Men’s Violence against Women and Girls
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Darlington
Right—I am waiting for the next intervention. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) that councillors in their local communities and organisations such as that are making the difference and are the places that women are turning to because, unfortunately, the system is letting them down—not least around rape. Despite five out of six rapes not even being reported to the police, in the year ending July almost 70,000 women courageously reported their rape. Only 2.7% of those ever made it to charge and court, while for other crimes the rate is 7%. That means in this country it is easier to get away with rape than with robbery.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. There are around 3,000 reports of violence against women and girls made in Somerset every month and at least one in 12 women experience violence against them each year. Many of those incidents go unreported. A constituent of mine was sadly regularly physically abused and gaslighted by her ex-partner, and she felt really disappointed and disillusioned with the police response. To me it is no wonder that so many women are not confident in reporting the abuse against them. So does the hon. Member agree with me that gaslighting is a serious problem in tackling violence against women and girls?
Emily Darlington
The hon. Member is absolutely right; we need to look at why women do not have confidence in reporting to police. Some of that will be because of the numbers that we have seen go through to prosecution, and because of their worries that it will get worse for them before it gets better and about the protection they may or may not receive.
However, I am really proud to be part of a Government that has declared violence against women and girls to be a national emergency. I am proud of the work we have already done, committing to halve it, with the introduction of the domestic abuse protection orders to give great greater protection to women, Raneem’s law to transform how police handle domestic violence calls, workplace harassment laws, new protections for victims of stalking, and making spiking a specific criminal offence. No doubt that is down to the amazing women we have leading on this issue in Government, not least my hon. Friend the Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and their absolute commitment and tireless work on this issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for bringing forward this debate on such an important issue, and for what she has called the debate—it may not have been noted by anyone other than the eagle-eyed—which refers to “violence by men against women”. I noted it and appreciate it, because men’s violence against women and girls ruins lives on a truly terrible scale. It must be treated as a national emergency. It is a high-harm and high-volume crime which, because of the high volume, is difficult to grapple with, but we are absolutely determined to do that.
The data tells us that crimes such as domestic abuse, stalking, rape and other sexual offences disproportionately affect women. We also know that these crimes are predominantly, though not exclusively, committed by men. We have committed to halving violence against women and girls in the next decade. I will refer to some of the steps we are taking, although it is very nice for a Minister when all the steps we are going to take are mentioned in the preceding speech. I appreciate that. The steps include addressing the root causes, underlying behaviours and attitudes that cause violence against women and girls, and ensuring perpetrators are brought to justice. The femicides my hon. Friend highlighted when she began her speech tell the story better than any of us could. They are harrowing and each one a tragedy.
To say a positive thing, this new Parliament behaved beautifully in the previous debate and I feel proud today to call myself a parliamentarian. Mr Speaker, I do not know how you do it, because I literally cannot identify half the new Members of Parliament! The amount of men, from all parties, I have heard speaking up on violence against women and girls since I have been in my ministerial position has been a real sea change. The theme of this year’s White Ribbon Day, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), is “It starts with men”. I have really, really felt that. I doff my cap to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has been in pretty much every debate I have been in on this subject. I really do feel like there has been quite a tide-turning in this regard, and it is really lovely to see here today men and women together speaking up on this issue.
We all know that domestic abuse is often a hidden crime that is not reported to the police. That is not acceptable. Victims deserve to feel safe and for justice to be upheld. In addition to relentlessly pursing perpetrators, it is also essential that we prevent reoffending and ensure that there is a comprehensive approach to perpetrators, from early intervention to targeting the most prolific and repeat offenders. This is why, as I outlined earlier—actually, I did not outline them; my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central outlined some of the things the Government are going to do—we have implemented a series of bold measures designed to strengthen the police response to violence against women and girls, and protect victims and hold perpetrators to account.
Sarah Dyke
After a case of domestic abuse, my constituent dealt with over two years of delay before eventually the CPS decided not to proceed with the case, as the perpetrator had not carried out any further cases. With that in mind, does the Minister agree that we must address delays in domestic abuse cases and referrals from the police to the CPS, as they pose a unique risk to women’s safety?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. I think everybody sat in this debate could probably refer to a case in their own constituency with similar delays. In my role, I work very closely with both the police and the CPS to try to bottom out the issues causing some of those delays—other than the general degradation of our justice system—and to try to make improvements where we can. The attrition rate of victims dropping out is currently one of the biggest barriers to us holding people to account. And who could blame a person for dropping out after being made to wait? I totally agree with the hon. Lady.
As part of our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, we will ask police to relentlessly pursue those perpetrators who pose the greatest risk to women, and to use all the tools at their disposal to protect victims and get dangerous offenders off our streets. We will work with police to develop a national framework that uses data-driven tools and algorithms to track and target high-harm offenders involved in domestic abuse, sexual assault, harassment and stalking. In addition to the relentless pursuing of perpetrators, it is also essential that we prevent reoffending and, with that, have a truly comprehensive approach to deal with perpetration.
Many hon. Members in interventions mentioned brilliant organisations in their constituencies. I am delighted to hear that people have those—time was, there were not brilliant organisations all across the country. We must ensure that we maintain those brilliant services, which are so vital for helping keep victims safe.
I turn to the attitudes that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central talked about, and specifically the attitudes of young men. I am the mother of two teenage boys. One is about to be not a teenager but an actual real adult—I mean, he’s not paying me any rent yet. [Laughter.] The data that she read out does not surprise me.
I think we always felt that there would be progress, with the “It’s just a domestic” attitudes gradually getting better with time. But I have been alarmed by what we see in the attitudes, perpetration and victimisation data, which is that currently this crime is trending young: the biggest growth area is those aged 16 to 19. All of us would think that that is a tragedy we had not seen coming; we thought that with the younger generation we would be able to program it out. I am afraid to say that that has not been done, so prevention and education will be fundamental to our approach. We will tackle the root causes of these crimes, including supporting our education system to teach children about respectful and healthy relationships and consent. The idea that just because someone matched with somebody else on an online app meant they were owed something is the weakest idea of consent that I have ever heard.
We know that domestic abuse is one of the main reasons why children come into contact with children’s social care, and it is a feature in more than half the serious incidents reported to the child safeguarding practice review panel. We know that those who experience abuse before the age of 16 are more likely to go on to be victims or perpetrators in adulthood. That is why prevention has to be the absolute cornerstone of the Government’s actions going forward.
The Government are currently reviewing the content of the relationships, sex and health education curriculum. The Secretary of State for Education has been clear that children’s wellbeing must be at the heart of guidance for schools. As such, the Government will look carefully at the consultation responses and discuss with stakeholders and consider the relevant evidence before setting out the next steps.
I express my gratitude once again to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and to all other hon. Members who are here on a Friday. Our mission is to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. It is ambitious but essential, and we will not do it without everybody in the House—as well as everybody in this country—doing it together. The points raised in the debate have once more reaffirmed how vital this work is and reminded us of the responsibility that we bear to women and girls across the country. The Government remain steadfast in that commitment and will tackle these issues head-on. I look forward to collaborating with all colleagues, as I always have.
Question put and agreed to.
Violence against Women and Girls
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this crucial debate, and I pay tribute to the Minister for her work over the last few years in raising awareness of the tragic cost of violence against women and girls.
I want to draw attention to an issue that I believe is a critical front in the overall struggle to end the epidemic of violence against women and girls—an issue that far too often goes under-reported, unrecognised and unappreciated. It is the crime against women and girls of stalking, which the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) spoke about. Stalking is a form of psychological violence that will affect approximately one in five women. It is an insidious crime that can shatter lives. I have heard from stalking victims who feel trapped, are too afraid to leave their homes and are constantly looking over their shoulder on their way to work.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this incredibly important debate. Violence against women and girls on trains has risen by 50%, and figures from the British Transport police show that over a third of women using the rail system are likely to be assaulted. That is clearly unacceptable. With that in mind, does my hon. Friend agree that a more holistic system is needed to deal with the problem and to help the British Transport Police to get not only a conviction, but a suitable conviction for perpetrators, as well as increase the perception of safety on our rail network overall?
Luke Taylor
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Victims of stalking often find themselves cutting ties with loved ones out of fear of repercussions and putting them in danger. Even years after the harassment ends, stalking survivors are often left with lingering anxiety, trauma and pain. In the most extreme cases, stalking can escalate to acts of physical violence, such as rape and, most tragically of all, murder. It is a crime that thrives on control, leaving victims in a constant state of fear and uncertainty.
What makes stalking so dangerous is that it is often difficult to detect. A victim may not immediately notice someone following them, watching their movements or infiltrating their personal space online. The harassment might appear subtle at first but can persist for years, eroding the victim’s sense of safety and security.
We cannot continue to leave the current legislation on stalking outside the scope of public debate. As it stands, the legal framework is not robust enough for victims and, at a more fundamental level, we must change the way we think and talk about stalking to recognise its severity. I have heard harrowing accounts from women who, when they confide in friends, family or even the police about their experiences, are often met with dismissive responses. Too often the perpetrator is written off as nothing more than a clingy ex-boyfriend who simply cannot move on.
Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, stalking offences are categorised under two distinct sections, 2A and 4A. Those sections have created ambiguity as to how stalking is understood and prosecuted. Under section 2A, it is defined as pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to stalking. That is considered a lesser offence, carrying a maximum sentence of up to six months in prison upon conviction. Under the more serious 4A offence, the perpetrator must be proven to have caused the victim fear of violence, or significant alarm or harassment that disrupts their daily life.
It is clear that there are cracks in that framework. The two separate offences fail to recognise the total scope of stalking and its impact on victims’ lives, and there are real barriers to pursuing a section 4A offence. Victims are often left with the burden of proving the scale and severity of the stalking to convict perpetrators under the section 4A offence, and they must also meet an unreasonably high threshold of evidence, demonstrating that the crime has disrupted their life to a terrifying extent just to secure an appropriate sentence for the perpetrators. That process can take years, leaving victims trapped in fear while their tormentors remain at large.
The burden placed on victims to provide extensive evidence often leads many who pursue a section 4A offence to lose faith and withdraw from the criminal justice system altogether. In London alone, the 2024 London stalking review found that 45% of stalking victims felt compelled to abandon their pursuit of justice. That is just not good enough. I therefore urge the Government to reform the current legislative framework and take action to address that gap in our justice system. A new, singular and well-defined stalking offence must be created with victims in mind. We cannot continue to allow years of harassment to persist before victims are able to seek prosecution.
The London stalking review revealed another chilling statistic:
“39% of the recorded stalking experienced by under 18s was the more serious Stalking 4a”.
That throws into sharp relief the importance of defining stalking laws as they pertain to social media, which many perpetrators use to harass and exploit young victims online. As I have said, many young girls may be entirely unaware that they are being stalked at first. Disturbingly, the ability of stalkers to hide behind anonymous accounts and leave few digital traces of their stalking makes that worse. It allows stalkers to hide and to commit crimes in ways that can easily be overlooked compared with in-person harassment.
I recently met a brave woman in my constituency who, as a victim of stalking, shared her fears about young girls in her family using social media platforms. These platforms enabled her perpetrator to harass her for years. She worries that her family members could fall into similar traps due to a lack of awareness around recognising such behaviours. We must urgently raise awareness about how young people, especially girls, are targeted online. As has been said, educating them in schools about the warning signs of online stalking is critical to preventing this crime from escalating into more severe forms of harassment.
I have focused today on one aspect of violence against women and girls, among many others that demand our attention. I was appalled to read the national statement from the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, which highlighted the staggering scale of this issue. Every day, 3,000 crimes of violence against women and girls are recorded in this country. That is simply unacceptable and we should call it out for what it is: an epidemic of coercion, control and violence that has no place in our society.
I welcome the Government’s pledge to halve the numbers over the next decade. I look forward to working cross-party to explore how I and the Liberal Democrats can contribute to meaningful changes in the law on stalking and other acts of gendered violence, so that, within our lifetimes, we can stamp out this epidemic once and for all. No one can truly be free if they are forced to live in fear, and no women or girl can live their life to the fullest while this scourge goes unchallenged.
In the words of the White Ribbon campaign group, which has done such an admirable job of putting and keeping this issue on the agenda, this starts with men. The men in this room, me included, must recognise our responsibility, hold ourselves accountable, challenge the warning signs and dangerous societal norms that we see around us, and act now to protect women and girls across our country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Phillips
I have met Samantha Billingham, a local west midlands legend campaigning in this space, a number of times and I share my hon. Friend’s shock at the lack of knowledge about coercive control. All police, social workers and others in contact with victims of domestic abuse ought to be aware of coercive control and its insidious effects on the victim, and of course I would be delighted to meet her.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
There is a significant disparity in sentencing for murder based on whether a weapon was taken to the scene of a domestic crime or was already present. Sentences for murderers who used a weapon already available at the crime scene start 10 years lower than sentences for those who brought a weapon with them. Does the Minister agree that this disparity must be tackled?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady and pay tribute to Julie Devey and Carole Gould, two of the parents who are fighting this campaign. A Ministry of Justice sentencing review is currently ongoing, and I know that Carole and Julie and Members here will want to feed into that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) for the leadership she is showing in her community. The point she raises is partly about increasing neighbourhood police numbers, which is part of this Labour Government’s plan. It is also about ensuring that we have partnerships between the police and local communities, rather than communities feeling that they have to do this alone. Such partnerships between the police and communities are at the heart of the British model of policing by consent, which is what we need to restore and rebuild after the damage that has been done.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The cost of rural crime shot up by 41% in the south-west between 2022 and 2023, while 86% of respondents to a recent National Farmers Union survey said that rural crime was negatively affecting farmers’ mental health. How is the Department supporting neighbourhood officers and rural beats to adequately deal with the heightened levels of rural crime?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes a serious point. We need to increase neighbourhood policing in rural areas and to recognise the additional different challenges that rural areas can face, both because of the geography and the particular kinds of crime that affect farmers and farming equipment. That is why we have set out our intention to draw up a new rural crime action plan, alongside our plans for neighbourhood policing.
Assisted Dying
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for bringing forward this important debate. I also thank the petitioners, including 645 in Somerton and Frome, and everyone who reached out to me ahead of the debate. Your experiences have touched me deeply, as have the experiences of hon. Members here.
One constituent wrote to me about her son, Jonathan, who died in a hospice at the age of 46. His family told me that the tragedy of his death was made so much worse by the lack of provision for assisted dying. Jonathan’s mother, Denise, gave me a quote that I think sums up today’s debate very well:
“It’s not about ending life, it’s about shortening death”.
I want to mention Dorothy House, which offers free palliative care and end-of-life care across much of my constituency. It remains neutral on this issue, but shared its ethos with me earlier today:
“Dorothy House has a vision of a society where death is a part of life”.
I cannot thank Dorothy House enough for the support that it provided me and my partner while we were caring for my partner’s mother in her final few months, as she was dying of cancer. Having cared and watched this strong, independent and dignified woman fade away in considerable pain, unable to have the dignified death that she wanted, will forever haunt me.
The UK public have stated that they would support provisions to make assisted dying legal in the UK. Research carried out in January this year by Dorothy House, which gathered 401 responses, showed that 69% of respondents would support the law being changed to allow assisted dying for someone suffering from a terminal illness. The findings are backed up by a recent Opinium poll for Dignity in Dying, which showed that 75% of people in the UK support assisted dying. The analysis showed that there is majority support for assisted dying in every constituency in the country. In the new constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton, 80% of people support the change, which is the third highest level of support in the country.
I am committed to championing the freedom, dignity and wellbeing of individuals, and respecting their right to freedom of conscience, but the issue is complex and divisive—hence why it is vital that any legislation that provides for medical assistance to die in particular circumstances is subject to rigorous safeguards and regulations. That is also why it is important that this topic is debated fully in Parliament, and that any new legislation is robustly scrutinised. I hope that we can be reassured today that we will see progress over forthcoming parliamentary Sessions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
My hon. Friend raises an excellent idea that has my enthusiastic support. I will do exactly as he asks straightaway.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. We responded within the eight-week deadline to that ICIBI report and accepted the recommendations made to us in it. We are working through them, but work was already in train, particularly in collaboration with the Care Quality Commission, on better accreditation practices for care providers when we are matching people to those visas.
Knife and Sword Ban
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris
We have been clear throughout that when the Government bring forward proposals designed to take this issue on we will give them our support. That is true of the forthcoming legislation on zombie knives, although we have concerns about the scope, but there has to be action, and where there is not action it is our role to point that out. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that in the tone and spirit of my contribution: we serve no one if we do not do that, but of course we will build consensus wherever we can, and I hope the whole House can get behind our motion today.
It would be a key mission of a future Labour Government to make the streets safe and halve knife crime within 10 years. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the Leader of the Opposition unveiled our plans to deliver this with a crackdown on knife crime today and a radical youth prevention programme, and this motion starts to build that out. We are clear: no more loopholes, no more caveats, no more false promises—we need a total crackdown on the availability of serious weapons on Britain’s streets.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on this often heartbreaking topic. My constituent Julie’s daughter Poppy Devey Waterhouse was killed in her home with a knife already in her kitchen. Currently, offenders convicted of murder who use a weapon already available at the crime scene have a starting sentence 10 years lower than those who brought a weapon with them. Domestic violence murderers can bank on leniency. Does the hon. Member agree that women killed by knives already in the home need to see equal justice?
Alex Norris
The hon. Member raises an important point that needs parliamentary scrutiny. We have an anxiety, as hon. Friends have mentioned many times, that crimes happening in domestic spaces are in some way deemed less significant and that can be reflected in sentencing. This bears our parliamentary scrutiny.
To turn to the motion, we want to see restrictions on the sale of the most serious weapons, those with no functional purpose. Since 2015 the Government have released 16 different press releases about zombie knives but action has been slow to follow. We are pleased that two weeks ago we saw the statutory instrument aimed at taking some of the knives and machetes off the streets, and, as I have said, we will support the Government in that venture, but I hope to hear from the Minister an explanation of why that is a ban not for now or a few weeks’ time, but for September, eight months away. This is an immediate problem that needs more urgency; where is that urgency and leadership? He can be assured of our support, so let’s get on with it.
We also believe, as set out in the motion, that we should go further. We would broaden the ban to include a wider range of weapons and to toughen existing rules on serration and length. That would mean finally banning blades such as ninja swords, the weapon that killed Ronan Kanda. His incredible family are campaigning for this, ably supported by their Member for Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), and they are right: any ban on offensive weapons that would not have taken off the street the blade that killed their son is insufficient.
There is also an unintended consequence of leaving out ninja swords. Those who sell these weapons are indifferent to their customers and their customers’ intentions. If colleagues think I am overstating my case, they should just put into a search engine “zombie knives” or “ninja swords” and look at how they are marketed. If knives and machetes are prohibited, these firms will just move on to pushing ninja swords at customers. This is a hole in the Government’s plan and it must be plugged.
We can go further still here. Many banned knives continue to be sold where young people can buy them and have them delivered to their home within a few days. We would introduce, and believe the Government should introduce, criminal sanctions on the tech executives who allow knife sales on their online marketplaces—not just Ofcom sanctions as the Government have opted for, but proper criminal sanctions to send a very serious message to these leaders that if their platforms are being used, and they are not actively making sure they are not being used, for the sale of dangerous weapons, there are going to be very serious consequences, not ones that can be priced in as the cost of doing business. To add to that, we must ensure we have the right tools in law to deal with the digital age.
To drive this work forward, our motion calls for a rapid review of online knife sales from the point of purchase through to delivery, in particular looking at strengthening ID and age checks conducted by Royal Mail and Border Force for UK-bound parcels. Currently, all too often serious weapons can be purchased online with loose ID and age checks, with little oversight, and with no background checks. Every time oversight is loosened and checks are not carried out properly, these weapons potentially fall into the wrong hands and are used to kill. We must ensure we have the most robust system possible to prevent this. To those who carry these weapons, we need to send the unmistakable message that the law will come down hard on them—not apology letters, not weak warnings, but proper and serious interventions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government take domestic burglary very seriously, which is why, just over a year ago, we obtained a commitment from the police to attend every residential burglary. That is delivering results and, according to the crime survey, residential burglary has fallen by 8% year on year.
Sarah Dyke
I thank the Minister for his response. In 2022, the cost of rural theft in the south-west rose by 16.6% from the year before. Has the Minister made an assessment of the success of the new national rural crime unit in improving police contacts with victims of rural theft?
Chris Philp
I agree that combating rural crime is extremely important, and the national rural crime unit is designed to do exactly that. We have also legislated, of course, and we will implement that legislation to ensure that things like all-terrain vehicles and agricultural equipment have to be marked or fitted with an immobiliser. Overall domestic burglary has fallen by 57% since 2010.
Hate Crime Against the LGBT+ Community
Sarah Dyke Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Doughty
I greatly endorse what my hon. Friend said, and I welcome the work of Merthyr Pride. I think that was the first such event to take place in Merthyr, and the organisation does amazing work. I will come on to some of the context driving this.
We have colleagues here from across the United Kingdom. The Police Service of Northern Ireland records transphobic incidents and crimes motivated by transphobia, but unfortunately there is no enhanced sentencing for that motivation or hostility. We see a more positive picture in Wales, despite the statistics. The Welsh Labour Government’s LGBTQ+ action plan specifically covers safety, online hate, improving reporting and investing in local hate crime prevention programmes. In Scotland, there is a hate crime strategy focused on data, tackling crime online and on public transport, and supporting organisations working on these issues.
The effects of hate crime are deep and pernicious. They can unravel the lives of those who are among the most vulnerable in our society, and in the worst cases lives are lost and serious injury occurs. I pay tribute to all those who have been affected in that way, to their families and to all victims. But for many other victims of less violent offences, the crime itself is only the beginning. Some 42% of victims of hate crime felt a loss of confidence or felt vulnerable following the crime, compared with 19% for all other crimes; 29% of hate crime victims had difficulty sleeping, in comparison with 13% for all crimes; and 34% of hate crime victims suffered from anxiety or panic attacks compared with 14% for others.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this important debate. I worry that too often the focus does not come from the point of view of the individuals who may be subject to this type of violence and their voices are suppressed. Does he agree that we must remember the unique position of LGBTQ+ women in our discussions?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. I spoke earlier about intersectionality. When we look at wider violence against women and girls, or violence related to race or disability, there can be a double or triple whammy for people experiencing violence on the basis of who they are. It is simply unacceptable.
Given the shocking record and the shocking increases that we have seen in recent years, it is no wonder that many LGBT+ people—people we all represent—feel less safe and more afraid to walk down the road holding hands with their partner, to present themselves as they wish and to remain authentic, honest versions of themselves. But it does not have to be this way. We know that we are capable of providing vibrant, diverse, dynamic, beautiful and inclusive communities.