---

Violence Against Women

I would be grateful for your guidance, Mr. Benton, on when Members are to give way for those on the Front Benches to make their final contributions. It is apt that we hold this debate in the wake of the Second Reading of the Crime and Security Bill on Monday and the most welcome review of the family justice system announced yesterday by written statement. Ministers are to be congratulated on those two initiatives, the latter of which is an example of joined-up Government from two Departments. The statement from the two Secretaries of State is evidence of the wider repercussions that violence against women can have, particularly in the domestic context. It is on those aspects of domestic violence that I wish to focus my remarks. When considering what support must be in place for victims of domestic violence, it is necessary to understand the pervasive nature of the crime for the victims. Victims are forced to carry their abuse with them. It is impossible to escape. Abuse happens in the home, in public and at work, and it stalks the victim throughout the day, whether the perpetrator is absent or not. The abuse does not end when the violence stops, but continues as a psychological torment. Depressive illness frequently follows. There is a fear of others' questions, of letting the carefully constructed semblance of normality slip and of the consequences of allowing the secret out. Then there is the ever-present fear, whether alone or in a crowd, of returning home to the abuser, perhaps an abuser who abuses in front of the children. It is also true that abuse might not be limited to one assailant, but be perpetrated by several of the victim's close relatives, and perhaps against the victim's other close family members as well. Recourse to police intervention can come after an extended period of domestic violence. The perpetrator might come from a family environment where violence and intimidation in the home is one of the primary means of communication. That problem hints at the need for a broad menu of public policy solutions involving early intervention and support for all parties involved, and that is something I want to emphasise in my short speech, bearing in mind that another important contributor to the debate is yet to speak. We need to accelerate the timing of intervention. It can be distressing for a family to see a relative exhibiting regressive tantrum-like behaviour normally exhibited in younger children. That can involve self-abuse, public exhibitionist self-abasement and public violence to fellow family members. That can cause trauma for partners and extended family members such that that they too are victims. Dr. Keren Skegg has done good work in that area. Before taking recourse to the authorities, the victim of domestic violence might have faced a daily litany of violent abuse, physical force, false imprisonment, denial of funds for food for both them and their children, intimidation, threats to family pets, which the Minister mentioned, physical injury from the use of domestic items or even traumatisation through the erratic misuse of road vehicles to physically intimidate. The panoply of means of violence and abuse are frighteningly extensive, and ease of recourse to support for women who want to care for those whom they love, but at whose hands they suffer, is a much-needed reform. There is much that is done well in Europe in that regard, but I will probably not have time to detail that in my contribution. A presumption in the family justice system to break up and separate families might need to be challenged by funding early support and intervention before court action becomes inevitable. In that circumstances, I praise the Government's upcoming review of the family justice system and refer to the valuable Adjournment debate held yesterday evening, in which I declared my frequent use of the family justice system. That debate was secured by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who raised the vital issue of the abuse and overuse of ex parte family court proceedings, often on a Friday afternoon, and often on behalf of male applicants. I was pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), said that she would consider whether the concern about ex parte application misuse could be included in the Government's welcome family justice system review. We must remember that violent partners in family justice system cases can abuse that system to continue their intimidatory behaviour and use the public domain for inappropriate defenestration. I would also like to highlight the excellent work of the Centre for Social Justice in seeking support for bolstering families subject to domestic violence, which in itself can exhibit intimidation within the extended family. Violence within lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual relationships also needs to be considered in the debate, and I would like to place on record the excellent work I have learned about through my attendance at monthly Croydon LGBT meetings with the Croydon police about that serious concern. That is an initiative of the Croydon police that should be studied and followed. The proposed "go" orders in the Crime and Security Bill are vital. The need for their introduction is urgent, but I believe that it should not fall on the police to order; instead, there should be proper investment in the court system to allow for immediate recourse to 24-hour courts. I would prefer the term "time-out orders" rather than "to go orders". It is a better term, which would encourage more frequent use and, most importantly, earlier recourse to the facility. Earlier and frequent use of time-out orders would save lives and save families. I am cognisant that there is another Member who has more to contribute than I do to this debate, so I will not have time to talk about good practice in Europe. However, it should be noted how the support that is given to both sides of a dispute means in many ways that families can be protected. In conclusion—perhaps it is an exaggeration to say "conclusion"—I would like to spend a little time on two issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). I have raised in this Chamber before my concern about victims of domestic abuse being denied services because they are not entitled to public funds in what is a sad and serious legal anomaly. Of course, the Solicitor-General will say that it is a matter for the courts. It is right and proper that what might be termed social benefits are not available, but support at public expense in the course of upholding the British tradition of justice is a separate issue. Police officers would not pass by on the other side of the street if they observed a person being assaulted whom they knew to be without the right to remain, so why should it be acceptable to consign a victim to the same fate within the confines of what might loosely be termed their home? A distinction must be made between public money used in connection with crime and justice, and the sort of social services benefits that are properly the thrust of the legal finding. The qualification must be that entering into the support system should not have an immediate effect on the victim's immigration status. That is a separate issue, and while their new familial status is undoubtedly of importance, it would be unfortunate if people were attracted to making accusations of abuse from anything other than genuine concern. I would also like to refer to the Metropolitan Police Service human trafficking team pilot, which is being closed down. I was so pleased to hear what the Solicitor-General had to say about advertising: I agree that local newspapers should abstain from the type of advertising that assists the human trafficking business. It is of great regret to me that the Croydon Advertiser has not followed the example of the Croydon Guardian in removing such adverts, regardless of the amount of money that they bring in. The process that was agreed at the beginning for funding the pilot—to reduce the 50 per cent. of the Home Office funding during this financial year and to have no funding next year—compromises an important unit. I previously had an answer in the main Chamber from the Leader of the House that the problem will now be dealt with by the vice unit in the police service, but I believe that it is important to have a dedicated service. As the Solicitor-General will know, I do not wear any political badge here so, in quoting the Mayor of London's letter to me I am not trying to make a partisan point. However, I would like to quote it in concluding my speech, because it poses a question which the Solicitor-General may have time to answer in winding up the debate. Boris Johnson stated:""It is very disappointing that the Home Office will not be providing the MPS with any further additional funding to tackle human trafficking, particularly given the anticipated increase in trafficking leading up to the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Your support"—" the letter is to me—""in raising this issue with other parliamentary colleagues would be most appreciated."" I have fulfilled the Mayor's request. I very much look forward to what I am sure will be a significant contribution to the debate by the next speaker.