Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 21, page 14, line 27, at end insert—

'(5A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (5) the code shall set out provisions to exempt victims of domestic violence and their dependants who are subject to immigration control from any proceedings that may alter their immigration status until such time as the Secretary of State is satisfied no domestic violence, or threat of violence has occurred, or is likely to occur whether or not any criminal proceedings have taken place or are likely to take place with respect to that domestic violence or threat of violence.'.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 36, in clause 33, page 19, line 30, at end add—

'(3) The Secretary of State may exempt victims of domestic violence and their dependants who are subject to immigration control from the restriction on public funds to enable them to access emergency accommodation and living costs, and may recover such funds from the sponsor (as defined by section 113 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) of the victim.'.

New clause 14—Effect of immigration rules—

'The Commissioner shall have regard to the effect of the Immigration Rules on victims of domestic violence.'.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

The clause is the enabling clause for the code of practice for victims, and we welcome this step forward in the way in which we deal with victims.

Amendment No. 13 is simply inspired by the plight of many people, the majority of whom, by far, are women, who come to this country to join their family or to get married and who are then subject to violence. I acknowledge that the Government have offered them protection to a certain degree by quite sensibly applying the new domestic violence rule to the immigration rules. I understand that if a woman can show that her marriage to a British citizen or to an individual who has settled in this country broke down because of domestic violence during her two-year probationary period but before she has indefinite leave to remain, she may be granted settlement. That has

regularised a situation and shows the humanity with which we can treat women who find themselves in those circumstances.

However, there remains a group of women who are over their two-year probationary period—they are commonly referred to as overstayers—and who do not have the protection of settlement open to them that is afforded by the application of the domestic violence rule. They are usually entirely dependent upon their spouse to regularise their situation and if he is abusive, they remain trapped, because the alternative, as they see it, could be deportation or worse. Their overstay is not their fault, as it is not in their control, and an abusive spouse can hold it over the head of the women as a controlling factor. If a woman is unable to access help or advice when her visa expires and her two-year probationary period is up, she is entirely at the abuser's mercy.

I have been particularly impressed, as I believe that the Minister and other Committee members have, by the Southall Black Sisters, who have highlighted this and other issues. I am sure that it will seek to persuade the Minister of the changes that it wants and I know that it has held meetings with Committee members in an attempt to do so.

I also appreciate that while considering this matter we should ensure that any provision cannot be abused, whereby parties agree to rely on a defence of domestic violence to secure settlement. That should not put us off considering amendment No. 13. I appreciate that it might not find favour with the Minister but if he cannot agree to it, I would ask him to undertake to address the issue and to provide a solution that the Government would find acceptable. It is not right that in 2004 we should consign a group of black and minority women to live in fear and trepidation. I look forward to hearing his views on the amendment.

Ms Sandra Gidley (Women and Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

Amendment No. 36 is intended to achieve the same ends in a slightly differently way. I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on the work of Southall Black Sisters, which has been active on this issue and persuaded several hundred organisations to back the campaign to amend the law.

It is easy to underestimate the impact of domestic violence on some women. One big problem is that often if someone is new to a country, newly married, does not understand the language well and is relying on their partner to sponsor them for money, they have nowhere to go if domestic violence is happening. It is even worse than that in some respects. There are well-documented cases where women have tried to go to the police, but with nowhere safe to go they have been forced to return to their violent partner and withdraw their allegations.

Sometimes we forget that there are children to consider. Although some women want to leave a partner and return home, because not everybody wants to stay in this country—we often ignore that

part of the argument—that is not an easy option for others who face hardship and being ostracised socially on their return.

It is useful to think about the scale of the problem. According to the work done by Southall Black Sisters, which deals with or becomes aware of the bulk of the problem, about 500 to 600 women a year have no recourse to public funds. Some 90 per cent. of those women have sponsors from whom, if the amendment were accepted, the Government would perhaps be able to regain some money. That problem is set against the 44,000 spouses a year who are granted settlement. Between 2000 and 2002 only 119 women applied for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence concession. It is not enough for the Government to say, ''We have the domestic violence concession, which women can use.'' It is clearly not being used to its full capacity. If the Government think that this measure is the way forward, I would welcome any suggestions as to how we can make it more effective. However, if it is only reaching about a quarter of the women who are affected, it is not ideal and needs to be reviewed.

Similar amendments were opposed in the other place. The reason given was that they undermined the integrity of the immigration and benefits rules. The Government confirmed their commitment to addressing the problem. I shall return to some of the Government action later, because there is not another convenient place to raise some of the questions.

It has been argued that this is a human rights issue. Failure to protect all women who are subject to immigration control from domestic violence, and withholding public funds from victims because of their uncertain status, is discriminatory, disproportionate and a violation of human rights. Why should the abuser not be more accountable? To deny women access to public funds in this relatively small number of cases has meant that some who have reported abusers to the police have often been left with no option but to withdraw their allegations. Unfortunately, we are sending a message that says, ''It's okay to do this, we're not going to come after you.'' The Government are seeking to address other aspects of the law, but this situation sends a message to a certain section of the community.

The amendments would protect all victims of domestic violence who are subject to immigration controls as defined under section 159 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That includes the spouses and married partners of persons with British citizenship or indefinite leave to remain. Since April 2003, things have gotten slightly worse: before then a relationship had to endure one year, but the period was increased to two years. As we have already been made aware, pregnancy is often a precipitating factor for domestic violence; with a two-year period, there is a much greater chance of that happening.

Other people who will be included are overstayers. It is important to be aware that some women are not kept up to date about their immigration status by their spouse. I am dealing with a case at the moment in which the spouse opens all the mail, so the woman

simply does not know what is going on. These things happen. The provisions will cover many other categories of person, as well.

Will the Minister explain why there seems to be no willingness to extend the domestic violence provision? Although I have highlighted the problems, why it is acceptable only for certain categories of women to claim the provision as a reason to stay. If the provision could be tightened up and extended to other groups of women, it would create a lot of reassurance.

I am not yet sure what solutions the Government propose. I hope that the Minister will take some time to clarify what is happening. In ''Safety and Justice'', the Government made a commitment to ensuring that victims can get access to safety and support, including refuge services funded through the ''Supporting People'' arrangements. The problem with the latter is that they cover only the non-housing aspects of support. Although there is some support available, relying on that provision neglects the very real problem that women have in accessing some sort of housing. Most refuges use housing grants to fund places, and housing grants are the one thing not available to women in that position. In its summary of responses to ''Safety and Justice'', the Home Office makes a commitment to ensuring that those who are still subject to immigration control can get access to refuge and accommodation, but the Home Office figures show a severe shortfall in provision of support and services to ethnic minority women.

I am aware that some £40,000 has been given to the Women's Aid last resort fund; that is very welcome, but there are criticisms that the take-up of that fund is poor and the system is somewhat complicated. The grants given by the fund are one-offs, and are limited to a period of two months. There is a lot of evidence to show that the average time between leaving a partner and lodging an application is approximately three months. That is because it is difficult to find a solicitor, who then has to gather together the information, and all that takes time. Although the Government have a fast-track unit at Sheffield to deal with some of the cases more quickly, the average is still 47 days. If one puts those two lengths of time together, it is clearly longer than two months. What will happen to those women after the two-month period for which they receive funding?

The process can be speeded up if people really know the system, but Southall Black Sisters told me that it was increasingly difficult to find a solicitor who understands the problems and is willing to deal with them on legal aid. Furthermore, the organisation does not want to direct women towards any provision that is less than the best. The other comment made was that the £40,000 will only help 23 women. I am not clear how long the £40,000 is meant to last. If it is meant to last for a year, that is great for the 23 women who are being helped, but what about the several hundred others who do not have access to any money?

Will the Government consider a fast-tracking system? I gather from reports in Lords Hansard that Baroness Scotland was going to have a look at the provision in respect of sponsors. I have mentioned

deterrents. The principle has already been established in various forms—by the Child Support Agency, for example—that costs can be reclaimed from sponsors. The system seems to work well in countries such as the USA, Canada, Austria and Denmark, so what is the problem with a similar system working in the UK?

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

I want to talk briefly about some of the issues behind the amendment, and to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at alternative ways of achieving some progress on this, because there is a problem with what happens to victims of domestic violence who fall into the relevant categories.

The domestic violence exemption has been of benefit to many women. In Northampton, we have a large Bangladeshi community and there are substantial domestic violence issues there. The exemption has worked well. It can be accessed, and cases are dealt with sympathetically and promptly. However, there is an accommodation problem while cases are being dealt with.

Let me break the problem down carefully. Support in terms of accommodation in the refuge system can be accessed for the victim of domestic violence. Therefore, often the woman can be catered for, but there is a problem with the children. Many of the women I have seen have several children, some of whom are very young. There is a real need consider how that can be dealt with. These amendments might do that to an extent, but they do not deal specifically with children. There is also a degree of resistance simply to lifting the ''no recourse to public funds'' ruling, albeit that is only for 47 days, because it is felt that that would compromise the integrity of the system.

The problem could be dealt with in other ways. Women who are particularly vulnerable can be supported under community care legislation, if a proper assessment is made of their needs. A much more likely solution is that the children could be supported by social services under the Children Act 1989; that could extend to providing support for accommodation. When young children are involved and a violent father is around, the obvious thing to do is to house the children with their mother rather than to take them into care or leave them with the father.

I admit that arguing that case has been incredibly difficult. There have been a few test cases, but lawyers who will deal with community care legislation or the Children Act 1998 are few and far between. If the Minister is thinking of not accepting the amendments, will he undertake to talk to colleagues, especially the Minister for Children at the Department for Education and Skills and Ministers at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister who have responsibility for local government housing policy, to find a way to ensure that the most vulnerable victims of domestic violence—very young children—are properly supported?

This is an extremely serious issue. I had to deal with the case of a woman who had been in this country for two years. Her violent husband had taken her passport away. She left him only when he took a knife to one of

the children. She was pregnant and after an appalling series of events, ended up having the baby in hospital, but the baby was very ill and died. The woman stayed in hospital for 10 days until his life support machine was turned off, and then for five weeks more because no one would house her. Meanwhile, the children were taken by the husband's family. To stay with a man who had taken a knife to one of them was not a clever proposal. I accept that that is an extreme example but, in such circumstances, it must be possible to make sure that, if the Government are not willing to compromise the support systems set out by the Home Office, they make other Departments work together to protect the interests of the most vulnerable victims.

Mrs Ann Keen (PPS (Rt Hon Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer), HM Treasury; Brentford & Isleworth, Labour)

The organisation Southall Black Sisters is based in a constituency neighbouring mine. I have known the brave women there and the work that they do within the community for many years, especially in west London. That organisation and Hounslow Asian Women's Refuge welcome the Bill as a first step in creating a comprehensive legislative approach to domestic violence in this country. However, there is now an urgent need to ensure that the Bill recognises women whose immigration status is dependent on that of their husband or partner and who are trapped in violent relationships as much by the restriction on recourse to public funds and their fear of destitution and financial exploitation as by their fear of being returned to their country of origin.

The women's fear of destitution stems directly from their lack of access to welfare benefits and housing. It prevents many of them from making meaningful choices about leaving violent relationships. Many Members of Parliament do not have to face such women in their constituency advice surgeries because their cases are dealt with under cover within the community. The seriousness of the crimes that are being committed against women, not only by their husband or partner, but in many instances by other family member, goes unnoticed by MPs and perhaps by many community leaders.

We have heard from the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) about how difficult it is to secure legal representation. I am fully aware of that problem, having lived in the community for many years. Domestic violence is one of the most harrowing areas of life of which I am aware. It is so difficult for women who are working on the front line. I assure members of the Committee that the stress suffered 24 hours a day by those who are working with women who have no recourse to public funds is unprecedented.

In my professional life in nursing and since becoming a Member of Parliament, severe cases of domestic violence have been brought to my attention. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues have tried hard to find solutions, but the last resort money is inadequate. We are making attempts to deal with a serious situation but, without question, we are making some women very unequal in our country.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am very sympathetic to the hon. Lady's argument. I have a large ethnic minority population in my constituency. Even if such people have the courage to come forward and let me know about the situation that they or others are in, when I ask whether I can take any action to help them, they often say, ''No, we just wanted you to know about it.'' They do not want me to do anything, because that will create an even more difficult situation for them in the community. Members of Parliament are often aware of such problems, but are prohibited by the very constituents whom they wish to help from doing anything about them. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is even more frustrating, particularly for an MP?

Mrs Ann Keen (PPS (Rt Hon Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer), HM Treasury; Brentford & Isleworth, Labour)

Yes, but we are here today to say that such requests have been made to us and that Ministers and their colleagues are trying desperately hard to respond to them. Even though people in that situation may feel at the moment that it is not always possible for us to be their advocates in the community, we have a responsibility to raise these issues—my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who has returned to her place, is an example to us all when it comes to courage and raising such sensitive matters in the community—and these circumstances do not mean that we cannot now find a solution to this very serious problem.

My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues are looking seriously at doing that, and the Bill is one of the most important that we could pass for everyone in these communities. It concerns human rights, equality and the decency of women who are trapped in violent situations and may have reached the point of no return. Suicide is very common, and none of us can sit easy with our conscience when we know that. I therefore urge the Minister to be favourable to the situation of women with no recourse to public funds.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

My feeling is that this is probably one of the most important debates that the Committee will have, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed so far. The hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham and for Romsey spoke on behalf of their parties, and I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), who spoke from experience of supporting organisations and individuals who are caught in this dreadful situation.

I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 13 and new clause 14 and then move on to the substantial issue. Amendment No. 13 would include in the victims code provisions to exempt victims of domestic violence who are subject to immigration controls from any proceedings that may alter their immigration status while they continue to be victims of, or under threat of, domestic violence. As the Committee is aware, the code is intended to define the minimum statutory services that criminal justice agencies should provide to victims of crime. It is therefore simply not

appropriate for such provisions to be included in the code, however sympathetic we may be to the sentiments behind them.

New clause 14 would place a responsibility on the commissioner for victims and witnesses by requiring him to

''have regard to the effect of the Immigration Rules on victims of domestic violence.''

Given the commissioner's already substantial scope to consider the needs of various victims, and his power to make recommendations to the Home Office, which is responsible for the immigration rules, I am resisting the new clause on the basis that it is already within the commissioner's power to consider such issues. It would merely be a duplication; there is no need to include it.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

Under the Bill as drafted, the remit of the new commissioner for victims and witnesses does not extend to Northern Ireland, but I know that the Minister will bring me good news when we come to debate that and will indicate that it will extend there. However, what he has just explained does not apply to Northern Ireland. We do not have a commissioner with the powers to consider the very special case of women in the situation that has been described.

I remind the Minister that although Northern Ireland has only a few asylum seekers and although we may have our differences one with another, asylum seekers are very welcome. I ask him to reflect on the gap that has become apparent in view of the fact that the remit of the victims commissioner will not extend to Northern Ireland, unless he promises me otherwise.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

That was a very good spot. We will come to those issues during our deliberations on the victims commissioner. Clearly, this is not the time to go into the detail of that. One of the undertakings that I will give the hon. Lady is that at the conclusion of those deliberations I will ensure that Northern Ireland Office Ministers are aware of our debates. In consultation with communities in Northern Ireland, they will be seeking to ensure that appropriate provisions are made for victims and witnesses there. That is the responsibility of those Ministers, rather than the responsibility of the Home Office. I hope that we can gently tease that out. I have just used an argument in relation to the victims commissioner and she rightly pointed out a slight discordance with its application to Northern Ireland. Wherever that occurs, I will make a note of it and bring it to the attention of my hon. Friends.

On amendment No. 36, the issue of domestic violence victims who are subject to immigration control was discussed thoroughly in the other place, and we had a useful and informative debate on Second Reading. I have made my involvement in those discussions clear throughout. While we do not intend to change the immigration or benefit rules, we intend to try to help and support very vulnerable women.

It might help the Committee if I set out in detail what the Government are doing to support this particular group of victims of domestic violence. This is an area of activity in which we can be pleased to note

the progress being made. As has been mentioned, the immigration rules now make specific provision for an application to be made on the ground of domestic violence and we have extended the types of evidence that can be used as proof of it. Even if it is not possible for a victim to produce evidence of a conviction, a caution or a protection order against their spouse or partner, they can provide other evidence, such as medical reports, letters of support from a refuge or a letter from local social services.

Applications made on that basis are now flagged up and dealt with as a matter of priority within the immigration and nationality directorate. The hon. Member for Romsey referred to this and I am pleased to note that the average time taken to process them has fallen considerably—to about 47 days. That means that where the application is successful and indefinite leave to remain is granted, the time without recourse to public funds is kept to a minimum.

Ms Sandra Gidley (Women and Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

I do not wish to be churlish and I welcome the improvement, but one other issue that has been raised is the fact that if someone does not get a decision in their favour they are no longer entitled to appeal. I understand that there are no special domestic violence measures or relaxations in that regard. Will the Minister clarify the situation?

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

It should be possible to appeal and I undertake to provide the hon. Lady with the information on the process. The issue involves recourse to public funds, but the process should still be in place.

I want to emphasise that we are working with voluntary organisations and others to try to reduce still further that average time of 47 days taken to consider the initial application. I was privileged and pleased to be involved recently in a meeting— alongside several colleagues from this Committee—with representatives from Southall Black Sisters and Women's Aid. I understand that they will shortly be spending a day in Sheffield with the IND caseworker teams that deal with applications for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence rules.

I am grateful to the representatives of those organisations for taking part in that activity, which is an important development. It provides an opportunity for them to talk to the caseworkers about domestic violence and the situations in which the victims with whom they are in contact find themselves, as well as for the caseworkers to explain to representatives of the organisations the problems that they encounter and to examine technical issues involving the procedures. The organisations can then better advise the women they work with. I hope that all that improves understanding on both sides and provides a platform for an ongoing and constructive dialogue that leads to an even swifter disposal of the applications.

Ms Sandra Gidley (Women and Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

I am delighted that this exchange is going to take place, but I gather from what the Minister says that the staff of the unit giving special attention to fast-tracking have received no particular training in domestic violence. That concerns me, because there is a general lack of understanding of the

problems relating to domestic violence, so if a specific unit has been set up with caseworkers to deal with the problem, the individuals involved should be made more aware of the wider issues and problems.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I agree that the officers who work in that unit should be sensitive, aware and trained appropriately. I am not in a position to comment on the specific training that they receive, but the meeting that they will have with the representatives of Southall Black Sisters and Women's Aid can only help to raise their awareness and understanding, which will be all to the good.

With regard to some changes that we are introducing, we have also agreed that if the applicant has no means of support, applications for settlement on the basis of domestic violence will be exempt from the fee that is normally charged. That is a significant exemption. The charge for postal applications is £155, and personal callers are charged £255. Those fees are waived in such cases.

The supporting people arrangements enable domestic violence victims to get access to housing-related support services. I am aware that those arrangements do not cover rent and living costs, but they have an important part to play in providing services such as advocacy and liaison with statutory agencies. In addition, the Home Office has made a one-off grant of £40,000 to be provided to Women's Aid to bolster its last resort fund—several hon. Members referred to that. This fund has been run by Women's Aid for several years, and its members can apply to it for funding to cover the living expenses of women who are making an application for indefinite leave to remain because of domestic violence. That money will help to meet the rent and living costs of the small number of refuge cases, where the women have no recourse to a public fund.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Does the Minister envisage that amount being granted annually?

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I will come to the future arrangements in a moment.

I have had good dialogue with members from the organisations mentioned: Southall Black Sisters and Women's Aid. They made it clear that they retain their strong view that we ought to table amendments along the lines that they suggest. I accept their right to hold on to their opinion, but I have also asked them to work with us to find a practical way forward. The impression I have is that they are willing to do that.

First, we need to establish as precisely as we can how many women will fall into this category in any one year. There are some differences of opinion on what the figure might be, but we need to arrive at an agreed figure. Is it 500 or 200? We need to be sure. Secondly, we need to be sure of what the costs would be of supporting those particular individuals in any one year. Thirdly, we need to examine the last resort fund to review its effectiveness and administration to see how well it is meeting need even within its current remit. Those are the three things that I have agreed

with representatives of the organisations and colleagues on this Committee that we need to work on together as we move forward.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)

The Minister talks about quantifying the problem. From a substantial Bangladeshi community, over a couple of years there were about six to 10 cases involving about 18 to 20 children—for them there is nothing. If legislation was used properly, it might be possible to make some headway.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about this issue in relation to children, and it is clear from my remarks that we have far from concluded on it. I will weigh her comments on children very carefully as we continue to discuss the issue with voluntary organisations and others. Clearly, the welfare of children is equally important in such situations.

Ms Sandra Gidley (Women and Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister referred to ongoing dialogue with Southall Black Sisters and other organisations in order to try to establish, among other things, how much money is involved. I shall refer to a briefing from that organisation. The concerns it deals with might have been raised in early days when information was not available, but I want to put them on record. Southall Black Sisters said

''It is not possible to provide an accurate costing for the funds required to support women with no recourse to public funds. We require statistics from the Home Office on the operation of the Domestic Violence Rule including information on numbers of applicants, numbers of dependants, processing times of applications at all stages of the process including appeal and judicial review, and success rates of applications at each stage. Until we have this information we cannot assess on average for how long women will require support and accommodation and on behalf of how many dependants.''

When I spoke to representatives of Southall Black Sisters, they seemed to believe that the information was not forthcoming. I appreciate that it was early days after the meeting and that it may not yet have been provided with the information, but will the Minister confirm that the information required by the organisations will be provided if possible?

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

My impression from the contacts that I have had in recent weeks is that the organisation is assiduous and persistent in its campaigning, and I suspect that it will remain that way. However, I assure the Committee that we intend to be open and get the benefit of such groups' experience, and we hope that we will be able to add to their understanding. It might not be possible to reach agreement on the figures, and I am not suggesting that it is a certainty that we will. However, we will try, and we shall use their experience and hope that they will benefit from ours.

Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that I have already had meetings with Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and will continue to have regular meetings with the Minister for Children as part of my other responsibilities in the Home Office. In all those discussions, we will continue to raise the issue and try to find a way forward, as we are trying to do with the voluntary organisations concerned. I can give my hon.

Friend that assurance. We are trying to avoid the creation of a loophole in our immigration and benefits system through which people who are not the victims of domestic violence might seek to find their way into this country. We want to ensure integrity and public confidence in our benefits and immigration system.

The hon. Member for Romsey mentioned the proposal that we consider pursuing sponsors for the repayment of money; my colleague Baroness Scotland undertook in the other place to consider that. We have done so and we will continue to weigh up the suggestion. However, at this point, we do not feel that it would provide the solution. It works on paper, but in practice it could become a complex and expensive administrative process. In addition, it might put victims of domestic violence at unnecessary risk from people with whom they have had an association in the past, which would concern me more than the administrative cost. We need to weigh those issues up.

Mrs Ann Cryer (Keighley, Labour)

I have had experience of that point. I dealt with six cases of very young ladies who were abandoned by their husbands and in-laws. In each case, I felt duty bound to mention the Child Support Agency and say that their husbands should be paying them. Each time, they became absolutely terrified. They would not go to a solicitor to get equal share of a house or do anything like that, as they were scared that their husbands or in-laws would come round to beat them. I am not sure that we can make any progress in that respect.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

That is my concern, as well. The heart of our concerns has to be the welfare of the women and their children. I am not ruling out the proposal in our deliberations, but it is only fair to point out to the hon. Member for Romsey that we have yet not been persuaded to pursue it. However, we are seeking a practical solution, and I hope that we will be able to come back and give further details, if not to this Committee, then on Report.

I want what other Committee members want: to provide effective support for women who are caught up in a dreadful situation. My argument is simply that we do not need to make further amendments to pursue that aim; we need practical application, and I commit myself to continuing to provide that application to try to find a solution.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I have listened to the Minister, and it is obvious that he has the best interests of this group of people—mostly women—in mind. However, I remain to be convinced. There are a lot of unanswered questions, many raised by the Minister himself.

The dialogues that the Minister said will take place between voluntary organisations and officials in Sheffield will help, but I am not sure that he has arrived in his own mind at a solution to the issues. The matter is complex, but there are a group of isolated people who are not looked after and who are in danger. There will be disappointment that at this stage of the Bill's passage there was nothing in it to indicate the Minister's good intentions.

I know that the issue will be raised on Report, and I will not be so churlish as to press my amendment. There are merits in the other amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Romsey and Government Members. I will withdraw my amendment, but I give notice to the Minister that this would be a suitable subject to explore on Report, particularly if he gave us more information in advance of Report. He has been courteous in all his dealings with every Committee member. If, after consultation with his officials here or in Sheffield, there are further or better particulars to pass on to the Committee, we look forward to receiving them.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

Let me underline the fact that, as the situation unfolds, I will keep Committee members fully up to date.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am most satisfied with that. Although I am disappointed, I remain eternally optimistic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in clause 21, page 14, line 33, at end insert—

'''services'' means as specified in the code but including protection, personal support, to receive and provide information and to receive explanation.'.

The provision of services to victims of crime goes to the heart of part 3 of the Bill. I would therefore like to ensure that the term ''services'' in clause 21 is fully understood by all those who are required to interpret the legislation. I have been excellently briefed by Victim Support on the amendment, which is based on a set of principles that reflects Victim Support's 30 years' experience of providing services to victims. Those principles are based on its knowledge of the rights that victims say that they would like to have. I know how much store this Government set on consultation; in effect, the consultation has been going on for more than 30 years.

Victim Support has promoted victims' rights for a long time. In 1995, it produced a report called ''The Rights of Victims of Crime'', which stated that such rights should include the right to receive information and explanation about the progress of their case; the opportunity to provide their own information about the case for use in the criminal justice process; the right to be protected in any way necessary; and the right to receive respect, recognition and support. The amendment is based on the wording of the 1995 report. When a similar amendment was debated in another place, concern was voiced that it would not provide sufficient flexibility. Of course, we do not want the description of victim services to be too prescriptive, as we want them to be enhanced in future. However, it can only be helpful for those interpreting the legislation to know the intention behind it, not only now but in years to come. I hope that the redrafted amendment is now considered to be sufficiently general to allow for future enhancements while at the same time setting down the essence of what services will mean for the victims. I look forward to hearing the Solicitor-General's reply.

Ms Sandra Gidley (Women and Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)

I welcome the fact that the code will be introduced by statutory instrument, but I am also aware that Victim Support would rather see a minimum prescribed in the Bill. I know of the Government's current intentions. It is important to recognise that victims may need access to a wide range of services. I wish to cite a small example. It is important that health professionals are more aware of the problem of domestic violence. They could easily be expected as a norm to check with patients whether their injuries had been caused by a crime and refer them appropriately. If the Bill sets out that health professionals must be more actively involved, that can only be a good thing.

I do not believe that members of the Committee want the code to be so rigid that it would be difficult to change in the future, but a basic minimum of services outlined in the Bill will protect it from future Governments of whatever colour who might think differently about the subject and want to diminish the support that is available to victims.

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

Several important points have been made in the debate, and we agree with all of them, but we will resist the amendment. The hon. Member for Romsey is absolutely right. The health service has a critical role to play. A great deal of work has already been done, but there is much more to do to ensure that the health service recognises that as well as treating them for their injuries, its role is that of preventing people becoming victims of further offences. Furthermore, we in the domestic violence inter-ministerial working group regard it important that our colleagues at the Department of Health work with all the NHS organisations, including primary care, GPs, accident and emergency, health visitors and the royal colleges, to bring the health service into the whole picture of domestic violence.

Amendment No. 18 would give examples of services to be delivered to victims of crime by the agencies that are covered by the code of practice. Although it attempts to clarify and define what services may be included in the code and tries to leave open the possibility of other types of services being provided, we consider that it is too prescriptive. It could lead those who are charged with revising the code in the future to believe that any new agency obligation should fall into a category specified in the amendment.

Members of the Committee might be aware that there is a legal principle that, when illustrative examples are provided in statute, it is presumed that a definition is supposed to include only the types of issues in the illustrative example. The irony is that, by saying in a statute, ''For example, X, Y and Z'', there is the consequence of narrowing matters to X, Y and Z, which is the opposite of what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said that she would like to do. That principle could restrict our flexibility when we come to finalise the first version of the code, and it could restrict it even more when the code is revised in future.

Although the hon. Lady's amendment adequately summarises the services in the illustrative draft of the code that we put before Parliament shortly after the introduction of the Bill last September, there is far more opportunity to develop new, innovative services for victims if we do not provide prescriptive examples at the outset. We are still at the relatively early stages of developing and embedding good support for victims. Despite the long decades of good practice in Victim Support, we know that we can and should be doing other things. I do not want us, in our current state of knowledge, to draw a line under that without returning to the House with primary legislation.

We take on board the points that have been raised and welcome those made on behalf of Victim Support and in respect of health services, but we urge hon. Members to resist the amendment.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I understand that the Solicitor-General is considering the draft code of practice. May I ask her as she does so to reflect on the Northern Ireland code of practice on victims of crime, which was issued in 1998; it is six years old now and out of date. There are great lessons to be learned from the experience in Northern Ireland, particularly because after six years the Northern Ireland Office research and statistical information says that there is a high dissatisfaction rating—42 per cent.—particularly among defence barristers, and that

''A high proportion of interviewees did not have confidence in the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in bringing people who commit crimes to justice.''

That is the experience after six years with a code of practice for victims of crime in Northern Ireland.

Ms Harriet Harman (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour)

I take on board the points that the hon. Lady makes about the Northern Ireland code of practice. I will, like my colleague the Home Office Minister, bring them to the attention of our colleagues in Northern Ireland, and I shall read across for our own work.

Let me now deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Romsey. There is already protection from future Governments in clause 22(9), which says that the service levels in the code cannot be reduced. The truth is that none of us can envisage anybody retreating from this measure. It is hard to imagine that any Government could get away with reducing a path that is so well mapped and on which there is consensus. I ask the Committee to oppose the amendment.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I find it amusing that the Solicitor-General agrees with everything that the Conservatives have said, but encourages the Committee to resist the amendment. It is eminently sensible if, having listened carefully to the objections that were made in the other place, dealt with them and withdrawn the amendments, the Government is still resisting. I will always acknowledge that we do not want to achieve a limitation leading to too prescriptive a definition, but I remain convinced that having no definition could be even more damaging.

The inclusion of the word ''including'' in the amendment fully answered the problems that were mentioned by the Minister in another place and by the

Solicitor-General today. In meetings, there did not appear to be much Government opposition to this proposal, and I was hoping that this amendment would be acceptable as redrafted, but my argument is falling on stony ground.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

Perhaps the hon. Lady could consider the wording of the amendment to which she referred. She put particular emphasis on the word ''including'', but the next word is ''protection''. If the Solicitor-General and others are to force us to a Division on this amendment, it contradicts what she has been saying about non-jury trials. What if those who fear domestic violence and who do not want to be intimidated as a witness in court favour a non-jury trial? The amendment, which includes the word ''protection'', undermines a few of her earlier arguments.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am not entirely sure that follow that argument. When I moved the amendment, I said that I had tabled it at the particular request of Victim Support, which wanted it to be considered. The report that it sent me some years ago revealed that victims wished to be protected in any way necessary. Victim Support therefore felt that including the definition in the Bill was the right way to proceed.

I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. It is important to know that the Government have listened carefully to the arguments, but it is disappointing that, even after an attempted revision of the amendment, they still resist it. I am sure that I will not get the amendment past the Committee, but I hope that that will not be the pattern for the rest of the Bill. We hoped that there would be some give and take with the Government in the discussions in the Committee and that the legislation could be refined during its consideration. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 16.New Clause 16 Provision of explanations to victims—