Clause 26 - General functions of Commissioner
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]
9:10 am
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 54, in clause 26, page 16, line 15, at end insert—
'(d) ensure that the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service established under section [Domestic Violence Advocacy Service] is maintained in each local justice area;
(e) make a report to the Secretary of State on the operation of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service, and in particular:
(a) the accessibility of services offered to victims of crime;
(b) the adequacy of resources made available through the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service Fund for the purposes; and
(c) any other matters related to the provision of services to victims of domestic violence.'.
Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 87, in clause 29, page 17, line 8, after '28', insert—
'and section [Domestic Violence Advocacy Service].'.
New clause 30—Domestic Violence Advocacy Service—
'(1) In this section, ''Voluntary organisation'' means a charity or an organisation operating on a not-for-profit basis.
(2) The Secretary of State shall establish, maintain and develop a national service known as the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service for the purpose of promoting the availability to victims of services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) and, in particular, for securing (within the resources made available, and priorities set, in accordance with subsection (6)) that victims have access to services that effectively meet their needs.
(3) The descriptions of services referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) the provision of help in developing and implementing a plan for ensuring the safety of the victim and the safety of the children of the victim as a priority;
(b) the provision of general information, relevant to the victim, about the law and legal system and the availability of legal services,
(c) the provision of help by the giving of advice as to how the law applies in the particular circumstances of the victim,
(d) the provision of information as to the availability to the victim of relevant support services offered by other agencies,
(e) the provision of assistance in accessing services relevant to the victim that are offered by other agencies,
(f) the provision of help in relation to legal proceedings, whether in the family, criminal or civil courts.
(4) The services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) shall be accessible to victims at any hour and on any day and shall be provided by persons of the same sex as the victim where requested by the victim.
(5) The Secretary of State shall establish and maintain a fund known as the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service Fund from which services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) shall be funded as part of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service.
(6) The Secretary of State shall prepare a code setting out the criteria according to which he will decide how to fund services as part of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service.
(7) When preparing the code referred to in subsection (6) the Secretary of State shall consult all relevant bodies (and, in particular, voluntary organisations) who are able to communicate the views of victims of domestic violence.
(8) The Secretary of State may accredit, or authorise others to accredit, voluntary organisations providing services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3); and any system of accreditation shall include provision for the monitoring of the services provided by accredited organisations and for the withdrawal of accreditation from any providing services of unsatisfactory quality.
(9) The Secretary of State may fund services as part of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service by—
(a) entering into contracts with voluntary organisations for the provision of services by them,
(b) making payments to voluntary organisations in respect of the provision of services by them,
(c) making grants or loans to voluntary organisations to enable them to provide, or facilitate the provision of, services,
(d) establishing and maintaining voluntary organisations to provide, or facilitate the provision of, services,
(e) making grants or loans to individuals to enable them to obtain services,
(f) doing anything else which he considers appropriate for funding services.
(10) The Secretary of State may by order require accredited bodies providing services of the descriptions specified in subsection (3) to discharge those services in accordance with the order.'.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
Having got the earlier skirmishes out of the way, I welcome you to the Committee this morning, Dame Marion.
I should say straight away that amendment No. 54 is not the substantive amendment in the group. In a way, it serves as a paving amendment for new clause 30, which has received all-party support and on which other hon. Members will wish to speak.
Amendment No. 54 proposes that the suggested domestic violence advocacy service could usefully and sensibly fall within the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses. The commissioner would be a proper arbiter of the effectiveness, efficiency and adequacy of the service. I do not want to pre-empt the arguments that will properly be made by other Committee members in support of the creation of the domestic violence advocacy service; I will simply say that I am indebted to those outside the Committee
who have promoted the concept, particularly Davina James-Hanman, director of the Greater London domestic violence project, to whom I have spoken on the subject and who has provided an excellent briefing.
As the Greater London authority made clear, an advocacy service would be a significant improvement on present facilities in terms of addressing issues of domestic violence, reducing the suffering of victims and creating an atmosphere in which domestic violence is less likely to occur—that, after all, is the thrust of this legislation. Such a service would also reduce demands on other services that might be provided. [Interruption.] I am very disconcerted by the fact that someone's phone is ringing; it is not mine.
Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)
Order. There seems to be a noise coming from somewhere in the Committee Room, and it should not be.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I can only assume that it is coming from the Conservative Whip's jacket.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
Oh, it's this one.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Lady has a record of difficulties with phones over the past week that does not bear repeating. I have some sympathy with her, because on this occasion the problem was not her fault.
To return to the serious point that I was making, we believe that the establishment of a domestic violence advocacy service would be a significant move towards reducing the effects and incidence of domestic violence; most important, it would assist the victims of domestic violence. The amendment would help the support network to be genuinely national and comprehensive. The commissioner would have locus in ensuring that that happened, and would report to the Executive and to Parliament in that respect. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)
I am indebted to the Greater London authority, Women's Aid and Southall Black Sisters, all of which support the proposition that a domestic violence advocacy service ought to be developed and that, in accordance with the framework set out in new clause 30, it should be funded by the Government.
The purpose of such a service is clear and well known to the whole Committee. The victims of domestic violence—primarily women—have great difficulty in making complaints. A well-known statistic is that it often takes 35 incidents before a woman will complain, and in that model the level of violence escalates as time passes. There are a number of reasons why it is difficult for women to make complaints. The abuser, usually her partner, might have the money and own the house. His and her families could be close, or his family might help with child care so that the woman can go out to work, so what would she do for money if she complained about him and could not work? He would have to leave or, worse still, she would have to leave and go to a refuge. What then? The children would lose their father, be poor and emotionally upset. The family might break up, all because she could not put up any longer with something that, after all, had not killed her—so far.
Those well-known factors all make it difficult for women to come forward, and we must combat them if the Bill is to be successful.
The Bill deals primarily with how to get cases to court and what to do then. If women are not supported at the early stages and encouraged to make complaints, the subsequent steps will never be taken. This point is somewhat counter-intuitive given the factors that I have set out, but when a woman finally makes a complaint, the agencies all too often do not take the case forward with the enthusiasm or give her the support that one would wish. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have taken huge steps recently, but it is clear from a joint thematic report by the inspectorates of both organisations published a few months ago that their response is still sometimes half-hearted. The reforms that are clearly well embedded in the thinking of policy makers in both groups have not yet dispersed down and throughout the organisations. Women who find the strength to make complaints therefore sometimes receive a weak response.
In New Zealand there is a system of advocates to support women. Once an officer has calmed down a domestic violence situation to which he has been called, he has the job of calling in the advocacy service, subject to the complainant giving her permission, which almost always happens. There is a 24-hour call-out programme to bring an advocate out to befriend the woman. The best way of describing an advocate is as a befriender and supporter of the victim of domestic violence who helps to steer her through everything that follows the complaint.
The factors that I mentioned earlier often lead to difficulties. The woman might have to leave home and will need refuge accommodation and somewhere to go after she does so. She might need support and help for her children if she takes them with her. If she remains in the home and the perpetrator leaves, safety measures must be taken—locks must be changed, the police must be informed and the perpetrator's whereabouts must be known. Her benefits position is likely to change because the family is breaking up. She might need counselling, support and a multiplicity of things that she will be totally unable to manage for herself given her distressed state after taking a major step about which she may still be uncertain. The victim might have to go to the civil courts, notwithstanding the action that we have taken to integrate the two systems conveniently, and she might need help to master the complexities of court procedure. Having taken the step of complaining, she might be unable to drive the agencies forward with the criminal prosecution. A skilled advocate can assist her with all those matters. Such advocates will, through their organisation, be well-connected with the range of services available and will be able to support the complainant throughout the process.
I had the privilege of talking about New Zealand's system of advocates with the Attorney-General of New Zealand, Margaret Wilson, when she visited this country a couple of weeks ago. She said that domestic violence is no longer a hot issue in New Zealand in the way that it continues to be in this country. She
attributes that to the success of the advocacy system: a powerful message has been sent that the state is on the side of the person who makes a break from domestic violence, and that has played an integral part in reducing the problem.
Such a system has helped in various states where it has been adopted to increase conviction rates because of the fortitude that it brings to the complainant, who can sustain her complaint through the criminal justice system. The star turn—if I can describe it that way—is San Diego in the United States where not only has there been a vast reduction in repeat domestic violence offending, but a 75 per cent. reduction in domestic violence homicides.
Reference has been made to the substantial costs of policing domestic violence. It is estimated that each of the 500,000 domestic violence calls to which officers responded in 2000 cost the taxpayer an average of £1,027, suggesting an annual policing cost of more than half a billion pounds. That figure does not, of course, include the cost of those agencies that help in such situations. By contrast, it is thought that the cost of an advocate's support of a domestic violence complainant from start to finish is likely to be about £780. Cost is, of course, a secondary matter—supporting women through court procedures is the primary purpose of the system. However, those figures show that there can be a cost saving, which everyone will appreciate. An advocacy service could be an important and cost-efficient system.
It is hard to find an argument against such a system except that it will cost money to set it up. Some advocacy systems are already in place. There is an excellent one in Cardiff to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) has given much support. Another is in place in Croydon, and two weeks ago, when I opened the new premises of Victim Support in Redcar, I discovered the embryo of an advocacy service in that town. A person who used to work for Women's Aid has now moved to Victim Support, taking all of her expertise and contacts with her, and she fulfils the role, although one person is not enough even in a small borough such as Redcar.
I have a strong sense that my hon. Friend the Minister is sympathetic to the need for an advocacy system and, if the Bill is to justify the effort that has been put into its drafting and progress through the House, it is not possible to argue that it will be effective unless support is injected into it at the beginning. I beg to move amendment No. 87 and new clause 30—
Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)
I correct the hon. and learned Lady. She cannot move anything. I have already put the question.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
I shall try not to move anything but my colleague's jacket, Dame Marion.
I support the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The amendments are extremely significant. I hope that the copious notes in front of the Minister do not suggest that he is about to reject the amendments. I acknowledge that they might need some improvement, although they have been worked
on by devoted and dedicated people, but I hope that he will take seriously the points that have been made because the amendments lay out an excellent blueprint for a domestic violence advocacy service, which could be duplicated and replicated throughout the country.
Present provision is patchy; more is needed, and there is evidence from the areas where there is a form of advocacy service that it is of invaluable benefit to the victims of domestic violence. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar has an amazing track record in this area. While researching on the internet the other day, I came across the fact that she had been to Africa to talk about the subject to members of the legal profession there. Domestic violence is not an isolated problem, but there are few lessons that we can learn from countries close to us. People have to go to Australia and New Zealand to see effective advocacy services that have been operating for some time.
The proposals in the amendments and the new clause would establish a victim-centred service, which would go a long way to providing a comprehensive system of aid and assistance. However, as we discuss those proposals, I would like us to consider some broader points. The hon. and learned Lady mentioned the provision of a 24-hour helpline; I agree with her about that. Evidence from other countries shows that when solicitors or lawyers man such a helpline, it is even more effective. Goodness forbid that I should say that lawyers are particularly useful members of society in any forum, but in this case I acknowledge that they are essential to the process, because of the complex problems that are brought to the helpline.
A helpline should be accessible not only to victims but to other service providers such as refuge workers, police and lawyers. Experience in other countries has shown that that is a great benefit, because it is not only victims who require assistance with complex problems; those to whom she turns for help might not be entirely familiar with what is available and what can be done on her behalf.
The capacity to negotiate on behalf of victims who have experienced difficulties with service providers, such as the police or courts, and the ability to lodge complaints on their behalf, is also a vital part of the service and should be available at any stage, because victims of domestic violence may find as their case progresses that the services that they are receiving are less satisfactory than when they first approached an agency to help them.
Advocacy is important because it assists women with their particular problems. An advocacy service would also permit the services that are provided to victims to be monitored and provide us with a vehicle for improvement, which is not currently available. I should be interested to see what information and analysis the Home Office holds in respect of existing organisations and their effectiveness and whether it has made any critical analysis of the current services. I would like the Home Office to produce a report, perhaps annually, to evaluate and help in the organisation and joining-up of services throughout the country.
Non-English speaking victims must have good communication lines into help and advice services. The network and the advice service must be able to support victims from ethnic minority backgrounds. Another point that emerged in other countries is the desirability of anonymity. Some research showed that women were reluctant to phone a domestic violence advocacy service in case the dialling code and number appeared on their telephone record, and the very act of contacting an advocacy service became a tool and weapon to be turned against them. Some thought must be given to that, particularly at Government level, to ensure that there is an anonymous route for victims of domestic violence to seek help.
Over the years, the military have fought discrimination, drugs and alcohol abuse; domestic violence is another area on which they need to focus. It destroys families and scars children in civilian life, but in the services it can affect military readiness as well. I am interested to hear whether the Minister has had any discussions with the Ministry of Defence about an advocacy service for the armed services or a route through which victims of domestic violence can find assistance. If he does not accept the amendments, I hope that he will make proposals on what he will do.
I was looking at a timeline for the Australian advocacy service, which is based in and around Sydney, and I was alarmed to find that although funding was sought to provide a specialist legal service in April 1986, it took many years for the service to come to fruition. Even though demand was high and an independent evaluation of the project in the first year found that the model in use was directly relevant and appropriate, funding was reduced: there was a 20 per cent. cut in the original funding, which had a dramatic impact on the direct services for women. Funding was eventually fully restored in 1997. The organisation is innovative and unique, and I hope that if the Minister has not had an opportunity to study some of the reports on the Australian domestic violence advocacy service, he will examine them in future.
If the amendments are not acceptable, I ask the Minister please not to wait so long to produce joined-up Government thinking on this matter. Many people have spent a lot of time and put a lot of effort in the proposal, and the service is much needed to help the victims of abuse in this country.
Ms Julie Morgan (Cardiff North, Labour)
I rise to speak in support of a universal domestic violence advocacy service. However good we make the law and however much effort we put into the Bill, it will not be effective unless there is a support service for women. That is key to preventing domestic violence and repeat domestic violence. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said, we in Cardiff are fortunate to have such a service, run by the women's safety unit. The services proposed in the amendments are exactly those provided by that organisation, which has made a huge difference to women in Cardiff.
I have probably said this before, but when a woman who is in distress because of her partner's violence comes to my surgery, I have an outlet for her. I phone the women's safety unit, which offers an immediate
service. Its staff go to her home, or arrange an appointment if she does not want to be seen there; they can visit in the evening or contact her during the night. It is a tremendous service and the staff respond enthusiastically and offer a great deal of support. They see their key role as getting in there, helping to support the woman and ensuring that she accesses services. They look after the children and contact the housing department or social services if necessary. Their aim is to keep the woman in the home, and usually they succeed because they put such effort and resources into doing so.
One of the key aspects of the women's safety unit is its composition. The staff come from different disciplines. There is a serving policewoman, which I believe is unique in the UK, and people from Women's Aid, Black Women's Aid, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the probation service. The group's staff and the way that they work so cohesively under the inspired leadership of Jan Pickles mean that they are all individually able to offer the advocacy service. Their different professions mean that they have strong links with the courts, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. They all meet at the Cardiff domestic violence forum, which I chair.
I cannot say too strongly what a difference the service has made to the approach to domestic violence in Cardiff. It is now accepted that advocacy is a key priority for different agencies in the city. As a result of its advocacy, there is a domestic violence court, where all such cases are listed together. I cannot emphasise enough how much help it has given to women in that situation. A smaller unit is starting in Caerphilly and I would like that sort of model, perhaps in a different form, to provide a service throughout the UK. The key element is cost, which is the one thing that perhaps might make it difficult for Ministers to accept the proposals.
Ms Sandra Gidley (Women and Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)
Is the hon. Lady aware that some research shows that having an advocacy service reduces costs in the long run? It is short-sighted to use cost as an excuse, because overall there are benefits rather than costs.
Ms Julie Morgan (Cardiff North, Labour)
Absolutely. The proposal cuts down the costs in the long term, but in the present system, it is difficult to obtain the initial start-up costs. I know, because I tried to get start-up funding for the service, and it was not easy. It started as a one-off Home Office-funded pilot project, with £300,000 for one year. After that, we had great difficulty in ensuring that it was funded jointly by the Home Office and the Welsh Assembly; it is now totally funded by the Welsh Assembly. The hon. Lady makes an important point, but we should not underestimate the difficulty of getting start-up funding for projects of this sort.
The Cardiff model is definitely the one that we want to expand. The women's safety unit spends a lot of time travelling around the country, going to conferences and so on, to say what it is doing and to spread the success of the project in Cardiff. The figures for Cardiff are distinctly different from those for the rest of Wales. The number of cases being reported and the number of women taking cases to court have gone, up as we would wish, and the number of repeat
offences has gone down. Those significant research findings back up the work of the women's safety unit and its effect can be clearly seen in the fact that the figures for the rest of Wales are so different from the ones for Cardiff.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
I am particularly interested in what the hon. Lady has to say. She will agree with me that once a service is established, any cut in the funding is very damaging. Has she any idea what it would cost to roll out the programme as a pilot throughout Wales, for example, so that full coverage of a large area could be evaluated? Obviously, the funding results in savings, not only in human terms but also in financial terms.
Ms Julie Morgan (Cardiff North, Labour)
I do not know exactly what it would cost to roll out the project in the whole of Wales, but it cost £300,000 for one year in Cardiff, which is the biggest centre of population in Wales. Some people working in the unit were seconded by their organisations, so that would be an additional cost. In other areas, especially rural ones, a different model might be needed.
Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen the briefing from the office of the Mayor of London, which estimates that the cost of a national advocacy service, not just one in Wales, might be about £45 million per annum.
Ms Julie Morgan (Cardiff North, Labour)
Yes. I support the proposal in the amendments, but because of the up-front costs, it is clear that it is something that we may have to work towards. However, the law will not by itself achieve what we want for women who suffer from domestic violence; the support that the advocacy service can provide is also needed.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)
I strongly support a national advocacy service. Several types of service are already in place, but they are a hotch-potch, without the underpinning of a role defined in statute.
Two organisations in my constituency deal with domestic violence: the Sunflower centre, an outstanding, multi-agency centre, which was funded by the Home Office with a £100,000 grant to start with; and a Bangladeshi women's association, which does work on domestic violence and without which it would be impossible to get into some of the difficult issues that face Bangladeshi women.
Both agencies provide the types of service that colleagues have spoken about, but the main thing that they do is to stop the women being victims. There is a strong strand of empowerment in their thinking. Both agencies are located in the voluntary sector, and I see them transform women who have come out of horrendously violent relationships into independent and reasonably confident women. As part of its empowerment course, the Bangladeshi women's association brought a group of women to Parliament for a day. You may remember, Dame Marion, that I wrote to you about translation services for them. Such activities are a part of giving them confidence, making them understand how legislation works and so on.
Existing services do not have a statutorily defined role. They have to operate on the basis of good will and therefore work somewhat on the margins. The second issue may be linked to the first, in that the services do not have secure funding. The Sunflower centre, which has achieved enormous results, operates hand to mouth from year to year, although it should be one of the flagship services that the Home Office provides, because it is stunningly good.
The services seem to be well located in the voluntary sector, but there is a strong need for inter-agency working and strong links with different agencies so that they can deliver through the criminal justice system, social services and the benefits system. Having good links with the black ethnic minority communities, as the Bangladeshi women's association has, is key, as are the services for children and the location of the services in safe settings. The Sunflower centre is over a hairdresser's shop, so women do not feel conspicuous if they go in—a hairdresser's is a fairly normal place to go and no one watching would get the idea that the women might be going there to complain about domestic violence.
I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot support the amendment, he can carry out some form of stock take, as was done in respect of refuge services, and see exactly what is out there. Perhaps he has done so already. I hope that he will then draw from best practice, perhaps do a mapping exercise to show where services are and what the results are, and try to provide secure funding and to build constructive support for these organisations. The Bill is great, but we need agencies out there that can deliver for us. They need to be centred on the needs of the women and, above all, to stop them being victims and to empower them.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset, Conservative)
I shall deal specifically with the question of cost. I do not know whether the figure from the Mayor's office of £45 million, which the hon. and learned Member for Redcar cited, is accurate, but I have no reason to dispute it. That said, £45 million on one side of the equation is quite a small sum when compared to the benefits that emerge on the other side of the equation. We are trying to take a joined-up approach by creating a system in which a number of voluntary organisations can be brought into play for the benefit of victims.
At all stages of the proceedings on this long-overdue Bill, it is the victim about whom we must be concerned. If we can create a framework in which the victim finds it easier to access all that is available to them, the proposals are thoroughly worth supporting. By using existing organisations as well as others that might come into play, we might lift some of the burden from victims of domestic violence and reduce the costs that flow from their being unable to access joined-up services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) stressed the importance of anonymity when people are accessing services. If we introduce the proposed service, its telephone number—freephone, one hopes—should not be easily traceable or appear on telephone bills, because violent
partners often examine telephone bills to find out what calls have been made by their victims. British Telecom provides a list of numbers called almost as a matter of course, so the information may be easily accessible if no action is taken. I would be particularly concerned about that, but otherwise the proposed service should be supported. I hope that we do not hear from the Minister that we will not proceed with it simply on the ground of cost.
Mrs Ann Keen (PPS (Rt Hon Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer), HM Treasury; Brentford and Isleworth, Labour)
I simply want to place on record the fact that Refuge supports the new clause and amendment.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
Good morning, Dame Marion. It is good to see you in the Chair.
Our debates in Committee and in the House are always enriched when we speak from our constituency experience, especially our direct experience of constituency surgeries. That has certainly been the case this morning. I pay tribute to the services that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar opened in her constituency, to the Sunflower centre mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and to the services in Cardiff referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, with which she has been directly involved.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said at the outset, the police and other criminal justice agencies are much better at responding to the needs of victims of domestic violence.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)
Will my hon. Friend also give credit to the Bangladeshi women's association, which does outstanding work in difficult circumstances? I am sure that their members would appreciate their work being recognised by the Minister.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I certainly will. I was trying to give a flavour of my acknowledgement of the tremendous work that is being done. I appreciate that the group referred to by my hon. Friend faces many challenges in its work, and I pay tribute to it.
We recognise that advocacy services are a key element of support to victims of domestic violence. Many organisations already use advocates to great effect and projects have shown that they can be cost effective. Members on both sides of the Committee have made that point, and we acknowledge that ultimately the use of advocates can sometimes save, rather than cost, money.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about evaluation; it is important that we evaluate all that we do and all the needs that we see. I draw her attention to the recent report on specialist domestic violence courts and fast-tracking systems, which was undertaken on behalf of the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the CPS. It found that advocacy services are crucial to the success of the courts. I confirm also that early indications from the crime reduction research programme on advocacy services that is due to be published this summer are also very positive. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that we take evaluation seriously. All the
evaluation that we are doing indicates positive developments.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
Has the Minister evaluated or set in train a process to evaluate the examples given by Committee members?
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I shall deal with that shortly. The hon. Lady mentioned anonymity, as did her hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). That is one of the important issues that we weigh in the balance as we assess the importance of the services and the right way to proceed.
I hope that the Committee will be assured that the Government agree that domestic violence victims may need the support across a range of services at a time when they are most vulnerable, traumatised, and not in a position to help themselves. We are considering the case for the greater use of independent advocates in supporting victims through the criminal justice system and providing wider support to victims in dealing with the many statutory agencies that may be involved in their cases.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about our discussions with the Ministry of Defence and the possible use of advocacy services by the military. At this stage, we have not had detailed conversations, but as we assess the role that such services can play and if we decide to develop an advocacy service we will want to see how that dovetails with the needs of the military.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
The Minister has struck a cold blow at my heart by saying, ''If we ever consider advocacy services.'' I presume that that is a precursor to rejecting the amendments.
Will the Minister undertake to have a conversation with the Ministry of Defence and report back to the Committee on whether the military would be appropriate group in whom to test a domestic violence advocacy service? They seem a cohesive group of people who, together with examples from the other pilots, could provide the sort of back-up that the Minister will require before he, such is his generosity of spirit, forms a service.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I hope that Committee members will not see my comments as a blow and that they will be encouraged to hear that we are making a careful assessment of the role of advocacy services, their cost effectiveness and the real part that they can play in providing the support needed by domestic violence victims when they are at their most traumatised.
Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)
Of course everything has to be carefully assessed, and my hon. Friend says that the Government are making an assessment of services' cost effectiveness and importance. However, he has already referred to advocacy services as capable of being cost effective—he has called them crucial. What more does he need to know?
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North captured the mood of the debate well when she said that we might need to move towards establishing a service. Starting from the current evaluation, we have to establish at what pace we can move, what services to support, and so forth. I am
trying to give encouragement to my hon. and learned Friend and others. We take the issue seriously. We are at an important point, because we are considering how we spend money, how much money we spend and what we spend it on. All I can say to my hon. and learned Friend is that the issue is very much in our minds during those discussions.
Ms Sandra Gidley (Women and Older People, Non-Departmental & Cross-Departmental Responsibilities; Romsey, Liberal Democrat)
It is always slightly depressing to hear the word evaluation, because it sometimes seems to be just another word for procrastination. We see that a lot in the health service. I accept the Minister's good will, but will he undertake to consider examples from other countries as well? In San Diego, there has been a joined-up approach and a good advocacy service for about 15 years, and the number of domestic homicides has been reduced by about 75 per cent. The effect has been so powerful that President Bush, with whom I rarely agree, is putting money into further schemes. If we wait for evidence from Britain alone, it will be a long time before anything is on the statute book.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
Of course we will weigh the evidence and experience from other countries. That is important. It is also important to acknowledge that the Government are currently investing in advocacy services. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North mentioned an investment of £100,000, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North mentioned a £300,000 grant to get services started. We are not inactive. The question is to what extent we can extend and improve that service, and that is the subject of our current assessment. The amendments talk about creating a statutory service. We certainly do not want to create additional bureaucracy. There is a clear consensus in the Committee that we want ever more effective services at the sharp end of the problem, and that is the direction in which we are looking.
On a more technical note, new clause 30 is probably broader than intended. It sets out services of which a domestic violence advocacy service would promote the availability, but it does not define those services with specific reference to victims of domestic violence. As such, presumably any victim as defined by clause 29 could seek to obtain them.
As we do not intend to create a statutory service, amendments Nos. 54 and 87, which bring the domestic violence advocacy service under the remit of the commissioner for victims and witnesses, are unnecessary. We are learning from experience and looking closely at the development of services for victims of domestic violence so that they can receive the advice, help and support that they undoubtedly need. I hope that hon. Members will be assured that the Government treat the issue with the utmost seriousness. In that spirit I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)
Can I just complete the equation and ask my hon. Friend for his comments on the estimate from the Mayor of London's office that a national advocacy service could cost around £45 million per annum? Does he accept that an advocacy service would need to reduce domestic violence by only 1 per cent. to be cost effective, and overseas experience
shows that such a reduction could be easily achieved? If it could achieve a 10 per cent. reduction, which on overseas models is challenging but realistic, there would be a net saving to the Treasury of about £400 million.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I am not in a position to comment on the specific figures that my hon. and learned Friend quotes. Although £45 million is a significant sum, there may in the end be a financial saving and, of course, a saving in terms of the lives and the quality of life of the victims of domestic violence.
Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)
I can see that the Government support the proposals and simply want to take their own route to get to what the clause seeks to achieve. Can my hon. Friend help me on the timeline, so that we can be satisfied that he will come back with some proper evaluations within a reasonable period?
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I cannot give my hon. and learned Friend a specific commitment on time. In view of our deliberations on spending generally and our deliberations in Committee on this issue, this is an important time to engage in such considerations. I can promise that the issues are being treated with great seriousness.
Mrs Ann Keen (PPS (Rt Hon Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer), HM Treasury; Brentford and Isleworth, Labour)
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he is assessing the new clause. Perhaps we should put it on the record that Opposition parties are also willing to spend the necessary sums. I wonder whether that has been cleared with their Front Benches.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I acknowledge the comments of my hon. Friend, who is in a good position to know about these matters.
The debate this morning has been about taking a long-term view that can provide a cost-effective service in terms of quality of life and, indeed, the saving of lives. I assure the Committee that we are considering this very carefully, but we do not believe that we need to reflect those considerations in the Bill. I conclude my remarks by asking once again that the amendment not be pressed.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
That was an excellent debate and I am grateful to all the Members who contributed. The Minister's response to it, however, was wishy-washy in the extreme. He said, ''We are evaluating, thinking, moving in the right direction.'' Today, he had the golden opportunity to make the Bill do what it says on the tin. He could have created something that would have transcended changing the criminal law and urging an alteration in attitude across the country; he could have provided genuine support for the victims of domestic violence in every town and village in the country, but he flunked it.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour)
We have heard how some Labour councils and the Government have supported domestic violence projects. Can the hon. Gentleman say how many Liberal Democrat councils have funded such projects in their areas?
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
A considerable number, but I shall not list them all. That kind of partisan point is unhelpful.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
It was a partisan point. I hoped that we were all looking to improve facilities, not only in our cities where the problem is greatest, but throughout the country. Current voluntary provision is patchy: although often supported by local authorities of all political persuasions throughout the country, it is often not provided in areas of serious need, such as rural areas, which have not yet been mentioned in the debate. I know that the original proposal came from the Greater London authority, but no one is more isolated than a person living in the sort of area that I represent—a very rural area—where there is no obvious recourse. Although some excellent voluntary organisations supported by our local authorities provide help, it is difficult to get to them, and nobody is more isolated than the person in an abusive relationship living in a rural setting who feels that they have nobody to whom they can turn.
The amendments could have represented a real breakthrough in providing an advocacy service that could have made a difference. The fact that we can make comparisons with other countries where such a service has been well established and has made a difference makes it all the more alarming that we in this country are moving so slowly towards achieving the same objective.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this was hardly a surprise move on the part of any Committee member, not least the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, since the Bill has been on the stocks for nine months? In an Adjournment debate the other day, the Home Office did not put up the Minister with direct responsibility to respond to it but another Minister in the Department, which was disappointing. There has been plenty of time for the Minister to have taken into consideration all the hurdles—I will not call them barriers—that have been put up, and for the Government to have prepared a more generous response.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I agree. My difficulty with the Government's response is that I know that they have a vague idea that they would like some form of advocacy service dealing in the wider sense with criminal law. I do not disagree with that, but I do not think that it will do the job that is proposed in relation to the specific issue of domestic violence. We need a bespoke service providing support for victims of domestic violence.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North about her experiences in her constituency; all of us could point to evidence of excellent work that is done in our constituencies by often underfunded and overstretched voluntary organisations. The problem with not having any statutory organisation or underpinning of that structure is that provision is piecemeal, there are vast deserts where there is none, there is no benchmark for that provision, and it is not the sort of comprehensive provision that both supports the victims and discourages the crime.
If we want evidence that we can discourage crime in this way, we have only to look at the areas of the world where such an advocacy system is up and running to
see a real reduction in the incidence of crimes that fall into the category of domestic violence. Even without the cash saving, that should be enough to persuade Committee members and the Government of the wisdom of this move. I am deeply disappointed because, despite its benign attitude, the Home Office is not prepared to do anything. I hoped that the Bill would make a difference in a much wider area. I am not decrying its intentions or certain elements in it, but I hoped that we would move beyond statute to implementation. Although I accept that there have been improvements in procedures and attitudes, it does not go far enough.
There are often good intentions at senior levels—among Ministers, chief constables and senior officers—but sometimes the performance at the lowest levels is not as we would wish. This measure would have done something about that, and at the end of the day the House will have to make a decision on it. I give notice that we will return to this matter on Report. I do not know in whose name amendments will be tabled and I do not care, as long as there is a debate on the issue. We will have to have a Division on Report, because we must make it clear to the Government how important we feel this provision is. The Minister has a little time to think about what his response will be when we debate the matter in the Chamber in a few weeks.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham and Amersham, Conservative)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the speed with which Government amendments can be tabled at the eleventh hour shows that the Government will have no problem introducing suitable amendments on Report?
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
The Home Office can move mountains when it chooses. We are asking it to choose to do so on this important issue. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)
Clause 26 deals with the general functions of the commissioner. I think that we would all agree that the functions set out in subsection (1) are laudable. It states that the commissioner must
''promote the interests of victims and witnesses'',
take steps to encourage
''good practice in the treatment of victims and witnesses''
and advise on the updating of the code of practice, which we discussed on a previous occasion.
I want the Minister to explain to the good people of Northern Ireland why they have been forgotten with regard to the functions of the commissioner for victims and witnesses. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome described his response as ''wishy-washy''. In fairness to the Minister, I pay a warm tribute to him for his great courtesy in speaking to me about the Bill before Second Reading. I mentioned to him that there had been a victims commissioner in Northern Ireland, but I hope that I did not mislead him at that stage into believing that we still had a victims commissioner in Northern Ireland.
The commissioner, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, was appointed in 1997, when Mo Mowlam, the predecessor of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The victims commissioner's remit in Northern Ireland is available on the Northern Ireland Office website. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was commissioned by the Secretary of State to examine the feasibility of providing greater recognition for those who had become victims in the past 30 years as a consequence of events in Northern Ireland; he was the victims commissioner dealing with victims of the horrible 30 years of violence. He did a superb job. If one looks at the Northern Ireland Office website, however, one could be led to believe that he still holds that position. He published a report in 1998, entitled ''We will remember them'', which is a seminal work for victims of the troubles. However, his remit never extended to victims of general crime, or to victims of domestic violence in particular.
Sir Kenneth's term of office ended when he presented that report, but as I said, the Northern Ireland Office website does not indicate when he stood down or when his term as the victims commissioner ended. Having spoken to him last Friday evening when we met at a social function, I explained to him that I had given a press interview for which I had relied on information from the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission's website in relation to his work as the victims commissioner. That website says that he was victims commissioner from 1997 to 2003, but that is not the case; Sir Kenneth himself explained that his term was time-limited to when he presented his report.
Will the Minister reflect on a response that he gave to me on Second Reading, in which he said that there was a different system in Northern Ireland, and that there was a victims commissioner? I apologise if I gave the impression to him that Sir Kenneth is still in post. He is certainly not still in post, and his remit never extended beyond the victims of the troubles. Will the Minister explain why clause 26 deprives the people of Northern Ireland—victims and witnesses—of the benefit of the functions of the commissioner? Why should not that be included in the Bill?
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
This debate gives me the opportunity to apologise to the hon. Lady for the clear misunderstanding on Second Reading. I said at the outset of our deliberations that the passage of a Bill, particularly through Committee, is a learning experience for everybody, and I now understand more clearly both the remit of the victims commissioner and the time scale during which he served. In our private discussion, the hon. Member for North Down explained the work that he had done, and she expressed the view that I might learn something from him. That was very much the spirit in which I sought to pursue those discussions, so I hope that she accepts my apology for the misunderstanding. I understand more clearly now.
More substantially, the hon. Lady makes the point that the people of Northern Ireland are forgotten in relation to these issues. I do not agree. I know that she is dissatisfied about the way in which these services are
being developed in Northern Ireland, and she expressed that disappointment and displeasure the other day. My view is that we seek a similar outcome, but take a different route. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), mentioned the other day the criminal justice review and the sub-committee that is currently dealing with some specific issues.
I understand and acknowledge that the hon. Lady remains dissatisfied at the pace with which the measure is being taken forward. No doubt she will continue to discuss the matter with my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, but we cannot seek to advance it through the Bill. I say to her that the people of Northern Ireland are not forgotten, but that the route to developing adequate and proper services for victims of crime in Northern Ireland, whatever the crime, is a responsibility that is firmly in the hands of my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.
Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)
I am grateful to the Minister and accept his generous explanation and apology. I remind him and other members of the Committee that clause 1 of the Belfast agreement, signed on Good Friday in 1998, stated—it was voted for in the referendum in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland—that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom unless and until the people of Northern Ireland vote otherwise. I remind him that criminal law is not a devolved issue; responsibility for criminal law and for victims and witnesses remains firmly here at Westminster, not in the Northern Ireland Office.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I repeat the point that the development of services in response to the needs of victims of crime, of whatever nature, is in the hands of my ministerial colleagues in Northern Ireland. I have had discussions with them on the issue and have made the hon. Lady's dissatisfaction clear to them, although I am sure that they were already aware of it.
Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I observe that the Home Office always goes into a flat spin whenever Northern Ireland or courts martial are mentioned. I support the contention of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). When the jurisdiction clearly falls within the remit of this Parliament and the Department, albeit in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Office, it is not acceptable that matters in Northern Ireland are often forgotten until someone has the good sense to point them out.
Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)
I am either in a flat spin or wishy-washy—take your pick. I stand accused of both by the hon. Gentleman. At the risk of being repetitive, I say to hon. Members that the criminal justice review 2000 in Northern Ireland made various recommendations in relation to victims. I am assured by colleagues that those recommendations are being acted on, and it is clearly their responsibility to do so. I ask the hon. Member for North Down to accept that explanation, even if she does not agree with the pace at which those services are being developed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 27 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.