Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

That is not the case. I recognise that a number of concerns have been raised, often on the basis of a lack of information about what is actually going to happen under the Communications Data Bill. We want to take what is currently available to the police and other law enforcement agencies in terms of telephony—that is, who made a call, when and at what time—and put that into the new environment where criminals, paedophiles and terrorists are using the internet, in a variety of forms, to communicate. This is an important Bill because it means that we can continue to catch criminals and protect the public.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is

“difficult to estimate costs with precision over the long term”

as regards this proposal. Those are not my words but those of the Home Office in responding to a freedom of information request about the stated £1.8 billion price tag for the legislation. What assurances can the Home Secretary provide that the Government are not writing a blank cheque to service providers? Will she say today whether they have a cap in mind for the costs of this Bill—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

We have been absolutely clear about the 10-year cost in terms of the £1.8 billion figure. Yes, cost recovery will be available to the service providers, but that will be done on the basis set out during discussions about the usage made of this provision. The average annual investment that will take place over 10 years equates to about 1.3% of the annual cost of policing. Let me say to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that this Bill is important because without it we will see criminals and others potentially going free because of their use of internet communications. It is right that we have the Bill because it will help us to catch criminals, terrorists and others.

Domestic Violence

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Paul Maynard]

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for not making myself clear. I suggest that the payment-by-results model is perhaps more appropriate for reducing violence in troubled families. As to refuges in general, she made the point about the high quality of certain independent refuges, and the experience they bring. I have seen that myself at the refuge in Blackpool. That can be demonstrated through outcomes and outputs, rather than just inputs.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, will he say more about the metrics he would use to judge a payment-by-results culture for reducing family violence? Would it be fewer punches or black eyes? Will he be clearer about what he means? It is worrying to some of us, who might misinterpret him. What does he suggest would be an acceptable way of dealing with domestic violence?

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to make my thinking clear. Going by what I see of troubled families, including in constituency surgeries, and what I learn from talking to police, what I am thinking about relates to a reduction in—or the absence of—reports of family violence passed up through the network of social workers, police and schools, or whatever, about the families they work with. I think that that is a perfectly valid metric to apply in that situation. It can be measured, and I see no reason why one would not want to do it. It does not necessarily guarantee that everything will be rosy for ever and a day, but it is intended to show whether interventions are successful. We must take a broader view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome you, Mr Leigh, to the Chair. I echo everyone’s words of support for the work that the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) has done both in bringing this debate to the Chamber and in introducing Jane’s law. I had cause to reflect on that law myself as I had a case in my constituency of a woman whose partner had repeatedly attacked and assaulted her. The partner is still out on bail, awaiting sentencing. Having brought in that law, we must ensure that it is used to protect witnesses. As all Members know, there are some cases that keep one up at night and that one worries about and that case was certainly one of them. I spoke to the victim on a regular basis as I worked to get her rehoused and moved away from the area and from immediate harm. I was conscious that Jane’s law would have made a difference in her case.

I also welcome the work that the hon. Gentleman has done today in setting out the challenges that we face in addressing domestic violence. There is, I think, a consensus across the House that this matter needs to be a priority, not just for our criminal justice system but for our public services as a whole because of the impact that it has on so many families across our country.

May I welcome the new Minister to his role and put on record my thanks to his predecessor? We did not always see eye to eye, but I was certainly grateful for his assistance in the work that we were doing both in Walthamstow and nationally. I hope that we can help the new Minister by filling his inbox with some suggestions and proposals that he can take to his colleagues to make good on that premise of addressing domestic violence in our communities. All of us recognise that it is a very different type of crime to deal with. More than any other criminalised behaviour in our society, it involves the most repeat victimisation. Intimate violence, as it tends to get called, requires a different approach from our criminal justice and social care services. The failure of all of our services to address the matter is reflected in the high numbers of serious case reviews that involve domestic violence and in the numbers of homicides that involve domestic violence.

Many Members here have already mentioned the statistics. I am mindful of what the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said about statistics, but it is worth recognising the scale of the challenge. It is about not just the numbers of people, predominantly women, who are killed through their relationship with their partners, but the impact on other services. In West Yorkshire alone, 10,000 calls to the 999 service were related to domestic violence. That is 20% of the total number of emergency calls that were dealt with over six months.

One of the first things that must concern the new Minister is the need to get the right data. If we are honest, we do not yet have the consistency of data that is required to understand the scale of the problem and the impact that it has. In particular, I am talking about the way in which police forces flag up intimate violence. They need consistency in capturing the data so that they can see not just repeat offenders but repeat victims. That is a huge challenge. Some police forces are proactive about such issues, but others are less so.

The police force is not the only place in which the issue of data has to be addressed. It is across a whole range of public services. In that sense, the movement towards a single definition by the Association of Chief Police Officers is welcome, but it needs to be shared across services, and people must be trained to understand what they are trying to capture, so that we can truly understand the impact of this crime.

Although nearly 750,000 cases are recorded by the police, only 100,000 ever proceed to prosecution. What is happening to those other 600,000 cases? What are we doing to address some of the causes and to understand what happens next? My first call to the Minister is for him to make that commitment about data. We need to ensure that both the public and voluntary sectors have the data necessary for us to understand the level of domestic violence that exists in our society.

I have a second call for the Minister, and we have heard many Members, especially on the Opposition Benches, making this case and I pay tribute to them. Indeed it is always a unique experience to be in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) is speaking, because he brings such passion and genuine emotion to the case. We also heard my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) talk about the changes in our benefit system and what impact that might have on victims of domestic violence.

When we talk about this crime, we are talking predominantly about women, but I pay tribute to those in the Chamber today who have recognised that men are the victims of domestic violence as well. The concept of financial control is key to enabling people to leave abusive relationships. In the changes that the Government are making to the benefit system, there is a real danger that the ability to make that choice to leave will be restricted.

Hon. Members have already talked about universal credit. In particular, they have talked about how it will be nominated to a single person in a household, and how some 300,000 households will be affected. The decision about who gets that money will be critical to the choice about how money is spent. Child benefit is crucial to many women because it makes them financially independent. Universal credit will go much further in aggregating people’s incomes and therefore the ability of people within relationships to make choices about how money is spent. May I press the Minister to look again at this issue, and to speak to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the decision to nominate a single person? Can he look at what more can be done to stop this measure from being a source of financial control? If a single person is to be nominated will he ensure that it is the main carer within a family? We do not want to see women stuck in abusive relationships because they are not able to leave them.

I hope that the Minister is pressing his colleagues in the DWP about the way in which universal credit will be paid and the impact it could have on refuges. About 40% of the women who go into refuges tend to be dual housing benefit claimants. They can claim the money on the property they might have fled and also on the cost of staying in a refuge. Under the new provisions, such a measure will come under the benefit cap. It is not difficult to see how a woman might find herself unable to keep up a private property, and so a secured tenancy, which at some point she may wish to return to with her family once the issue about abuse has been resolved or her abuser is in prison, and to pay for a stay in a refuge, let alone pay for the food that her children need or transport costs under the cap as currently constructed. There is a real concern that it will be the cost of staying in a refuge that will fall under that system.

Refuges are a unique form of supported housing for families. First, they are about not just the individual on the claim but the dependants as well. Secondly, there are no waiting lists for refuges. Already 230 women a day are turned away from refuges in this country because we do not have enough places, so there is not that ability to plan ahead for the need that will be required. Every person who turns up at a refuge is in crisis. A refuge provides only short-stay accommodation. Under the new system, the problem will be not only that the dual housing benefit claimant may find themselves not able to pay for a refuge place but that the payment is paid to the client rather than the landlord. We can see refuges having to chase women, who are being moved around the country, for payment for their place. The work that has been done by several refuges already suggests that almost 60% of their income could be affected, which could be crucial to their future survival.

We need to do more to ensure that we have refuges. If the Minister takes away one message from this debate today it is that Opposition Members are desperately concerned that the changes through universal credit may have severe unintended consequences on the refuge movement in the UK. We may see more refuges closing and more women unable to move out of their properties. That is before we even get into the difficulties that women then face when they are in refuges and receiving support.

I am sure that the Minister is well versed in some of the debates about legal aid. Given that 230 women a week need legal aid assistance to escape an abusive partner and given the relationship that exists between being in a refuge and being entitled to legal aid, the changes could have severe unintended consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North pointed out that the universal credit guidelines will come before Parliament shortly. Let me extend a hand across the House to say that we will work with the Minister to try to change those requirements, so that we can ensure that women who are fleeing from violence are not hampered by the way in which universal credit is administered.

When it comes to money, however, we are not just talking about financial freedom. Again, Labour Members have already spoken very strongly about the cuts to funding and the impact that they are having. We know that, although local authority budgets were cut by 27% on average, those organisations working with victims of domestic violence have experienced a disproportionate cut of 31%. Moreover, that figure masks a further difficulty, because many of those organisations are small organisations that operate on a shoestring; they work on very small budgets. However, we know that those organisations receiving funding of less than £20,000 a year have actually experienced, on average, a 70% cut in their funding and many of them have now disappeared. That is in comparison with those organisations receiving funding of more than £100,000 a year, which have done better.

Those cuts are also filtering through the system. Once again, I urge the Minister to make strong representations to his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, given that we have already seen 23 specialist domestic violence courts being closed during the past year. That is despite the fact that we know the difference those specialist courts make in tackling the issue that I mentioned earlier—the number of domestic violence cases that are brought to charge. Indeed, given that only 58% of those 100,000 cases are successfully prosecuted, we need to ensure that we have a court system that understands the issues that we are dealing with and that is able to work with the victims that we are all talking about. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) has now left Westminster Hall, but he ably raised that issue about the court system.

[Seema Malhotra]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get to a point where we will see a step change in the number of successful prosecutions of domestic violence? It cannot be right that we have such a low rate for successful prosecutions. Surely we need to look at shifting the way that we balance evidence to be in favour of those who are victims rather than adopting the default position, which seems to be taking the view that there is not enough evidence, or, “We cannot prosecute, because it’s his word against hers”? We need to say, “Let’s hunt for the truth and let’s start to see a step change”, and there should be no complacency in wanting to see a much better outcome through the justice system.

[Stella Creasy]

I absolutely agree with my colleague and, if anything, that is the second message that I hope the Minister takes away from our comments today—there needs to be a step change in how we as a society address domestic violence. Clearly, we are not getting it right at this point in time. The changes in relation to universal credit that I briefly mentioned earlier are just a microcosm—the tip of the iceberg—of the way that we need to think differently about how we deal with victims of domestic violence.

[Julie Hilling]

My hon. Friend was talking about the fundraising element earlier. Does she recognise that what is happening in small projects is that those people who are supposed to be working with victims of domestic violence are having to spend some of their time, or quite often a lot of their time, in fundraising, which makes no sense? Also, one of the things that is happening because of the cuts that are being made to other services is that often the people dealing with domestic violence are dealing with more complex cases because drug and alcohol teams are being cut and other support systems are also going. All of those problems are landing in the lap of the domestic violence workers, because the other support services are not around.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although I think that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys might want to reflect on what he was saying about payment by results in terms of dealing with violence itself, there is an understanding that the complexity of the consequences of domestic violence on families means that the complexity of dealing with these issues extends far beyond our criminal justice system. Again, that is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has already said, we need a step change in how we address domestic violence, because it is not just about our criminal justice system.

The third issue that I would love to put into the Minister’s inbox is about the role of multi-agency risk assessment conferences, or MARACs. At present, they only deal with the most severe 10% of examples of domestic violence. Again, having had personal experience as an MP, as I am sure other Members have also had, of trying to get support for victims of domestic violence, I know that the frustration about the presumption that there needs to be an escalation before there is action and intervention is all too real, whether it involves dealing with housing services, social care or indeed schools. It is very clear at present that our system is designed to deal only with the tip of the iceberg that I referred to before, and yet it is often the case that if we were able to intervene earlier, be more proactive and join up services around the individual, we might not only prevent violence but save a family and prevent the consequences arising from violence.

I think that many Members who are here in Westminster Hall today have put on record the need to look again at how we understand where domestic violence is taking place. I absolutely agreed with the hon. Member for Pendle when he talked about violence among young people. I am very mindful that one of the priorities for the Youth Justice Board this year is child-parent abuse and recognising that, particularly within a gang context, there is a lot of evidence about how young men are abusive towards their parents. But that is seen as an issue for social care and not necessarily as a criminal justice issue, and so those mothers themselves are affected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West also talked about the cultural changes that we have to address, given that one in two boys and one in three girls think that it is okay to hit a woman and in some circumstances force her to have sex. Clearly, these are complex issues that extend far beyond the remit of the police and our criminal justice system. Therefore, the police and our criminal justice system need partners in the voluntary sector and in the health and social care sector, which is why common definitions are the starting point of the conversations between those bodies.

Above all, however, we need to recognise the benefit of joining up those services and in ensuring that we have that step change in what we do that has been mentioned. Many of us will make the case for tackling domestic violence, having dealt with domestic violence cases in our constituencies, but I want to ensure that the Minister is aware of the economic benefit of getting this issue right and of why we on the Labour Benches are part of the “One Billion and Rising” campaign, which is a campaign to tackle violence against women and girls, not only in the UK but internationally.

The contribution of women to Britain’s economy is huge, but it is held back by the fact that women live in an unequal society in which violence too often scars the lives of women and their families. We know the cost to our public services of failing to get domestic violence services right. That is why when we talk about cuts to services at a local level, we need to set them against a cost-benefit analysis of getting this issue right. Also, we need to consider the women who are not able to contribute to our society because they live in fear.

I want to work with the Minister to make tackling domestic violence a priority in the months and years ahead, and I hope that he will address the points that my hon. Friends and I have made today about universal credit, the way that MARACs work and prevention of domestic violence, because when all of us leave Westminster Hall today and go back and look at our casework we will be all too alive to the fact that we still have a challenge to face.

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh, and it is a privilege to make my first contribution in the House in my capacity as a Minister in the Home Office on this hugely emotional and important subject, which rightly interests hon. Members from all parties.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), not only for giving us the opportunity to discuss domestic violence but for the detailed and passionate way that he has raised the issue in his campaigning and for his track record of taking action against it. I am more than happy to recognise the substantial contributions to the debate that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), by the hon. Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), and of course by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who is the Opposition spokesperson.

I welcome the opportunity to update the House on what the Government are doing to support victims of domestic violence, because I must say, in a spirit of bipartisanship, that substantial progress is being made on many fronts. That progress is not solely due to this Government’s efforts; I recognise the efforts that Ministers from all political parties have made during a number of years. Nevertheless, it is right that we should fully understand the considerable efforts that are being made to try to address a lot of the concerns that have been raised in this debate.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle for his campaign to amend the bail laws, so that victims of domestic violence have a right of appeal against bail decisions set by judges. He referred to that campaign in his opening speech. Of course, before his campaign and the changes that the Government have made, that was not the case. However, the Government accepted that there was a need to change the law, and he will know that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 has brought about that change. I am sure that all Members will recognise that that is a substantial benefit for the victims of domestic violence who find themselves in those circumstances, and it is much to the credit of my hon. Friend that he provided the political momentum for that change to be made.

I want to provide a context to my speech. Many hon. Members will already know that, in the past year alone, there were more than 1 million female victims of domestic abuse in England and Wales. Therefore, around two women every minute, or more than 25 women during my short speech this afternoon, will be the victims of domestic abuse. It is deplorable that more than a quarter of women will experience such abuse during their lifetimes. As has been touched upon by other hon. Members, it is a tragedy that so few of those women feel able to report that abuse to the authorities or that, if they do feel able, it takes many repeat circumstances of their being abused before they can take that step and go to the authorities.

The domestic violence statistics are shocking on their own; but in addition, more than 300,000 women have been sexually abused in the past year, and in the same period the Government’s forced marriage unit has provided advice or support on forced marriage in 1,468 cases.

The Government’s ambition is to end violence against women and girls. That is why, soon after coming to office, we set out a new strategy, followed by a supporting action plan in March 2011, which translated our overarching vision into specific cross-departmental actions. The actions were most recently refreshed in March 2012, importantly reaffirming our key themes of prevention, improved partnership working, justice outcomes and risk reduction, and the provision of good-quality services.

Work on these themes has been supported by the Government’s provision of nearly £40 million of stable funding up to 2015 for this discrete area, including for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services, rape support centres, the national domestic violence helplines and the stalking helpline services, which have not been touched upon in the debate but are relevant here. For example, we have provided funding for multi-agency risk assessment conference—MARAC—co-ordinator posts and independent domestic violence adviser—IDVA—posts, which research suggests have produced a real impact for high-risk domestic violence victims. We have also granted funding towards 144 IDVA posts in the 2012-13 financial year, as well as providing funding for training. We now have MARACs in more than 250 areas across England and Wales and have granted MARAC funding towards 54 posts for the 2012-13 financial year. I realise that that information is perhaps a bit rich in statistics, but it is important that when the programmes are put in place the House is aware of them.

Meanwhile, other Departments have also demonstrated their commitment to tackling violence against women and girls. For example, the Department of Health launched a short film for the NHS Choices website in August 2012. It covers what female genital mutilation is, the range of long-lasting damage that it can cause, the legal obligation to safeguard children and where to go for help if anyone is worried or affected. There is, therefore, a broad body of work taking place, not just in the Home Office. The Foreign Office, where I previously served as a Minister, has done work on forced marriage, which relates mainly, but not exclusively, to girls. The girls are British nationals, but the forced marriages often take place in other countries.

On the role of local commissioners in tackling domestic violence, the Government feel strongly that the procurement and commissioning of services is rightly a matter for local authorities. Although the Government have made clear our belief that local authorities should attach importance to the sector, each council has some discretion about how it prioritises spending.

We are taking steps across the board to strengthen the provisions available for tackling domestic violence and supporting the victims, and I think that it will help if I use the remainder of my speech to talk about some of the initiatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle mentioned Clare’s law, and I am happy to update him on that. Following the consultation published by the Home Secretary, we have launched the domestic violence disclosure scheme, which is being piloted in four police forces across England and Wales. The pilots in Wiltshire and Gwent were launched in July, and those in Nottinghamshire and Greater Manchester started at the beginning of last week. The pilots form part of our efforts to tackle domestic violence by looking at new ways of protecting victims and putting tools in place to help and support them. The Government believe that disclosing information about the perpetrators of domestic violence will help to protect and support victims. Very early feedback on the pilots provisionally indicates that there are 24 live applications, and five disclosures have already been made to potential victims. The pilots will run until September 2013, and we will then decide whether to roll out the scheme nationally.

The Government were pleased to hear that Greater Manchester police, along with West Mercia and Wiltshire police force areas, will continue to use domestic violence protection orders until the Home Office evaluation completes next summer. Anecdotal feedback from the domestic violence protection order pilot indicates that women, and victims generally, welcome the protection, as it allows them the breathing space that they need to consider their options.

On 8 June, following a detailed consultation on forced marriage and having listened carefully to all views on the abhorrent practice, Members will recall that the Prime Minister announced that the Government will make forcing someone to marry a criminal offence for the first time. In doing so, we are sending out a clear message that the brutal practice is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the UK. We are aware, however, that legislation alone is not enough and will remain focused on prevention and on increasing support and protection for victims.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle asked about the proposals to change the definition of domestic violence. Our consultation, on whether the current cross-Government definition should be widened, closed on 30 March 2012. We sought views on whether the current definition should remain or be amended to include coercive control and extended to 16 and 17-year-olds or to everyone under the age of 18. We are considering the consultation responses and an announcement will be made shortly.

According to the latest figures, 21 men and 93 women were killed by a partner or ex-partner in 2010-11. For cases in which domestic violence results in the death of the victim, the Government have established domestic homicide reviews on a statutory basis under section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Local areas are, importantly, required to undertake a multi-agency review following a domestic homicide, to identify the lessons that can be learned, with a view to preventing future homicides and violence. I appreciate that that is in the most extreme cases only, but the point was made in the debate about trying to co-ordinate different Government agencies. The provision also allows the Secretary of State, in particular cases, to direct that a specified reluctant person or body establish or participate in a review. Furthermore, the Government made a commitment in the refreshed violence against women and girls action plan, published in March 2012, to develop

“a training package for chairpersons of Domestic Homicide Reviews”,

and that will be extended later this year across England and Wales.

Contributors to the debate have made the point that, although the majority of victims of domestic violence are women, there are, of course, male victims as well. Domestic violence is one of those forms of violence that affect men, and many men are reluctant, perhaps in some cases for different reasons from women, to admit that they are victims. The Government take the issue seriously, and we support the Men’s Advice Line, which is for all men who experience violence from a current or ex-partner, and Broken Rainbow, which provides advice to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people affected by domestic violence. In 2011-12, we have allocated funding to the tune of £100,000 for a male victims and sexual violence fund, to support services that focus on male victims of sexual and domestic violence, and we have assigned a further £125,000 for continued support in 2012-13.

Time is short, so before I conclude, I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I am more than happy to take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow about the need to ensure that all features of Government contribute to what we are trying to achieve.

[Stella Creasy]

We have talked about universal credit, and there is a concern that is shared across the House. Will the Minister commit to going back to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and challenging them on the point about dual housing benefit and benefit being paid to the tenant for refuges, so that we can ensure that the refuge movement does not suffer further financial difficulties?

[Mr Browne]

I have seen that the refuges in my constituency are extremely successful, and I certainly want to ensure that they continue to do their work unimpeded, so if we can take action to ensure that outcome, I will certainly do my best to achieve it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I will not be tempted down the route that my hon. Friend is attempting to take me on some of the issues he referred to in his question—issues on which he has a different opinion from me. However, in answer to his question, we are very open and willing to look at any new technology that will help the police to do their job, which is to cut crime. I can assure him that either I or another Home Office Minister will be pleased to make the visit that he has requested.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Home Secretary’s decision to replace control orders with TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—has put additional pressure on the Met’s resources. It now cannot keep dangerous terror suspects out of London, and this weekend it was revealed that a suspect who the Home Office itself says wishes to

“re-engage in terrorism-related activities”

had been to the Olympic park site five times before being arrested. Can the Home Secretary guarantee that none of the other terror suspects currently being monitored has been near to the Olympic park, and will she say whether she regrets her decision to downgrade terror powers in the Olympic year?

[Mrs May]

First, in relation to the case that the hon. Lady quoted, it is the case that on 27 June an individual known by the court initials CF was charged with breaching his TPIM notice. He is accused of travelling through the Olympic park area in Stratford, from which he is prohibited, on five occasions. However, the package of measures relating to TPIMs, including the requirement to wear a GPS tag, enables the police to respond and investigate any breach of a TPIM notice quickly and effectively. I cannot say more in detail about that case, because that would risk undermining the prosecution. However, TPIMs, which we have put in place, are a good tool and are being used effectively. The hon. Lady talks about the impact on the Metropolitan police, but she knows full well that extra funding has been provided to the Metropolitan police to cover any extra resources it needs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The Department for Education and the Under-Secretary specifically are represented on the inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which I chair. I welcome the excellent work being done by the Awaken project in Blackpool. We support multi-agency approaches to tackling child sexual exploitation. Indeed, the child sexual exploitation action plan includes measures to ensure that the local safeguarding children boards lead on tackling child sexual exploitation locally with a variety of partners.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

A study by Women’s Aid has shown that 230 women fleeing violence and seeking refuge were turned away from refuges in this country on a typical day last year owing to the lack of space. Does the Home Secretary agree that turning any woman away from a refuge is unacceptable, and will she give an assurance to the House that no woman seeking refuge from domestic violence will be turned away on her watch? Yes or no?

[Mrs May]

Of course we all want to ensure that women who find themselves having to flee from domestic violence are given the support that they need. It is not the case, however, that no woman was turned away from refuges in the past. However, we are taking a slightly different attitude to this issue in the domestic violence protection orders. One thing that has always concerned me is that the victim of domestic violence—all too often a woman—is often forced to leave the home while the perpetrator is able to stay in the home. The point of the domestic violence protection order is to ensure that more women suffering from domestic violence can remain in their own homes.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I think I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman’s questions fairly and squarely in terms of the statutory requirement on which I hope the House will legislate. I hope that that measure will go on to the statute book. The Bill represents a significant step forward—one that the previous Government failed to take during the 13 years in which they were creating 600 additional powers of entry. I note that he is seeking to push and challenge us on this, but I must point out that the Bill represents a significant step forward. Ministers will be bound by the provisions, and they will take the new responsibility extremely seriously.

I hope that the House is minded to disagree with the Lords in their amendments this afternoon. That in no way implies a lack of commitment, resolve or focus on the Government’s part to ensure that powers of entry are properly examined and, as appropriate, scaled back to ensure that they properly protect without intruding, and that they are not retained on the statute book if they are not necessary.

Lords amendment 16 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 17 and 18 disagreed to.

A New Clause

Stalking

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendments (c), (d), (e), (f) and Government amendments (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) thereto.

Lords amendment 52, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 59 and 68

Lords amendment 133 and Government amendments (a) to (c) thereto.

[Stella Creasy]

The need for legislation to create a distinctive offence of stalking has been clear for some time. I therefore start the debate by welcoming the Government’s willingness to respond to these calls for such legislation. Our amendments reflect the need to ensure that this opportunity for progress is not missed and that the evolution of these proposals continues so that they can truly meet the needs of those we wish to protect.

To put this case, I want to set out why we consider that the legislation as currently proposed is limited in its ability to deliver this protection, and what we learn from that in scrutinising the Government’s proposals that are on the table. We all now know that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 has been unable to offer the protection from stalking required for its victims. It is estimated that there are currently 120,000 cases of stalking every year, but fewer than 4,500 were convicted of harassment in 2009; of those, only 565 were jailed.

The current legislation is not able to cope with stalking because these behaviours cannot be meaningfully defined by specific forms of contact. Rather, this is an offence about the impact of conduct or patterns of behaviour by those individuals who fixate on others and seek to cause distress, fear or alarm. The current legislation offers only the same tools that we have at present to deal with disputes between neighbours—and it has struggled to cope as a result.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 created two criminal offences of harassment and putting people in fear of violence, as well as providing for restraining orders, which are more well known, where a breach, in theory, can lead to an arrestable offence. We now know, however, that victims of stalking talk repeatedly about the frustrations caused by the police being required to see patterns of behaviour, examples of a breach or evidence that someone has repeatedly damaged property or acted in a certain way or created a fear of violence. Others have talked about the importance of training the police, magistrates and the Crown Prosecution Service to help them understand the range of acts that fall under stalking—including, especially, cyber-stalking. That is because it is a summary offence of harassment, and many felt that the police did not go far enough and did not allocate appropriate resources to investigating these cases, or frankly, that it was seen as simply not serious enough to warrant the effort. I shall return to the question of seriousness in a few moments.

It is little wonder that the recent inquiry into stalking found that 72% of victims were unhappy with the response they received from the criminal justice system, with the majority stating they had experienced stalking for over 18 months or more and through multiple forms of contact; yet only 47% said that their perpetrator was even charged. As Tracey Morgan, a key member of the inquiry panel into stalking has said:

“stalking is where domestic violence was 30 years ago. It’s seen as a joke; a celebrity problem. Victims are told they should be flattered by the attention”—

but we all know of the reality. We have heard the stories of people like Tracey whose lives were torn apart by a person who fixated upon them. We have heard of the ex-partners who torment men and women online and offline; we have heard of women such as Clare Bernal who was brutally murdered by her former boyfriend, despite warnings about his behaviour.

We know from other jurisdictions how having a specific offence of stalking can help to address these concerns. In the 10 years prior to the introduction of the offence of stalking in Scotland, Strathclyde police reported a total of 70 stalking-related prosecutions. In the first six months after legislation providing for a specific offence was enacted, there were 140 prosecutions in Strathclyde alone, and it is estimated that there will be between 500 and 600 in Scotland as a whole by the end of the year.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful point about Scotland. Scotland moved straight from “breach of the peace” legislation to legislation on stalking, so the comparison is quite dramatic. We in England and Wales are in a slightly better position, but the comparison is nevertheless invidious, which is why the proposed change in the law is so essential and welcome.

[Stella Creasy]

In order to establish whether the present proposals will deal with our concerns adequately, it is worth considering what has happened in Scotland as a result of the legislation providing for a specific offence, and also making comparisons with what is offered by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

On behalf of the House, let me thank those who have been campaigning on these issues, and who have led action both in the House and outside. Working with Protection against Stalking and the National Association of Probation Officers, the all-party inquiry into stalking— in which I know the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) participated—has tirelessly and persistently made the case for new legislation. I pay tribute to both those organisations, and to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who is present, for all their work on the inquiry.

Although she was not able to be here today, I think that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), deserves credit for putting the case for the legislation in September last year. She also stressed the need for stronger sentencing and police training to improve responses.

Finally, I think that we must all pay particular tribute to Baroness Royall, who, back in November, began tabling amendments to the Bill in the other place to introduce this law in some form and thus to force action on the issue. We can see that that tactic has worked. Ministers initially refused to accept the case, saying that the current legislation covered criminal behaviour of this kind, but their view has now changed, and that change is welcome. I note that Lord Henley himself acknowledged the work of Lady Royall in raising the issue.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. There has been a good deal of publicity and discussion on stalking over the last six or 12 months. Has my hon. Friend noticed any improvement in the attitude of police forces towards people who report stalking, given that such people have received no response in the past?

[Stella Creasy]

When I discussed the proposals with the police, they were anxious to ensure that we used this opportunity to get the proposals right. I welcomed their acknowledgment of concern about the way in which the legislation had been used to deal with the problems, and about the lack of training in what stalking might involve.

As a result of this pressure, we stand here today to debate not whether proposals are needed, but the strength of the proposals that are on the table. We can see how the proposals are evolving as the Government respond to people who have been campaigning. The new amendments—as opposed to the proposals that were put to the other place last week—reflect further movement in the right direction, given the Government’s initial response to Baroness Royall’s proposals.

It is in the spirit of ensuring that the Bill is meaningful and effective that Labour Members have tabled further amendments today. Having championed the need for legislation, we wish to ensure that this opportunity is not wasted. When we test the Lords amendment against the realities of the crime that we are discussing, and indeed the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), we still see difficulties. In particular, we fear that the amendment presents the appearance of progress while failing to deliver through its confusing demarcation between section 2A and section 4A offences. We also believe that it does not give the criminal justice system the full confidence that it needs to be able to address this crime in its many manifestations, whether through investigation, prosecution or conviction.

Our amendments (a) and (b) would ensure that the Bill would be what I call future-proof. When the Protection from Harassment legislation was enacted in 1997, Google did not exist. One of the compelling examples of the behaviour of the persecutor of Claire Waxman was the fact that he had searched for her name 40,000 times in a single year. The amendment reflects the need not only to train all who work in the criminal justice system to recognise that stalking can manifest itself in many ways, but to ensure that the legislation can keep pace with the innovation. As we have heard, many victims experience multiple forms of harassment, and do so many times before it is reported. These amendments would enable the Secretary of State to respond to the creativity of perpetrators and ensure that all those charged with protecting the public from these crimes are able to act. The inclusion of “inter alia” and the ability to include additional clarification will give confidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the magistrates courts that these kinds of conduct could in future be relevant to this offence.

If the Government will not accept the amendments, they must set out now, on the record, how they propose to ensure that the criminal justice system is able fully to comprehend and respond to the way in which fixations occur, both online and offline.

[Mr Buckland]

I am listening with great care to the hon. Lady’s argument about the use of the phrase “inter alia”. There may be a bit of an irony in using legal Latin to anticipate developments in respect of Google and Twitter, but I do not criticise her for that. The Lords amendment lists

“examples of acts or omissions”.

That is therefore a non-exhaustive list, so the problem the hon. Lady rightly identifies as possibly occurring cannot occur on the basis of any reasonable interpretation of the Lords amendment as it currently stands.

[Stella Creasy]

This is a point of genuine disagreement, because there is concern that what should be seen as a non-exhaustive list of behaviours and conducts for the offence of stalking will instead be seen as a list of the only such behaviours and conducts. We are trying to ensure both that training is given to all sectors of the criminal justice system and that there is clarification about the wide range of perpetrator behaviours that can be included. I gave the example of Google in order to argue that if the idea of cyber-stalking had been considered when the protection from harassment law was introduced in 1997, legislators might have recognised the need to address it. Given that we so rarely get an opportunity to draft legislation, it is important that we make any new laws as robust as possible, such as by ensuring that the Secretary of State can intervene. We believe that our proposal would offer an opportunity to address any concerns that might arise. Law makers might say, “This is a list of stalking behaviours and anything else isn’t stalking.” If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, they must explicitly state how they will ensure that this list does not become the only list of examples, rather than a starting point for our law makers.

Our amendments to Lords Amendment 51 go to the heart of the inconsistencies in the proposals. We challenge the retention of a section 2A offence of stalking and the creation of a section 4A offence of stalking, differentiated by the concept of seriousness. We welcome the fact that, in response to Baroness Royall, the Government’s position has moved from that of the amendments tabled in the Lords, which set out stalking as purely involving a fear of violence. The new provisions go much further towards recognising the need to be able to act against perpetrators without waiting for physical harm as well as the different ways in which this crime impacts upon victims, and that is certainly welcome. However, the strengthening of section 4A does not undermine the inconsistency created by the retention of a section 2A offence for stalking.

Under Government amendments (i), (j) and (k), section 4A will apply when someone has suffered

“serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on”

their

“usual day-to-day activities”.

Yet section 2A sets out a less well-defined offence of stalking that would secure a lower level tariff. That offence would be triable only in a magistrates court, with a fine or maximum penalty of just six months’ imprisonment. We believe that such a distinction between different offences and courses of action does not stand scrutiny. Specifically, it is unclear from the evidence of this crime what kinds of cases would fall under section 2A rather than section 4A. In respect of the wording of the new amendments, it appears that a distinction would be based on proving that someone has suffered a “serious” form of distress. Therefore, the Government must set out how that could be proved—for example, whether it would be similar to psychiatric injury, where we need a psychiatrist to say there has been a serious impact on the central nervous system. This also raises the prospect of medical records having to be disclosed, potentially giving more information to the stalker at court and also creating a higher burden to prove, so the CPS would again be less likely to charge under Section 4 and default to Section 2A, with the resulting lesser options for punishment.

We as parliamentarians should reflect upon whether we would ask the victims to have their lives altered as a marker of such seriousness. The survey commissioned by the university of Leicester for the Network for Surviving Stalking found that one third of victims of stalking said that they had lost their job or relationship or had been forced to move because of the stalking. Some 92% reported physical effects and 98% reported emotional effects, ranging from anxiety, sleep disturbances, anger and distrust to depression, self-harm and post-traumatic stress disorder. Half of all the victims had changed their telephone number; half of them had given up social activities; half of them had seen their performance at work affected; and a third of them had relocated. If the Home Secretary wishes to retain these divisions, she must tell us whether it is justifiable to ask victims to prove that their lives have been changed in such a serious way before we can offer them real protection. Does she not see the risk that the police could apply this “seriousness” test in choosing whether to investigate and secure a section 2A or section 4A offence, leaving victims in the horrific position of having to prove that their lives have been damaged in these ways in order to secure effective action against the perpetrators?

As many experts have pointed out, this distinction risks retaining one of the problems with the existing legislation: it is extremely unusual for someone to be found guilty under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, with just 170 of the 786 people found guilty being given a custodial sentence. Some 53,000 harassment cases were recorded by the police in 2009-10, but in only 23 was a custodial sentence of more than 12 months given for breaching a restraining order and in just 27 was such a sentence given for putting someone in fear of violence. Under the current legislation, most perpetrators receive restraining orders on multiple occasions and yet still receive fines and non-custodial sentences. Both the National Association of Probation Officers and Protection Against Stalking state that they believe that

“similar outcomes will come from an analysis of court proceedings under 2A.”

Even if a case can be made for the retention of a “lesser” offence of stalking, the division also limits the ability of the Crown Prosecution Service to respond to cases effectively by setting out two separate paths for the same crime. As NAPO and PAS have pointed out, allowing the offence to be triable either way would have two advantages. First, if evidence came out during a magistrates court trial indicating that the matter was more serious than first thought and may warrant a sentence of more than six months, the case could be sent to the Crown court for sentence. Secondly, many stalkers who do not threaten violence and who may be tried under section 2A for less serious matters are, nevertheless, highly persistent. Without the power to refer to a Crown court, such people could appear persistently in magistrates courts, being liable only for six months’ imprisonment and automatically released at three months —if they were tagged, they would come out after one month and continue their behaviour.

The amendments tabled by the Government maintain the risk that offences will not be adequately addressed, as at present, because they ask the CPS to choose between “lower-level” offences of stalking, as yet undefined, and those considered “more serious”. The challenge for all involved in addressing this offence will be to make such a distinction in any meaningful way as to merit it.

In contrast, our proposed amendments to Lords amendment 51 offer the opportunity to correct this situation so that confusion is no bar to ensuring that those who commit these crimes are given appropriate sentences. Our amendment (d) to Lords amendment 51 proposes a simple definition of stalking that could clarify the difference between “harassment” and “stalking” between neighbours who behave in unacceptable ways towards each other and the person who fixates on a former partner or someone they have never met but serves to cause them distress.

Our amendment (c ) to Lords amendment 51 would help to ensure that it is open to the criminal justice system to respond to these crimes by making them triable either way, thus introducing the possibility, alongside the lesser sentences the Government are offering under section 2A, of a sentence of up to five years. If the Government will not accept the amendments, they need to set out precisely what constitutes a “lesser” crime of stalking and how it would be distinctive from the crimes they expect to be prosecuted under section 4A. In particular, I ask the Home Secretary to put on the record clear examples of the different criteria they expect to be applied to justify this division and to ensure that criminal justice agencies are able to understand the intent in their proposals.

Finally, our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 52 deals with how these crimes are investigated and with the importance of ensuring that the police are able to act. It would restore a power of entry to the properties of those arrested for stalking without a warrant to ensure that evidence cannot be destroyed. The power previously existed for cases of harassment, but was removed as an unintended consequence of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, and many of us believe that this omission requires attention. Again, I highlight to Ministers the risks they are taking by creating two stalking offences, where one is indictable and the other is only a summary offence. Under their proposals, the police can enter a property to search only if the offence is indictable. The confusion between sections 2A and 4A could mean that officers hesitate in using this power to investigate matters relating to these crimes for fear of not finding enough evidence to meet the “seriousness” test. Seeking this power, and thus the possibility of investigation, would help to ensure that the police would not flinch out of confusion; those committing offences that the Government believe would fall into section 4A could be investigated without the police thinking twice.

Without this power, there is a very real danger of evidence being destroyed as others act to protect those arrested for this offence. The fact that it could take hours to secure a warrant allows that possibility—that time is valuable. Indeed, as we have seen with recent attempts to destroy evidence relevant to the prosecution of those involved in phone hacking, such behaviour is not theoretical. The fact that the police are currently able to search the property of a shoplifter but not to access the property of someone who has been arrested for stalking to seek further evidence—perhaps to see the shrine they have created or computer information on social networks—further reflects the difficulties our police will have with the measures as they stand in ensuring that they effectively protect victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

Given our shared concern about the inventiveness of perpetrators, will the Home Secretary undertake to review annually the range of behaviours that will be identified through this process so that we can understand whether it is being used as a list of examples or solely as a list of what constitutes stalking?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that we will indeed keep the legislation under review. The last thing we want to do is to find that the legislation is being misinterpreted. The reason it is set out in the terms, “The following are examples,” is precisely to send a message to people that that is all they are. There will be other activities that come under the definition of stalking for the purposes of this criminal offence, but we are not putting that exhaustive list in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for supporting our approach. It is important that a degree of discretion is available to police officers so that they can identify behaviour that is not listed but would come under the definition of stalking.

A number of the comments made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow related to the creation of two offences—the lower level and higher level offences—and I think that there is a need to differentiate between the two. The practice of having two such offences is followed in a number of other areas in the criminal justice system, which I think is important, but we will be developing training—a number of hon. Members have mentioned this—for agencies in the criminal justice system in the coming months to ensure that they are aware of the nature of the legislation being introduced, such as the point about the list being one of examples only.

[Stella Creasy]

In which case, will the Home Secretary set out clearly and explicitly what she considers to be a stalking offence that would come under section 2A, rather than section 4A, because I think that there is genuine concern that having two offences but not defining the difference between them will cause problems for the police at a local level?

[Mrs May]

It is normal practice when introducing offences to have a lower level and a higher level offence, and training for the criminal justice system agencies will look at identifying the sort of behaviour that might come under one or the other. Again, in these circumstances it is always difficult, and I think inappropriate, to try to state absolutely what behaviour would come under one offence and what behaviour would come under another, because the context of behaviour might be significant; behaviour that might be considered lower level in one context might be considered higher level in another. It is important that we do not try to set out absolute definitions and that discretion is available to the police in interpreting the offences and looking at the context in which they are committed. I know that the hon. Lady’s view is different from mine, but the point is similar to the previous one: the more we try to define the offence in legislation or on the Floor of the House, the less we can offer the discretion and flexibility that might be necessary to an individual officer or the Crown Prosecution Service to deal with such cases. I fear that we might end up in a situation that is not so good if the terminology we use is too rigid.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow also tabled amendment (c) to Lords amendment 51, which would make the lower-level section 2A offence triable either way. It is currently a summary-only offence, reflecting the fact that it is a lower level offence and should be properly tried in the magistrates court. More serious behaviour should be captured by the higher level section 4A offence of stalking involving fear of violence. Amendments (d) to (f) seek to capture the emotional distress suffered by victims of stalking. I have already set out how we intend to address this point, and our approach is supported by NAPO and Protection Against Stalking. She referred to the need for clarity in the criminal justice system, yet her proposals attempt to blur the distinction between the two offences and, I think, would lead to less clarity rather than more.

The Opposition’s other amendment in this group, amendment (a) to Lords amendment 52, would remove the requirement to obtain a warrant before searching a potential stalker’s property or possessions under the new section 2A offence. As the offence is a summary-only offence, which is by definition a lower level offence, I think that requiring a warrant for a search represents an appropriate balance between protecting the vulnerable in society from stalkers and respecting the rights of those who are innocent until proven guilty. The higher level offence, as I said earlier, automatically allows the power of entry, which is appropriate, given that it is a more serious offence. For those reasons, I cannot accept the Opposition’s amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I will not repeat the constructive comments of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and others on the provisions that all parties have accepted. I am delighted to have been part of the process, but hope that does not give me, as a relatively new Member, a false sense of what can be achieved so quickly by consensus. The Government have moved with speed and with willingness to listen, and I commend their fleetness of foot. I am grateful to them for acting and amending their own amendments. That shows their willingness to listen to the debate and to engage with NAPO and Protection Against Stalking, to which I pay tribute.

The journey does not end here. Once the Bill is passed, it is essential that we get training for police officers and guidance for prosecutors absolutely right and monitor the progress of the new laws. Stalking is emotional terrorism; it is a crime of control, a crime of manipulation and, yes, a crime of violence. It was quite clear from the evidence heard by the all-party inquiry heard these changes to the law were necessary. I started as somebody who was not convinced that the law should be changed, but I ended as somebody who was entirely persuaded. I commend the Government’s amendments to the House.

[Stella Creasy]

We have listened to the debate, but we are still not satisfied on the question of lesser and more serious charges of stalking. We therefore wish to press amendment (b) to a vote.

Question put, That amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51 be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree. Those of us who have experienced Police Federation conferences over the years know that they are always lively and robust events. The Labour party knows that too. I note that the chairman of the Police Federation, Paul McKeever, said last year:

“Reading some of their press materials one would be forgiven for thinking that if Labour were in power they would in fact be increasing the police budget”,

whereas we know that Labour is committed to cutting it.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

As we are listening to our chief constables, let us hear what they have been saying this year about the cuts. The chief constable of Dyfed Powys says that cuts to police budgets mean they will no longer be able to conduct cold case reviews such as the one that caught serial killer John William Cooper, and Gloucestershire’s chief constable says his force is on a cliff edge. What effect does the Minister think that will have on police morale?

[Nick Herbert]

The Opposition need to be plain with police officers and staff about the importance of dealing with the deficit and the fact that they too are committed to reducing police spending. They have admitted that they wish to reduce spending by more than £1 billion, and now we know that they wish to freeze pay as well. They cannot complain about these cuts and remain committed to the cuts themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right that domestic violence protection orders do what hon. Members across the House have always felt is right: ensure that when a domestic violence incident takes place it is the perpetrator who is not able to stay in the home, rather than the victim being forced out, as has happened so often in the past. We commenced a pilot in Greater Manchester, West Mercia and Wiltshire, and a second wave of pilot areas started in October in Grater Manchester and West Mercia, which we are looking to run for at least a year before we assess them properly.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Opposition welcome press reports this weekend that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to widen the definition of domestic violence. Let me also offer Home Office Ministers our support if they wish to challenge the actions of their colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, who are seeking to restrict access to legal aid for victims of domestic violence. Does the Home Secretary agree that that should happen, so that we send a strong message to victims that they should not have to wait until the first punch is thrown before they get help?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is right that we need to ensure that we have the right definition of domestic violence. That is why the Government are consulting on the appropriate definition and ensuring that we have a cross-Government definition, which, sadly, the previous Labour Government did not have.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is about tough enforcement and sending a clear signal that those who carry knives and use them in a threatening manner will receive a custodial sentence, which we are legislating for, and about the programmes that work with communities to deter people from using knives. That is what Brooke Kinsella’s excellent report focused on.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the past 10 days alone victims of knife crime have included a poppy seller in Sussex, a father attending a first birthday party in Mitcham and a young man trying to stop a fight in Walthamstow on Friday night. Given the scale of cuts to policing and community safety budgets that the Government are implementing under the Home Secretary’s watch, does she think that knife crime will continue to go up or go down next year?

[Nick Herbert]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern about knife crime, which is why we are introducing the measures I have announced on strong enforcement and the important community programmes to deter people from carrying knives, but I notice that her question did not include a single positive proposal for dealing with knife crime, other than the usual Labour party proposal, which is to spend more money.

Legislative Reform Order (Epping Forest)

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

I am not qualified to say what the true value of the site is and what a proper rent would be. However, I do not think that the £170,000 should be used to restore the site. It should be available as a legacy and be spent in consultation with local people. I was just about to make that very point.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

To be clear, we are talking about a large structure, stables for up to 54 horses, an area for dogs and parking for 375 vehicles on a site that has dense vegetation. Many of my constituents very much enjoy going to the Wanstead Flats. I hope the shadow Minister can understand why we are concerned about the restoration of the land, not just in its quality, but in its content. That is vital to the future of the site.

[Clive Efford]

Absolutely. People will need reassurance about the management of that process and should have some input into it to ensure that the standards are not diminished, that the site is restored to its former state and that the damage is not permanent. The only way to reassure the local community is to involve it in the process. I ask the Minister to clarify who will ultimately be responsible for overseeing this. Does she have any influence over the body that will be responsible so that she can ensure that it involves the local community?

I am grateful for the Minister’s unequivocal statement that the £170,000 is for the restoration of the site and not its repair. Will she guarantee that it will be spent in consultation with local people, who have demonstrated through their campaign a great love of and commitment to the site? From their experience of living near the site and visiting it regularly, they will have essential expertise and ideas on how the money can best be spent.

I hope the Minister agrees that when it comes to the legacy, it is issues such as this that will determine in the long run whether local people and communities in the Olympic boroughs feel that the Olympic games have been in the interests of ordinary people, their local communities and London. I hope that the Minister will do everything in her power to ensure that those communities are involved not just in planning the legacy on this side of the games, but in delivering it post the games.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

We have certainly had contrasting debates this afternoon. Let me start by saying—I will make my reasons clear—that I am speaking against the order. I do not support it in any way, and I do not want to mislead the Minister by putting her in the position of believing me somehow to be offering my support, because I am not. The order and the proposed creation of the muster centre have caused deep concern among my constituents. Wanstead Flats are a cherished local amenity and have been since 1878. They have actually been a local amenity for longer than that, but they have been recognised in statute for nearly 140 years, since 1878. The decision to build a police muster centre for the 2012 Olympics on a piece of much-cherished and precious piece of common land is simply wrong and should not have gone through in the first place.

Let me go back over some of the history of Epping forest and Wanstead Flats, which are partly in my constituency. Epping forest has been fought over for centuries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) mentioned. In the 18th and early 19th centuries there were fights over enclosure. Repeated attempts were made to enclose the land—as there were across the south-east of England—but the campaigns launched and fought by local people kept it as common land. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were battles over house building. As London rapidly spread eastwards into Essex, there were successful campaigns to maintain Epping forest—and, therefore, Wanstead Flats—as a local amenity. The Epping Forest Act 1878 was the result of those campaigns, and it has kept the area as an amenity for local people ever since.

The City of London corporation has long been seen as the defender of local people—ironic, in view of what has happened recently. It has fought battles against landowners and others to prevent encroachments on common land. That is why the City of London corporation was made the conservator of Epping forest. Over the past 150 years there have been more recent battles, particularly over Wanstead Flats. The 1878 Act states clearly that the land should remain open and undeveloped. On an 1882 visit to High Beach, another part of Epping forest, Queen Victoria declared Epping forest dedicated to the free use and enjoyment by the public “for all time”. However, the City of London, having had quite an honourable record, has now spinelessly lain down and abandoned its traditional defence of local people and the local amenity, and decided to go along with the creation of a police muster centre without even the use of primary legislation to do so. There was some house building there during the war, between 1939 and 1945, but that took place under the wartime emergency powers legislation, which is a crucial point. That was primary legislation, and as soon as hostilities ended, the emergency powers legislation lapsed and the 1878 Act came back into prominence. As a result, the houses were moved—as a matter of fact, I recently met somebody who lived in one of the houses on Wanstead Flats until about 1950-51.

I want to run through what I see as the major points in these proposals. As for the location, which has been raised before, the Home Office explanatory document says:

“It is a large site close to the Olympic Park and new Westfield shopping centre through which a large percentage of visitors to the Park will transit.”

However, the site is actually not particularly near either, so that argument starts to fall down. Many locals—certainly people in my constituency who live near the site—have asked why the muster centre cannot be built on the Olympic site itself. I have yet to hear a compelling argument in favour of the muster centre being established on Wanstead Flats, which are a considerable distance from the Olympic site and from the Westfield shopping centre.

I also have to raise the question of security. A number of local people have said that the police muster centre could be a target for terrorists. That is certainly a possibility, given that the plans for the centre are widely available online, whereas the specific plans for the Olympic site itself are rather more difficult to get to grips with.

As far as traffic is concerned, the route from the muster centre to the Olympics will be a circuitous one involving the use of the A12. The reserve plans, for use in certain situations, involve the use of fairly narrow roads such as Cann Hall road, and an increase in traffic could cause serious problems for police transport accessing the Olympic site. Mixed messages about transport have been given to the public in east London. An Olympic planning document states that there will be a traffic downturn during the games, although I cannot imagine what evidence that is based on. Local businesses, on the other hand, have been clearly told that they should expect a rise in the volume of traffic. Both cases seem to have been put forward as an argument for building the police muster centre, so I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me which is correct. Is there going to be a downturn or an upturn in traffic? How will that answer back up the argument for the creation of the muster centre?

On compensation, I have to say that £170,000 is a paltry amount to pay for the site. The rent on an equivalent brownfield site in the south-east of England for a period of 90 days would be in the region of £1.5 million. Wanstead Flats are obviously not a brownfield site, and an equivalent site would cost nearer to £3 million to rent for that period, yet the City of London corporation is perfectly content to say to the Metropolitan police, “We’ll take 170,000 quid.” That is an absolutely pathetic amount of compensation, especially as far as local people are concerned.

[Stella Creasy]

It is estimated that the land will be out of use for at least six months while the vegetation recovers, yet we will get no recompense for the lack of use of that common land for all that time.

[John Cryer]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that very good point. I will touch on that further in a minute.

Three consultations have taken place, as has been mentioned. One was a straightforward planning consultation conducted by Redbridge council, the local planning authority. The Metropolitan police consultation was one of the most bizarre that I have ever come across. It could be accessed only online, so none of my constituents could write a letter to the Metropolitan police. They had to make their submissions to the consultation online and it dealt only with specific questions. I believe that those factors alone should render that consultation null and void, because it was not a proper consultation. It was conducted entirely on the Metropolitan police’s terms, and it excluded an awful lot of people in my constituency who do not have access to the internet.

The Home Office consultation focused on section 34 of the Epping Forest Act 1878, which was a bizarre way to go about it, given that that section ceased to be in force in about 1882. I would have thought that someone might have spotted that. The section of the Act that the consultation should have dealt with is section 7, which I want to quote in full. It states:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Conservators shall at all times keep Epping Forest uninclosed and unbuilt on, as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public; and they shall by all lawful means prevent, resist and abate all future inclosures, encroachments, and buildings, and all attempts to inclose, encroach or build on any part thereof, or to appropriate or use the same, or the soil, timber, or road thereof, or any part thereof, for any purpose inconsistent with the objects of this Act.”

It is difficult to argue that that is in any way ambivalent. It is absolutely crystal clear: that building on Wanstead Flats or in Epping forest—the Act covers the whole of Epping forest—was intolerable to Parliament at the time.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 is being used for the first time to attack the central purpose of legislation from a past era. The 2006 Act has been used in the past to make what can now be seen as relatively minor amendments to legislation, but here it attacks the central thrust of the 1878 Act because it undermines section 7—the whole basis of the legislation. The purpose of the 2006 Act was to remove regulatory burdens, but in this case, it is about removing protection—protection afforded to the people of east London since 1878.

This should never have gone ahead and it has probably happened because of all the mistakes made during the consultations. It is almost certainly vulnerable to judicial review if anyone wanted to take up that case. There are, however, one or two guarantees that we need to secure from the Minister at the end of this debate.

For a start, we need a guarantee that the muster centre will be gone after 90 days. The original plan was for 120 days; it was then cut to 90 days, so we need an absolute guarantee that the police’s muster centre will last for no more than 90 days. Secondly, the Minister has already touched on this matter, but it needs to be made absolutely clear that this will not set any precedent. We are potentially amending primary legislation, which could be used in future court cases to set a precedent that might allow developers to build on Wanstead Flats. That needs to be dismissed absolutely so that in future court cases, today’s proceedings can be cited and developers told clearly that the Government had no intention of creating a precedent.

We also need guarantees that the order will be complied with to the letter and we need to know how the consultation on the disposal of the £170,000 will be conducted. Who will be consulted, who will run the consultation, and who will make the judgment that the land has been returned to its original use and its original state? I can feel an Adjournment debate coming on at some point in the future if we are not satisfied that all the criteria are being met. In the meantime, I leave it to the Minister to answer these questions.

Youth Violence (London)

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I thank Mr Speaker for choosing this subject for this evening’s Adjournment debate. As is the custom, I should declare an interest: I have sat on the boards of various youth groups in my community and still sit on the board of the Generation Next Foundation, a group that works with young people in my community. I know that several hon. Members wish to intervene, and I will give way after I have made some progress, but possibly only to those who have forewarned me given the short time that we have.

I wish to start by saying a word about London’s youth. I think our youth are fantastic. They are full of energy and life, vibrant and hugely talented, and they are absolutely part of what makes this city great. I am glad that we have four great young people in the Gallery with us today from Lambeth’s youth council, including our youth mayor. I do not want this debate to detract from those comments, as the worst thing that we can do is demonise our young people. We should not forget that 99% of London’s youth are not involved in serious youth violence, and in that regard I commend the work of 99percent.org.uk on its campaign to promote positive perceptions of our young people.

However, we have a problem in London and have had for years. We know it, and our young people certainly know it, because too many of them are living with the fear that it will affect them right now. The year 2007 was a watershed, when the problem of youth violence became a big national issue. That year, 25 young people lost their lives in London, one of whom was Andre Smartt-Ford, a 17-year-old who was shot dead in broad daylight at Streatham ice rink in my constituency. We have still to bring those responsible to justice.

In 2010 the problem may not be so severe, but it continues. In my view, one young life lost to violence on our streets is one too many. Some 1,230 teenagers in London have been victims of knife crime this year, and there have been 145 teenage gun crime victims. Those are the numbers sustaining non-fatal injuries, but in the calendar year to date 15 teenagers have been murdered in London. One of them was my constituent Zac Olumegbon, whose killing I raised in the House with the Prime Minister on 7 July. In my area, tensions between gangs operating in the community have been high since Zac’s death and the situation has been precarious, with several non-fatal stabbings and shootings having taken place. In fact, only last Friday in the Tulse Hill part of my constituency, one teenager was shot in the face by a gunman on a bike while trying to get on a bus.

Such things are increasingly turning into a regular occurrence in my constituency and across London. Yes, many of the teenagers affected are involved in gangs, but just because much of what happens is gang-related does not mean that we can wash our hands of it. It is our problem. These are our young people, and this violence is a scar on our community, whatever our background and circumstances.

The causes of the violence are complex and varied, as I think we all know. I am convinced of four things. We need more activities and things for our young people to do to divert them away from the gang-related activity that leads to violence, and we need more job and training opportunities for them. We need more family support, and particularly support to help adults give young people more of their time, in the context of a country in which we work the longest hours in western Europe. Of course, we need more police on our streets to help deal with the problem, and also appropriate sanctions. That list is not exhaustive, but those things are crucial.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving that important list. Does he agree about the importance of involving young people directly in resolving some of the problems? I refer particularly to the work on teaching mediation in schools. I want to mention the young people I met today from the Lammas school in Walthamstow. They had been through Leap-accredited training in peer mediation, and are dealing effectively with what they call the misunderstandings in their schools as a way of preventing violence from escalating in our local communities in London.

[Mr Umunna]

Hear, hear. I agree with my hon. Friend—Leap does fantastic work in London. Such community and voluntary organisations are literally saving lives. They have a role, and the family has a big role, but so do Government. I have several deep concerns, which I hope the Minister will address, about the Government’s future role.

Some youth services in my area are delivered directly by the local authority, but it also commissions local community groups to provide many services. Of course, the authority gets much of its funding from central Government. That pattern is repeated throughout London. We are essentially drinking from the same trough and have been receiving moneys from the same central Government funds.

Let me start with Lambeth’s youth offending team—there are many youth offending teams across London. It works with young people in the community to prevent them from offending and getting involved in serious crime. It is funded by the Youth Justice Board and does hugely important work. On 20 August, during the recess, Community Care reported that the Youth Justice Board was to be abolished in the name of efficiency. Is that correct? If so, where will the youth offending teams in London get their funding? Will they be funded by the same amount?

The previous Government put in place the youth crime action plan, which was doing many positive things in my constituency, including getting former gang members to engage with young people and establishing youth worker street teams. That helped to prevent disorder and crime, and we were also looking to expand youth centre provision. My borough received £350,000 for this year and another £350,000 for next year. No doubt other boroughs received those funds too. Will the Government continue to fund the implementation of the plan when the money runs out next year? Will the level of funding be maintained?

We also received funding from the working neighbourhoods fund this year, and we have moneys for 2011 from the Department for Communities and Local Government, which we used to address worklessness in our area. We have a disproportionately high youth unemployment rate in Lambeth. The Government announced the abolition of the fund in June. What will they replace it with?

As part of Lambeth’s area-based grant, it receives £9 million for a range of preventive services, from Connexions to school grants. The cuts that have been demanded of Lambeth this year mean that we have to make cuts of around £2.5 million to the grants. I do not understand how our youth provision will not be affected by that. Does the Minister have any idea of the effect that that will have on youth provision in my community? What will the Government do about it?

Again, the list of funds and support is not exhaustive, but it is substantial. It is crucial that we have the moneys so that we can channel the energy of our youth in a positive direction, away from the activities that lead to violence and, tragically, sometimes to the loss of young lives.

Policing is another big issue. While we must properly fund youth provision, we also need effective, visible policing to help deal with problems when they flare up. I pay tribute to the work of the many police in my borough, who do a fantastic job of keeping our streets safe.

Last Friday, the Police Federation chair said that a touch of ideology and bad advice to Government from think-tanks had left the police service facing cuts that could leave up to 40,000 officers out of a job. Yesterday, as the Minister will know, the Home Secretary responded at the Superintendents Association conference. She said:

“The front line is the last place police should look to make savings—not the first.”

I spoke with some members of a safer neighbourhood team in my constituency on Saturday. We have eight safer neighbourhood teams which do sterling work and are very much supported by the community. They made it clear to me that they have already made savings by systematically attacking overheads throughout the force, not least at headquarters, in the way that the Home Secretary has demanded. They are already cut to the bone. What guarantees can the Minister give my community, and London in general, that police numbers will not be reduced?

Many of these funding cuts have been implemented in the name of deficit reduction.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I thank the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) for raising the important issue of youth violence in London. Over the last few years, sadly, we have had several debates about youth violence. It is clear that the issue of violent crime remains a stubborn feature of our society. We need to do more to protect young people from violence and to empower local communities to work together to prevent the spread of violence. There is common agreement on that.

The hon. Gentleman takes a particular interest in this matter. He referred to the fact that he is the trustee of the Generation Next Foundation, and he is a former trustee of the 409 Project, so he has taken a close interest in youth issues and the impact of youth violence over an extended period. I note his approach and welcome a number of his comments. He referred to the sad and tragic murder in his constituency of Zac Olumegbon, and I extend the Government’s condolences to his family and all other families who have lost loved ones through violence. Although we may not always agree on the means to prevent violence, I am sure that all of us here today agree that one young death is one too many, as he said.

As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, we know that the vast majority of young people are well-behaved and that it is a minority we need to focus on, which is why I welcome the campaign led by London’s Serious Youth Violence Board, which highlights the fact that 99% of young Londoners are law-abiding and contribute positively to their communities. We should celebrate that fact. It is worth recognising that young people in our communities volunteer and take part in their communities probably more than any other group in our society, and I do not think we do anything by seeking to stigmatise or create a false impression of the situation. I welcome, congratulate and celebrate that, and it is important that we draw attention to it here.

[Stella Creasy]

I welcome the Minister’s support for the youth voluntary sector, but how does he square that with the Government’s decision this year to cut the final round of the youth sector development fund grant, which was funding many small voluntary third sector organisations that were doing precisely the sort of work he has just talked about and said we need to do more of?

[James Brokenshire]

I will come on to the issue of funding later, but the hon. Lady needs to recognise that there are real challenges here, in terms of the existing financial situation and the funding issues, and obviously the Government’s priority is to ensure that the economy is put on a strong footing. We will, therefore, be looking very closely at these decisions. However, given that the comprehensive spending review has not yet concluded—we will be announcing the details on 20 October—it is not appropriate or helpful for me to speculate.