were no forced marriages last year. In fact, the UK forced marriage unit gave support in 1,483 cases related to possible forced marriage. That is a high number, but the National Centre for Social research report published in 2009 estimated that there were between 5,000 and 8,000 reported cases throughout the UK each year. Of course, many cases go unreported.

The Opposition therefore support the Government’s legislation for Scotland and the rest of the UK, but I should tell the Minister that the legislation by itself is not enough. We need to put in place a system that allows people to report when they are at risk of forced marriage, that encourages them to report, and that offers them the support they need. Currently, that is sadly lacking. For example, much more work needs to be done in schools, so that teachers are alert to the signs that a pupil might be being forced into marriage. Young people need to be educated so that, if they or one of their friends are at risk, they know where to seek help.

I therefore ask the Minister to say what the Government are doing to raise awareness of forced marriage. Where is the money to fund such a campaign? In 2012, the forced marriage unit said that many agencies, whether those dealing with children or with vulnerable adults, still did not recognise forced marriage as a safeguarding issue. That is totally unacceptable. There is evidence that police throughout the UK recognise the need to deal with forced marriage proactively, but other agencies—not just schools, but colleges and health organisations—still have a long way to go. I hope Ministers discuss the measures needed with the Scottish Government, so that we can develop a common approach throughout these islands.

We must have training not only for teachers to allow them to recognise the signs that their students are at risk, but for others. Teachers are important because, sometimes, they are the only person outside the family with whom a victim has contact at first. I remember the tragic case of Shafilea Ahmed in my area—she lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). She was so desperate that she drank bleach when she was taken to Pakistan. Later, she was missing for a week before anyone from the school raised the fact that she was not there, despite the warning signs she had given. Teachers did not intervene, and health workers did not follow up or ask the right questions. In the end, she was tragically murdered. I tell the Minister that, although the legislation is welcome, the Opposition want to know what he will do to ensure there is not another Shafilea.

Social services provision is struggling because of the draconian cuts the Minister’s Government are making to council services. Women’s refuges have lost a third of their budget, and refuges and specialist advice services are closing. There is evidence that services that cater for women from black and ethnic minority communities are particularly hard hit. One test of the willingness of both the Scottish Government and the coalition Government to enforce the provisions will be whether they provide the services that people need.