---

Domestic Violence

22. Barbara Follett (Stevenage) (Lab): What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of anger management courses in the prevention of reoffending in domestic violence cases. [217648]

The Solicitor General: It is important to understand which programmes are effective in changing the behaviour of perpetrators of domestic violence, and it important that such programmes are monitored and evaluated. My own view is that one of the most important ways to change the behaviour of domestic violence perpetrators is for them to understand that they will not get away with beating their wives, that excuses will not be accepted and that they will be prosecuted and punished.

Barbara Follett: Although I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend's conclusion on that matter, if we are serious about reducing reoffending in domestic violence,
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 474
 
we must combine anger management courses with some therapeutic work on the sources of that anger and perhaps work on dispelling it. Will she do all she can to ensure that where there is a high incidence of domestic violence, authorities get the funding they need to put on such courses?

The Solicitor General: I commend the probation service on its work with perpetrators in general and with perpetrators of domestic violence in particular. It is important to tackle repeat offending and to reduce offending. However, as well as working closely on the issue of perpetrators and reoffending, it is important that we do not assume that domestic violence is perpetrated by people who are victims of their own anger and who cannot control themselves. They often can control their anger at work, with friends, in the pub and with someone who is 6 ft 6 in, but they somehow cannot control their anger when they are behind closed doors with a wife who is only 5 ft 2 in. I am sceptical about some of the philosophies behind anger management, but I know that the work of the probation service, with which my hon. Friend has worked closely in Stevenage, is good.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): There can be no excuse for the commission of domestic violence, and I am always interested in the views of the right hon. and learned Lady, but what does the empirical evidence show about the effectiveness or otherwise of such courses?

The Solicitor General: There are a number of different programmes in a number of different areas. They are all being monitored and evaluated, and the hon. Gentleman can see the result of the empirical research. The absolute bottom line, however, is the reoffending rate. There is good evidence that a high level of intervention with perpetrators cuts the reoffending rate, mostly because it gets them to accept responsibility for their actions and stops them giving the excuse, "I got angry and I lost it."

 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 475
 

Business of the House

12.31 pm

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 28 February—Committee and remaining stages of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

Tuesday 1 March—Conclusion of Committee and remaining stages of the Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 2 March—Opposition day [5th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 3 March—Remaining stages of the Consumer Credit Bill.

Friday 4 March—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

Monday 7 March—Proceedings on the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Bill, followed by a motion to take note of various European documents relating to future European Union finances.

Hon. Members may like to be reminded that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the Budget statement will be on Wednesday 16 March.

Mr. Heald: Will the Leader of the House give us information about the arrangements for tabling manuscript amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill and his understanding of the current position? Has he given further thought to providing a full Committee stage for the European Union Bill? As there is not to be the usual St. David's day debate next Tuesday on Welsh affairs, what assurance can he give the House that we will have an opportunity to have that debate soon?

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any news about the debate that I have been seeking on foreign affairs, so we can discuss Africa and the middle east? Important questions have also been raised about the Attorney-General's advice prior to the war. Such a debate would provide an opportunity for clarification.

The date for the Budget was announced this week. Over recent years, there has been no consistency in the amount of notice given for the announcement of that date. This year, three weeks' notice was given. In some years, it has been seven weeks, and in other years, two weeks. Has not the time come for a standard notice period of perhaps one month? The Budget is an important date. Surely the time has come for a little modernisation, perhaps even a tidying-up exercise.

There is widespread concern about the way in which business is being pushed through. This week, the timetabling of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill and the Drugs Bill was subject to considerable complaint by Members on both sides of the House, and the Prevention of Terrorism Bill has not been given adequate time next week. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman must be getting desperate, because he has so many Bills to deal with and so little
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 476
 
time, but surely he should still try to allow the House to do its job properly. That is particularly important for the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. He must share the concern that draconian powers, of the sort that he used to oppose, are being slammed through. Why will he not stand up to fellow Ministers on behalf of the House and give us extra time?

May we also have a statement about the Food Standards Agency's handling of the Sudan 1 chilli powder contamination? It seems to have been very slow. Is it not time to tell the agency to concentrate on its core activity and do it properly? Should not the Government look again at all the various agencies and trusts involved in food safety?

Finally, may we have a statement from a Transport Minister about the effect of the snow on our roads and train services? It is pathetic that we are being told yet again that the snow was just too heavy or was the wrong sort.

Mr. Hain: I am afraid Tory snow is just the same as Labour snow. It mucks the system up. [Interruption.] I am grateful for the helpful interventions from my colleagues. On reflection, snow under Labour is definitely better.

On the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point about manuscript amendments. Ultimately it is a matter for the Speaker. I am, however, happy to say that we intend to provide extra time at the end of the debate so that there is a longer time to debate any amendments on Monday, especially if there is a Government amendment.

In respect of the hon. Gentleman's charge about draconian powers, we have been over this ground before and the Home Secretary has addressed it fully on a number of occasions. The security services and the police have stated clearly that they need something in between locking people up in the normal way following the normal prosecution procedures, and mere surveillance. It is our duty as a Government to act on that. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they have not disputed that principle. Their main challenge has been about the precise way that it is done, and when the judiciary comes into the picture or whether the Home Secretary is in the lead. There is a balance to be struck as to whether we can act sufficiently speedily and where the courts come into the picture. We are seeking to address that, and the Home Secretary is considering it.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government introduced a human rights Act. The Law Lords' judgment would not have been possible without the Human Rights Act 1998 being prayed in aid. In addition, it is important that Conservatives remind themselves that article 1 of the European convention on human rights is the right to life. When we balance rights such as civil liberties with the right to life, we need to make sure that, in an age of suicide terrorism, we get that balance right and that as a Government we do not ignore our responsibilities to maintain security.

On the European Union Bill, of course there will be a full Committee stage in due course. On the Welsh affairs debate, because of progress on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill we were not able to schedule, as we originally planned, a Welsh affairs debate on St. David's
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 477
 
day, so it will have to come later as it often has done in the past. But there will certainly be a Welsh affairs debate.

I have continued to bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request for a foreign affairs discussion. There is a great deal of legislation going through at present, as he knows. The Commission for Africa report is imminent and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have led the international agenda for assistance to Africa. The Prime Minister has been the pre-eminent world leader pressing for resolution of the middle east conflict. The progress now in prospect on the middle east would not necessarily have occurred without his leadership.

On the Attorney-General's advice on the war, that is old ground. The Attorney-General has issued a statement denying any of the allegations made in the media. His advice was his and his alone, and he was not leant on by anybody.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point about the consistency of notice for the Budget. Let there be no misunderstanding about this: Chancellors are a bit of a law unto themselves in whatever Government they serve. The timing of the Budget is a matter for the Chancellor because economic issues are extremely sensitive and important. However, I shall bear in mind the important issue that the hon. Gentleman raises.

On the Sudan 1 problem, the Food Standards Agency acted very vigorously and immediately in order to advise and publicise the problem as soon as it had practical advice to give customers. After all, it was a Labour Government who set up the Food Standards Agency and gave it the powers to act as it has done. It will continue to advise customers that, although there is no risk of immediate illness, it is important that any of the affected products at home are withdrawn and that they are not used. All in all, we are seeing the Food Standards Agency acting exactly as we wanted and set it up to do.

---