 House of Commons |
Session 2009 - 10 Publications on the internet Crime and Security Bill |
Crime and Security Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall,
Committee Clerk † attended
the
Committee WitnessesChief
Constable Brian Moore, Wiltshire
Police Jane Keeper, Director of
Operations, Refuge Ceri Goddard, Chief
Executive, The Fawcett Society Deborah
McIlveen, Head of Policy, Women’s Aid Federation of
England Dr. Steve Connor, National
Centre for Domestic Violence Public Bill CommitteeThursday 28 January 2010(Morning)[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Crime and Security Bill9
am The
Committee deliberated in
private. 9.5
am On
resuming—
The
Chairman: I welcome all our witnesses to this Committee
sitting. We will hear evidence this morning from a range of
organisations that are concerned with domestic violence. To help
everybody, not least those who will be taking everything down verbatim,
could you please identify yourselves to the Committee and can I suggest
that Mr. Brian Moore, from my left, commences the
introductions? Brian
Moore: Good morning. My name is Brian Moore. I am the
Chief Constable of Wiltshire police and I am the Association of Chief
Police Officers spokesman on violence and public
protection. Deborah
McIlveen: Hello. I am Deborah McIlveen. I am policy
manager for the Women’s Aid Federation of
England. Ceri
Goddard: Good morning. I am Ceri Goddard. I am the
Chief Executive Officer of the Fawcett
Society. Steve
Connor: Good morning. My name is Steve Connor. I am
the Chief Executive of the National Centre for Domestic
Violence. Jane
Keeper: Hello. I am Jane Keeper, Director of
Operations for Refuge, the national domestic violence charity. We are
the main provider of specialist domestic violence support for victims
of domestic
violence.
Q
160160The
Chairman: Thank you very much. I shall ask each of you to
make an introductory comment lasting a minute—no more—on
the overview of those you represent on the Bill. When you answer
questions from members of the Committee, could you please be as
succinct as possible, not least because in this sitting we have five
organisations giving evidence and we have to finish by 10.25. Could you
begin, Mr.
Moore? Brian
Moore: The Association of Chief Police Officers,
through its council of 43 chief officers, has discussed its support for
a domestic violence protection notice and order. The council agrees in
principle that this is a necessary piece of legislation to improve the
safety of victims of domestic violence. We have discussed with the
Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales its support as
its members are likely to be key to the Bill’s implementation.
It supports the need for the Bill and will support it if Parliament
approves it. That is the position of the senior echelons of the police
service on the Bill.
Deborah
McIlveen: We welcome the proposal because it is based
on need and it will assist the police to uphold their duty to protect
the public. It should form part of a co-ordinated community response to
domestic violence. Our last annual survey showed that on one day in a
refuge, 65 per cent. of the women had reported to the police, yet
prosecutions were being taken forward for only 16 per cent. of those
women, so there is a big gap in police responses and provision of
protection. Space away from the perpetrator will enable women to become
free and consider their options and their children—we must not
forget any children who are involved. Evaluation of such orders in
other countries shows that they are effective because the specialist
support service enables the victim—it may be a male victim, we
should remember—to look at their options and to be free from the
perpetrator’s control. Our main concern is that in other
countries the legislation ensures that the police make a referral to
the support service. At the moment the Bill does not provide for
that. Ceri
Goddard: The Fawcett Society also welcomes the
proposed revisions. We think that they address a really important gap
in the protection for victims of domestic violence, particularly in the
immediate aftermath of an incident, when evidence shows that women are
particularly vulnerable. We also think that the provisions allow an
additional safe space for those women or men to be free from coercion
and intimidation, which is the very specific nature of the crime that
we need to bear in mind when we are thinking about general legal
applications. Should they choose to avail themselves of longer term
existing civil protections, we also agree that it is vital that the
provisions are accompanied by wider support services for victims, and
also perpetrator interventions and support for male and female
perpetrators, for example, in securing housing, should that be
necessary.
To conclude,
we think, critically, that the provisions will strengthen the
state’s ability to fulfil its positive obligation and its duty
under the European convention on human rights to protect
victims’ right to life and their right to a home and family. We
also think that the provisions are compatible with the European
convention on human rights in terms of the right to a fair trial for
alleged perpetrators.
Steve
Connor: We are the largest domestic violence legal
charity in the country and we specifically deal with legal remedies
that are available at the moment. Of course, under the Family Law Act
1996 there are various orders and a raft of provisions that can provide
very valuable protection at the moment, but there are some gaping holes
and problems with the current system, particularly the inability of a
third party, such as the police, to make an application on behalf of
the victim, who is usually very intimidated, daunted and fearful at the
time. The police force having the ability to make that application is
welcome. Timing
can be a problem as well. It is usually very hard for a victim of
domestic violence to have a safe space to make informed decisions and
to allow them to move forward with their life. We are very much in
support of the legislation. I think, as has already been mentioned, one
of the key elements is the co-ordination as part of a co-ordinated
response working with agencies out there to provide continued support.
We are certainly in favour of the
legislation.
Jane
Keeper: Refuge positively welcomes the proposals as
filling a serious gap in current remedies. The point of
crisis—immediately after a domestic violence assault—we
know is the time when 75 per cent. of homicides occur in domestic
violence cases. That is the period when all our agencies need an
opportunity to work together to provide a co-ordinated response to the
victim and her children. That will assist the police, in
Refuge’s view, in providing much needed initial protection in
those early days, so that we have the opportunity to get to the
victim—she will usually have experienced years of control of her
every action by the perpetrator and will be terrified. She is
frequently totally ignorant of the support services that are
potentially available for her and of the measures and remedies that
might be open to her. There is a need for counselling and for her to
feel safe and that she is being protected, to start to make some calm
decisions about her and her children’s future and to make safety
plans with specialist domestic violence agencies. Refuge welcomes the
proposals.
The
Chairman: I am most grateful for those overviews from all
of you. The questioning will begin with Tony
Baldry.
Q
161Tony
Baldry (Banbury) (Con): We are all agreed that domestic
violence is a serious issue that has to be tackled. It is particularly
serious because it inherently involves a breach of trust. I was
fortunate last year to be part of the police parliamentary scheme,
which involves spending a number of days with the police—in my
case, the Thames Valley police. I was very impressed by the seriousness
with which domestic violence was taken—specialist officers and
specialist units—and by the fact that whenever there was a
report of domestic violence, it was dealt with as an immediate
blue-light incident that officers went
to. My
concern is to look at the practicalities. On Second Reading, one of our
colleagues, Humfrey Malins, who is a part-time judge and sits as a
Crown court recorder, made rather an interesting speech. He said that
he
was “old
enough now to be released from Standing
Committees”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2010;
Vol. 504, c.
78.] As you
can see, he is not on the Committee, so clearly we are all young enough
to be on such Committees. I want to put my question to Mr.
Moore, but if others want to chip in, please feel free to do
so. Humfrey’s
first point was: why does one need a domestic violence protection
notice? If there is an incident of alleged domestic violence, why does
one not simply charge the perpetrator for assault, actual bodily harm,
grievous bodily harm or whatever the appropriate criminal charge is,
and then deal with exclusion from the matrimonial home, if need be, by
bail
condition? Brian
Moore: The position is that we want exactly that. The
domestic violence protection notice is not an alternative to a criminal
justice approach. The police service will always try to arrest and
prosecute for an assault on a victim. There are 200,000 arrests per
year, but only about 60,000 prosecutions—there is a gap of about
140,000 cases where there is insufficient evidence available to bring a
prosecution. In those circumstances, the perpetrator is released from
the police station and goes back to the very address where he was
arrested perhaps 24 hours earlier. That is an extremely dangerous time
and that is the gap we are trying to close. When the police have done
all they can to bring a prosecution
after arrest and it is simply not possible to do so, there remains a gap
where there is a high level of risk. In that period, we want the
superintendent to be able to issue a notice to buy the victim some
protected space while other legal remedies are worked through. I agree
with Mr. Malins to the extent that we should be trying as
hard as we can to bring a prosecution, and that is what we will
continue to do, but there is a significant and substantial gap that
unfortunately leaves victims very much at risk when a person is
released from the police station without
charge.
Q
162Tony
Baldry: Could we go through the practicalities of this? I
do not know about Wiltshire, but my impression in Oxfordshire is this:
Oxford is divided into divisions and, of a night, each division has a
sergeant, maybe four constables, a duty inspector for PACE purposes,
and there is one superintendent for the whole county based in Oxford.
Under the provisions of the Bill as drafted, the superintendent has to
listen to the representations of those upon whom a DVPN—domestic
violence protection notice—might be imposed, which indicates
that the superintendent has to have the individual physically in front
of them to hear their
representations. Let
us suppose that there is a domestic violence incident in Banbury on my
patch. Two officers will have to take the alleged perpetrator in a
police car to St. Aldates in Oxford to find the duty
superintendent. That would mean two police officers being taken away
from the usual four—only four—in Banbury at night. If
that to happen, why does it have to be the rank of superintendent? Why
not inspector? If it is a superintendent, do you not see a lot of
logistical
issues? Brian
Moore: No, I do not. We have discussed this carefully
with the Police Superintendents Association. There is at least one
superintendent on duty in every policy force 24 hours a day. Under PACE
provisions, they have been doing that very successfully for 25 years
and have been available to deal with issues relating to bail and human
rights. It will not be a problem for the superintendent to engage
properly in his or her responsibilities in this case—we have
discussed
it. Secondly,
the duty should be at the rank of superintendent. This is a serious
issue of potentially depriving someone access to their home, and that
is the minimum rank that we think should be engaged. If, for whatever
reason, the superintendent was totally tied up with a serious terrorist
matter, a chief officer would be engaged to fulfil the duties of the
superintendent on the matter. We think that a serious deprivation of
rights and liberties is being contemplated, and it should be done at a
senior level by someone who is already experienced, through using the
PACE provisions, to understand the effect upon liberty. The joint view
of ACPO and the Police Superintendents Association that it should be at
least the rank of superintendent. We are confident that we can provide
coverage across the country, as and when cases
arise.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 29 January 2010 |