| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Michael Neubert (Romford): If the hon. Gentleman is anxious to make clear that he is not anti-men in the context of violence, will he acknowledge that there are cases where men are the subject of assault and violence by women? One such case has come to my attention in my constituency.
Mr. Boateng: There may well be such cases, but they pale into insignificance when compared with the number of men who beat up women and who get away with it. The hon. Gentleman must excuse me if I do not get in high dudgeon about the number of men who are beaten up by women, because it is a remarkably small number.
Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking): Does my hon. Friend agree that the real concern is that nine out of 10 domestic violence incidents involve violence of men against women? Every week two women are murdered by their husbands. Is it not that concern that should be dominant in our minds?
Mr. Boateng: I endorse wholeheartedly what my hon. Friend has said. I have worked in family law for about 20 years and I began my career by working for a woman called Erin Pizzey, who ran one of the first refuges in west London. It astounds me that it is only when women are beginning to make some considerable gains in this area--in terms of winning public recognition of the fact that this is something that needs to be addressed and that it is important that we take concerted action to bear down on these violent men--that instances of men who have been beaten up by women are brought to the attention of hon. Members. It is rather interesting. The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) must understand that Labour Members would be a little more receptive to his point if it were not made in the context in which it is made--years of shameful neglect by the House of the issue of domestic violence against women.
Sir Michael Neubert: Should not the hon. Gentleman recognise that we are here to oppose, condemn and
deplore the act of violence by whomsoever commits it? In labouring the point--with which none of us disagrees--he is making the same mistake as those who talk about terrorists as being exclusively men when, as we know, regrettably, a few are women.
Mr. Boateng: With the utmost of respect, I prefaced my remarks with references to zero tolerance of domestic violence, from whatever source. It was the hon. Gentleman who raised the issue of the number of attacks by women on men. I shall move on, so long as he is prepared, likewise, not to labour this point.
The important work that is being done by the Northampton Domestic Violence Forum involves the police; it involves social services; it involves the magistrates courts, whose powers in this area are extended by the Bill; and it involves the local housing departments. If we are to develop an effective multi-agency strategy, it is necessary for us to harness the resources that are made available to homeless families. The Northampton experience is just one example of good practice that is occurring throughout the country.
I am glad to say that this new clause enjoys the support of the Women's Aid Federation of England, which says that it will contribute to an improved package of care and help from all relevant agencies. It welcomes the capacity of the Lord Chancellor to initiate pilot schemes that maximise the effectiveness of police action and the safety of victims. I thank the federation for the valuable work that it has done in protecting women, day in and day out, from domestic violence and in shaping the Bill. In that spirit, I commend the new clause to the House.
Mr. Streeter:
I am delighted to support the amendment enthusiastically. Domestic violence has no place in our society. Domestic violence is primarily an issue where men inflict violence on women--although I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). Too many men in our society feel that it is their right physically to intimidate or to beat their women. Tonight, we must send a clear signal that this is not acceptable and that it will not be tolerated. Domestic violence is not a right-wing or a left-wing issue; it is not a Conservative or a Labour issue--it is an issue of concern for all hon. Members who serve in the House.
In Committee, the Government resisted calls to give powers to the police and to other authorised persons to act on behalf of the victims of domestic violence. Now that Labour Members have thought again about the wording of their amendment, we are happy to accept it.
I pay tribute to the Women's Aid Federation in Bristol, which I had the privilege of visiting less than two weeks ago. The time that I spent with the federation in discussing this important issue has helped to shape our decision tonight. This does not mean that the concerns expressed by the Government in Committee no longer hold true. The Government have no wish to oppose any measure that would prove an effective weapon in the armoury of those battling against domestic violence.
Our concern arises from the disagreement that exists among those who have considered the question of enabling the police to seek civil remedies on behalf of others as to whether this would prove a useful weapon in the fight against domestic violence. The proposal to grant police powers to seek civil remedies on behalf of those
suffering domestic violence has its origin in the Law Commission report of 1992. However, the Home Affairs Select Committee's inquiry into domestic violence in 1993 rejected the proposal, as did the House of Lords Special Public Bill Committee on the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill.
There was, and remains, concern that the police have neither the resources nor the expertise to take on this role. Interest groups were also divided on this issue, some fearing the further disempowerment of women already trapped in situations over which they have little control. In light of these considerations, it was decided not to include such a provision in the Bill. Whatever the pros and cons of the third party approach to attacking domestic violence, it is clear that we are not yet in a position where it is wise to embark immediately on this course. However, the Government readily accept that knowledge and experience in this area is growing all the time. For example, police domestic violence units are now much more developed and expert in the field than they once were.
Mr. Marlow:
While I accept everything that has been said and agree that we ought to do what we can to deal with the problem of domestic violence, I am concerned about third parties being involved. It is one thing for the police and for social services to be involved, but is there a possibility that politically correct pressure groups could home in on a victim and use her to make their political points before a court? Is my hon. Friend confident that the amendment could not be used in such a way?
Mr. Streeter:
I have no time for political correctness for its own sake. My hon. Friend will be delighted that the Lord Chancellor will shape these rules, with wide consultation--I am sure that he will find that reassuring.
I pay tribute to the efforts of the police in developing domestic violence units. All hon. Members will admit that there is still some way to go in this regard. The Government remain of the view that there may need to be a good deal more thought, discussion and research before any rules are made under the new clause. My hon. Friend's concerns will be listened to carefully.
The Government also accept that the proposers of the amendment appear, at last, to have recognised that the amendment does not prescribe that the police shall act as the representatives, and that others may more appropriately be able to do it in consultation with the police. It makes provision for the piloting of any rules made. It may well be that a measure of agreement will emerge among those concerned with the prevention of domestic violence as to the need for the provision of third party action in the way envisaged by the new clause. In addition, suitable pilot schemes may be devised. It therefore does not seem sensible to have to wait for a further legislative opportunity to provide such a rule-making power.
Government amendment No. 59 simply makes a technical change to clause 60. It makes it clear that the provisions of the clause do not apply to rules of court made under the Act that the Bill will become,
Mr. Boateng:
I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 1, line 22, after 'end', insert
A similar amendment was moved in Committee. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that all persons exercising any function under parts II and III of the Bill are obliged to take into account, as one of the guiding principles of the legislation, the need to remove or diminish the risk to which it refers.
A number of my hon. Friends who are present now were present when, for the first time, the Committee dealt with the issue of violence. If memory serves me well, we spent more than half a day debating that issue, and the Government took us to task repeatedly for raising it. We were told that it was unnecessary and inappropriate, and had no practical meaning or significance. We were asked for examples of its significance. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for Barking (Ms Hodge), for Hampstead and Highgate(Ms Jackson)--she is not present now, but she made an important contribution then, and has spoken on related issues today--and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) spoke to the amendment, as did I. Each and every one of us gave examples, drawing on the experience of organisations in our constituencies. We sought to develop the argument in favour of a principled stand against domestic violence in connection with parts II and III of the Bill, but on each occasion our arguments were rejected.
We were asked what relevance the amendment had to information meetings. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston)--who is currently working with a Select Committee outside the House--recounted how she had appeared in court on behalf of a victim of domestic violence. Not only was the perpetrator present in court; he renewed his threats, and his attack on the victim, within the precincts of the court.
Such information sessions represent an innovation. No one quite knows how they will work out in practice. We asked time and again what sort of premises would be used for the purposes of information sessions. We thought--and the Minister specifically declined to rule it out--that the Government might want to use cubicles in social security offices for one-to-one sessions, that being their concession to the need for privacy. Such an idea is ironic in itself: anyone who has ever visited a social security office knows that scant privacy is provided by the cubicles. The experience is very public, and all too often it is humiliating and degrading.
In such circumstances, with direct free public access to the buildings, there is a real danger that domestic violence might occur. Those whom the legislation makes
responsible for arranging information sessions must take into account any risk to one of the parties, or the children, from the other party, and such risks
This important amendment sets out our principled opposition to domestic violence, as a House and a society, and our determination--
"or any power to make rules of court, for the purposes of this Act."
Question put and agreed to.
'; and
(d) that any risk to one of the parties to a marriage, and to any children, of violence from the other party should, so far as reasonably practicable, be removed or diminished.'.
"should, so far as reasonably practicable, be removed or diminished."
I have given one example, but many others can be drawn from the courtroom and, indeed, the Lord Chancellor's Department.
"so far as reasonably practicable"--
to remove the risk of domestic violence from the parties and the children.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |