Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for her brief but to-the-point contribution on the new clause so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). Many people throughout the country will have sympathy with it, and even if it is not added to the Bill today, they will be listening and watching for future developments.

Amendments 89 and 90 deal with an entirely different matter. As Members are aware, the Bill is wide ranging. Clause 42 was inserted during the Bill’s passage through the other place. Its effect is to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. We could debate that for many days, and I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments, which were well made in the other place, but it is perhaps worth noting that, notwithstanding the Government’s indication that they did not support the amendment in the other place, it was agreed to on a Division by 150 votes to only 54. I think it is fair to say that there was overwhelming support for the removal of the word.

The very minor amendments that I am proposing would bring the wording of the offences set out in sections 4 and 4A of the 1986 Act in line with section 5. Those amendments are in line with the findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated in its report issued in October 2011:

“We also support the amendment of the Public Order Act 1986 to remove all reference to offences based on insulting words or behaviour. This would enhance human rights and remove a possible incompatibility with the right to freedom of expression.”

I stress that the report states, “remove all reference” to offences based on the use of insulting words or behaviour, not just the reference in section 5 of the Public Order Act. I entirely accept that most of the publicity and the campaign on the offence of using insulting words or behaviour centred on the need to reform section 5, but if, as the other place has voted, and as the Government have accepted, it is deemed sensible and appropriate to amend section 5, it must follow that the phrase, “insulting words or behaviour”, should be removed from other provisions in the 1986 Act that make an identical reference.

Section 4 of the 1986 Act deals with the fear or provocation of violence and states that someone

“is guilty of an offence if he…uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or…distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.”

Section 4A, which deals with intentional harassment, alarm or distress, states:

“A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he…uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or…displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.”

If my amendments are accepted, the offences would remain completely unchanged, apart from the fact that the word “insulting” would be removed. If those offences are allowed to remain on the statute book unamended there is a serious danger that people who would have been charged under section 5 will simply be charged under section 4 or section 4A, and all the campaigners who have been celebrating the insertion of clause 42 and the removal of “insulting words or behaviour” from section 5 will be disappointed.

A leading campaigner for the removal of the word “insulting” from section 5 is Mr Peter Tatchell. I suspect that I may disagree with him on other issues, but I hope he will not mind my praying in aid of my argument words of his that appeared on The Huffington Post website in January 2012:

“Section 4A of the Public Order Act is sufficient to cover any exceptional circumstances requiring prosecution, although its criminalisation of mere insults should also be repealed”.

It is obvious that Mr Tatchell has looked at this whole field and recognised that there is a need wider than just amending section 5—that it is necessary to amend other provisions in the Public Order Act.

Our country rightly values and defends the right of individuals to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is wholly wrong to retain any reference to the term “insulting” in any criminal offences on our statute book. The people of this country are fed up with political correctness. If the House supports these minor amendments, it would be one small step towards restoring the public’s faith in this House and in our country as a place where the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression are cherished.

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

I speak on behalf of the Opposition on this collection of amendments. The Bill has been called a Christmas tree because of the number of different issues that have been tacked on to it. This selection of amendments feels a little like a series of tinsels and baubles and some fairy lights, but when those are all put together, they create the Crime and Courts Bill.

Before turning to our amendment 2, I shall make a few brief comments on new clause 18 and amendment 120 tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). All of us have sympathy for the concerns that he raises, and we will have seen cases in our own constituencies where people’s lives and families have been devastated by drink-driving. It is disappointing that these amendments were not tabled in Committee. The hon. Gentleman and I spoke at length about various issues, and it would have been good to get some guidance from the Government about the implications of the discussion that he had with them. There are issues that merit further examination, but I am not sure whether Report stage is the right time for that. No doubt we will hear from the Minister about the implications of implementation.

Some issues will need to be taken into account in respect of the powers of magistrates. We all understand and have sympathy with the idea of flexibility in sentencing, but there may be concerns about what that might mean for the sentences handed out. I am not clear what the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate seeks to achieve with amendment 120. He might inadvertently remove the offence of careless driving and I am sure he would not wish to do that. Somebody who gets behind the wheel and is already over the limit through medication would drive carelessly in any case—

[Mr Burrowes]

The prosecution may want to push forward a prosecution for careless driving with limited independent evidence of standard driving, but the CPS guidance is clear that being over the limit does not in itself amount to carelessness. Relying on that to prosecute for carelessness is not good enough. That is the reason for my amendment, which expresses a concern that the Government need to hear.

[Stella Creasy]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. That is exactly why we needed to test in Committee the consequences of the changes that his amendment would make. That would have allowed us to hear a fuller explanation from the Government of the consequences. I hope I am proved wrong by the Minister and that he will give us an extensive explanation of the potential impact of the amendments. I would want clarification of the consequences where an individual involved in an accident might be over the limit through medication but would not be at fault for the accident itself. I welcome rather belatedly the bauble that the hon. Gentleman wishes to add to the Bill and I look forward to the Minister’s response to it.

Amendment 2 reflects the Opposition’s concerns about the implications of the Bill for the laws on drug-driving. We welcome the proposals to make driving while under the influence of illegal drugs against the law. I am disappointed not to see in the Chamber the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), given the work that he has done on the issue on behalf of his constituent, Lillian Groves. We know that drug-driving will be a substantial offence. We know from the Government’s impact assessment that more than 2,000 people will be affected by the new provision.

As the Minister told the Committee, although it may not be on a scale comparable to drink-driving, it is important that we close the gap that drug-driving has created. However, there is no point in having a power if one cannot put it into practice. Amendment 2 requires the Government to ensure, through an impact assessment, that the clause can be enacted across the country. That will entail looking at the equipment, training and resources that the Home Office, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service have to enable them to implement the law.

Those concerns reflect the debates we had in Committee, when the Government were simply unable to explain what work they had done to ensure that the potential new offence could in fact be prosecuted. We had a number of questions about the logistics of rolling out this policy across the country. With that in mind, I want to ask the Minister a series of questions, which I hope he will answer when he responds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

I will talk mainly about drug-driving because that has been the largest part of our debate, but I will pick up on the points that have been made in relation to other amendments.

On drug-driving, it is important that we consider carefully any extra burdens that we place on the police, the Crown prosecutors and the Courts Service when introducing a new offence. The Government published an impact assessment in May last year that considered those issues. It shows that removing the requirement to prove that a driver is impaired will make it easier to enforce the law against drug-drivers.

In 2010, about 40% of the proceedings in magistrates courts for driving while impaired through drugs were withdrawn or dismissed. The comparable figure for exceeding the drink-drive limit is just 3%. In addition, research for Sir Peter North’s review of drink and drug-driving law found that in one police force, only 35% of positive preliminary impairment tests led to findings of guilt at court in 2008 and 2009. It is clear, therefore, that the existing law on drug-driving is unsatisfactory, resulting in costs being incurred unnecessarily by the police, the CPS and the courts.

The new offence will reduce the wasted time, expense and effort involved when prosecutions under the existing impairment offence fail. It is not surprising, therefore, that the new offence is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers. ACPO has been fully involved in the development of the proposal and is fully aware of the resource implications for the police.

Depending on the level at which specified limits are set and on the drugs specified for the offence, it is possible that introducing the new offence, which does not require proof of impairment, will increase the number of proceedings against drug-drivers. However, based on the Government’s estimates, those costs will be more than offset by savings from fewer road deaths and serious injuries. Indeed, the impact assessment published in May 2012 records an overall net saving of some £86 million over a 10-year period.

I acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, there is still work to be done and that getting the technical details right is difficult and important. Although she said that this work is being done at the last moment, we do not envisage the offence coming into effect until the later part of next year, so there is time to get the details right. The Department for Transport and, where relevant, the Home Office will be concerned to ensure that the details are in place.

The hon. Lady asked about police equipment and training to support the enforcement of the new offence. Equipment was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). We have already granted type approval for the first station-based drug screening device for use in enforcing the existing impairment offence. We are also committed to type approving roadside devices for use in enforcing the new offence. Work on that will be taken forward once we have determined the drugs to be covered by the new offence and the specified limit for each drug. Our aim is to have approved roadside devices available as soon as practicable after the commencement of the new offence. As hon. Members will know, training on the use of new equipment is an operational matter for chief officers in consultation with roadside drug-testing device manufacturers. I acknowledge the validity of the observation made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow that the Government do not have the answers to every question, but I hope that I can reassure the House that the work is ongoing.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister respond to the question that I asked him about the expert panel, which has set out a series of substances that should be tested for? Will the Government accept its recommendations in full and ensure that every police force can test for all the substances that it has outlined?

[Mr Browne]

No final decision has been made on the precise list of what will be tested for. We are grateful for the contributions and representations that have been made, and when we are in a position to provide the details we will do so. We obviously want to ensure that a wide range of drugs whose consumption could lead to increased risk on our roads are covered, but the line will need to be drawn somewhere and there will be practical considerations to take into account. We will obviously want to ensure that we inform everybody once the deliberations have run their course.

On new clause 18 and amendment 120, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has explained that he is concerned about the penalty regimes for drink and drug-driving. That is the issue that has exercised people the most, so I think it will be helpful if I dwell on it for a while. The new drug-driving offence created in clause 41 will be subject to the same penalty regime as the existing drink-driving offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. The penalties available are mandatory disqualification from driving for at least a year, and a fine of up to £5,000, and/or imprisonment for up to six months. In addition, there is the offence in section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, which carries a penalty of up to 14 years’ imprisonment. It is necessary for the prosecution to show that a person’s driving was careless to secure a conviction for that offence.

Section 3ZB of the 1988 Act makes it a criminal offence to cause death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both. Amendment 120 would amend that section to include people who were driving with a specified controlled drug in their body in excess of a specified limit. Importantly for my hon. Friend, carelessness does not have to be proved to secure a conviction under that section. I know that he is concerned that requiring the prosecution to prove carelessness puts too great a burden on it, but the Government are not aware of any recent cases in which that has proved problematic. The hon. Member for Walthamstow made that point.

The test for carelessness is broad, and CPS guidance suggests that a wide variety of circumstances should be considered as carelessness. Indeed, in the case of Lillian Groves, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell)—although he is in another debate now, he has been extremely vigilant in pursuing the case on behalf of his constituents—the driver was convicted of causing death by careless driving. It therefore seems likely that if the new offence had been in force when the tragedy took place, the defendant would have been tried under the section 3A offence, provided that the prosecution could also show that he had a specified controlled drug in his body in excess of the specified limit.

However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate or interested groups can provide evidence that prosecutors are failing to prosecute drivers for the section 3A offence because they cannot show that the driver was careless, the Department for Transport has undertaken to review the case for amending legislation. The changes in the Bill will make a difference, but the carelessness provision already stands and we have no reason to believe that it will prevent prosecutions, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow suggested. However, if evidence of that is brought to our attention we will of course consider it properly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate also proposed new clause 18 that would increase the maximum sentence for the prescribed limit drink-driving offence to two years’ imprisonment. The United Kingdom already has the toughest drink-driving penalties in Europe. Sir Peter North’s 2010 review of drink and drug-driving law examined the penalty regime and did not identify any evidence that would support that increase in the maximum sentence. The Government are not aware of any new evidence that has come to light since the North report was published.

The Government consider that the existing offence framework is sufficient and appropriate, and ensures that those who ought not to be on the roads are removed from them. Where more serious offences are committed—such as where others are hurt or killed—other relevant offences could be pursued. I do not want to suggest in any way that the Government are complacent about or insufficiently vigilant in the face of such matters. We want to make our roads as safe as possible, but it is worth noting that Britain has some of the safest roads anywhere in Europe and the western world. That is due to responsible social attitudes but also the fact that the legal framework in place has been shown to be effective. I understand, however, why people involved in each individual case and each individual tragedy would feel strongly about these matters.

Amendments 89 and 90 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) bring me to the subject of public order offences. I suggest that the amendments would limit the police’s ability to deal with those who can be shown to be intentionally provoking violence, causing others to fear violence, or causing harassment, alarm or distress to others. They would do that by removing the word “insulting” from the offences under sections 4 and 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

My hon. Friend may see the amendments as a helpful intervention to bring those sections of the 1986 Act into line with the amendment to section 5 of that Act set out in clause 42, but that would be a mistake as it would ignore the thorough consideration, consultation and debate undertaken by the Government, both here and in the other place, before agreeing to reform section 5. It would also ignore the significant differences between the section 5 offence and the more serious offences described in sections 4 and 4A. This is not just a tidying-up exercise; sections 4 and 4A are materially different from section 5. Offences under sections 4 and 4A require proof of intent to cause harm to another person, and proof that harassment, alarm or distress was both intended and actually caused to another person. The intent and harm caused are the differentiating features of those offences, rather than the likely effect of the words used or behaviour involved.

Using insulting words that cause someone to fear violence against them, or that have the deliberate intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress, is a far more serious matter than the section 5 offence in which the perpetrator might not intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and indeed none might have been caused. In the Government’s view, using insulting words or behaviour in the context of sections 4 or 4A oversteps the line between freedom of speech and the freedom of someone to live in peace and safety. The line must be drawn somewhere, and the Government believe it right to draw it between sections 4A and 5.

Furthermore, during the long-running campaign that culminated in clause 42, one key argument put forward by those seeking to remove “insulting” from section 5 of the 1986 Act was that removal would not have a negative impact on minority groups. The reasoning behind that was that the police have more appropriate powers available to deal with such unacceptable behaviour under sections 4 and 4A of the 1986 Act. Having accepted that argument as part of the reasoning behind the removal of “insulting” from section 5, it seems perverse to remove the protections for minorities provided by the “insulting” limb in sections 4 and 4A.

In summary, for reasons that I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of the House, the Government are not persuaded of the case for making the same change to section 4 and 4A offences that clause 42 makes to the section 5 offence.

Finally, I ought to speak briefly to the single Government amendment in this group, amendment 84, which provides for the enhanced householder defence provisions in clause 30 to come into force on Royal Assent. Clause 30 is designed to give householders greater latitude to protect themselves in those terrifying circumstances when they are confronted by intruders in their homes. We recognise that it is unusual, although not unprecedented, to commence provisions of this nature on Royal Assent. We would usually allow a gap of at least two months between Royal Assent and commencement, to allow the enforcement agencies time to prepare. However, in this case we are anxious to avoid any unnecessary delay in delivering a coalition commitment and, more important, a tangible enhancement of the protection that householders have to defend themselves. The Government have discussed the amendment with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which are content with clause 30 being commenced on Royal Assent. We think the public would find it difficult to understand why commencement had been delayed beyond Royal Assent, particularly if a householder was attacked by an intruder in the intervening period while acting to protect themselves or family members, but could not rely on the heightened householder defence.

For all the reasons I have set out, I would invite Opposition Members and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Bury North not to press their amendments. I recognise that I cannot provide the House with all the practical details of the methods that police forces will use to test for drug-driving, but we are at the broad legislative phase, not the practical implementation phase. I can assure the House that we will no doubt discuss such practical considerations in due course, but they are not necessary to approve the proposed legislation before us.

[Stella Creasy]

Given the Minister’s open, earnest and welcome admission that he cannot answer the questions raised today and that the spirit of our amendment 2 is precisely to get at that information, will he tell the House when we will have that information about the implementation of the offence and the ability of our police forces and courts to deal with it? After all, our amendment calls for information one year after the introduction of the offence, which seems a reasonable amount of time to expect police forces to deal with it, so can he explicitly set out for the House when he expects to report back on these issues?

[Mr Browne]

The Government will publish a revised impact assessment alongside our consultation on the drugs to be covered by the new offence and the limit for each, and we will revise it again, if required, before the draft regulations are laid before Parliament. As the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, they will need to be debated and approved by each House before they can be made and come into force. Given the requirement to consult on the draft regulations and then to have them approved, we are working on the basis that the new offence will come into force in the latter half of 2014, as I said a few moments ago.

On that basis, I would suggest that requiring a full evaluation of the impact of the new offence just 12 months after Royal Assent would be premature. However, I can assure the House that the Government will commission research to evaluate the effectiveness of the new offence once it is in operation. The research will take account of the impact of the new offence on the police, prosecutors and the courts. The results of such research will be published on the Department for Transport’s website. A lot of the responsibility sits with the Department for Transport rather than the Home Office, but I am not in a position to give the hon. Lady a definitive date when these matters can be considered in detail. All I can give is an assurance that this work is being undertaken and that opportunities will exist to consider such matters. I say this entirely in a spirit of openness, but I see no reason why we would not wish to give Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to consider the progress the Government have made when we are in a position to bring forward proposals that will stimulate a debate and consideration of that type.

With that, I hope that Members will see fit not to press their amendments, and I commend Government amendment 84 to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. Across the board, all areas are expected to make the savings that I know he and his constituents would expect us to, whether within the original DCMS functions or in the new responsibilities that the Department has taken on—those from the Government Equalities Office and telecoms responsibilities from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That includes reducing accommodation costs from £4.9 million in 2010 to £3.6 million this year.

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

9. Whether her Department and arm’s-length bodies pay at least the minimum wage to all staff, including interns; and what steps she is taking to encourage the payment of at least the minimum wage to such interns.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

It is departmental policy to pay at least the national minimum wage to all employees, including interns.

[Stella Creasy]

The British Film Institute is due to review its policy on internships at the beginning of March. Will the Secretary of State commit to writing to it to encourage it to pay its interns so that the opportunities this publicly funded body provides are available to all without financial support?

[Maria Miller]

The important thing for the hon. Lady to recognise is that work experience and internships are an incredibly helpful way for young people to get into employment, and evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions backs that up. The hon. Lady will know that the BFI wants to ensure that work experience is available to people from a cross-section of society, and it has advertised its internships in such as way as to ensure that happens.

Violence against Women and Girls

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Today we are seeing what is being called a “feminist tsunami” around the world. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) looks a bit worried; I think he should be, judging by the tone of some of his remarks. There are 160 events across the UK alone, and 203 countries around the world are joining in to say, “Enough. It is time. One Billion Rising.” Whether here in the UK in Sheffield, Liverpool, Ipswich, Corby, Bute, Norwich, Manchester or Kirklees, or whether in Manila, South Africa, San Francisco, Tel Aviv, the Lebanon or Afghanistan, women and men are coming together to say that they do not want to live in a world where one in three women will be raped or beaten in their lifetime. They are turning those billion women who would be assaulted into a billion people calling for change.

The question for us today is whether the British Parliament has done justice to that call. Having listened to the debate, I think we have. A fantastic range of contributions have reflected the number of issues that affect women’s safety in British society and, indeed, internationally. I briefly want to reference some of them.

Many Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), have discussed the prevalence of domestic violence in our society and how we can tackle it. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made a fantastic and personal contribution about how we might deal with that. Others have highlighted the issues in some of our minority communities, addressing in particular the idea that this is a cultural issue when gender violence is gender violence. In that sense, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker).

We have also discussed the need to express international solidarity. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) talked strongly not only about forced marriage, but about how we need to tackle such issues across the world, as did the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who both spoke out for Jyoti Singh. Let us say her name and that we in the British Parliament stand on her side.

We have also heard many examples of how we could improve the way in which our criminal justice system works. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned Lindsay Anderson and the tragic case of Frances Andrade. I put on record my personal support for the work that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has done in challenging and calling for a change to how we deal with victims of sexual violence in our court system.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) talked about his fantastic work on stalking. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) highlighted what the child protection system could do and the problems with the probation service’s lack of awareness of sexual violence among young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) gave the sobering statistic that one in five calls to our police is to report domestic violence. Something has to change in British society.

We have also covered broader cultural issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) spoke about the impact of body image. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) talked about the objectification of women in society. I will extend the hand of co-operation across the House to the hon. Member for Totnes if she wants to run the “No more page 3 in the Tea Room” campaign. She is absolutely right.

The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who unfortunately is not here, made a fantastic point this morning when she told the police that when so many women from the UK Parliament are standing up to say that they want change, they should not move them on. She has been a fantastic champion of tackling the changes that are allowed by online technology.

All of the points that have been raised are examples of a broader issue that we need to deal with. The fundamental problem is not technology or the practice of female genital mutilation; it is that we live in a society that is unequal. That impacts on the safety of women in our society. Even if the internet did not exist, women would still face the same scale of violence. That will continue unless we tackle the root cause of inequality, unless we tackle those attitudes and unless we take the stand that we are taking today every day to say that something has to change.

That is what the motion speaks to. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who has been a fantastic champion for this issue with the Backbench Business Committee. I also pay tribute to Members across the House who have supported the motion, including the hon. Members for Erewash (Jessica Lee) and for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who cannot be here. I want to say why the Opposition think that the motion matters. We want to help the Minister if he is brave enough to listen to the arguments that have been made today about why compulsory sex and relationships education for both boys and girls is intrinsic to changing the culture in which we see violence against women in our communities.

Many Members have talked about the impact that is made by high-quality sex and relationships education. I accept the point that was made by the hon. Member for Battersea. The Brook advisory service has demonstrated the impact of poor-quality teaching. That is an argument for the use of expert guidance within schools rather than for having no guidance at all. I commend the work of Women’s Aid in that regard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North put her finger on it succinctly when she said that the Department for Education was the villain of the piece. I agree with her. As somebody who has campaigned for financial education be a key part of tackling debt within our society, I do not understand why we can teach our children about compound interest but not about consent. That must be a critical part of the process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) talked about the importance of youth work. She is right that we must deal with this issue not only in schools, but throughout our culture.

The hon. Members for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made well-meant contributions in which they seemed to suggest that this was a debate for women. Let me tell them very clearly that it is not the responsibility of women to avoid violence; it is the responsibility of society to stamp it out. We welcome them here to take part in the debate not because they care about women, but because it is for everyone in society to tackle these issues and to say that violence against women must not happen any more. With that in mind, I hope that they will help us to challenge those who suggest that this issue is about what women wear. I urge the Foreign Secretary, as he is in his place, to look again at the advice on the Foreign Office website and to consider what message it sends out about rape in our world.

It is not acceptable to offer a caution as a penalty for rape in our society. We have to tackle the way in which we deal with rape. When only one in 30 rape victims in our society sees justice, it is an argument not for cautions, but for changing the criminal justice system. [Interruption.] That was actually the suggestion of the Secretary of State for Justice, so I hope that the Government Members who are heckling will take it up with him.

My hon. Friends the Members for Slough, for Kingston upon Hull North and for Bolton West and the hon. Member for Battersea have spoken about the importance of sex and relationships education. We know that children will get their advice from somewhere. We know that they will go to Google if they do not go to a quality-assured source. We know what impact that has not only on their sexual behaviour, but on how they deal with relationships and whether they have respectful relationships. I am mindful of the comments of the hon. Member for Luton South about the importance of respect in relationships.

That is why we cannot avoid this question any more. That is why we must challenge those who are trying to stop us. That is why I challenge the Secretary of State for Education when he suggests that all we need to do is to raise educational attainment, as though sexual violence is not happening in the highest performing schools in our country. Let me tell Government Members that we know that sexting takes place in the poshest and most expensive boarding schools that children can go to. So this is not about—[Interruption.] Members are barracking me, but the Secretary of State told the Education Committee that one of the best ways to get children not to indulge in risky behaviours was to educate them so well that they had hope in the future. He seemed to be suggesting that it was about improving standards in schools—we all agree with that—but not about taking on the cultural aspects of what sexual behaviour people think is acceptable.

I actually agree with the Prime Minister on the issue. He said that

“I believe that sex education, when taught properly, is extremely important. It should not be values-free. That must mean teaching young people about consent: that ‘no’ means ‘no’. At the moment, this is not even compulsory in the sex education curriculum. This has to change – and it will change with a Conservative government. This will be an important step towards encouraging greater responsibility and helping tackle one of the root causes of rape and sexual violence.”

The Prime Minister said that to the Conservative Women’s Organisation in 2007. We all know that in 2010, Labour’s efforts to change the situation were a victim of the wash-up, and that the other coalition partners supported putting compulsory sex and relationships education on the curriculum. Since then, there has been a vote about academies, and the Government voted against the motion.

Today, we have heard the support in the country for sex and relationships education in schools through the One Billion Rising Campaign, including from Government Members, and particularly the concern that if 50% of our schools become academies, they will be able to avoid sex and relationships education altogether. I hope that there will therefore be cross-party consensus that the situation has to change, and cross-party support for the Minister if he chooses to say here and now that he will take on the Ministers from the Department for Education who could not even be bothered to come here today to talk about the issue and are not willing to support it.

That is key to tackling the root causes of these problems—we need to say that it is enough. It is time. We must not let those people get in the way of changing attitudes. One Billion Rising is because one is too many. The hon. Member for Battersea talked about solidarity and standing together. Let us stand up to the people in the Government who still do not take that line. I say to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that to tweet about One Billion Rising is fantastic and sends a message, but we will hold them to account every single day if these issues are still not resolved.

I ask Members to vote for the motion, to give Home Office Ministers the clear support that they need. I ask Members to give the Home Office the evidence it needs to show that the situation has to change, so that Ministers can go to the Department for Education and say that they want to see sex and relationships education on the curriculum. Anyone who heard Jahmene Douglas talking today about the impact that it had on his sister and his family, and who saw such a brave young man come forward, will know that we cannot leave it to chance that schools will provide it. We have to ensure that it is a standard across British society.

I hope that Government Members will put their money where their mouth is, vote for the motion and support us in this effort. I hope we will say that One Billion Rising is not just for one day but is the start of something different in British society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The issue of education is discussed in the inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which I chair. It meets regularly and brings Government Departments across the board, including the Department for Education, around the table. It is correct that education and information are very important aspects of dealing with FGM, which is why I am pleased to say that we have delivered 40,000 leaflets and posters to schools, health services, charities and community groups around the country, raising awareness of this issue.

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

May I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s comments about the work that the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) has done on raising awareness of female genital mutilation in the UK? The Home Secretary will be aware of the calls for action to improve awareness of FGM, and to support young people who are facing this threat in coming forward. Given this and her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), may I press her on the question of the level of violence against women and girls in Britain, and ask whether she will give her direct personal support to the One Billion Rising campaign and the vote in this place on Thursday to make sex and relationship education statutory for both boys and girls—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. As I said, the Government take this issue extremely seriously and we look across the board at what Government can do to deal with it. It is about helping communities themselves to eradicate this problem. Everyone in this Chamber will be concerned about the lack of prosecutions, and I am pleased that the Director of Public Prosecutions has issued a new action plan on FGM to the prosecutors, with the hope of getting prosecutions. We must recognise that education of a variety of sorts is important, which is why alerting people at various levels in the public services and in schools, and others, and helping girls to understand the threat themselves, is so important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Metropolitan police receive extra funding for the fact that they are the capital city police force. I have every confidence in the Metropolitan police in all the operations that they are undertaking. The number of officers deployed to each of the operations that the right hon. Gentleman referred to is a matter for the commissioner and his officers.

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

In May 2010 the Met had more than 32,600 police officers. Last April, Mayor Boris Johnson promised us that he would maintain this figure, yet in November the latest figures show us that policing has fallen to just 30,939. Last year the deputy mayor told the Home Affairs Committee that it was a doomsday scenario for London to have only or around 31,000 officers. Does the Home Secretary agree with this assessment, and if so, what does she intend to do about it?

Gangs and Youth Violence (2011 Riots)

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I am honoured to respond to this debate, which has been organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), both formally on behalf of the Opposition and as an MP who, like many of those who have spoken today, lives day to day with such issues. If there is one message that the Minister can take away from the debate it is that this is not just about public spending. For many of us, it is the life and death of our local communities, and it is our local young people whom we are concerned about. The contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) recognise very strongly the need and the genuine concern to get this matter right, not just over the next year or so but over the whole generation.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), who has just been elected. He has a strong passion for this issue and, in his former life, made a tremendous difference to the local community in Lambeth.

I think I speak for everyone when I pay testament to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North who has displayed a persistent commitment to this issue and to getting it right, too. She is unparalleled in her experience and knowledge of, and passion for, tackling youth violence and gang crime.

Like many Members in this debate today, I have cause to reflect on the young people whom we have lost to these crimes in my local community in Walthamstow—whether they be the young people who have been killed or the young people whose lives have been irrevocably changed by being a victim of youth violence. There were 155 incidents in my own borough last year, and a fatal stabbing after a party just this summer of a youth on the cusp of adulthood. That senseless loss of life has to stop. However, it is a question not just of addressing these issues when we are in a crisis situation—when we have riots on our streets—but of the day-to-day work that needs to go on to turn around the cultures and practices that all too often lead to such incidents.

I encourage the Minister to read the work of John Pitts so that he can better understand the nature of the gangs and of the young people whom we are dealing with in these instances. We should not see all young people, or even the reasons why they get involved in gangs, as the same. The Minister needs to understand why we are calling for a joined-up approach and why it is so important to invest not just in policing but in housing, social care and education. He should also look at the contribution that other parts of Government can make.

The Minister may well say that we have had some success in dealing with the issues over the past year and a half, and I agree with that, especially with the introduction of the Trident gang programme in my part of the country. We know just how much crime gangs are responsible for in our local communities—Members have mentioned many of them in this debate. We also know that gangs are responsible for about 14% of rapes, so when we talk about the gender effect of gang crime, it is about not just young girls being drawn into gangs but the consequences on our streets. We know that the Trident programme has made a difference. We have seen a 34% reduction in the numbers of young people being involved in gang crime, and the arrest of 1,500 gang members in London.

The question today is what happens next. The Minister should take away from this debate the fact that we are concerned, as indeed the Centre for Social Justice is, that our first step should be the engagement by the police with these young people, but that cannot be the only one. In particular, the concept that we can arrest our way out of this problem just does not hold true.

I read the report by the Centre for Social Justice and about the funding that is now going into gang intervention work, but I was concerned about the challenges that face some of the organisations involved. For example, some groups are being stopped from applying for funding because they are working with younger potential victims of gang crime. Many Members here today have flagged up the familial links in gangs. We see young people getting involved in the culture through their brothers, sisters, cousins or even next-door neighbours. Their close networks can lead them to be involved in gangs, and we need to stop that before it even starts.

The other problem is that the funding is guaranteed for only a short amount of time, and we all recognise that our problems cannot be resolved speedily. The most crucial aspect of the CSJ research shows that the relationship between the police and young people has got no better, and indeed in some circumstances it has got worse. If we want to turn around young people’s sense of their relationship with the public services—those people who are there to serve them and keep them safe—we need to do a lot more than we are doing at the moment.

That is about a number of factors. First, it is about building resilience. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East spoke admirably about resilience and the ability to tackle life’s challenges without resorting to violence and without feeling the need to join a gang, and about finding a positive identity and positive future for yourself as a young person.

Secondly, it is about understanding where the flashpoints are. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North admirably set out where those points of crisis and tension are on our streets, and she spoke about trying to divert young people away from them.

Thirdly, it is about the longer term engagement that we have with young people. Containment of young people who are involved in gangs is simply not an effective strategy. We have to engage with them, and we have to dispel and disperse those kinds of behaviour.

Fourthly, we have to protect the victims. I am very mindful that 70% of young people in London do not feel safe on our streets. That means that they do not feel safe getting on a bus to go to college, let alone walking about their own capital city. We have to address these issues too, because they feed into a culture in which gang violence and youth violence are the norm, rather than something that we must all address.

We recognise that dealing with this issue involves a joined-up approach. I press the Minister to think very carefully about what he can do to bring pressure to bear to tackle some of the bureaucratic problems that many people within our local communities face in trying to address these issues, particularly in terms of housing. We have heard today about some of the challenges that many of our local authorities face in moving people. Moving people cannot be done purely on a borough-by-borough or neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood approach. It needs to go from the grass roots up, but it also needs national support.

We must also learn from the best in the voluntary sector. Many people here today have already mentioned some of the fantastic groups that they work with in their local communities. I have had cause to meet Barry Mizen, and he is an incredibly empowering and impressive man. I have also met representatives of organisations such as the Spirit of London and Bang FM in Harlesden, and I have met many local councillors, such as Councillor Zaffar Van Kalwala in Brent, who are trying to tackle some of these issues at a grass-roots level. Within my own community, there are the Active Change Foundation, Gangs Unite—

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that empowering communities is a fundamental part of finding solutions to the problems that many of our poorer communities face with high levels of youth violence? Croydon North has an escalating problem of that kind, as youth violence spreads across London from the inner urban areas.

Next door to Croydon is Lambeth, which is of course the borough I was leading until yesterday morning, where a very different and innovative approach, which bears further scrutiny, is being used. It empowers communities to take action and take control of the problem for themselves. It is based on experiences such as the one on the Myatts Field estate, where a group of local parents, who were terrified when their young people started getting involved in gangs, began to take action for themselves with precious few financial or other resources. However, over a period of three years, they were able to get 80 of their young people out of gangs by running a range of activities for them. What the council is doing through a new youth services trust is to give local communities access to public resources to take action themselves. Is my hon. Friend’s view of empowerment models such as that one favourable?

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend, who is newly elected to Parliament, has just shown why he will be a very powerful advocate for his local community, and he has also shown that he offers a huge amount of expertise on what works in tackling some of these problems.

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case about empowerment and about working from the grass roots. As I was about to say, I absolutely agree with that approach but it needs resourcing. That is why this issue is about resources. When we consider that we spent £133 million in four days of policing the riots last year, the consequences to the public purse of not investing in those people who are working in the voluntary sector and our local communities who understand and can engage in these ways are huge. The Government have put £18 million in, but that is nothing compared with the 20% cut that we have seen in youth offending team and community safety partnership budgets, the very money that was funding the type of work that my hon. Friend and others here today have talked about.

Finally, I just want to put four questions to the Minister, which I feel he must address. First and foremost is the overriding question that all of us are asking: what happens to those who have been arrested and their families? What happens next? The strategy cannot simply be to deal with that issue on a year-by-year basis. The Government must come forward with a plan to deal with those generations who are affected, including the next generation and those people who are coming out of prison.

Secondly, where will the resources come from so that we can do that? We can all see the savings to the public purse from prevention. We need to see the Government being very clear about where the money will come from to make sure that those prevention programmes are made real.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch made a very important and powerful case about gang injunctions. Will the Minister commit to review the effectiveness of the proposals about gang injunctions and what they do on the ground, particularly to work on those positive diversionary activities to ensure that we take people out of gangs and into a positive future?

Finally, can the Minister tell us more about what he is doing to bring together other Ministers and other resources from other Departments? Those Departments include the Department for Communities and Local Government; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East referred to; the Department of Health; the Department for Education; and the Ministry of Justice. Too much money in Government is spent on dealing with the consequences of the failure to address youth violence and gang violence. Can he tell us more about what he is doing to bring those resources together to ensure that we join up our plans, to protect our young people and ensure that the potential that they offer to our communities is not lost but realised?

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.