| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the issue is far too detailed for me to handle. I suggest that he table a very detailed question to the appropriate Minister.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday—this can be found in column 233 of Hansard—the Leader of the House told us that the designation "former Scotland Office" that appeared on the Order Paper had been drawn up by House authorities rather than the Government. Under persistent questioning, he repeated that a number of times. The same was said by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee yesterday.
I have good reason to believe that the designation came to the House authorities from the Scotland Office, probably last Friday. If that is the case, is it not reasonable to raise a point of order about protection of House officials from suggestions by Ministers that they were responsible for an inaccuracy—and also about protection of Members from being misled? No doubt the misleading was inadvertent, but the Government do seem rather desperate to conceal the confusion and chaos that lay at the heart of the reshuffle.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is difficult to ask specific parliamentary questions about such matters because of our terms of reference. Can you advise me on how we can establish from the new Leader of the House whether what I say is accurate?
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? The Order Paper is drawn up by officials of the House acting on information that they gather from a number of sources. I cannot say more than that at this
stage. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, I suggest that he consult the Table Office, which I am sure will be able to help him.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a very substantial point of order, particularly as it relates to civil servants who may not be sure to which Minister they are responsible.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps there is a shortage of clarity in the House at present, but it is not for me to comment on that.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think you know that I am very much in favour of robust exchanges in the House, which bring it to life. You may also know, however, that today, during the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition following the Prime Minister's statement, there was an unusually high—some might say unacceptable—level of orchestrated barracking from Labour Members on your side of the Gangway. Worse than that—you may not be aware of this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a number of Government Whips were placed strategically on the Back Benches, and seemed to be playing a leading role.
If all that turned out to be true, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you or Mr. Speaker be able to do anything to prevent the Government from using paid Ministers—for Whips are Ministers—to orchestrate the attempted silencing of the Leader of the Opposition, or indeed any other Member? This is a serious matter. I observed what happened, as did many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We really need to know whether we collectively, and the House as a whole, can be protected against such abuse by the Government and by Ministers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that any organised barracking of the kind described by the right hon.
Gentleman would always be deplored by the Chair. I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was in the Chair earlier, dealt with the matter adequately, but I think that all of us—the occupant of the Chair, and the House of Commons as a whole—should take seriously what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At Question Time today, the Prime Minister was asked yet again about the appearance of Alastair Campbell before the Foreign Affairs Committee as a witness. As I think Hansard will confirm, the Prime Minister told the House that officials did not appear before Select Committees as witnesses.
You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is patently not true. We learn from page 2305 of today's Order Paper that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is to take evidence from Sir Brian Bender, permanent secretary to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and that the Treasury Sub-Committee is to take evidence from Sir Nicholas Montagu, who is—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wanted to deal with the point of order fairly quickly. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether it is normal for officials to appear before Select Committees, the answer is yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I have dealt with the matter.
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Michael Fabricant: It is a different point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think I have dealt with it.
Domestic Violence (Law Reform)
2.18 pm
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to domestic violence.
I say at the outset, consistent with the non-partisan spirit of the exchanges on the statement, that I was enormously encouraged by what we heard from the Home Secretary. It was a truly ground-breaking statement of intended social reform upon which I warmly congratulate him. We also heard a typically gracious, probing and constructive contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and, likewise, from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). How right it is that those exchanges should have taken place in the way that they did.
In the period since I was elected in May 1997, interest in this House in the subject of domestic violence has been reflected in no fewer than 365 written questions, 74 oral questions and at least eight Adjournments debates initiated by Members from all parties. As we go forward by debating the consultation document, there is a real prospect that a genuine change in the law and in attitudes can take place that will be of enduring benefit to millions of people—predominantly, though admittedly not exclusively, women.
The Home Secretary explained the factual background to his decision to make the statement and to issue the consultation document. Perhaps I may express the point in a slightly different way. Last year, according to the British crime survey, about 635,000 incidents of domestic violence took place. An assault on a woman takes place approximately once every 26 seconds, from which it logically follows, I am sorry to have to say, that in the period for which I am on my feet with the privilege of addressing the House on this momentous issue, some 20 attacks on women will take place. Two women a week die as a result of domestic violence. We learn from the World Health Organisation that, as a cause of death and disability, domestic violence now plays a bigger role than cancer, road accidents and war. That is the seriousness of the situation. Of course, enormous costs are involved—not only the human cost in terms of the terrible toll of individual suffering and personal misery, but other costs, too. There are costs to the criminal justice system and to the national health service and social services, as well as a significant cost to the economy in consequence of the fact that many thousands of women are too sick or traumatised to work.
I am glad that the Home Secretary said that the Government intend to expand the supply of refuge places. He was absolutely right to do so, because there
is significant pressure on places. In the Thames valley region, of which my constituency forms a part, refuges in Aylesbury, Milton Keynes and High Wycombe are full to bursting. They often have to turn people away and encourage them to find a place elsewhere because they cannot be accommodated. That is a terrible indictment of a civilised society, and the Home Secretary is right to seek to change the situation for the better.I should like, by way of a legislative proposal of my own, to set out an offering that I hope that Ministers and other Members of Parliament will be prepared to consider. First, I commend to the Home Secretary the idea of a national domestic violence register that includes people who have served custodial sentences and possibly those who have been subject to restraining orders or court injunctions. That could be in the interests of suffering women, of the police going about their work, of the statutory and voluntary agencies engaged in co-operative work to tackle domestic violence, and of employers undertaking job checks on people who seek employment. In that sense, I suggest that there is an imperfect but relevant analogy between the proposal for a national domestic violence register and the sex offenders register.
Secondly, I impress upon the Home Secretary the importance of pressurising the Crown Prosecution Service, through much stronger guidance, ordinarily to pursue prosecutions even when the victim does not wish to do so. If there is neighbour testimony, photographic evidence or clear proof of injury, there must be a public interest argument for going ahead with prosecutions. Half of all cases are dropped before they get to court, in four fifths of cases because women are too fearful to proceed. Let us try to imitate what happens in Minnesota in the United States, where the presumption on which public policy proceeds is that prosecution, even without the victim's support or involvement, is the norm, not the exception.
Thirdly, I suggest that the Government are right to seek to amend the Children Act 1989 to underpin the responsibility of the court to satisfy itself that the child and his or her mother will be safe in cases of contact with the offending parent. I am glad that the Home Secretary mentioned that in his statement. If he has trouble with the business managers finding a legislative slot, I am not a proud man, and I would be very happy to use my ten-minute Bill as the vehicle by which he can achieve this welcome change in the law, which commands all-party support.
Fourthly, there is a case, as was emphasised by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and others, for an expansion of specialist children's services. There should be people in refuges specifically to attend to the needs of children. Therapy sessions should be available, and doctors and teachers need to be trained to identify children who are suffering or at risk, so that effective action can be taken as early as possible to help those young people.
Fifthly, I strongly believe that there is a powerful argument for trying to emulate what is done by Sunderland city council's housing authority, which has a tenancy agreement that allows for the removal of a domestic violence offender and his placement in a refuge or shelter himself in order that he can get therapy and the chance of rehabilitation. That is, of course, a
debatable point. Many women will want to flee to get away from the harrowing and vicious environment in which they have suffered, but the presumption should not be that it is always the woman who has to move out.Finally, the Government are right to consider waiving the rule that says that people whose nationality status is uncertain and who are awaiting determination of their immigration cases should have no access to public funds. They need income support and housing benefit, and a means by which to live and to get legal guidance. I welcome the Government's intention to change the law in that respect.
Much remains to be done. Too many people in this country and elsewhere have suffered too much over too long a period. It is extremely welcome that the Government intend to act, and the Opposition are right to take a sympathetic and constructive approach. We support the principles and will back much of the detail. My Bill is available for the purposes of the Government if they would like to take advantage of my offer. I appeal to the House again to show itself at its best by supporting this measure as a demonstration of our commitment to tackle one of the most abominable evils in this society at the present time.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Bercow, Michael Fabricant, Sandra Gidley, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. George Osborne, Linda Perham, Mr. Anthony Steen, Ms Dari Taylor, and Mr. Robert Walter.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |