1. We considered so-called "honour"-based violence and forced marriage within the context of our wider domestic violence inquiry. However we also considered issues which relate specifically to these types of violence. We note that some groups disagree with the use of the term "honour"-based violence on the grounds that this could perpetuate the notion that such violence is indeed honourable. Others believe that the term is useful to attempts to highlight and promote understanding of the issue and should be used as it engages with the language of those who perpetrate such violence. We have used the term 'so-called "honour"-based violence' during our inquiry to reflect this range of views. However, for ease of reference, we use the term "honour"-based violence during the remainder of this report. (Paragraph 18)
2. A lack of standardised data, and what is judged to be significant under-reporting, make it difficult to make an accurate assessment of the numbers of individuals experiencing domestic violence. Only a tiny proportion of victims ever come into contact with statutory authorities, particularly criminal justice agencies, making measurement of the scale of abuse even more complex. However, available statistics suggest that one in four women and one in six men will experience domestic violence at some point in their lives. The vast majority of serious and recurring violence is perpetuated by men towards women. (Paragraph 30)
3. Understanding of the scale of "honour"-based violence and forced marriage is even patchier. The Government's Forced Marriage Unit handles around 300 cases of forced marriage each year, but this is likely to represent only the tip of the iceberg. (Paragraph 31)
4. Too little is still understood about the true scale of domestic violence, "honour"-based violence and, particularly, forced marriage. Because of the different ways in which data is gathered and recorded by different agencies, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the Government's response to domestic violence. Differences in data recording also makes it virtually impossible to track offenders across agencies, and between relationships. We recommend that the Government implements a single performance management framework on the collection and reporting of domestic violence data, to apply across all relevant Government agencies, not only criminal justice agencies. This framework should ensure that data are comparable across all agencies, and be used to measure the effectiveness of the Government's response to domestic violence. (Paragraph 32)
5. In addition, the Government should introduce a specific requirement into its annual National Domestic Violence Delivery Plan progress report to publish available Government data on domestic violence across all departments, including health, education, social services and the criminal justice departments. (Paragraph 33)
6. We found that the lack of any comprehensive data on forced marriage made it difficult for agencies to understand the nature of the issue and formulate appropriate responses. We recommend that the Government commission a separate study into the prevalence of forced marriage in the UK, as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 34)
7. We had sight of emerging data on prosecutions of "honour"-based violence and forced marriage cases, which is currently being collected via a pilot study in four Crown Prosecution Service areas. We think that this data, particularly that relating to the age of defendants, will make an important contribution to understanding the nature and scale of these particular forms of violence. We look forward to the full results of the pilot in the summer of 2008. (Paragraph 35)
8. It is calculated that domestic violence cost the UK £25.3 billion in 2005-06 in costs to public services, losses to the economy and costs to the victim. The true cost of domestic violence to its victims is immeasurable. But estimates of the burden placed by domestic violence on public services should further strengthen the Government's resolve and the economic case for tackling domestic violence. (Paragraph 36)
9. We recognise that there are male victims of domestic violence. We also note that the issue of the relative numbers of male and female victims is a highly emotive one in which views are polarised. During our inquiry we took evidence on both male and female experiences of domestic violence and forced marriage. We acknowledge that there is a dearth of reliable data about the prevalence of domestic violence against men. We have not made any assessment of the relative claims of male and female victims' groups, but the available evidence suggests that women experience more serious and more frequent violence than men. (Paragraph 48)
10. The evidence we heard from survivors about the ignorance they faced from many quarters, coupled with widespread under-reporting, persuades us of the need for at least one major public information campaign. We consider that in the UK a number of different campaigns would be valuable, targeting different audiences, including the following:
(a) A general public awareness campaign to target victims, including male victims, and friends and family. This should emphasise the nature of abuse, educate friends and family on warning signs, and publicise support.
(b) A campaign specifically on forced marriage and other forms of "honour"-based violence. The Government should make full use of feedback from survivors, starting with that gathered through our eConsultation, to design key messages and media. (Paragraph 67)
11. The Government should consider implementing an overall communications strategy for domestic violence, including "honour"-based violence and forced marriage. This could perhaps be developed along the lines of the THINK! Road Safety campaign, which is well recognised and has wide coverage. (Paragraph 68)
12. Any concerted campaign will increase demand for victim's services, in particular emergency help lines and accommodation. These services must be sufficiently well-recourced to meet any surge in demand arising from public information campaigns. (Paragraph 69)
13. We heard of concerning attitudes and abuse between young people in intimate relationships. However, 16-18 year olds are excluded from the current Government definition of domestic violence, there has been little research on the needs of teenage victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, and there is little support for under-18s in abusive relationships. The existence of abuse in teenage relationships further underlines the urgent need for effective early education on domestic violence and relationships. (Paragraph 76)
14. We welcome the research being carried out by Respect and the NPSCC with the Big Lottery Fund. We recommend that the Government consider amending its definition of domestic violence to include under-18s. (Paragraph 77)
15. We acknowledge that there are areas of good practice in education in schools on domestic violence and forced marriage, and we welcome the initiative by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to design 'school-friendly' materials in conjunction with the Forced Marriage Unit. We recommend that the DCSF and FMU work together proactively to distribute these materials to all schools, rather than waiting for materials to be requested. (Paragraph 93)
16. However, we were alarmed by the evident resistance of some schools and local authorities to displaying information, particularly on forced marriage. Whilst schools should retain discretion about the most appropriate way to display materials, it is clear from survivors' accounts that schools can provide a lifeline to vulnerable pupils by providing information on support services. We strongly recommend that the Department for Children, Schools and Families take steps to ensure that all schools are promoting materials on forced marriage, whilst allowing them to retain discretion on the details. We intend to follow up this issue. (Paragraph 94)
17. Recent concern raised by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children over the inadequacy of sex and relationships education in schools serves to highlight further the need for better statutory education on these subjects. We recommend that the Department for Children, Schools and Families specifically consider education about relationships, domestic and "honour"-based violence and forced marriage as part of its current review of sex and relationships education in schools. We strongly urge the Department to recommend that education on these issues is explicitly made a part of the statutory school sex and relationships curriculum, rather than being left to the discretion of individual schools. (Paragraph 95)
18. An emerging picture of violence between young people in intimate relationships demonstrates that it is not only schools which need to engage in educative work on domestic violence and forced marriage. Sixth forms, further education colleges and universities also must ensure that they provide information about support for students and run educative programmes about domestic violence and forced marriage. (Paragraph 96)
19. Full use should be made of the expertise of local and national voluntary sector organisations to deliver educative programmes in schools and colleges, drawing in particular on good practice in areas such as Newham and Waltham Forest. These organisations should also be consulted in drawing up changes to the sex and relationships curriculum, and in training teachers, both of which we recommend in this report. (Paragraph 97)
20. The testimony we heard from forced marriage survivors suggests that the desire to procure a marriage visa for a spouse can be an important factor in forced marriage. When we asked for their views on this issue, survivors told us that raising the age of sponsorship for marriage visas from 18 to 21 could better equip victims to refuse an unwanted marriage. However, associated with such a change is a significant risk that young people would be kept abroad for sustained periods between a marriage and being able to return to the UK with their spouse. (Paragraph 110)
21. We have not seen sufficient evidence to determine whether or not raising the age of sponsorship would have a deterrent effect on forced marriage. Given the potential risks involved, we urge the Government to ensure that any changes it proposes to its policy on visa application procedures in respect of sponsorship are based on further research and conclusive evidence as to the effect of those changes. This evidence must demonstrate that any changes will not inadvertently discriminate against any particular ethnic groups. (Paragraph 111)
22. Where victims of forced marriage are courageous enough to approach the authorities or a third party to state that they are reluctant sponsors of marriage visa applications, it is vital that they are fully supported and visas are refused. We recognise the importance of protecting reluctant sponsors from harm at the hands of their families. In this context, the procedure currently employed by the Government to refuse marriage visa applications, without exposing reluctant sponsors, is welcome. (Paragraph 118)
23. However, this procedure does not go far enough on two counts. First, the fact that visa sponsors are only interviewed when they themselves come forward as a reluctant sponsor means that forced marriage is unlikely to be detected unless the victim takes the initiative. Second, even when a forced marriage victim alerts the authorities, one twelfth of the visas refused on this basis are currently overturned at appeal by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, because the reluctant sponsor is unwilling to make a public statement in evidence to the Tribunal. (Paragraph 119)
24. In relation to the first of these shortcomings, we recommend that interviews with visa sponsors take place not only when reluctant sponsors come forward themselves, but also in cases where there is a suspicion of forced marriage by immigration and visa-granting authorities, or other third parties. (Paragraph 120)
25. In relation to the second of these shortcomings, we consider it essential that a power of refusal without the need for an evidential statement be attached to visa applications in cases of reluctant sponsors. The Code of Practice which has been proposed by the UK Border Agency, may provide a mechanism for implementing this measure. (Paragraph 121)
26. Currently, information about a reluctant sponsor of a spousal visa, or of indefinite leave to remain, which is sent to the Home Office by someone other than the sponsor themselves—for example a Member of Parliament—is refused on the grounds that the information comes from a third party. This situation is wholly unacceptable. By failing to act on this information, the Government is putting victims and potential victims of forced marriage at greater risk. It is imperative that the Home Office, The UK Border Agency and the Forced Marriage Unit put in place a system to refer information received from third parties to the Forced Marriage Unit, immigration and visa-granting authorities. The Government must actively inform third parties who are likely to provide such information, including Members of Parliament, teachers and GPs, about which department they should contact in these cases. (Paragraph 122)
27. Whilst we did not investigate in any detail the UK Border Agency proposal to require someone to declare their intention to sponsor a partner from overseas before they leave the UK to marry, we consider this proposal to have merit in providing a further layer of protection to potential victims. (Paragraph 123)
28. We recommend that all visa entry clearance officers should be trained as a matter of course to identify risk factors associated with cases of forced marriage, and to refer those at risk of forced marriage appropriately. This will be especially important in assisting visa entry clearance officers to identify suspected cases of forced marriage and interview sponsors in those cases, as we recommend in paragraph 120 above. (Paragraph 124)
29. "Honour"-based violence and forced marriage cannot be prevented without challenging attitudes within those communities which practise them. Community leaders must therefore be encouraged actively and openly to engage in dialogue about "honour"-based violence and forced marriage, and to condemn these practices. (Paragraph 130)
30. A recent research study—Forced marriage, family cohesion and community engagement: National learning through a case study of Luton—makes constructive and detailed recommendations for furthering this community engagement agenda. We support the direction of the report's recommendations on 'promoting a culture of condemnation of forced marriage' and 'empowering women's self-help groups'. (Paragraph 131)
31. It became clear during our inquiry that demand for the services of the Government's Forced Marriage Unit has significantly increased over the last few months, to the extent that it now requires additional resources in order to expand its capacity. If the Forced Marriage Unit is to engage in proactive preventative work with schools on a systematic basis this need will become still more urgent. We recommend that the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office should undertake to provide resources to increase the capacity of the Unit and enable it to operate effectively at this heightened level of activity. (Paragraph 133)
32. We received evidence to suggest that victims of domestic violence and forced marriage often come into contact with health services. Victims identified health professionals, in particular GPs, as being poor at responding to disclosure of abuse or at referring victims to appropriate services. (Paragraph 145)
33. The Department of Health must ensure that health professionals across the range of front-line services are trained to identify and respond appropriately to domestic violence and forced marriage. This should include compulsory training in the Guidance for Health Professionals produced by the Forced Marriage Unit, and in the handbook for health professionals on domestic violence. The Department of Health must closely monitor the implementation of both the guidance on forced marriage and the handbook on domestic violence. (Paragraph 146)
34. GP surgeries and other community health centres should routinely display information on domestic violence and forced marriage, including advice on available support. (Paragraph 147)
35. The Department of Health should consider ways in which GPs can be involved in the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) process. This might take the form, for example, of a representative of the local surgery or health centre attending the MARAC. (Paragraph 148)
36. Joint University of Bristol and Home Office research has found that perpetrators also approach GPs for advice or help with offending behaviour. We recommend that the Department of Health work with Respect to develop accredited training and/or guidelines for GPs and other health professionals on how to identify domestic violence perpetrators and refer them to appropriate services. (Paragraph 149)
37. The evidence from victims collected by the Forced Marriage Unit and other survivors' groups, and heard in the course of our inquiry, convinced us that there are children in real danger of being removed from school, or further education, and forced into marriage. (Paragraph 164)
38. However, when we examined the issue of these 'missing' children we exposed a confusing picture, of different data recorded by different schools and local authorities in different categories, none of which could give us concrete information about children at risk of forced marriage. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Children, Schools and Families himself recognised the shortcomings in the available data, and proposed to consult on developing a standard definition for local authorities in collecting information. (Paragraph 165)
39. Currently, schools only record data on pupils listed as being 'not in suitable education'. This covers a wide range of reasons, and from our investigations it became clear that these data tell us little about children at risk of forced marriage. This caused us great concern. Rather than disproving that there are children missing from schools who have been removed and forced to marry, our investigation showed simply that there is no adequate mechanism of identifying these children. (Paragraph 166)
40. We acknowledge that data collected by schools are unlikely ever to identify the true numbers of young people forced into marriage. Many victims are aged 16 or over, some may be listed as home-schooled, and others are taken abroad during school summer holidays. These categories are unlikely ever to be comprehensively captured in school data. Nevertheless, we consider that data collected by schools provide a vital mechanism by which some of those most at risk might be identified. (Paragraph 167)
41. We consider that the measures outlined by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Children, Schools and Families—to develop a standard definition for local authorities, and reissue guidance on children listed as 'not in suitable education'—are urgently necessary as a first step to standardising data collection between schools and local authorities. However, more action is needed. We recommend that as a matter of urgency the Government commission research into the relationship between trends identified through cases of forced marriage and data collected by schools. In this, we support the broad framework for research set out by the Joint Director for the Association of Directors of Children's Service, John Gaskin. (Paragraph 168)
42. We did not investigate the relationship of children listed as being home-schooled to possible cases of forced marriage. However, the link made by experts between home-schooling and forced marriage is troubling, and we recommend that the Government include this issue in a revision of data collection and procedures for identifying cases of forced marriage and child protection. (Paragraph 169)
43. Teachers and other education professionals cannot be expected to deal confidently and effectively with sensitive subjects such as domestic violence and forced marriage without training and advice. We recommend that specific accredited training be introduced for all education professionals on these issues, including in the re-issued Guidelines for Education Professionals from the Forced Marriage Unit. In the first place this could amount to ensuring that a designated contact for domestic violence and forced marriage exists in each school. This person could take responsibility for implementing a programme of accredited training. (Paragraph 175)
44. We consider that the approach outlined by the Making the Grade 2007 report—that all postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE) and professional development training specifically include modules on violence against women—is a good one. We recommend that the Department for Children, Schools and Families implement specific training modules on domestic violence in all PGCE and professional development training. (Paragraph 176)
45. We recommend that Ofsted be tasked, as part of its inspection framework, to inspect schools specifically on their success or failure in tackling domestic violence and forced marriage. This should include the effectiveness of teacher training on these issues, and assessment of the implementation by individual schools of the Forced Marriage Unit Guidelines for Education Professionals. (Paragraph 178)
46. The National Domestic Violence Helpline provides a vital lifeline to victims of abuse. However, the helpline is very under-resourced, facing a budget deficit of £260,000 in 2008-09. It is currently able to respond to only 65% of the calls it receives. It is essential that the Helpline is properly resourced, not only to maintain its current level of service provision, but to increase its services to meet increasing demand. This step will be crucial if, as we recommend, public awareness-raising campaigns on domestic violence are to be run. (Paragraph 184)
47. The Home Office must undertake to review its resourcing of the Helpline and increase the funding it provides to ensure that the Helpline can maintain its vital services, including 24-hour coverage. Investment in this service is likely to be amply offset by the savings, not only to human life, but in police call-outs, health and support services and legal proceedings. (Paragraph 185)
48. We welcome the launch in April 2008 of the 'Honour Network' helpline for survivors of "honour"-based violence and forced marriage, and urge the Government to ensure that it is fully resourced to be able to operate effectively. (Paragraph 186)
49. Failure by the police adequately to assess the risk of harm to victims has, in a number of cases, resulted in homicides which might have been prevented. The police must ensure that work under way to implement consistent risk assessment across all forces, in partnership with other agencies, puts right these failings. (Paragraph 191)
50. Most of our witnesses agreed that there has been progress in terms of the police response, in moving away from a culture of diffidence towards domestic violence over the last ten years or so. The top level of the police service, aided by the relevant ACPO working groups, appears to have made a commitment further to improve the police response to victims. However, the evidence we heard suggests that the experience of individual victims remains varied, and depends to a great degree on the commitment and knowledge of the individual officer. Police representatives agreed that it remains difficult to ensure that every front line officer is trained and that the response is consistent every time. (Paragraph 201)
51. We therefore recommend that the police service renews its efforts to ensure that every police officer is trained to respond to domestic and "honour"-based violence and forced marriage. Comprehensive, accredited training must be implemented swiftly. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) should ensure that, as part of its inspection regime, it assesses whether, and to what standard, forces have implemented training. (Paragraph 202)
52. We note that ACPO has not yet published its strategy and action plan on "honour"-based violence, and urge it to do so. (Paragraph 203)
53. We consider that in some cases of extreme "honour"-based violence, victims face a particular danger from organised conspiracies. We therefore recommend that the police develop a victim protection programme, along the lines of those offered to court witnesses or gang members, for such cases. Entry onto a programme must not be dependent on giving testimony in court. (Paragraph 206)
54. We welcome the extra investment in units of housing for domestic violence victims provided by the Government. However, despite this investment, there remains a desperate shortage of refuge spaces. Those who flee domestic violence give up their homes, their possessions and move away from family, friends, jobs and possessions. Refuges represent the very last resort for these victims and those who access such services do so in desperation. The Government must not fail in its duty to support these vulnerable people. (Paragraph 218)
55. The Department for Communities and Local Government must urgently investigate the scale of the shortfall in refuge spaces and work with local authorities to ensure that refuge space is sufficient to meet demand across every local authority area. Once it has quantified the scale of the shortfall, it should produce a timetable for delivering the additional refuge places required, and report back regularly on progress against this timetable. (Paragraph 219)
56. On the question of male refuges, it is clear that there is a need for some emergency housing, perhaps particularly for victims of forced marriage, who can be younger and more isolated. However, it would seem that the need for bed spaces for men is not of the same order of magnitude as for women. We recommend that the Government consider whether or not alternative support might be appropriate for male victims, such as a means-tested grant for accommodation. For male victims of "honour"-based violence or forced marriage, consideration might also be given to using the forced marriage survivor network, launched on April 11, to facilitate short term accommodation of victims with survivors. A possible model for this could be the Albert Kennedy charity, which supports homeless LGBT individuals through facilitating lodgings with LGBT carers. Clearly due care would need to be given to the acute vulnerability of forced marriage victims. (Paragraph 220)
57. Although we heard some accounts of poor implementation of Sanctuary Schemes, evidence suggests that the schemes have great potential to allow women and children to remain in their own homes, thus minimising disruption to their lives. The schemes are also available to male victims, and may better suit the needs of male victims than refuge space. (Paragraph 225)
58. We heard evidence, however, that some local authorities are using the schemes as 'cheap' alternatives to emergency housing, simply providing a spare lock or bolt. It is vital that Sanctuary Schemes are only employed when this can be done safely and when associated support and protection measures are in place. Where schemes are implemented properly—with victim safety the paramount concern—local authorities must ensure that any savings made in temporary accommodation costs through the scheme are reinvested in domestic violence services. (Paragraph 226)
59. We urge the Minister to carry out a national evaluation of Sanctuary Schemes, as he proposed, and publish the findings. Guided by the evidence we heard, this evaluation should explicitly consider: whether schemes are providing adequate security, or being used as a 'cheap' option; whether local authorities are offering women any choice, or whether women refusing the scheme are classed as 'intentionally homeless'; and how any costs saved in temporary accommodation can be ring-fenced for investment in other domestic violence services. (Paragraph 227)
60. We are very pleased that, during the course of our inquiry, the Government announced that it would introduce measures to help those acutely vulnerable victims of domestic violence who have insecure immigration status and therefore 'no recourse to public funds'. This should ease the heavy financial burden of supporting these women on the refuge sector. (Paragraph 233)
61. There seems, however, to remain a problem with the speed of processing applications for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). We heard that applications can take between 2 and 24 months. This is too long to expect women to live in destitution. We recommend that the process could be speeded up by simplifying the application process and related paperwork. This could be achieved, for example, by reviewing forms to ensure that they are in plain English, and by developing an internet system through which claims could be tracked. The small claims court system could provide a model. (Paragraph 234)
62. Kiranjit Ahluwalia's case vividly illustrates the necessity of linguistic- and culturally- specific services for black and minority ethnic women. Without support from such a service, she was unable to understand the proceedings against her, unable to communicate the vital role that the notion of "honour" played in the abuse her husband inflicted, and therefore unable to gain access to a fair trial. (Paragraph 241)
63. Many victims of domestic violence suffer long-term physical and mental ill health following abuse, including substance misuse, self harm and suicide. Whilst the Department of Health is funding some therapeutic services for victims of abuse, it is hard to believe that what amounts to £27,083 a year per organisation is anywhere near enough. We urge the Department of Health to increase its funding of mental health and other therapeutic services for victims. (Paragraph 246)
64. We recommend that the opportunity presented by the Housing and Regeneration Bill be used to ensure that domestic violence victims, both with and without dependent children, and with or without an additional vulnerability, are given priority need for appropriate social housing. This is not only of huge benefit to victims, but will also save the Government and the domestic violence sector money in refuge provision, since victims will not be blocking bed spaces in refuges. In line with his suggestion, we recommend that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government undertakes to report back to us on progress at report stage of the Bill. (Paragraph 254)
65. We urge the Department for Communities and Local Government and local authorities to consider what action is available to them in making private rental accommodation more accessible to victims of domestic violence. (Paragraph 256)
66. It is important that victims are able to access financial support quickly and easily, to prevent them from being trapped in a cycle of abuse. The Government and local authorities should consider introducing some form of support for victims of domestic violence—perhaps in the form of an interest-free loan—to assist in their resettlement. (Paragraph 259)
67. Since many victims require financial support, and may find it difficult to access benefits, particularly when in emergency accommodation, it is important that the Benefits Agency is fully engaged in domestic violence fora, both at the local and national levels. (Paragraph 260)
68. The evidence suggests that online fora, where victims and survivors can share their experiences and offer one another support and advice, provide a very important support mechanism. We therefore recommend that the Government should consider setting up a permanent, anonymous, online forum for victims and survivors of domestic and "honour"-based violence and forced marriage. (Paragraph 264)
69. Although some progress has been made by the Crown Prosecution Service over the last few years in increasing conviction rates for domestic violence offences, it is sobering to note that, in areas in which the attrition process has been tracked, the conviction rate for domestic violence, at around 5%, is even lower than that for rape, which is 5.7%. Without linking CPS data on successful prosecutions to data on incidence, arrest, charge and caution, the increase in successful prosecutions tells us little about the criminal justice response to domestic violence. (Paragraph 268)
70. We were moved by some of the accounts of abuse in child contact cases expressed in our eConsultation. We support the call by the Family Justice Council for a move away from the presumption that the violent partner will obtain contact or unsupervised contact in domestic violence cases. We further recommend that the Ministry of Justice, in partnership with the Family Justice Council, carries out a full investigation to determine the risk posed to children by unsupervised contact. (Paragraph 290)
71. We heard a great deal of fierce criticism of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), especially via our eConsultation. Whilst, from evidence supplied by CAFCASS, the organisation appears to be making progress in dealing with domestic violence cases, it is clear that it has a very long way to go yet. (Paragraph 296)
72. If accounts that the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is taking 14-26 weeks to complete reports in child contact cases are correct, this is unacceptable. The Department for Children, Schools and Families must work with the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service to ensure that it can carry out its essential work. (Paragraph 297)
73. We recommend that Ofsted carry out a follow-up inspection of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) response to domestic violence at a national level within the next year, to assess progress following the critical 2005 and 2008 reports. (Paragraph 298)
74. Sentencing of domestic violence perpetrators seems to be variable, and often to result in a fine or other monetary penalty, frequently for risibly small amounts. There is currently no collection or analysis of data on sentencing by type (except in SDVCs), nor on the amount of fines. The Government urgently needs to collate and evaluate data on the types of sentence being handed down in domestic violence cases, including the amount of any fines and the number of community sentences, and the effectiveness of different sentencing options, both in terms of reducing repeat offending, and in terms of ensuring the safety of the victim. (Paragraph 302)
75. A number of good initiatives have been introduced by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office to increase the currently low rate of successful prosecutions in domestic violence cases. However, victims told us that key barriers remain for them in pursuing a case through the courts, including lack of legal aid in civil cases, fear of continued abuse through contact with the perpetrator, and ignorance or inadequate sentencing by judges and magistrates. (Paragraph 306)
76. Feedback on Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVCs) was on the whole positive, and the SDVC model seems to have resulted in an increase in successful prosecutions. We recommend that there should be a Specialist Domestic Violence Court in each local authority area, and that sufficient time be allocated in each court to hear domestic violence cases. (Paragraph 307)
77. We recommend that the Crown Prosecution Service and Police service consider introducing automatic status as intimidated witnesses for all victims of domestic and "honour"-based violence and forced marriage, both in the criminal and family courts. (Paragraph 308)
78. We heard accounts of ignorance and misunderstanding amongst some lawyers, judges and magistrates with regard to domestic violence. We recommend that accredited training be developed and made compulsory for all lawyers, magistrates and judges undertaking domestic violence cases, including in child contact cases. Legal practitioners already pay for certain training as part of their licence, and we consider that the Government should include accredited training in domestic and "honour"-based violence and forced marriage as part of this. (Paragraph 309)
79. We conclude that there is a need for research into the effectiveness of perpetrator programmes in the UK, and urge the Government to consider funding Respect to carry out this work. This should include improvement of the current system of measuring programme success. There is also a need for research to identify the characteristics and criminogenic need of all domestic violence perpetrators, not only those who have been convicted, in order to inform effective interventions. (Paragraph 318)
80. Police reconviction data do not provide an adequate measure of the effectiveness of perpetrator programmes, especially given the extremely high rates of attrition for domestic violence. The Probation Service must implement a better method of measuring effectiveness, taking into account data from different sources, including partner reports. Probation areas already collect a range of data, including from the victims, but do not seem to have integrated this data to produce any meaningful outcome measures. (Paragraph 319)
81. Women's Safety Workers must be assigned and make contact with the partner immediately on sentencing, and NOT when the perpetrator begins the programme, which might be some time later. (Paragraph 320)
82. There is a desperate shortage of places on Probation Service perpetrator programmes. The full extent of this has yet to be revealed. Lengthy waiting lists mean that not only is a possible way of changing behaviour being lost, but that perpetrators are able to avoid carrying out the programme they are sentenced to, or that the victims are placed at greater risk, without the advantage of being supported, during the period that the perpetrator is waiting for a place. This is an unacceptable situation. Once research currently being undertaken by the service to identify the full extent of under-capacity has been completed, the Government urgently needs to find the resources to fill the gap. The costs of failing to protect victims from further attack by tackling the root causes of domestic abuse are far greater than the cost of funding sufficient programmes (Paragraph 327)
83. We have been pleased to see willingness on the part of the voluntary and statutory sectors to work towards better collaboration on delivering domestic violence programmes. We welcome their efforts to develop this. There is quite clearly a role for community-based programmes in delivering interventions. But this must not be seen by the Probation Service or government as a cheap way of passing on a capacity problem. Any contracting from the Probation Service to the voluntary sector must, therefore, be fully funded. (Paragraph 332)
84. We welcome the initiative of the pilot mapping interventions for perpetrators across the South-West of England, and urge the Probation Service to use the findings to develop an action plan for collaboration between the statutory and voluntary sectors. (Paragraph 333)
85. We recommend that the Government introduces "GO" orders, which have proved effective in other European countries in offering an inexpensive and dynamic short term measure of removing the perpetrator from their home, thus allowing the victim to remain in it. We recognise that it is important to ensure that, as far as possible, the victim is involved in the decision to remove the perpetrator from the home. However, it seems to us that a compromise arrangement is possible, with an initial decision to remove the perpetrator taken by the police, and subsequent decisions taken in consultation with the victim. Feedback from victims, through our eConsultation, suggests that they would welcome such a scheme. (Paragraph 339)
86. Development of "GO" orders in the UK should be linked with Sanctuary schemes, which we discuss in paragraphs 221 to 227 of this report, to provide further protection to victims who remain in their own home. (Paragraph 340)
87. Safe sharing of appropriate information between agencies is vital in supporting and protecting victims. Witnesses reported confusion amongst some agencies and professionals about what data the law currently allows to be shared. We have not seen evidence of a need to change the law to mandate information-sharing, as suggested by the police. However, there is a need for better understanding of what the law allows amongst front-line professionals. We therefore recommend that the Government, in consultation with the Information Commissioner, updates its guidance for practitioners on sharing personal and sensitive data in a domestic violence context, and writes to practitioners to highlight this guidance. (Paragraph 347)
88. The Department of Health expert group on information-sharing should draw up ground rules as to how patient data can be safely and ethically shared with other partners to prevent domestic violence. However, data must only be shared and retained in a secure way, according to agreed protocols of access and use. The consequences of a breach in security, leading to the unwanted disclosure of the personal information of a domestic violence survivor, are potentially very serious. (Paragraph 348)
89. Early evaluation and feedback on the 'one-stop shop' model, in which multiple agencies co-locate in the same place, shows a positive improvement in outcomes for victims. The Government should work with local authorities to carry out further evaluation of the 'one-stop shop' model, including assessment of the specific costs and benefits involved. If such an evaluation confirms the benefits, we urge the Government to consider the establishment of a 'one-stop shop', such as a family justice centre, in each local authority area. (Paragraph 353)
90. Evaluation of the first multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) in Cardiff showed a 40% reduction in repeat violence after one year. We heard from practitioners that the MARAC process has been positive in terms of improving inter-agency working. However, there has not yet been a national independent review of the effectiveness of the model. We consider that such a review would prove useful in determining the current effectiveness and future direction of MARACs. (Paragraph 367)
91. We recognise that some practitioners consider multi-agency risk assessment conferences to focus disproportionately on high risk victims. However, in our view MARACs provide a necessary forum for considering those at greatest risk of violence. (Paragraph 368)
92. The key complaint about multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARACs) from participating agencies was that they lacked time and resources to attend regular, often lengthy, meetings. The principal criticism from organisations representing victims' interests was that the process disempowers victims when an independent domestic violence advocate (IDVA) is not available to represent the victim's views. However, IDVAs are a hugely overstretched resource, with each advocate, on average, managing 150 cases. We conclude that IDVAs fulfil a crucial function in supporting and empowering victims and recommend that the Government increases the rate of its funding for IDVA services to meet the target of 1,200 IDVAs nationally, set by Co-ordinated Action for Domestic Abuse. (Paragraph 369)
93. Although the police argued that multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARACs) should be placed on a statutory footing, it was not clear to us to what extent the voluntary status of MARACs presented difficulties. It seems possible that ensuring agencies are equipped with adequate resources to enable them to participate in MARACs might prove more effective than forcing them to do so. We therefore support the Government's decision not to legislate for MARACs at the current time, but we recommend that it monitors closely their effectiveness, with a view to placing them on a statutory footing should it prove necessary. (Paragraph 370)
94. Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse (CAADA) estimates that a full national network of multi-agency risk assessment conferences could save in excess of £250 million in costs to statutory agencies. If this calculation is accurate, multi-agency risk assessment conferences have the potential to release huge savings within those services. We recommend that these savings be specifically re-deployed to fund some of the recommendations made elsewhere in this report. (Paragraph 371)
95. We note the concern in the domestic violence sector that independent domestic violence advocates (IDVAs) are attracting resources which previously funded outreach workers and related community-based support. We also heard evidence that funding and commissioning processes are adversely affecting outreach services, which are often the only source of support for victims who can not or do not go into refuge provision. The Government must ensure that it provides sufficient additional resources to implement its IDVA programme. This must not mean cessation of funding for existing outreach and community-based services and the consequent loss of services for those victims not deemed to be high risk. (Paragraph 376)
96. Throughout our inquiry we were told that funding for community organisations offering culturally-specific, or gender-specific, domestic violence services was being cut. For example, Southall Black Sisters, a campaign and support organisation for BME women, was facing closure because the local authority had moved to commissioning generic services at the local level. We find this seriously concerning at a time of greater awareness about "honour"-based violence and forced marriage, with increasing numbers of victims coming forward. (Paragraph 393)
97. The Government and local authorities need urgently to reassess funding and commissioning arrangements for domestic violence services, particularly those under 'Supporting People', and bearing in mind the Gender Equality Duty. In this context we support the call by Women's Aid for the development of a commissioning framework, with guidance, to ensure that quality is not lost to low unit cost, and the implementation of minimum national service standards for domestic violence services. (Paragraph 394)
98. The introduction of a presumption against funding groups which serve a particular group, or a single issue, creates a particular problem for some domestic violence services. This is especially the case for those serving the BME community, addressing "honour"-based violence and forced marriage and for women-only services. The Government has recognised that certain groups or issues require specialist services and it has explicitly stated that it does not intend that a move away from Single Group Funding should undermine work on women's services. Despite this, the general trend highlighted by our witnesses towards funding being awarded to generic service providers seems to show that authorities are interpreting the Commission's recommendations to mean that they must only fund generic services. This is a deeply worrying development, and one on which the Government must take immediate action. (Paragraph 395)
99. We hope that the Government's forthcoming 'Guidance on Funding for Cohesion' will reflect the need for targeted services in an appropriate setting. In its guidance, the Government should clarify the kinds of issues which may require specialist services. It must give local authorities and other funders the confidence to make the case that for these services, the exception rather than the rule may well be appropriate—in other words, that Single Group Funding is appropriate. Failure adequately to fund vital services to victims of crimes such as "honour"-based violence and forced marriage will have dire consequences. (Paragraph 396)
100. The current Local Area Agreement National Indicators on domestic violence seem to be inadequate, both in terms of the scope of the indicators themselves, and of the fact that they are in principle optional with regard to funding assessment, and in practice their implementation has been delayed. This amounts to a retrograde step in respect of the current 'postcode lottery' provision of domestic violence services. The Government should revisit the Local Area Agreement indicators to ensure that they include essential prevention and early intervention work, are not overly focused on the criminal justice system, and are adopted by every authority with regard to funding assessment. It should also reinstate the key elements of Best Value Performance Indicator 225. (Paragraph 397)
101. We applaud the initiative taken by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in adopting a tough line on violence against women service provision by local authorities. The EHRC should be given a mandate to inspect local authorities annually on their provision of violence against women services, specifically including domestic violence services. We recommend that, further to taking legal action against the worst performing authorities, as the EHRC suggests, it could publish an annual report assessing local authorities on their range of domestic violence services. This should include services for those at risk of "honour"-based violence and forced marriage. (Paragraph 398)
102. The Government should set and publish a timetable for implementation of the remaining sections of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act. We look forward to the results of the independent evaluation of those parts of the Act which have already been enacted. We urge the Government to review any parts of the Act which that evaluation identifies as performing poorly. (Paragraph 404)
103. The use of cautions by the police as an alternative to charge by the Crown Prosecution Service is wholly inappropriate and dangerous in cases of domestic violence. The Home Office and ACPO must ensure that all police officers are trained to understand the new police powers brought in under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act. It is vital that all police officers are made aware of the power of automatic arrest on breach of a non-molestation order, and are explicitly instructed not to issue cautions. The Crown Prosecution Service must charge perpetrators in cases of breach of injunction. (Paragraph 405)
104. There is a clear case to be made both for and against criminalisation of forced marriage. The key argument we heard in favour of criminalisation was that it would send a powerful deterrent message, both to communities and victims, condemning the practice. The key argument we heard against criminalisation was that victims would be dissuaded from coming forward, by not wishing to criminalise their family, which would make the practice more covert. (Paragraph 412)
105. Those prosecuting forced marriage told us that they did not consider additional legal penalties to be necessary, since a range of criminal offences already exist under which forced marriage can be prosecuted. The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act is due to come into force in autumn 2008, providing a range of further civil remedies for victims. Given these factors, we consider that it would not be appropriate at this time to create a specific criminal offence of forced marriage. However, we consider it imperative that the implementation and effect of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act is monitored with extreme care. (Paragraph 413)
106. The Government must earmark resources to track implementation of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act, and draw up criteria for assessment. We recommend that the Government should produce an initial progress report one year after the implementation of the Act, followed by fuller reports in following years. If the implementation of the Forced Marriage Act [in conjunction with other measures being taken to combat forced marriage] cannot demonstrate concrete progress in reducing the prevalence of forced marriage and increasing the safety of victims, then the question of criminalisation should be revisited. (Paragraph 414)
107. The evidence we took in our inquiry convinces us that the Government's response to domestic violence, although it has improved, remains disproportionately focused on criminal justice responses at the expense of prevention. As we identified in paragraphs 56 to 133 of this report, there is too little engagement in preventative activity, primarily around education and awareness-raising. The vast costs of domestic violence to the UK economy and public services—estimated at £25.3 billion in 2005/06 alone—demonstrate the scale of potential savings to be gained by more effective prevention. (Paragraph 425)
108. We therefore recommend that the Government should adopt a strategy on domestic violence, or on violence against women more generally, to include explicit emphasis of the importance of prevention. We consider that such a strategy would facilitate many of the recommendations we have made in this report, including reducing the current over-emphasis on criminal justice responses, improving prevention and early intervention, ensuring more even distribution and sustainable funding of services, and ensuring the equal commitment of all Government departments to tackling domestic violence. (Paragraph 426)
109. The Government's Social Exclusion Task Force, based in the Cabinet Office, could also provide a model for delivering the cross-Government response to domestic violence. The Government should consider whether the cross-Government domestic violence unit, currently located within the Home Office, might be better placed to ensure equal participation from all Government departments if it were based at the strategic centre of Government. (Paragraph 427)
110. There is currently no co-ordinated inspection regime of the response of different statutory agencies to domestic and "honour"-based violence and forced marriage. We recommend that the Government set up a working group of all the relevant inspectorates to co-ordinate the multiple inspection regimes which currently exist. (Paragraph 428)
111. We recommend that the inter-ministerial group should publish an outline of its work programme, and key decisions taken, to ensure greater transparency. (Paragraph 429)
