Clause 33 - Grants for assisting victims, witnesses etc

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:45 pm on 1 July 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Vera Baird Vera Baird Labour, Redcar 2:45, 1 July 2004

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in clause 33, page 19, line 30, at end add—

'(3) The Secretary of State may make grants to voluntary organisations under this section for the purpose of providing appropriate protection and support services for children who have suffered impairment due to seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another person. Any payments will be subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate.'.

Although I tabled the amendment, I should have preferred to defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) because it falls within his area of interest concerning children. He is not present, however, so I shall press on.

This amendment, which I discussed with my hon. Friend and others, is advocated by Women's Aid and a large number of organisations, including Refuge, which are concerned about the impact on children of having seen or heard the ill treatment of another person, usually in the context of domestic violence.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I have sympathy with the intention behind the hon. and learned Lady's amendment. My noble Friends tabled such an amendment in another place and spoke to it. Does she agree, however, that although it is important for us to have this debate and receive the assurances that I hope the Minister will give us, the power is already contained in the clause, without amendment, to provide the sort of assistance that we want?

Photo of Vera Baird Vera Baird Labour, Redcar

It appears to be possible that grants could be paid to people under clause 33(1)

''in connection with measures which appear . . . to be intended to assist victims, witnesses or other persons'',

but I am not sure about that. I ask the Minister to make clear what he envisages that wording allowing. At the moment, the situation is not a happy one.

The amendment presents a clear understanding, which the Government also have, of the potential damage to children from domestic violence. The Government recently made it clear that three quarters of children on the at-risk register live in households in which domestic violence occurs. The Department of Health acknowledges that domestic violence is a major indicator of risk to children and that perpetrators who are violent to their partners are frequently violent to their children.

There is an understanding that goes beyond the danger of physical injury to a child, as well as a parent, which is that a child will suffer from the trauma and shock of being exposed to violence inflicted by one party—usually one carer—on another. The amendment is intended to ensure that the use of the word ''victims'' in the clause is wide enough to permit the Secretary of State to give grants to children who have not physically been injured but who have witnessed very unpleasant things.

A recent book, ''Children's Perspectives on Domestic Violence'', written partly by Professor Liz Kelly of London Metropolitan university, consists in part of children who lived with domestic violence saying what they needed and what they suffered in that situation. Their replies were described as being astonishingly clear and consistent. The most commonly cited need was, not surprisingly, safety, but the next most common was someone to talk to. In the book, a nine-year-old girl speaking from her own experience said that people

''need someone to talk to. Because, if they were like me, sometimes I'm really sad and I need someone to talk to''.

She said that people may not be able to

''speak to the mum because maybe their mum don't want to talk about it. I think they should have someone to talk to.''

Clearly, that is not a desire for a chat; it is a profound need for a proper channel of communication with someone responsible, so that children who suffer exposure to violent behaviour can talk about the stresses that they suffer, their incomprehension and the impact that the behaviour has had on their development.

Children in the study also stated that the support services that they valued most in their sad youthful experience of domestic violence were those provided by children's support workers in refuges. Refuge organisations in England provide accommodation for about 23,500 children a year, and support services for about 110,000 children a year. They try to offer a wide range of services, including play, outings, and one-to-one support of the kind that I mentioned, involving advocacy and after care. Such organisations are the only widespread, dedicated source of support for children who have experienced domestic violence. However, children's support services in refuges are not mentioned in ''Every Child Matters''.

There is always the law of unintended consequences, and Women's Aid has made it clear that recent Government initiatives—unintentionally, I am sure—are effectively reducing support services for children in that category. Women's Aid relates that children's services in refuges are starved of funds, because the funding comes through the ''supporting people'' programme, and its funding regime is not aimed at children. However, children make up two thirds of the refuge population.

National standards for day care for under-eights have set staffing ratio and minimum space standards that only some 40 per cent. of refuges can ever afford to meet. Some refuge organisations have had to cut back drastically on the services that they offer. Women's Aid is carrying out a survey to find out in detail how refuge organisations are responding to the national standards, but it seems as though only 25 per cent. of organisations will be able to comply with national standards.

Women's Aid points out that children who have been involved in proceedings relating to violent parents need to be assessed properly. In May 2003, Women's Aid carried out a survey of 170 refuge organisations and domestic violence services. Some 83 per cent. of those services, which are at the cutting edge of expertise in terms of children who suffer from domestic violence, say that the ability to assess children is currently limited, because assessments during proceedings tend to be one-off interviews with someone whom the child does not know. That means that the child does not have the opportunity to receive a service that is absolutely necessary even for adults: the opportunity to talk about the most intimate aspects of family life. We are talking about a relationship built on trust, and it is much harder to achieve that with children.

In the Women's Aid briefing, there are plenty of expressions of the fact that it is difficult for children to disclose material at one-off interviews. There is a strong suggestion in the material before us that, in private law proceedings, issues concerning children and arising from domestic violence and abuse are not being got at adequately. The amendment makes clear what the Secretary of State is prepared to do and how widely the clause can be interpreted. Children who experience domestic violence must have safety and support urgently.

Photo of Dame Cheryl Gillan Dame Cheryl Gillan Shadow Minister of State (Home Office)

Although the amendment is a probing one, I support it because it provides an opportunity to hear the Minister's views. There is a lacuna in looking after children. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is not in Committee, because he has done much work on the subject.

It is obvious that children do not have to be physically or verbally abused to be hurt by domestic violence. Even hearing, or seeing, the abuse of one parent by the other can take a huge toll on kids and make a lasting impression. Children can also be the direct target of domestic violence and be hurt intentionally by an abusive parent, get caught in the middle of a particularly violent domestic incident and

be hurt accidentally or, in some cases, even be killed. I remind the Under-Secretary that I have some outstanding written questions on the statistics concerning the deaths of children, to which I have not yet received a response. Whether those statistics exist is another matter, but I hope that an answer is forthcoming.

As a result of domestic violence, children can develop a physical or mental problem that could last a lifetime. They can grow up believing that violence is a normal part of family life and be more likely to be abusive as adults if they are males, and more passive and withdrawn if they are females. The children often live in daily fear of what to expect at home. Their lives can be filled with confusion, chaos, anger and tension, which can lead to a lifelong fear and inability to trust others.

The children can be isolated by an abusive parent who shuts off the family from outside help or support. They can feel responsible themselves for such abuse because they feel that they are powerless to stop it. I have a constituency case in which that is exactly what is happening. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am having difficulty in finding the correct route down which help can be provided to the child. At present, my constituent is dealing with a real and living problem. I do not want to breach any confidences in respect of the case, but at some stage this afternoon I may take the mind of the Minister, because I have to deal with the case before the end of the day.

Young children can become very anxious. Many complain of tummy aches, wet the bed or find difficulty in sleeping. They have temper tantrums, and they start to behave as if they have mental health problems themselves. Boys seem to express their distress outwardly, while girls are more likely to internalise their stress. When I was researching the problem, I came across a helpful list that had been published by an American organisation called Turning Point. It listed the symptoms for which people in contact with such children should keep a weather eye. It includes unusual or unexplained injuries, headaches, stomach aches, signs of neglect, withdrawal such as playing alone and having no friends, depression, low self-esteem, use of violence to solve conflicts, trouble falling or staying asleep, sleeping during school, flashbacks, difficulty expressing emotions, school problems including lengthy absences, and acting over-responsibly—as if the child is the adult of the family and takes control.

The ongoing effects are alarming. I have looked at research showing that boys who have witnessed the abuse of their mothers are 10 times more likely as adults to abuse their female partners. Children who are abused in homes with domestic violence are 1,500 per cent. more likely to be neglected than other children. In homes where fathers assault mothers, the daughters are 651 per cent. more likely to be sexually abused than girls in non-abusive homes. Children of abused mothers are six times more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, and are at a higher risk of running away.

A 1992 United States study showed that 63 per cent. of imprisoned kids between the ages of 11 and 20—I appreciate that these were American kids—were doing time for killing their mother's abuser. By reflecting on those statistics from Turning Point, I put on record the fact that this problem will cost society and the taxpayer a lot of money in the long term unless it is dealt with in its initial stages, when it first comes to the attention of the relevant agencies.

That is why I support this probing amendment and want to hear what the Minister has to say about it. Our children are our future. We have to protect them and minimise the damage done to them when they live in or around an abusive domestic relationship.

Photo of Julie Morgan Julie Morgan Labour, Cardiff North 3:00, 1 July 2004

The case for the needs of children who are in households where domestic violence occurs has already been made, and I do not have to go into the issue again. However, there is a gap in provision, and refuges in Wales are certainly short of play workers and support workers.

Let me cite the example of a woman living in my constituency who depended on the support provided for her children. She was living in temporary accommodation and was traumatised by her experience of domestic violence and racism. Her mental health was in such a bad state that she was unable to leave the accommodation. She was totally dependent on support workers from BAWSO, the black women's refuge, to take her child to school, take him swimming, buy him things and enable him to have any semblance of a normal life. I am talking about addressing the physical needs of the child, as opposed to the mental needs that have been mentioned. That case strongly brought home to me the situation of such children, who may have been traumatised by witnessing domestic violence or even being caught up in it.

It is essential that there should be help at a very early stage. There is a big gap in provision, and we have to concentrate resources in that area, otherwise the problems that begin at an early age will be worse when they come to be addressed later.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

A powerful case has been made in support of the intention behind the amendment. I do not want to detract from that case; indeed, I support it wholeheartedly. The amendment was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Thomas of Walliswood in another place for what was, I am afraid, a brief debate whose timing was not perfect; only she and Baroness Scotland of Asthal participated.

However, two things emerged. First, it is my conviction that there is a gap in provision that needs to be filled. Secondly, the amendment is not, strictly speaking, necessary to enable the Government to fill that gap, because the permissive power is already set out in clause 33. I did not seek to pursue the amendment, because I thought that we could do the job as well with a stand part debate. Nevertheless, we have had the debate on the amendment. The Minister now needs to repeat, as I am sure he will, the Home Office view that the clause already provides the necessary power, but he should go a lot further. He should say that he recognises the issue and the fact that

we do not deal well with the children of those in abusive relationships, and acknowledge that we need to provide support in that area.

The Minister should also flesh out the comments made by Baroness Scotland in another place. She suggested that this is one of the matters that are under consideration for inclusion in the action plan that is being drawn up under the national strategy for victims and witnesses. I want the Minister to state explicitly that this matter will be included in that plan. We can then stop pursuing it, because we will be satisfied that he has heard the comments that have been made by the voluntary organisations from which the amendment came and by hon. Member on both sides of the Committee.

The Government need to address the matter and to provide support for the organisations that are trying to deal with the difficult issues associated with support for children. The Minister must say that that is a priority for the Government and that it will be contained in the plans that they propose to introduce. If he can give me that assurance, we will all be satisfied and feel that we have done our job in the Committee. If he is unable to do so, we will have to return to the matter until we get a satisfactory answer from the Government.

Photo of Robert Walter Robert Walter Conservative, North Dorset

I rise to support the amendment, because, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I think that it is right that it should be included in the Bill.

Children are often the forgotten victims of domestic violence, and we would be doing them a disservice if we did not highlight that fact in the clause by introducing the amendment or something similar. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to various statistics about the number of children involved. All statistics in this area seriously underestimate the effect on children of domestic violence in the home.

I do not have any statistics, but I would like to share some anecdotal evidence with the Committee, as it emphasises the point. Some Committee members will know that my wife has been very involved in highlighting the problem of domestic violence. Last year, she happened to be in the hairdressers and she was talking to a young girl who had just started work, aged 16, as an apprentice hairdresser. She was washing my wife's hair and they were talking about what my wife was doing. For a couple of minutes the girl related her experiences of domestic violence in the home. She said that that was the first time that she had felt able to tell anyone, although she was talking to a complete stranger. Nobody had ever asked her before. As a result, she wrote down her experiences. They were very moving and they have been made into a short film.

The only reason why I tell this anecdote to the Committee is that, during the production of that film, I was involved in a meeting with a member of the production crew—a man in his mid-thirties. He explained why he wanted to be involved and related a story about when he was five years old. His sister stabbed his father with a butter knife, because he was

attacking the man's mother. He also said that nobody had asked him what effect it had had on him.

In both those instances, as one dug a little deeper, it seemed that the mothers just wanted to cover the situation up. They did not want to talk about it—certainly not with the children—and they did not want to encourage the children to be involved with any outside agencies.

Those are historic examples, but the Bill should include a provision that makes it incumbent on those responsible for considering the victims of domestic violence to dig deeply to find out how it affects children. As well as physical damage, the children often suffer enormous psychological damage.

Photo of Dame Cheryl Gillan Dame Cheryl Gillan Shadow Minister of State (Home Office)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a child requires treatment, it can often be an indication that the mother is suffering domestic violence? The woman will invariably seek medical help for her children rather than for herself. The fact that a child requires medical treatment can be extremely helpful in identifying domestic violence. It is therefore even more essential that resources are made available; the money can help build up a wider and broader picture.

Photo of Robert Walter Robert Walter Conservative, North Dorset

I agree entirely. It is important that we make resources available. Although we are talking primarily about helping the child—the innocent observer of physical abuse and domestic violence, and in many cases the victim—as far as the other agencies are concerned, the children add an extra perspective to the assessment of the crimes committed in their homes.

Photo of Ann Keen Ann Keen PPS (Rt Hon Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer), HM Treasury

I am not an expert, but at an international conference two or three years ago hosted by the Metropolitan police, I had the opportunity to chair an afternoon seminar. A delegate from Cyprus said that, in that country, if a child is in the home when the perpetrator is abusing someone, the perpetrator is also charged with child abuse. Could we consider making a similar provision?

Photo of Paul Goggins Paul Goggins Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate; their evidence and harrowing stories have moved us all. In passing, I can tell the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that if I can assist with the case that she had in mind, I shall be happy to do so.

We should remind ourselves that clause 33 is intended to give statutory authority for Government grants to be paid to voluntary sector bodies. That is entirely in line with Treasury best practice. We do not suggest in the clause what the level of funding might be, and neither do we say how the grant should be distributed between the various organisations. The Secretary of State may pay grants to any organisation that appears to him to assist victims, witnesses or others affected by such offences, and I confirm that children are definitely included in that definition. The amendment's mention of children is therefore unnecessary.

Hon. Members will appreciate the fact that funding for Victim Support has risen from £11.7 million in

1997 to some £30 million this year. The charity offered its community services to almost 80,000 victims of domestic violence in 2002–03, and it will have taken account of the needs of the children affected by the violence, referring them to other agencies when necessary. Similarly, its witness service offered support to about 30,000 children and young people who were victims or witnesses of crime.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) mentioned a book by Liz Kelly. I have not had the opportunity to read it, but I shall certainly take an urgent look at it. Like several hon. Members, I was invited to a presentation organised by Women's Aid in which children spoke from their personal perspective about some of those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned that event on Second Reading; it was a moving occasion.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to parliamentary questions to which she awaits answers. I am considering the answers, and I will make sure that she receives them as soon as possible. There is no intention to block them.

Photo of Dame Cheryl Gillan Dame Cheryl Gillan Shadow Minister of State (Home Office) 3:15, 1 July 2004

What I said was less a criticism and more an inquiry, because it is probably quite difficult to come by the information that I asked for, which makes my point that we need more information and statistics.

Photo of Paul Goggins Paul Goggins Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office

I can confirm that we have some information, and the hon. Lady will have it as soon as we can make it available.

For children who are not victims or witnesses of crime, the children, young people and families directorate of the Department for Education and Skills has the policy lead at national level. However, it is for local authorities to decide how best to provide support and services for children in need in their areas, including children in women's refuges.

It is important that the needs of such children are met. The Department for Education and Skills made it clear in its response to the ''Safety and Justice'' consultation paper that it will look at overhauling the support services available to children at risk as a result of domestic violence through the implementation of the proposals in the Green Paper ''Every Child Matters'', and it will consider how to address support needs specific to children who are affected by domestic violence. We are working with the Department for Education and Skills to decide how best to take that work forward and to support those children better in future.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about the action plan for victims and witnesses, and I can confirm the comments made by my colleague in the other place about what is part of that action plan. I hope that that reassures him.

I hope that my other remarks give some reassurance to hon. Friends and Opposition Members. The cases they outlined are harrowing. The need is urgent, we are looking at the matter closely with the Department for Education and Skills, and we will ever seek to

improve the way in which we deliver support to children in need.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

It is delightful to see you back in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Benton.

The Minister will recall that just before we adjourned for lunch there was a query about the definition of victims in terms of offences, and, in particular, antisocial behaviour. Clause 33 states that grants will be paid

''to assist victims, witnesses or other persons affected by offences.''

Children, as well as adults, are victims of antisocial behaviour. Can the Minister confirm that there will be a revision to take that into account?

Photo of Paul Goggins Paul Goggins Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office

I gave an undertaking this morning that we would look carefully at the definition of victims and witnesses in clause 29; we will also take on board the hon. Lady's comments. I hope that I have been able to reassure Committee members, and that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Photo of Vera Baird Vera Baird Labour, Redcar

I am grateful to all contributors to the debate. In significantly different ways, they have made clear the sense that there is a gap in provision and that it is very important that children should be fully recognised as victims of domestic violence, even when they have not been physically injured, so that their needs can be adequately provided for.

I am reassured by what my hon. Friend the Minister said. He is clearly letting the Committee understand that clause 33(1), which refers to assisting

''victims, witnesses or other persons affected by offences'',

is wide enough to cover children who have been victims but who may not have been injured by being punched, who may not be victims of an offence or have physically witnessed an offence, and yet who were on the premises or around the situation when it occurred.

I wanted an assurance that the Minister understands the needs of those children and that the clause is wide enough to ensure that the help that they need can be delivered after proper investigation through the appropriate channels. Because that has been made clear, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

Clause 33 highlights the Government's higgledy-piggledy approach to the Bill's application to Northern Ireland. Curiously, this clause does extend to Northern Ireland. Although the Minister is perfectly content for the people of Northern Ireland to be left without a commissioner for victims and witnesses, he intends grants to be paid to victims and witnesses there who are affected by offences. I do not want him to withdraw the application of the clause to Northern Ireland, but I want to bring to his attention the curious fact that the Northern Ireland Office website states that the Government have to date committed more than

£18.25 million in support of measures for victims of the troubles, including for the memorial fund.

Will the Minister clarify what consultation took place between the Home Office and his ministerial colleagues at the Northern Ireland Office—in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who has responsibility for victims in Northern Ireland—on the extension of clause 33 to Northern Ireland? Secondly, will he clarify whether those who have been victims of the troubles and who have rightly benefited from applications to the memorial fund will also be able to apply for a grant under the clause?

Photo of Vera Baird Vera Baird Labour, Redcar

I seek further clarification on the breadth of the clause. I was pleased to hear the assurances that the amendment evoked from the Minister, but I wonder whether the clause falls foul of the argument levelled against it in an earlier amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Before the Secretary of State has the ability under this power to pay a grant, it is required that the individuals, or the groups representing individuals, must be those that intend to assist victims, witnesses or other persons affected by offences. That clearly means criminal offences, which is usually what people who have been witnesses or victims have been involved in.

In order for grants to be triggered, does there have to be a conviction so that offences are clearly entered on the record? Would a person who brought proceedings, and who had suffered to some extent from the consequences of another's actions, but who failed to bring home the full implications of a technical offence, be excluded from receiving support from the grant-aided funding set out in the clause?

Another problem is caused by couching the clause in terms of assisting victims of or witnesses to offences. Will victims of or witnesses to antisocial behaviour, which may not amount to a criminal offence, but which will be dealt with through civil proceedings in pursuit of an antisocial behaviour order, be covered? On the face of it, they will not, yet, as has been said, they are likely to have been just as traumatised and to be in need of just as much support as witnesses at criminal trials.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

The hon. and learned Lady is making an important point. I just question her interpretation. A lot of the groups that may be included in the definition will also deal prophylactically with issues associated with crime or domestic violence, and so on, and will seek to avoid an offence being committed. They may find it difficult to differentiate in their work between that which prevents an offence from being committed and what assists afterwards. I hope that the Government are not over-prescribing, and therefore over-defining, what such grants might be used for.

Photo of Vera Baird Vera Baird Labour, Redcar

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I should think that the Minister has done so, too. What he says is right. The key is couching the terminology widely enough to ensure that the Government help the people whom they want to help. They want to help people who are affected by

antisocial behaviour and need support, just as much as they want to help people who have suffered from crime and need support. It is a way of ensuring that people who take civil proceedings, or are a party to suffering that goes to a civil court for a solution rather than to a criminal court, will be protected. I want to reiterate that distinction, because I am not sure that it was made powerfully enough, although I heard the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raise it in connection with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.

The problem with clause 29 is that it is about criminal matters, and the problem with clause 33 is that it is only about offences. Antisocial behaviour orders are not criminal proceedings, and what occurs prior to an antisocial behaviour order being imposed is not an offence.

Photo of Paul Goggins Paul Goggins Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office

I was remiss of me not to respond during the debate on the amendments to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen). I will look carefully at her suggestion, because I am not able to give her a firm, clear answer now.

On clause stand part, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar, as ever, makes a number of important points. In relation to the provision of services to victims, it is not necessary that there is a conviction. I hope that that offers her some reassurance. On her other point, we will, as I promised this morning, consider the whole Bill and the role of the commissioner, and so on, so that it is clear that their remit covers antisocial behaviour.

After our previous discussions, I can only say to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that I share her pleasure that the clause is extended to cover Northern Ireland. I reassure her that I have had close consultations, personally and organisationally, with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office—in particular, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, to whom the hon. Lady referred. The clause legitimises current arrangements, and in that sense it does not introduce anything new. As the hon. Lady's suggested, the victims associated with the troubles would qualify under the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.