§ 4.31 p.m.
§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the courts to make an order giving the wife of a man who has been convicted of an act of violence against her the complete right of possession of the matrimonial home if she applies for such an order; and for purposes connected therewith.I invite the House to turn for just a few minutes from the great national and international affairs, which are our proper concern, and to look at the problem of the unrelenting cruelty suffered by thousands of British women. I am astounded by the complacency with which Britain accepts this kind of cruelty—and, looking around the House, the indifference of hon. Members to it.I cannot understand how thousands of women can be compelled to endure brutality on a massive scale while the House of Commons and the country are prepared to do very little about it. I know that the Government are actively concerned and are trying to deal with this problem. Nevertheless, I think that the House should be far more active about the problems of battered women. The evidence is vast and is to be found in every constituency in the land. In every town and city there are women who are being battered very severely. What I cannot understand is why we are not more concerned, because it is not only women who are being damaged but also children. By our failure to deal with this problem we are creating the child neurotics of today, the juvenile delinquents of tomorrow and probably the adult criminals of the future.
Why are we so unmoved about this situation? There are two real reasons. The first is that the House tends to confuse normal domestic disputes with real domestic brutality. This is an understandable failure to appreciate the difference between the two, but it is a failure with which we must deal. I am not speaking about normal domestic disputes or even about serious rows. I am speaking about real brutality—pregnant women being kicked, or women being beaten and even burned; the breaking of bones and the crushing of spirits. That is the kind 215 of problem with which we are faced. It is the kind of cruelty which would cause a mass outcry throughout the country and marches on Parliament if it were inflicted on a dog or a cat—but if it is inflicted on women apparently it does not really matter.
The second reason why we are so unconcerned is that our values have been eroded by our historic practice of sexual discrimination and our susceptibilities and sensibilities have become so blunted that we passively accept what we should passionately reject—the infliction of cruelty on vulnerable women.
The Bill will not deal with this whole problem. It is a limited Bill. However, I have already placed before the House a 15-point plan to deal with brutality against women, and, as I have said, the Government are dealing with it by setting up a Select Committee and in various other ways. Nevertheless, the Bill is necessary because the need is urgent in view of the present situation, which is that where there is brutality in a home the woman suffers by being subjected to violence, or, alternatively, she is kicked out—evicted. That is entirely wrong. Therefore, the Bill seeks to place the shoe on the other foot, so that if there is real violence the woman gets possession of the home and the man is evicted. If some people object to this—as I know they will—saying that this is a serious penalty for brutality, I reply that this sort of violence against women is a serious crime requiring serious penalties.
What the House must decide is this. If violence means homelessness—as it does ultimately—one of the parties must leave, the man or the woman. The House must decide who is to go. Is it to be the attacker or the attacked, the person committing the violence or the victim? Is it to be a man with fairly good earning power, or a woman with very little earning power? The Bill is quite unambiguous and straightforward. It says clearly that it is the man who must go and that the woman must stay. That is the whole purpose of this short Bill.
216 If the Bill is accepted, I can promise that in Committee I shall try to be reasonable. I shall not be inflexible. I know that the lawyers are concerned with any degree of inflexibility. I am quite prepared to be reasonable. I am not trying to penalise men who have ordinary domestic rows with their wives. I am prepared to say in Committee that a conviction should establish a presumption that possession of the home should go to the wife. That would be the one major concession I would make. I believe that this would meet all the objections. It would ensure that in nearly every case the woman takes possession of the home and the man is kicked out. It would give the man the right of appeal. That is as far as I ought to go in meeting objections.
We have enough disabled people in Britain without swelling their numbers by gratuitous violence. I believe that the Bill will deliver women from violence and that it will deter men from inflicting grievous bodily harm. It will also offer many children a hope of freedom from fear. If the Bill accomplishes any one of those things, I shall be proud to have presented it to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. John Hannam, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. Neil Marten, Mrs. Millie Miller, Mrs. Renée Short, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Phillip Whitehead.