 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 Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 9 February 2010(Morning)[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Crime and Security Bill10.30
am
The
Chairman: As you can see, I am back in the Chair. I
express the hope that you missed me last week. I welcome you all to
this sitting of the Crime and Security Bill on what is a bright and
pleasant day at the moment although further snow is forecast. I hope
that does not cast a damp, cold shadow over our proceedings this
morning and this afternoon.
I remind the
Committee that there is now a Ways and Means resolution as well as a
money resolution in connection with the Bill. I am pleased to advise
Committee members that copies are available in the Committee
Room.
Clause 21Power
to issue a domestic violence protection
notice Question
(4 February) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
taking new clause 28—Definition of domestic
violence— ‘(1)
Domestic violence is defined as an incident
of— (a) threatening
behaviour, (b) violence,
or (c) abuse, whether
physical, sexual, financial or emotional, committed by a person (P) on
an adult who is or has been an intimate partner or family member of P,
regardless of the gender or sexuality of either person, and which is
one of a series of such
incidents. (2) Abuse under
subsection (1)(c) may
include— (a) destruction
of a spouse’s or partner’s
property; (b) isolation of a
spouse or partner from friends, family or other potential sources of
support; (c) threats to others,
including children; (d) control
over access to money, personal items, food, transport, and telephone
services; and (e) the effect of
any of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) on
children.’.
The
Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism (Mr.
David Hanson): Thank you very much, Sir Nicholas. What a
pleasure it is to be here again with you in the Chair. Please pass on
our best wishes to Mr. Cook, who presided over last
week’s proceedings in a most exemplary manner; we had a good and
enjoyable time. I am sure that you have read the proceedings of the
Committee and seen what fun we had last week.
The debate
that commenced on Thursday morning covered clause 21 stand part and new
clause 28 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent,
South. We had a useful discussion and this morning I refreshed my
memory of the debate by examining Hansard.
I think there is general agreement among all Committee members that
tackling domestic violence remains a key issue.
Domestic
violence still accounts for about 14 per cent. of all violent crime,
although violent crime generally is falling. We remain concerned, as do
the hon. Members for Hornchurch and for Carshalton and Wallington, that
the impact of domestic violence is devastating not only for victims and
their families, but also for communities. Trying to resolve domestic
violence issues occupies considerable police and other agency
time. Clearly
and crucially, domestic violence is not a one-off incident; there is
often a pattern of abusive and controlling behaviour through which the
abuser seeks power and control over their victim. Agencies face a range
of difficulties, and over the past 10 years, we have put in place
legislation and policy objectives to reduce the incidence of domestic
violence, give greater legal powers to take action against perpetrators
and provide better support mechanisms. The Domestic Violence, Crime and
Victims Act 2004 introduced specialist domestic violence courts and put
in place 720 fully trained independent domestic violence advisers.
Therefore, the Committee can see that this is a serious matter for the
Government. Arrests are rising and conviction rates are growing. I am
certainly not complacent about the issue.
The Family
Law Act 1996 and the 2004 Act introduced important measures, such as
non-molestation orders and occupation orders, which are designed to
help secure the victim’s protection in the longer
term. James
Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): One point that has been
raised is the use of section 60 of the Family Law Act, to allow a third
party to initiate proceedings on behalf of an alleged victim. My
understanding is that the provision is not yet in force. The Minister
highlights various measures in the 1996 Act that have been introduced,
but do the Government intend to bring that section into effect? It
would provide another route to allow third parties to bring actions on
behalf of a victim. Clearly, that is part and parcel of the
Government’s proposals, so has that provision been
considered?
Mr.
Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising
that point, because section 60 is an important provision. It has yet to
be implemented, as was raised in the evidence sessions, so it has been
discussed as part of our consideration of the Bill. However, the
domestic violence protection orders that the clauses are committed to
are substantially different. Section 60 makes provision for third
parties to apply only for protection orders, whereas the DVPOs under
this clause and others do three important things. They allow the police
to take the first step to issue a protection order; they offer
immediate protection in the aftermath of an incident of domestic
violence and they give the victim crucial protection and breathing
space, which is the determinant factor that we are trying to
establish.
James
Brokenshire: The Minister is right to highlight the
distinctions between the section 60 regime and the one contemplated by
virtue of the domestic violence protection notice. Do the Government
still intend to bring that section into effect as an additional
measure,
sitting alongside the new provisions, given the concern that has been
rightly raised about the clearly described gap in support provided for
the
victim?
Mr.
Hanson: I appreciate the way that the hon. Member for
Hornchurch has brought forward that point. The Under-Secretary of State
for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, in
conjunction with colleagues from the Ministry of Justice and the
Government Equalities Office, under the Minister for Women and
Equality, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell
and Peckham, are developing a strategy on violence against women. One
issue they are reflecting on is how and when we can implement section
60. That is something that I hope we can resolve in the near future
when the strategy is finally produced, which I expect to be
shortly.
Having said
that, we found that there is still a gap in the protection of victims
of domestic violence. The issue before the Committee relates to the
domestic violence protection order, to ensure that we have orders in
place to stop an aggressor returning not just to the house but to the
whole area. The order would set aside a period of time for that
individual—male or female—to be away from the vicinity of
the potential domestic violence. Clause 21 and the others in this part
of the Bill will cover that
issue. Clause
21 is about providing the victim with counselling support, practical
options for getting away from the violent partner and securing
protection in the longer term. Unlike existing measures, the DVPN would
offer the victim crucial support and protection in the immediate
aftermath of the domestic violence incident.
The order
would prohibit the perpetrator from molesting the victim, including
being violent or threatening violence, and may also prevent the
perpetrator from entering a shared residence. There is a clear test in
clause 21 for issuing a domestic violence protection notice. We have
debated it on the Floor of the House and in the evidence sessions to
the Committee. The basic purpose is that a senior police
officer—of superintendent rank or above—could issue a
domestic violence protection notice when they have reasonable grounds
for believing that the suspected perpetrator has been violent or has
threatened violence towards an associated person, and when the officer
believes the notice is necessary to secure the protection of the victim
from further
violence. Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): When I met my
local police to discuss the proposals in the Bill—in particular
those relating to domestic violence—they confirmed that there
are circumstances in which the police arrest both parties because it is
difficult to distinguish who is the most significant perpetrator. Has
the Minister any thoughts about whether there might be circumstances
when both parties might be issued with a notice and what would
happen?
Mr.
Hanson: We know that there are occasions when there are
counter-allegations between both parties. Domestic violence is rarely a
one-off event and can often involve both parties at different times. I
am not being judgmental about that; there can be occasions when that
happens, although most of the time, I suspect, it is one party versus
another. By the time the police have reason to believe that such a
notice as proposed in the Bill could
be issued, there will usually have been extensive background to the
case. It will not have been a one-off. The police may have visited the
property before. They have to intervene in the case because they know
they will have to go back the following week—or even the
following day—if they do not. There will be history. Even if
there are counter-allegations, I expect there to be an investigation
leading up to the issuing of a DVPN, and that there will be potential
for such an investigation to take
place. We
have also said that, if given legislative backing, the proposal would
be a pilot. One of the key things we are looking at is establishing two
pilots with a view to rolling out the scheme six months later. I am
looking at one large force and one small force. Brian Moore, the chief
constable of Wiltshire, is keen to have a pilot in his force, so we are
looking at Wiltshire plus one other force, although no decisions have
yet been taken. The types of things a pilot would look at are the way
the order operates on the ground, and the concerns raised by the
Committee and in the evidence sittings about superintendent ranks
having authorisation, their availability and so on. The order could be
made for both parties, but that would be difficult because excluding
both parties from the home depends on where they would go. The purpose
of the order is to keep one party away from another so that no domestic
violence occurs. It may be simpler to determine who the major party
is and exclude them from the home; otherwise, we might end up
with both parties continuing the argument at another
venue.
James
Brokenshire: The effectiveness of the orders will rely in
large measure on the support services that sit alongside the
provisions—we will address that in other clauses. However, is
the order intended to operate when there is a specific domestic
violence court? The successes and improvements we have seen have tended
to result from situations in which victim and perpetrator do not come
into contact with one another due to the lay-out and design of the
court. It would be interesting to hear what discussions the Minister
has had with his colleagues at the Ministry of Justice on the operation
of the notice and on some of the practical issues where victim support
may be key to ensuring a positive
outcome.
Mr.
Hanson: We have certainly had discussions and, as stated
on the back of the Bill, it is supported by “Mr.
Secretary Straw”—the measures have the support of the
Ministry of Justice. There is no problem with that. We need to look at
some of the downstream issues, because they are important. Support for
a victim not only after, but during, an order is important. We are
planning to use magistrates courts. As part of the pilot, there may be
issues relating to access to victim support that are particularly
important for us to focus on. I hope that the Committee will
accept the initial principle of establishing a legislative framework
for the removal of a potential offender from a property and the need to
look at how that works in
practice. 10.45
am I
will touch on two other issues that have been raised. The first was
raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and I pay
tribute to him for doing so in such a constructive way. Clause 21(2)(a)
states: “P
has been violent towards, or has threatened violence towards, an
associated person”.
That has given rise to
concerns, as voiced by the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington
and for Hornchurch during last Thursday’s debate, as to who an
associated person would be, and it is the nub of the new clause tabled
by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. In the Family
Law Act, the definition of an associated person is wide, and covers a
child of the perpetrator or a child living in the same household as the
perpetrator. When there are multiple victims, multiple domestic
violence prevention orders could be made to prevent the perpetrator
from molesting each of them. A partner or a child could be identified
as an associated person in need of an order. I hope that helps the
Committee. I
can see what my hon. Friend aims to achieve with new clause 28. It
focuses on ensuring that the Committee appreciates the concern about
domestic violence against children, who may sadly be involved in many
cases. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend and the
Committee that under clause 21(2)(a), about an associated person,
children could be protected either directly or indirectly by the
domestic violence protection notice or the DVPO. The Bill provides that
both the notice and the order will be available to protect the person
associated with the perpetrator, within the meaning of the Family Law
Act. An associated person could be the child of the perpetrator, the
child of the perpetrator’s spouse or the child of a person with
whom the perpetrator is cohabiting or has cohabited, and/or a child
living in the same household as the perpetrator but not a direct blood
relative of either. The order could be obtained in respect of a child
falling into any of those categories, and if a child has not been a
direct victim but their mother has, it is possible to obtain an order
in relation to the mother, which would give indirect protection to the
child by preventing the perpetrator from continuing the
violence. I am confident that the measures in the Bill are helpful, not
just to the victim but also to any
children.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 10 February 2010 |