Domestic Violence

HC Deb 21 July 1993 vol 229 cc368-403

[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1992–93 on Domestic Violence (House of Commons Paper No. 245-I) and the Government Response thereto (Cm. 2269.)]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further sum, not exceeding £1,807,298,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on compensation for criminal injuries, probation, police and superannuation payments for police and fire services.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

I understand that with this it will be convenient also to discuss the next three motions relating to estimates:

That a further sum, not exceeding £745,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on police, the forensic science service, emergency planning, fire, the Fire Service College, court services, other services related to crime, probation and after-care, miscellaneous services, prevention of drug abuse, control of immigration and nationality, issue of passports etc., community services; and on administration (excluding the provision made for prisons administration carried on Class VIII, Vote 2).

That a further sum, not exceeding £427,760,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the court service, magistrates' courts, legal aid administration, tribunals, the court building programme, certain other legal services and a payment to the Land Registry Trading Fund.

That a further sum, not exceeding £135,693,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Crown Prosecution Service on administrative costs including the hire of private prosecuting agents.

4.29 pm

Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

It is not always appreciated by our constituents that Parliament—and particularly this House—often pauses in its headlong rush to get laws on to the statute book to consider general issues of national and social concern. Hon. Members do so without drama and frenzy, and without the harangue, diatribe and vitriol of party politics. One example of that vital work will be debated this afternoon as we consider the subject of domestic violence.

I am sorry that so many of our colleagues are not present at this important debate. I hope that they are at home—repairing the ravages of this Maastricht-ridden life that we have been pursuing—and that there is domestic tranquillity back at their roots.

The Home Affairs Select Committee, consisting of six Conservative Members and five Labour Members and of which I am privileged to have been elected as Chairman, decided a year ago to look in some depth at the devastating social problem of domestic violence. The evidence that we received from interested groups and individuals was prodigious, and the witnesses who gave evidence in person were many. Our report is comparatively long and we have made 42 specific recommendations for improving the way in which we tackle the problem in society.

I warmly thank my hard-working colleagues on the Committee, our dedicated Clerk, Paul Silk, and his staff, those who took the trouble to give evidence to us and those whom we met on our visits in London—the police, social workers and the victims. Finally, I thank my colleagues on the Liaison Select Committee for choosing this subject for debate today.

Our inquiries left us with no illusions about the prevalence of domestic violence in society today, or its enormous cost in financial as well as, more importantly, human terms. Paragraph 136 of our conclusions defines that most basic of a citizen's rights: the one of living a life where violence is not feared and individual dignity is respected. That is simply not possible when the menace of violence lurks where there ought to exist a haven of peace and tranquillity—the home.

In paragraph 6 of our report, we stress that men as well as women are affected by domestic violence, perhaps more frequently than many realise. All our recommendations therefore apply equally to men and to women.

There are many forms of domestic violence: adult children may abuse their parents and grandparents; fathers, uncles and other relatives may abuse their daughters, sons, nieces, and so on. We have had to concentrate our attention on violence between partners and ex-partners in order to keep our inquiry within manageable proportions. I hope that the House will understand and accept that.

We do not pretend that we are the first to address the subject. Our report supplements and complements the work recently done by Victim Support and the Law Commission in particular. Eighteen years ago, the Parliamentary Select Committee on Violence in the Family reported, and much has been achieved since then. There have been changes in legislation, in the way that agencies such as the police, the judiciary, social workers and the churches approach the problem, and in the attitude of Government.

The more attention has been focused on the problem, the more its full extent has been realised and the more the problem has been seen to grow. The general achievement of the attention has been to ensure that domestic violence is now treated as a serious crime by the police, prosecutors and the courts.

As the problem seems to be getting worse, either because more abuse is coming to light, or because our society is less stable and its citizens more intolerant. and less tranquil, a great deal remains to be done to improve things. Most of our recommendations are for specific action which we believe needs to be taken. In our view, there is a need for better facts and statistics, to monitor arrest rates, make police domestic violence units a more central part of police work, for the Crown Prosecution Service to monitor police performance in that area and for the courts and prosecutors to adopt more victim-friendly procedures and practices.

We believe that victims should be further helped by making more child contact and victim access centres available through the establishment of a central co-ordinated policy for the provision of refuges throughout the country. Furthermore, we believe that such provision, far from increasing costs, could well be the single greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken.

We make recommendations for the perpetrators of domestic violence. Taking such attacks more seriously and punishing the perpetrators through the courts will help to increase deterrence. We recommend programmes in prison that encourage men to recognise their violent behaviour towards women and then try to change it. We recommend a variety of schemes in the community that are designed also to make perpetrators confront the iniquity of their behaviour and stop it. We address, too, the particular problems that the black and ethnic minority communities can face and the need for sensitivity in dealings between them and the criminal justice agencies.

We highlight the role of Government in addressing domestic violence. We welcome the establishment of a ministerial group on domestic violence and recommend that priority is given to tackling the problem by all Departments. We believe that the Treasury in particular should participate in the consideration of domestic violence issues, and that encouragement should be given by the Government to local inter-agency co-operation.

One of the most important aspects of our Select Committee system is that, when a Committee has reported, the Government must make a response. Such reports focus Government attention on the subject of the inquiry, as the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department have clearly and carefully done with our report.

The Government's report has been measured, detailed and positive, and we would like to place on record our appreciation of the attention that has been given by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. In the spirit of the courts charter, they have taken on board many of our recommendations, particularly in respect of proposals for the police, Crown Prosecution Service, court procedure and the support and protection of witnesses and victims, which justifies our raising the matter substantially under the estimates programme.

During the inquiry, a number of issues of particular interest and importance emerged, but as so many colleagues wish to speak I shall confine myself to mentioning just three of them briefly.

So much of the problem of violence in the home arose quite simply out of inadequate housing provision. Some issues were outside the remit of our Select Committee, which scrutinises only the work of the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and their agencies. However, that did not stop us—particularly after having seen something of the work of Chiswick Family Rescue, now renamed Refuge—making recommendations about the need for refuges, for more sympathetic housing allocation for victims and for welcoming interdepartmental co-ordination by the Government which, of course, involves the Department of the Environment.

Another matter that emerged was the importance not only of criminal law but of civil law. We found that to be in a rather confused state and, as such, not so helpful as it might be in protecting the interests of victims of domestic violence. As long ago as 1984, Lord Scarman, giving judgment in the case of Richards v. Richards and speaking of the proliferation of powers and remedies for dealing with violent cohabitees, said: The sooner the range, scope and effect of these powers are rationalised into a coherent body of statute law, the better. Since then, the frustration of the legal profession in dealing with such cases has grown.

We have therefore welcomed the Law Commission's initiative and we urge the Government to introduce legislation along the lines of the Law Commission's draft Bill which would deal more sensibly with the plethora of exclusion orders, non-molestation orders, occupation orders, ousters, property rights, attachment of powers of arrest and who should be entitled to exercise those powers.

We believe that those matters are too urgent to gather dust on library shelves like so many other Law Commission reports, and we are saddened to hear the Government's response that the timing of legislation would depend, in that old phrase, on the availability of parliamentary time.

We dissented with the Law Commission on only one proposal—the proposal to give the police third party rights in civil domestic violence actions. As a Committee, we believed that the police should concentrate on normal policing, in respect of which they are already overstretched. For the rest, we believe that the Bill should be included in next Session's programme because it is essential that a more coherent structure be introduced into the civil law in this area—and without delay, if much unnecessary suffering is to be avoided.

The third area that I want to deal with, and which during our inquiries seemed to stir public and media interest following controversial cases in which husbands and wives had killed their spouses or cohabitees after long periods of domestic violence, relates to the law of homicide, which we dealt with in paragraphs 85 to 99.

It is a defence to a murder charge—reducing the killing to manslaughter—if the killer was provoked to retaliate. At present the law states that retaliation must take place in the heat of the moment and must be in response to provocation that would have led a reasonable man to lose his self-control and to retaliate as the killer did. Cumulative provocation does not justify the defence, although the triggering act of provocation can be relatively minor.

The women's groups who gave evidence to us, in particular, told us that provocation had been used more successfully by men who killed their partners than by women and that a nagging wife might be enough justification in some cases. The crux of the dissatisfaction was that the provocation had to be sudden, when women's resentments were often cumulative. There has been some softening of that approach in recent cases in the Court of Appeal.

While feeling sympathy towards defendants who have suffered prolonged abuse at the hands of the persons they had killed, the Committee did not want to see revenge killings committed while defendants were fully in control of their emotions and that being used to reduce murder to manslaughter.

However, we feel that there is a need for more clarity in the definition, and we endorsed the Law Commission's recommendation that one condition of the defence should be that the provocation should, in all the circumstances —including any of the defendant's personal characteristics that affect its gravity—be considered by the jury to be sufficient ground for the loss of self-control.

More generally, we propose that the Law Commission should produce a consultation document on the law of homicide and that the Government should bring forward proposals on the law in that area in the light of that consultation exercise. Unfortuantely, in their response, the Government do not believe that the Law Commission's proposals would result in more clarity and certainty. We do not share their view.

This is an estimateds day, and estimates debates are about the financing of improvements in our society. In our report on what has been a fascinating, important and urgent matter, we have proposed a variety of new measures which will undoubtedly cost money. If we were asked, we could not say precisely how much our recommendations would cost. It would be impossible to estimate such a figure. It should be obvious that it is also impossible to estimate the costs of inaction—costs which will inevitably be very substantial.

I am satisfied, and I believe that the Committee is satisfied, that the costs of domestic violence in financial and human terms far outweigh the costs of our recommendations. Spending money on reducing the scale of domestic violence at its earliest stages will undoubtedly save money which is now being spent on housing, health, education, social services and justice in an effort to remedy the misery caused by violence in the home.

As we conclude in our report in paragraph 137, we look now for a wide vision of what can be achieved and an ambitious programme for action. If that does not happen, we have little doubt that it will be the victims of domestic violence who will suffer most—and no one in the House wants that to happen.

4.45 pm

Mrs. Barbara Roche (Hornsey and Wood Green)

I want first to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on his speech and I would like to thank my colleagues on the Select Committee who spent so much time on this very important subject.

I am delighted that this was the first subject to be considered by the Home Affairs Select Committee in this Parliament. That demonstrates the importance of the subject, about which very many people, particularly women, feel very strongly, and the Select Committee considered the matter very seriously. I also pay tribute to the Clerks and to the witnesses.

We heard from our witnesses, and in written evidence, tragic and horrific tales of brutality against women and children and of huge public costs in terms of policing, courts and the national health service. However, we also heard of the greatly improved quality of policing of domestic violence.

As a London Member, I am aware of the excellence of my domestic violence unit which serves Hornsey and Wood Green. That improvement is not true simply in respect of my constituency: it is true throughout the Metropolitan police area. The Met deserve to be congratulated on the improvements, and particularly on the domestic violence units which have been established.

However, that is not just a unique feature of policing in London and policing. There are many other examples of good policing elsewhere in the country. One of the strong recommendations of our report is that those examples of good practice should be reproduced in the rest of the country.

The Government have given us a comprehensive response to our report. However, I believe that there are many areas where much more needs to be done and where there could have been a much better response. The first of those areas, with which I wish to deal, relates to refuge provision.

One of the strongest recommendations of the report is: the first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central, co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country. We believe that this could well be the single greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken. As the report points out, and as has already been said, the present number of refuge places is less than one third of the number, recommended as an initial target by the Select Committee on Violence in the Family which reported in 1975, of one family place per 10,000 of the population.

Witnesses from a variety of backgrounds—women's aid groups, police organisations, social worker representatives, local authority associations and others—emphasised the lack of provision and its consequences: crime cannot be prevented as easily, women may be deterred from following prosecutions through, and community-based sentences for offenders can cause danger to victims if refuges and refuge provision are riot in place.

A crisis is taking place in refuges. I know, for example, that Refuge—an organisation that has done a tremendous amount of work—has a funding crisis. Many refuges affiliated to the Women's Aid Federation, face similar crises. The federation has made a large contribution to the debate and has done a great deal of valuable work. Haringey Women's Aid, an excellent organisation in my constituency, has to spend too much of its time raising funds every year.

Look at what has happened to child care workers in refuges. It is often forgotten that children are victims of domestic violence, but child care workers are almost an endangered species in refuges simply because there is not enough money to pay for them. We need a much greater and better Government response to that problem.

Let me quote the statement of the noble Baroness Cumberlege in another place on 29 April. When asked whether the Government had any plans to encourage the provision and funding of women's refuges, she replied only: the provision of funding for women's refuges is primarily a matter for local agencies."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 April 1993, c. 433.] I strongly reject that view. What happens if a woman is the victim of domestic violence? Quite understandably, she does not want to go to the local refuge. Why? Because, when she walks down the street she might see the man who has subjected her to violence. The refuge might be round the corner from where the violence took place.

She might therefore go to a refuge in another borough, which will ask why it is funding refuge provision for women from elsewhere. All that emphasises the need for a national co-ordinated strategy, and that funding for refuges has to be put on a proper national footing.

What will be the Government's response to the interdepartmental working group on domestic violence? The Home Office should be the lead group, and it is good that there is an official working group on domestic violence, chaired by the Home Office. I gather from answers to parliamentary questions that I have recently tabled that that organisation has met twice. However, it is in the interests of open government that a variety of Government Departments should be involved.

In answer to my question about the frequency of meetings, the Minister of State said of the group: It will continue to meet as and when appropriate".—(Official Report, 9 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 300.) When the Minister makes his contribution to the debate, will he agree that, in the interests of open government and in the spirit of working together to alleviate the problems of the victims of domestic violence, it will be useful to know more about the workings of the group? Exactly what is its remit, how and when is it intended to meet, and how will the results of its deliberations be disseminated? Perhaps publication of its recommendations could be considered.

We also considered court procedure. Welsh Women's Aid, in its written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, gave graphic accounts of women's experiences in court. In one case, a woman called Elisabeth had to sit in close proximity with the man who had abused her physically, sexually and emotionally. There was absolutely nowhere else for her to wait. Another woman was waiting in the waiting area of the court when she was punched in the mouth by her violent ex-partner. He also threatened the barrister who represented her and was abusive to the judge. He was threatened with 'contempt' but this was not followed through". Another victim said: I went to a magistrates court for a protection order. It was awful, I wanted to run away but I needed that order. The entrance hall was full of men mostly in handcuffs. I was afraid of them but there was nowhere else to go; they all stared at me. With cases like that, it is a miracle that women ever press charges.

Of course, not all court experiences are as bad as that: there is some excellent practice. I hope that the House will forgive me for mentioning my constituency again, but Wood Green Crown court, which I visited on Friday, is one of the pioneers of witness services. I met the volunteers who staff the service on Friday. They are well trained, committed and courteous and, while being careful not to interfere with the details of the case, provide support in the form of a comfortable waiting area, explanation of court procedure and a tour of an empty court. They also give emotional support and practical help with childminding, liaison with employers and transport to court.

All the people I spoke to at the court, from the clerks to the Crown Prosecution Service, spoke highly of that witness service. It is important that more such services are introduced, because 38 out of 74 Crown courts do not have them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what will happen in those courts.

The victims charter says that the latest design standards for new Crown court buildings provide for ample witness waiting rooms per courtroom, with separate doors leading directly to the witness box in the courtroom. What is happening to courts which are not new build and have not been specially designed? What provisions will be made there?

Perhaps more importantly, what is happening in the magistrates courts? Magistrates courts are frequently in very old buildings and—as a member of the Bar who has practised in the courts, frequently on this type of case—I know at first hand that the accounts that I quoted are accurate, because women have to go through quite an ordeal in magistrates courts before their case starts. That is a high priority if we want more women to come to court and more proceedings to take place.

I also want to mention organisations that help women who are members of the black and ethnic minority communities. I pay tribute to the work of Asian Women's Aid in my constituency, and I recently had the pleasure of helping to launch Jewish Women's Aid. Perhaps the most famous organisation is Southall Black Sisters, which has done impressive work with black and ethnic minority women. It gave excellent evidence to our Committee and was able to describe the plight of women who come into the country to join husbands, or whose husbands have refugee status, and who have no rights of their own. Under our immigration rules they come in for an initial 12 months.

What happens to those women if they are the subject of domestic violence during that time? They cannot call on public funds. The rule is that they must have no recourse to public funds during that period, which often makes them totally dependent on their husband and his family. If they leave the family, the Home Office often wrongly assumes that the marriage was only one of convenience.

As Southall Black Sisters said in a submission to Amnesty International's hearing on human rights on 8 June this year: We come across many cases of women and children who have experienced violence and abuse and are unable to seek help for fear of being deported. This double bind can become life threatening. The choice is stark—on the one hand, women risk their lives, and those of their children, if they stay in violent situations, on the other hand, they risk being deported to their countries of origin, where they face open hostility, intense discrimination and risk to their health and lives". I emphasise that only a few women are involved, but the cost to those women's lives is absolutely vital.

It is an important omission—again, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments—that the ministerial working group on domestic violence does not include the immigration and nationality department, given the serious problems for women whose immigration status is not secure. Will the Minister ensure that that section is included in future? It is a very important issue.

I would be extremely interested to know how many women are deported each year after leaving their violent husbands. The Government, in their response to the Select Committee, assert that the immigration and nationality department is alert to the difficulties faced by some women who have insecure immigration status and a violent partner, but the experience of groups campaigning for women contradicts that.

My own view is that no woman should be deported when there is even a possibility that she is suffering at the hands of a violent partner. Unless something is done about the problem, such women will continue to die or face a living death.

Hon. Members will wish to comment on provocation. It is a great pity that the Government could not agree with the Select Committee and the Law Commission. We believe that the law should be changed and clarified. We also await the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on legal aid—a vital matter. If women are to obtain injunctions and have the protection of civil remedies, they need a proper legal aid system.

In our report we say that we wish to return to the subject of domestic violence. I was extremely glad that the Government agree with the Select Committee on the importance of increasing public awareness of domestic violence. The Metropolitan police referred to Canada. Sandra Horley, a witness who appeared before the Committee, has made a great study of the system in Canada, where, because of publicity campaigns, there is heightened awareness of domestic violence.

Domestic violence is a crime—it is that message that we have to get across. We have to change the culture of our society from an early stage. A properly funded and directed campaign of public education would bring together the other recommendations in our report. I hope that, by the time the Select Committee returns to the subject, such a campaign will have been undertaken and will have lessened the incidence of such a shocking, tragic and brutal crime for so many women.

5.2 pm

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

I have had the privilege of serving on the Home Affairs Select Committee for six years. In terms of seniority in this House, a period of six years does not count for very much, but such has been the changing membership of the Select Committee that I am now one of its longest-serving members.

I am not sure whether six years is long enough to show the validity of my point, but no Committee produces more reports than ours—seven or eight each Session. I have never known the Select Committee to spend so much time carefully discussing the issues in our report and coming to our conclusions. That was not difficult, because often there was a party political dispute between the two sides of the Committee.

We very carefully considered all the evidence that we received, which was carefully prepared and painstakingly given. Some issues in our report need great consideration, and answers to them are not easily found. That is particularly true about whether there should be a change in the law on murder.

The Select Committee often sat until almost midnight, even though the House had adjourned some hours before, and long before 10 o'clock. It is fortunate that hon. Members have understanding families.

I welcome the opportunity for another debate on the Floor of the House. We have published our recommendations. The Government's swift, detailed response is also available to hon. Members. In this debate, we need merely to draw attention to some key issues.

We must consider how big a problem domestic violence is. It is very difficult to provide precise statistics, but, at the end of our inquiry, I was left with the clear impression that the incidence of domestic violence in Britain today is infinitely worse than the figures show.

Hon. Members who visited the domestic violence unit at Islington will recall that the staff in the little office there seemed to be doing a tremendous job for the local community. They appeared to have a record of a domestic violence incident in one out of every 30 families in the borough of Islington. We were told that that was by no means extraordinary in that inner-London Metropolitan police district. That is a staggering figure, and it shows the huge social cost which domestic violence represents for society today.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed out, although our inquiry concentrated on assaults on women by men, it became increasingly clear that, in many families in which domestic violence is prevalent, it is the children who suffer greatly. Hon. Members see the effects of abuse of and violence to children in our constituencies, even in some of the more affluent parts of Britain. It is right and proper to pay tribute to the work not only of refuges that support some of the women who have been on the receiving end—the victims of domestic violence—but of some child support agencies.

The next issue is to what extent we should treat domestic violence differently from other forms of violence. Violence is violence, and as such is unacceptable. Murder is murder, and serious assault is serious assault. Whether violence occurs in the home or in the world at large should not affect the seriousness with which we treat it.

Another problem is that, unless we can identify violence in families throughout Britain, we cannot possibly hope to begin to deal with it. To that extent, we need different solutions and programmes to remedy what is going wrong. One is challenged by the thought that the circumstances of violence could be a mitigating factor or could make the violence much more serious and less acceptable.

As our inquiry unfolded, and as we visited refuges in London, it became apparent that some women have been the victims of violence but have retaliated against it—only to find themselves in court charged with assault and, in one tragic case, with murder.

What response should the police make to incidents of domestic violence? Should it be different from their response to violence in other circumstances? Over recent years, the police have made great strides in the way that they deal with the problem. As the House knows, during the 1960s I served for five years as a policeman in London's west end. The police culture then was that domestic disorder was not a matter for the police service. If I remember correctly—it was 28 years ago—some of our training pointed us in that direction.

Of course, that attitude is no longer acceptable. It should reassure hon. Members to know that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and chief constables throughout the country, have made considerable progress in ensuring that the police give a more appropriate response to incidents of domestic violence.

What should the police do when they are called to such incidents? Should they arrest the husband who has beaten his wife? What happens when that man is released from the police station, where he may have been for some hours? Where does he go? Obviously, he goes home. Discussion of these matters throws up challenging issues. There is a need for the highest possible standard of training and the dissemination of best practice throughout the police service, so that an appropriate response is made in each case.

In the Metropolitan police area, priority has been given to the creation of domestic violence units. Parts of my constituency, especially the rural areas, are often 20 or 30 miles from the nearest police station, which is not necessarily manned 24 hours a day, as many of them close at night. Therefore, it would not be easy for the North Yorkshire police force to set up special units similar to those in Islington and other parts of London.

My constituency may be more sparsely populated than inner-city areas, but we should not ignore the fact that domestic violence occurs throughout the country. It does not occur just in inner cities, albeit that, because of the concentration of population, they have more incidents. We must remember that when we respond to the Government's White Paper on the structure of the police service, and when we decide what to do about the Sheehy report.

Police in rural areas have to be jacks of all trades, with the training, skill and professionalism to deal with all possible incidents. There is not enough manpower, and never could be, to staff the specialist units enjoyed by the Metropolitan police.

Best practice and training does not stop with the police service—it extends to the Crown Prosecution Service in the processing of cases. I am pleased that the Government's response to our report included the republishing of the CPS guidelines on how domestic violence cases should be treated. Just as the police have a difficult decision to make on whether or not to arrest, so the CPS has a difficult decision to make on whether or not to prosecute a husband or partner still living in the same house as the woman. Prosecution might make the position worse. Despite that, the Committee felt that prosecutions were not brought often enough.

One reason for that view is that, if someone is prosecuted and pleads guilty or is found guilty by magistrates or a jury, the court then has some influence over his punishment, and may direct that he has some treatment. If the treatment were voluntary, the offender could quickly give up, but with the compulsion of the court order as part of his sentence, there is a better chance that the treatment will continue and eventually produce a statisfactory result. Another benefit of bringing such a case before the courts is that agencies that can support the family can be brought into play more easily.

Recommendation No. 5 in the report says that resource limitation should not be an excuse for inaction. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, the Chairman of our Committee, mentioned that. The truth is that refuge provision is inadequate. Those of us who visited the refuges and met some of the women living in them found vivid examples of the ludicrous problems caused by a lack of flexibility in housing provision.

In one refuge in Hammersmith, a woman with three or four children had been living in a single room for nine months. It would be an insult to the refuge to paint too grim a picture of her living conditions, but those of us who saw them felt that they were quite unsatisfactory. That woman was in receipt of housing benefit in two separate locations and there appeared to be a total inability to Lind an answer to her problems because of the inflexibility of the two local authorities involved. I am sure that there are many similar cases.

We therefore welcome the response from the Department of the Environment, contained in the Government's response, about improved guidelines for housing authorities. It is simply not good enough to say that a woman fleeing with her children from serious violence against her in the matrimonial home is making herself intentionally homeless, and is therefore not eligible to be housed by the local authority.

We must also look to the future. We need to change the guidelines and to encourage greater flexibility and better practice, but we also need to ensure that people do not abuse the system. In calling for a more flexible approach, I believe that we should go even further than what was recommended in our report.

Most of my constituency no longer has council houses, because they have all been successfully transferred to housing associations. That provides a good opportunity to increase housing provision and the level of repairs to the existing stock of property available for rent. I want housing associations to make an assessment of the problem in the areas they serve—particularly those associations that have taken over council homes—and to make the necessary provision.

As to whether the Government should reconsider aspects of the law on murder, I echo the disappointment expressed by my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) at the Government's response. We did not reach our recommendation lightly, but responded to evidence that the present law is unsatisfactory. Given that our view was in line with the Law Commission's recommendation, I find it difficult to understand why the Government are so relucant to re-examine that issue.

Since making our report—this relates to a different issue, but one related to the law on murder—there was the shocking case last week of the acquittal in a murder trial of Joseph Elliott, whose defence counsel successfully argued that Elliott had acted in self-defence. I am sure that the whole House feels that the law on self-defence, as well as on provocation, needs to be re-examined.

The Government may, after further examination, reach the negative conclusion that change would be difficult, but many of us feel that the present situation is unsatisfactory. We do not pretend that there is an easy solution, but that issue ought to be considered.

Having chided the Minister in that respect, I should add that I welcome much of the Government's response, which was largely positive, and highlighted the great steps that are already being taken. I hope that the interdepartmental working party will find practical solutions to many of the problems that our inquiries identified.

As our report itself concluded, unless improvements are made, it is not right hon. and hon. Members, or even the great majority of the British people who will suffer, but the victims of domestic violence.

5.22 pm

Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale)

I welcome this opportunity to debate domestic violence, especially as we have discussed family values extensively over the past few months. Not all families hold to the values that we expect. Half the women killed are killed by their husband, partner or ex-partner. One third of reported crimes against women are crimes of domestic violence, and one quarter of all assaults occur in domestic circumstances. Those statistics are not generally acknowledged. We tend to view family life through rose-tinted spectacles, assume that all families get on well and believe that children are best brought up in a family atmosphere—but they are not if that atmosphere includes violence.

Much of the improvement over the past few years is the result of the establishment of domestic violence units. Many more women now feel more able to report domestic violence—but not Asian women, many of whom still feel that there is a stigma attached to reporting domestic violence. Many of them are 20 years behind the rest of the community in that respect. I hope that will improve, and we must do all in our power to encourage Asian women to report domestic violence in the same way as other women. Many other hon. Members and I have dealt with such cases.

Before domestic violence units were established in London in 1986, there were only 860 reported cases of domestic violence. By 1991, that figure had increased to 8,000. We must congratulate those responsible for that success. They are not always brillant, but the situation is far better than in the past. Many women do not report domestic violence to the police but go to hospital casualty departments. I should like women social workers in particular to be immediately on hand there, to help women who turn up at the hospital with a black eye, broken ribs, a broken limb or any of the other injuries synonymous with domestic violence. A social worker could then do follow-on work with the family.

Although the situation has improved, a large problem remains. Recent evidence from Canada suggests that a woman has to be assaulted 30 times before reporting domestic violence, and I am sure that the experience in this country is very similar—that is extremely frightening. Many women fail to report violence against them because of lack of money. They fear that they will be unable to survive on their own. They see leaving their husband or partner as the inevitable result of reporting violence and are afraid of then being unable to manage financially. They fear reprisals, not only from their husband or partner but from his relatives.

Alcohol is a predominant factor in many incidents of domestic violence. Turning Point and Alcohol Concern say that between 50 and 60 per cent. of domestic violence involves alcohol and alcohol abuse. I urge the Government to reconsider removing the ring fencing of the drug and alcohol abuse budget. If a man who seeks help—having acknowledged that he is abusing his wife and that his children are being affected—cannot find a way out by entering a Turning Point hostel or getting help from another agency, the violence will continue.

Unemployment and poverty also lead to a lack of self-esteem. When someone lacks self-esteem, he wants to make someone else feel lower than he does. That person is invariably his partner or wife. The individual with low esteem will take it out on his partner, so that he feels big, adequate and masculine. We all know that that is not true, but such an attitude is usually brought on by low self-esteem.

Twenty-four hour helplines are also needed. The Department of Health is funding the Women's Aid Federation to the tune of £136,000, but it cannot operate a 24-hour helpline. I understand that that is the only money coming from central Government. Compare that £136,000 with the situation in Canada, where spending to combat domestic violence is $136 million.

Local authorities are responsible for refuges, of which there are very few. I agree with other hon. Members that a national strategy is needed to provide them throughout the country. At present, 27 per cent. of local authorities provide no refuges, 11 per cent. provide only one and only 5 per cent. provide more than three. That is not acceptable, given the continual increase in domestic violence. Proper national funding would ultimately prove cost effective, reducing the number of problems—especially those related to health—that currently force Government Departments and agencies to pick up the pieces.

Women's Aid and Chiswick Family Rescue—now known as Refuge—estimates that it needs £270,000 a year just to keep going. It is finding it difficult to cope. It is not raising the money that it needs, and it has already had to cut services. It will cut others next month, and it has said today that it fears that it may have to close completely in 1994 if the money is not forthcoming. It is scandalous that the first women's aid refuge to be set up should face such a funding crisis. We should be finding more money to set up more refuges, rather than allowing money to be taken away. In today's economic climate, people find it difficult to give to charities.

The problem is the same throughout the country. What happens to women when refuges close? They have nowhere to go but the streets. The current homelessness problem makes life very hard for them. The Rochdale safer cities project estimates that 25 per cent. of Rochdale's homelessness is the result of domestic violence. That problem, too, exists throughout the country.

Today's debate concerns abuse of partners, but children who witness such abuse are scarred for life. It has been recorded that more than half the children living in a violent home in West Yorkshire witnessed or experienced abuse. One third of those children tried to protect their mother. We do not do enough to counsel and help such children; services are cut time and again, and, without the necessary counselling, love and affection, the children may ultimately become abusers themselves. That is well documented. It is a great shame that we cannot do more.

As others have pointed out, it must be made easier for mothers to cross local authority boundaries. Even if an authority can rehouse a women, and accept that she did not make herself homeless intentionally, what women wants to be rehoused in the same street as a violent partner, or a few streets away from him? Women fear that, when they are out shopping, they will bump into the person who has abused them persistently for years, or that their children will be terrified going to school knowing that he may be around any corner.

Local authority homelessness sections should employ more women who are properly trained to pinpoint homelessness resulting from domestic violence. Many women still refuse to admit that they have been beaten up or otherwise abused, because they feel that it is a fault in some way. They feel that they have done something wrong, or that they are inadequate; they will not accept that it is the man concerned who is inadequate, sensing that they are themselves failures. Trained people would be able to spot that, and perhaps act on their perception more quickly than is possible now.

More emergency legal aid provision is also needed. I am very worried about the current proposals, which will prevent many women from acting against violent partners. This is at the heart of the problem. Many women who have left their husbands and want to take them to court accuse their former partners and then decide not to give evidence. The Crown Prosecution Service must prosecute far more often; it should not be up to the women concerned to initiate such action.

I know that the probation service is doing a very good job, but we must ensure that all aspects of domestic violence are taken seriously. Part of the problem is the fact that a range of Departments must deal with domestic violence. Recently, in another place, Earl Ferrers mentioned the forming of an interdepartmental group. Will the Minister tell us whether such a group has met? I hope that all Departments will recognise their responsibility in regard to women who have been subjected to domestic violence.

I welcome the Government's response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, but I want them to go further. I hope that the Minister will take on board all that has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

5.36 pm

Ms Jean Corston (Bristol, East)

I congratulate the Select Committee on Home Affairs on choosing such an important topic for its first report to the House. It reflects the current concern about domestic violence, particularly that felt by women.

Domestic violence is not an isolated phenomenon, as hon. Members have made clear today. It is widespread, and it is no respecter of social class. Indeed, it has an ancient tradition. All hon. Members will be familiar with the phrase "rule of thumb"; how many know what it means? In the past, a man was permitted to beat his wife as long as he used a stick no thicker than his own thumb. Thus, violence was legitimised for a long time, and passed into folklore. Only 20 years ago, it was still seen as solely a matter of feminist concern: it was then that Erin Pizzey wrote her seminal book "Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear".

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and others have mentioned the effect of domestic violence on children and the cycle that builds up. One of the saddest things that I recall hearing in recent years was a friend's account of enduring 17 years of domestic violence. Finally, she left her husband with her two children. Only after talking to other people did she discover that such violence was not the norm. Her father had beaten her mother, and her husband had beaten her; she considered that to be normal married behaviour. Moreover, her case is not an isolated instance.

Our domestic violence legislation completely fails women who are brave enough to go to court. The law is a mess—I say that as someone who, before becoming a Member of Parliament, was a barrister specialising in domestic violence law. The law is spread among different Acts of Parliament, all attested to in the Select Committee's excellent report. That means that a woman has to deal with a maze of legislation, and it is difficult for any barrister or solicitor trying to advise her to find a remedy that offers protection to her and to her children.

The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978—both introduced by the Labour Government, I am pleased to say—still stand as the basic corpus of domestic violence law. However, the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act, which is obviously more widely available because it falls within the jurisdiction of magistrates, applies only to married people, not to people who are cohabiting. We know that in a large proportion of "marriage" relationships people have not gone through the marriage ceremony but are simply cohabiting. The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act is available to co-habitees only in the jurisdiction of the county court, which means that people often have to travel long distances to get to the court and apply for an injunction.

The Select Committee report and the Law Commission have attested to the way in which domestic violence legislation makes if difficult to obtain injunctions. One of the most iniquitous aspects is the fact that it is difficult for a woman to get an injunction if she has not applied to the court quickly. There is supposed to be an obvious element of urgency, yet I have known of many cases in which a woman has been traumatised by the violence, has needed to recover from her injuries, or has needed to escape the relationship and find somewhere else to live.

There has been a delay while she has adjusted to the injuries that she has received, and to having fled from home, and that is seen by the courts as a reason not to grant the injunction. They say that she could not possibly really need an injunction, because she did not go to court as soon as the incident happened. I suspect that most women who are beaten up repeatedly in violent relationships want to get away from the relationship, to seek medical attention and to get better, and to make sure that their children are safe. Going before a county court judge is not necessarily No. 1 on their list of things to do.

The law also fails women because of the way in which it treats as strangers people who have been but are no longer cohabiting. The only remedy available is a tort injunction—one of the old torts of assault, battery or trespass. The difficulty with those is that, if a woman goes to someone else's house to stay, perhaps as a lodger, or returns to her parents' home or that of another relative, she cannot obtain a trespass injunction because she is not the tenant or the owner-occupier; therefore, in law she cannot apply for such an injunction. She cannot apply for an injunction to stop the man coming to the place where she is living and assaulting her. There is no tort of harassment.

Moreover, no tort injunction carries the power of arrest, and that power is so important for women in such circumstances. If there is a power of arrest, at least if the man comes near her the police have an absolute obligation to arrest him and bring him before a court at the earliest opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred to domestic violence suffered by women from ethnic minorities involved in what we could describe as immigration cases. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. If a woman leaves a violent husband within 12 months of marriage, she risks deportation. I know that because a constituency case was recently brought to me, involving a woman who had obtained a judicial separation after eight months of marriage. The judge found that her husband's behaviour was such that it was unreasonable to expect her to continue to live with him, yet she has now received a letter from the immigration and nationality department telling her that she is on 28 days' notice to leave the country. That has happened through no fault of her own. That woman is a victim, and she is being treated shamefully by the application of our immigration rules.

We should also deal with the questions raised by the programme "The Bounty Hunter", which was on BBC2 some time ago, and which revealed how men in the Asian community make a nice living out of hunting like animals women who flee from domestic violence and violent relationships. The subterfuges that the bounty hunters use to track down women and drag them back home are alarming, and I hope that the Government will deal with the matter. I hope that the Minister will say something about it when he responds to the debate.

Reference has already been made to the attitude of the police. I welcome the change in their attitude, and have spoken to police officers in Bristol who have told me that they no longer treat such incidents as merely domestic matters, as they so often used to do in the past. In 1977, I took a friend who had been severely beaten up by her partner to the police station, and I remember being appalled by the pressure that was put on her not to bring proceedings. The police kept saying, "You'll have to go to court, and in the meantime you've got to live with him, so wouldn't it be better if you went home and patched things up?"

It is good that there have been some changes in attitudes, but it is important to recognise that both the police and the legal profession tend to give such work to young inexperienced people. In the legal profession it is seen as the "rough trade", and police officers tell me that such work is often given to people with little experience. As a barrister, I grew sick and tired of hearing other lawyers say, "I went to represent this woman and she said she was going to go back home. What a stupid woman!"

That attitude totally fails to recognise the position of most women who suffer domestic violence, which, as other hon. Members have said, often involves homelessness, and the way in which the rules on intentional homelessness operate. If one asks women victims of domestic violence what they want, they usually say, "I want things at home to go on as they are, except that I don't want him to beat me up any more." It would be a good thing if the police and the legal profession would adopt those changes in attitude.

With regard to the criminal law, we need different definitions of provocation and self-defence as defences to charges of murder and manslaughter, and we should also examine the way in which the rules of evidence operate against women. The law on self-defence is based on the notion of a punch-up in a pub, and the definition of provocation is based on the notion of a threat to a man's potency or virility. The way in which those definitions operate means that any victim of domestic violence who has not responded immediately is without the law. A well-founded fear of domestic violence should be a defence against such charges. We should also change rules such as the corroboration warning in the law on rape. That is an outrage to all women, and the House ought not to allow it to continue.

I welcome the Government's response to the part of the Select Committee report that deals with refuges. In 1988, I visited a refuge in a small town in central Sweden. It was beautifully appointed and well furnished, yet the people there apologised to me because they felt that it was not quite as smart as it might have been. Any woman who had seen a refuge in this country would have been astonished at how well appointed the Swedish refuge was. There was also immediate internal alarm contact with the local police.

National funding for a proper network of refuges is vital so that women can seek refuge quickly and safely for themselves and their children, and there must be mechanisms for ensuring that those refuges become staging posts to enable women to escape from violent relationships and to rebuild their lives.

The law of this country cannot possibly be respected or properly applied when such a large section of the population feels that the remedies that ought to be there do not exist. The resources that ought to be in place are not there. It is important for the House to make it clear to men that such behaviour is not acceptable, it is not their right, we condemn it and it ought to stop.

5.49 pm

Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)

I had not intended to speak, but I was so interested in the various speeches that have been made that I wanted to refer briefly to one point.

I very much welcome the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), with most of which I agree. I would part company with the hon. Member for Bristol East (Ms Corston), in that it is not my experience that the police are giving enough attention to what we broadly call domestic violence.

My worry as a constituency Member of Parliament, which is probably replicated throughout the House, is that, because of the declining moral fabric of Britain over the past 25 years, many more people live together, often on a short-term basis. There are many cases where a woman, probably unwisely, has taken a man in or formed a liaison with him, and then discovered to her cost that he is a violent type because of drink, or is naturally violent. She then has the utmost difficulty in getting rid of him.

A number of cases have been brought to my attention in which women have been badly beaten up on a regular basis after barring their attacker from the house. The offences are committed with a great deal of guile. Harassment is the order of the day; it is not just banging on the door and coming in: there are all kinds of sneaky ways of getting into the house and attacking the woman on her way home from work or going out. One woman said to me, "It is all very well being battered around occasionally, but do I really have to be killed, seriously injured or hospitalised before something is done about it?"

We all know that the police are under great pressure because of rising crime statistics, and domestic cases have always taken a fairly low priority. When couples are not married and the man is on a determined course repeatedly to attack and batter the woman, action ought to be taken.

I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale that women should not have to take this. Society ought to make an example of men who carry on in that way. The sooner we do it the better it will be, and the sooner the statistics will improve. It is all too easy for the wrong kind of man to be able to get away with it.

5.52 pm

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh, Leith)

Everyone must agree that we are debating a serious and urgent issue when we consider that one in five murder victims are women killed by their partners or ex-partners, and one in three of all reported crimes against women result from domestic violence. We should also remember the high level of unreported domestic violence which has blighted our society for hundreds of years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) has reminded us.

I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Select Committee's decision to investigate these matters. I also welcome the recommendations in the Select Committee report. However, I have one or two minor reservations. Why is there no recommendation on legal aid, although there are laudable words about its inadequacy? Why is there no recommendation about the training of the judiciary, which is equally important? I was also rather disappointed that there was no mention of the prosecution service having to lay down some guidelines. It is sometimes rather a mystery why the prosecution service proceeds or does not proceed with prosecutions.

The Government's response contains much that is to be welcomed, but I have some serious reservations. First, I join other hon. Members in regretting their decision not to have even consultation on the law of homicide.

We all know of several well publicised instances of women unjustly condemned on a charge of murder. The attention drawn to the subject by the soap opera "Brookside" will bring it into the public eye even more in the months ahead. I do not know how many hon. Members watch the series, but the plot deals with the reasons why women may kill their partners or ex-partners.

I wonder why the Select Committee ruled out a defence of self-preservation, as that would be another way of approaching the problem. Another reservation of mine concerns funding, which I shall refer to later. I am also concerned about the note of delay which creeps into the Government's response to the recommendation of a public education and awareness campaign. Perhaps they are a little reluctant to go down that path.

I want to say something about public education and awareness campaigns. In Edinburgh, part of which I represent, over the past few months there has been a high-profile and highly successful public education and awareness campaign called the zero tolerance campaign. I know that other local authorities are examining this initiative, and I hope that more local authorities and central Government will also look at it.

It is based fundamentally on challenging male behaviour. Those who have visited Edinburgh over the past few months will have seen a large number of posters with messages directed at men. For example, the fundamental message of the campaign is "Zero tolerance of violence against women". Another notable message is "Male abuse of power is a crime". There are many other messages that are challenging certain male assumptions.

Edinburgh district council's women's committee, which initiated the campaign, took the view at the end of the day that the root of the problem was the unequal power relations between men and women in society. There is a continuum from male attitudes of superiority to the slapping of women, which has been supported publicly by Sean Connery and many others. Just a few days ago, I saw a popular comedy programme just casually accepting that view. That level of violence is tolerated by thousands of people when it should not be, and the continuum proceeds to more drastic and serious violence.

The zero tolerance campaign aims to challenge those male attitudes and to link domestic violence with other male abuses of power. It has highlighted the crimes of rape and sexual abuse.

The campaign has also enlisted the support of the local newspaper, The Edinburgh Evening News, which has given it a great deal of coverage. That has helped to give the campaign a high profile, and I pay tribute to the newspaper, and to Jean West, the reporter who covered it so brilliantly.

I also suggest to the Government that, as all that work has been done in Edinburgh, and as they are supposed to be considering a public awareness campaign, perhaps they should consider extending it to the whole of Scotland. I am aware that the report refers only to England and Wales and that some of the detailed recommendations would have to be different for Scotland, but the issues are fundamentally the same. Perhaps the Government would like to consider extending the zero tolerance campaign as a pilot scheme throughout Scotland. Of course, I should like it to be extended throughout the United Kingdom.

There is a campaign by the Scottish Office, which is all right as far as it goes, but it targets women, telling them to behave in this way and take care in that way. It is okay as far as it goes. However, the Scottish Office campaign makes no attempt to target male behaviour, although that is the fundamental requirement of a public education and awareness campaign. I hope that that will be taken on board by the Scottish Office in Scotland and the Home Office in England and Wales.

Leaving aside the fundamental aspect of prevention and turning to the terrible realities that go on around us daily, I endorse what the Committee said about the importance of treating domestic violence as a crime and prosecuting people who perpetrate it. I am sure that we all agree that that has not been done enough in the past and, although it is improving, there is still plenty of room for improvement. I hope that the police and the prosecution service will take that on board.

As well as prosecution, women must be protected. Civil law is important in terms of the protection of women. Many good suggestions in the report will apply to England and Wales and in a slightly different way to Scotland. Many civil law remedies are available to a large number of women only if they have access to legal aid. Therefore, the section of the report that criticised the Government's legal aid cuts is important.

As I said, it is unfortunate that there was not a specific recommendation relating to legal aid. Nevertheless, there is the message that many women are not able to pursue civil remedies because of the cuts in legal aid and the reduction of the income level at which legal aid becomes applicable. Certainly, the Government will have to address that. I hope that they will get the message in the Select Committee report on that subject.

Another important aspect of protection relates to refuges. Clearly, there is a serious problem and, unless the Government are prepared to put money into refuges, it will continue. I am worried because I remember a Select Committee report in 1975 which said that there should be one family refuge place for every 10,000 people in the population, yet less than a third of that number exist at present. With this report, I hope that we will not have a similar gap between what is asked for and what is delivered. Aberdeen is the only city in Scotland with the level of refuges that was recommended by the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities.

The whole thrust of the Government's response is that all of the funding issues are for local authorities. At the end of the day, local authorities are largely funded by the Government, so there must be a role for central Government finance. If the Government are putting all of this emphasis on local authorities, why cannot we have ring-fenced money specifically for refuges? Unless we have refuges, many of the other recommendations in the report will fall down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) referred to the sort of things that are happening because there is not enough money. We heard that help lines are being shut down and there are no child care services. Perhaps some hon. Members saw the programme "First Sex" a couple of weeks ago, which showed that the organisation Refuge was at risk of being shut down because there was not enough money. Clearly, there is a crisis with regard to refuges. As the Select Committee emphasises, that is one of the central recommendations—if not the central one—in the report.

Time is running out, so I shall not talk about the other issues that I wanted to talk about. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) may talk about the Child Support Act, which impacts on this issue. I shall say a word about the social fund, which has not been mentioned. Domestic violence victims were removed from the highest category of that fund and that is another issue. Clearly, there are many issues. The Government said that they will accept some of them. I hope that they will accept more of them, and act with urgency on the ones that they seriously support.

6.3 pm

Mr. Mike O'Brien (Warwickshire, North)

The Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am a member, published a strong report containing 42 positive recommendations. The Government's response was acceptable in a number of areas. However, in other areas, it seemed to have something of the cold antiseptic voice of the quiet man in the warm office trying to make the right sympathetic noises without committing the needed resources. The Government's sympathy was there.

Undoubtedly, Ministers are genuinely horrified by domestic violence and wish to reduce it. However, we need more than just sympathy—we need political will and, as the report calls for, political momentum to deal with the problems. Words of sympathy come cheap; action requires resources. The Government must be prepared to commit resources.

During the inquiry, we saw the extent of the problem. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred to an important visit that we made to the Islington police station. There we saw a card-index system that showed that one in 30 households in that area reported a domestic violence incident to the police. If we accept what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said—that only a small proportion of domestic violence incidents are reported—the incidence of domestic violence could well be much higher. It may even be as high as one in 10 households. Almost certainly, domestic violence incidents take place in most communities and on most streets in Britain.

The size of the problem does not seem to be recognised by the Government, local authorities and some of the other agencies that deal with the issue. I exempt from that criticism the police who, because of the increasing need to deal with the problem, have demonstrated a willingness to examine it seriously. They are prepared to tackle the problem and amend their ways.

The Government have not been prepared to take the necessary initiatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) referred to one important initiative—the need to ensure that people are aware of the size of the problem. More awareness is needed to encourage preventive work and protective work. We must encourage people to recognise the need to spend money on an issue. We must ensure that attitudes in society are sufficiently censorious of domestic violence so that people report it to the police when they hear about it in other households. If people mention domestic violence in the pub or wherever, others must ensure that they are censorious of such behaviour and create a widespread view that it is unacceptable.

We must reduce the tolerance to domestic violence in some communities and raise awareness of the penalties for those who commit acts of domestic violence and the help that is available to victims of it. That is why, in recommendation 12, the Committee called for a campaign designed to raise the awareness, especially of the perpetrators and potential perpetrators as well as victims, of the criminality of domestic violence, the possibilities of redress and the seriousness with which the authorities view the matter.

The Government's response to the Committee is unclear. They appear to recognise the importance of the issue but are unwilling to fund and back the necessary public campaign. They have referred to the need for sensitivity, and we all accept that. However, the need for sensitivity should not prevent them from taking the action necessary to show the importance of the issue and ensure that people are fully aware of it.

The Metropolitan police gave this evidence to the Committee: the examples of good practice in Canada, North America and Australia, where there is far more public awareness of domestic violence and policy due to an overall state-wide publicity programme. The programme includes Central Government and local Government publicised policy. There are television advertisements, roadside advertisements—a heightened public awareness through leaflets and statutory agencies". The result of such a campaign can be social condemnation of domestic violence and a reduction of it. Therefore, it is important for the Government to commit resources to such a campaign.

It is also essential for the Government to commit resources to refuges. An all-party committee was able to reach a consensus on the importance of and the need for a national policy on refuges. The Government were vague and did not seem to appreciate the need for that sort of national policy. They were prepared to leave it to local authorities. The Government must recognise the importance of the provision of refuges. I hope that the Minister will respond more positively than he did in his written response to the Select Committee.

We need to ensure that there are more resources for legal aid, as the hon. Member for Rochdale rightly said. If victims of domestic violence, primarily women, face the withdrawal of access to legal aid, they face the withdrawal of access to remedies and the protection that they need. It is no good pretending that somehow everyone either has access to legal aid or can fund a court action to seek a remedy. That is simply not the case. A restriction on legal aid, such as we have seen, is a restriction on access to the courts and justice. The Government must respond much more positively to that.

I call on the Government to reconsider their view on provocation. I endorse the views of the hon. Member for Ryedale. He stated eloquently that our Select Committee looked with carer at the issues of law on this, and that, although some of us were not convinced at the start, we were all certainly convinced by the end that the Government needed to look into the defence of provocation. The law is hung up on the issue of the time in which an incident occurs. Time is not the issue. The issue is whether the killing was a direct result of the perpetration of violence and the loss of self-control. The Government failed to address that in their response.

Southall Black Sisters produced poignant, forceful evidence about the problems of immigrants who come to marry, particularly women from the Indian sub-continent. Sometimes they face domestic violence within a year of arriving in Britain. Immigration laws fail to deal with that effectively. Simply to say that we shall treat each case on its merits is not good enough. The extent of the issue must be considered, yet the Government, in their response, do not seem to be prepared to do so.

The aim of the report is to give political momentum to tackling domestic violence. We need to increase awareness of the issue. Resources need to be committed. The Government, local authorities and agencies must give the issue appropriate priority. I hope that the Minister will do more today than simply make the right sympathetic noises. We want an expression of political will, an expression of willingness to find political momentum and an expression of willingness to provide the necessary resources. Will he give it?

6.12 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

I, too, welcome the Select Committee report. The Government should give priority to implementing its recommendations and finding the necessary resources. Mary Tuck, the former head of a working party set up by the Home Office, said: Dealing with domestic violence is the single most preventive strategy we could put into practice against violent crime. Domestic violence is a central problem for society. Therefore, the Home Office has concluded that in its own report.

Many statistics have been cited today and I shall refer to some of them. Islington council police unit commissioned a survey of domestic violence in north London, which reported at the end of March. Of those surveyed, 37 per cent. suffered from mental cruelty, for example being ridiculed, being deprived of money, clothes and sleep or being prevented from going out; 27 per cent. suffered from threats of violence or force; 32 per cent. suffered from actual violence, such, as being grabbed, punched or shaken; 26 per cent. suffered from a black eye; and 23 per cent. had been raped—made to have sex without consent. One of the most worrying aspects of the report is that only 37 per cent. of the men interviewed said that they would never respond violently to a partner. That is an appalling statistic. That attitude needs to be remedied until the figure is 100 per cent.

This Session I have introduced two Bills. One was on the defence of provocation and the other sought to change the law on rape. The Government deferred the matter of rape in marriage to the Law Commission, which recommended that statute law should be changed—yet the Government have not acted on that. It is a scandal to leave it to common law, because what can be changed by judges can be changed back by judges. It should be on the statute that rape in marriage is a criminal office. I intended to read a letter I received about those Bills, but I have no time. In fact, I had lots of mail. Women describe horrific experiences, such as being used as a punchbag. Day after day, women and their children are at risk and could face terrible consequences.

Society's attitude to domestic violence is split. We think that all decent people, or at least the overwhelming majority, oppose domestic violence. The truth is that many think it permissible and part of machoism. Some men joke about it, while others deny its existence. That trend is getting worse as economic and other circumstances worsen. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) rightly pointed out how people with low self-esteem sometimes take out their feelings of frustration on their partners. The situation is worsening. The Government must initiate a public awareness campaign and take a stand in favour of zero tolerance of such behaviour.

I support what has been said about Southall Black Sisters. I know of many cases where women in a violent marriage depend on their husband for their status here and without him could be thrown out of the country. The Minister should regard domestic violence as an exceptional circumstance and allow such women to remain here as of right.

Hon. Members have referred to refuges. We should have a proper refuge network throughout the country, centrally co-ordinated and funded by the Government. The London Housing Unit in its research on England and Wales showed a considerable shortfall. The Government should deal urgently with that matter, especially with refuges that face considerable financial difficulties.

The Government's response to my Bill on the defence of provocation has been extremely disappointing. The current definition of provocation is inadequate and far too narrow. The Government do not recognise domestic violence as a mitigating circumstance. As a result, 30 or 40 women are probably in prison unjustly. I am campaigning on behalf of Sara Thornton. Those cases should be reviewed, and in my view the women should be released. Many such women do not get a fair trial. Often, at the time of the death they are suffering from dreadful trauma and guilt, so they cannot put up a proper defence. The law is inadequate in many respects. Our mandatory life sentence for murder is wholly inappropriate in such cases.

Concern has been expressed about revenge killings. We are talking about desperate women. It can be proved that they are desperate and have suffered cumulative violence. My Bill intended to make such a plea available to them. Most people, in the House and the country, argue that it should be on the statutue book. Ultimately it is for the authorities—the Crown Prosecution Service—and juries to decide whether a case is a revenge killing or whether there are mitigating circumstances, but the law should allow people to make that plea.

This is one of the most vital issues that the House should be tackling. I strongly support what has already been said—that the Government should act to find the necessary resources, should have a public awareness campaign, and should also adopt a policy of zero tolerance of domestic violence.

6.19 pm

Ms Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)

First, I congratulate the Select Committee on producing such a comprehensive report on this important issue. It is unusual to hear the concerns of women raised in the House, and I only regret that this time the subject is so painful. It is customary for those on the Opposition Front Bench to congratulate all hon. Friends, but I should like to congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, which has been thoughtful and useful.

In the current climate of public concern about the level of crime and the increase in violent crime, the debate is opportune. Domestic violence is a crime—a violent crime and primarily a crime against women. I remind the House that almost half of all homicides of women are killings by a partner or ex-partner. A third of all reported crimes against women are domestic. Domestic violence is more common than street violence. It is a crime of epidemic proportions. In Greater London alone, reported attacks have almost doubled in the past two years; 9,200 attacks were reported last year and 30,000 women and children sought help and refuge during the same period. A further 100,000 contacted Women's Aid for support.

Domestic violence is not a new crime. The difference now is that women are increasingly less prepared to tolerate violence and more prepared to report it to the police and other agencies. One of the principal reasons why women finally come forward is for the sake of their children. Two out of every three women who go to refuges have young children, and evidence submitted by the Children's Legal Centre to the Select Committee showed that many children will have been assaulted and are already mentally and emotionally scarred from what they have witnessed, with untold results. Concern for their future is another reason for welcoming the seriousness with which domestic violence is beginning to be viewed.

In the past 18 months alone, a series of excellent reports have been published by Victim Support, the Law Commission and now the report that is the subject of this debate. What is remarkable about the reports is the consensus evident in the analysis and in the recommendations for action. Attention, however, is a long way from remedy and action. I welcome the fact that the Government have responded so quickly to the Home Affairs Select Committee report and I shall comment on it in detail later, but the Government's response is less than the wholehearted commitment to action that we and the Select Committee seek. I only hope that the interdepartmental working party on domestic violence, which I welcome, will take the Select Committee's recommendations further.

Domestic violence impacts on many areas of public policy and the law, and the Home Affairs Select Committee report was wide-ranging in its remit. I have time to comment on only a few of those areas, the first of which is public awareness.

Domestic violence cannot be viewed simply as another crime or a legal problem which can be eradicated by appropriate legal remedies. The reports that I have already mentioned all share the understanding that domestic violence is part of a wider social problem of women's unequal position in society. Too often still, women are dependent on men socially and economically. Attempts by women to assert their independence and leave the marital home when necessary are constrained by that basic inequality.

At least 6 million women in Britain today earn poverty wages. The gap between men and women's earnings has barely narrowed in the past 15 years. Full-time working women still earn only about 70 per cent. of male earnings. Women also head up two thirds of the homeless families in Britain and, as the report published by the Commission on Social Justice this week showed, the number of homeless families rose by 46 per cent. during the 1980s, with 20 per cent. of people on incomes of less than £3,500 a year.

Equality for women in the workplace is essential if they are to control other aspects of their lives. I fear that, until we have a Labour Government and a Ministry for Women, British women will continue to be seriously disadvantaged in this society.

Social attitudes still reflect deep-seated views about the role of women and men in the family. Women are still accused in some circumstances of wanting to be abused or of deserving it. Conversely, they are blamed for not leaving after they have been beaten up. Their ambivalent feelings about leaving a man with whom they may have had a long relationship and may still be in love are viewed as a weakness. Domestic violence is thus often portrayed as a woman's rather than a man's problem, which is why it is crucial to raise public awareness.

I welcome the Select Committee's recommendation and hope that the Government will really—truly—adopt it. I strongly endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) about the zero tolerance campaign run in Edinburgh, which is a good example of an effective and sensitive campaign dealing with the issue of men's attitudes.

One of the basic tools for raising awareness must be adequate information, yet we still do not know the real extent of domestic violence. The Select Committee's first recommendation is that there must be nationally collected statistics on the issue, from which a proper strategy can be developed. I welcome the Government's acceptance that the present statistics are incomplete. I also welcome the additional studies being conducted by the Home Office.

Other hon. Members have mentioned women from minority ethnic communities. When violence towards a woman occurs in an ethnic minority community, the problems she faces are compounded. It may appear to her to be too daunting or even a betrayal to seek help outside her community. It may even be harder for her to become economically independent. Women from ethnic minority communities may also face, as we have heard today, racism and interrogation about their immigration status. We support the Select Committee's recommendation for further research into that problem.

As we have heard, under current immigration rules a spouse will normally be given permission to remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period of 12 months in which, in a sense, the marriage is tested by the Home Office. But women experiencing violence during that period and who leave home are faced with a possibility of deportation to their country of origin, where they may risk isolation, stigmatisation and have no economic independence. The case of Mamta Chopra, who was forced to flee and now faces deportation, shows that that 12-month rule is deeply discriminatory against women from ethnic minority communities in abusive relationships. I endorse the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) that the immigration service be represented on the working group.

When a woman finally decides that she must leave and that she has no option, she is likely to be afraid, demoralised, undermined and desperate. Making that decision to leave leads her into a difficult legal and bureaucratic maze which she must negotiate and in which she needs support. One of the most powerful reasons for women having to stay is that they have nowhere to go, which is why the network of refuges in Britain is so tremendously important. As we have repeatedly heard, the provision is totally inadequate, and there is no excuse whatever for that. Eighteen years ago, the last Select Committee on the subject called for one refuge place per 10,000 population, but we still have less than one third of that number. The Minister must deal with that point today.

Many refuges are at crisis point because hard-pressed local authorities are cutting their grants. Local authorities cannot be expected to bear all the financial burden. It is clearly the responsibility of central Government to put resources into a network of women's refuges. I remind the Minister again of the Committee's strongly worded recommendation that the first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central, co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country. Interdepartmental discussions on refuge provision are not enough. Pushing the problem back to local authorities is totally unacceptable. The Government must take the lead in establishing a nationally funded network of refuges. The Government should recognise the extent of support for the proposals from all the relevant agencies, which recognise that, if women have no immediate place of shelter, all the agencies' good work will be wasted.

I also want to add my support to the recommendation that local authorities and housing associations give priority to victims of domestic violence for rehousing. In many areas, including mine, the new guidance is working, but there is a desperate shortage of affordable housing—a shortage which occurs directly because of Government policies. Once again, the Government are asking local authorities to do the impossible: to give priority to the most needy and at the same time to be fair to those thousands on the waiting lists. That cannot be done unless local authorities are allowed to produce the council housing that they know is needed in their areas to meet both ordinary need and the priority need of people fleeing domestic violence.

We know that there are many excellent initiatives involving inter-agency co-operation at local level. Such initiatives need to be encouraged. Local authorities and the police are now working in co-operation to co-ordinate the services and help available to women fleeing domestic violence. The Select Committee has made a number of recommendations relating to police practice, all of which are sensible and ought to be supported. The thrust of the recommendations is to ensure that police work on domestic violence is not marginalised in the police service or squeezed out by competing demands for funds. The Committee also recommends changes that will more clearly demonstrate to the public, particularly women, that the police are taking the issue seriously.

I am aware of many good practices which are being developed, although the police in their evidence agreed that progress was patchy nationwide. The domestic violence units established by the Metropolitan police in 62 of its 69 divisions have been successful, as they have been elsewhere, but it was clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee that a major reason for such units not being established in some areas was lack of resources.

There is now a widespread feeling that existing specialist and time-consuming work, such as that involved in domestic violence units, is threatened by the market philosophy of the Sheehy report. Perhaps the Minister—if he is listening—will tell the House how the work that is done in domestic violence units would be assessed by performance-related pay. While improvements in police practice still remain to be made, the most effective response comes from joint action. I commend, as others have, the practical example of joint action in Islington where the police, the probation service, the local authority and the safer cities programme have established a sound counselling and advice service.

I invite hon. Members to welcome a new initiative in my constituency, where the police have set up a specialist vulnerable persons unit incorporating the victims of domestic violence and racial attacks, and abused elderly victims all within one unit. The unit has, I believe, eight staff, and it will be an important experimental project which we should monitor carefully. Many of the initiatives have worked closely with the safer cities programme, but many of them are now jeopardised because the Government are cutting grants and closing some of the existing safer city projects. If the initiatives are worth while, surely they are worth supporting.

As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) clearly outlined in his report, the Committee considered changes in both the criminal and civil law. I shall mention the issue of provocation, referred to by other hon. Members. It has been rightly argued that the present law is confused and disadvantageous to women. An integral part of the law of provocation is that there must be sudden and temporary loss of self-control. However, a sudden loss of self-control and an immediate response to violence by a woman is likely to bring greater violence upon herself.

The case for provocation to take account of the slow burn—the reaction of a woman over many months, even years—is a strong one. While we believe that justice has now been achieved in the case of Kiranjit Ahluwalia, I must put on record our continuing concern for the fate of Sara Thornton, Sally Hyams and Emma Humphrys. All those cases have been taken up by the Rights of Women, and the women involved still seek justice in this country.

A change in the law on the issue would be a complex task and likely to attract strong opinions from practitioners and the public. For that reason, I endorse the Committee's recommendation to make a request to the Law Commission to produce a consultative document on the law of homicide and to the Government to bring forward proposals. Once again, the Government have given a disappointing reply which has completely failed to respond to the arguments made by so many influential and distinguished people. I hope that the unanimity in the House today will make an impression on the Minister.

Tackling domestic violence needs not only fine words, but concrete actions; it also needs money. The Government must not think that they can place all the responsibility on the shoulders of the police, local authorities or voluntary organisations. I look forward very much to a positive programme of action from the interdepartmental working group, which I hope will soon be announced to the House.

Whatever the financial cost to the Government of implementing all the recommendations of the Select Committee, the cost of not implementing them would be very much greater in terms of individual misery, and suffering among women, families and society. There would be a tremendous cost to the nation in terms of our police and social services, and our children's future.

6.37 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean)

I am grateful to the House for this opportunity —my first—to discuss the serious problem of domestic violence.

We have all benefited today from the depth of knowledge evident on both sides of the House, and particularly from the recent work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Committee's Chairman. The members of the Committee are to be congratulated on their thoughtful investigation into the problems associated with domestic violence and the measures needed to tackle it.

The Government's response to the Committee was published on 29 June by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. That response reaffirmed our commitment to ensuring that domestic violence is tackled vigorously, and is treated as the crime it is. We also agreed with the Committee on the need for action against domestic violence to go beyond the criminal justice system, to meet the special needs of women and children affected by violence in the home, and to work towards prevention in the long term.

I am also grateful to the House for the warm welcome that the Government's response has received. I know that some Opposition Members would like the response to have gone further than it did, but there has been a general welcome to it tonight. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton described our response as measured, detailed and positive. The Select Committee's response may be a unique one from such a Committee to a Government.

Significant efforts have been made in recent years to improve the response to domestic violence, putting the needs of the victim at the centre of that response. The police and the courts are treating incidents of domestic violence with increasing seriousness. As a consequence, the signs are that more such crimes are coming out into the open.

Last week, it was brought home to me how dramatic the change can be. I paid a visit to Scotland Yard and spoke to the inspector in charge of co-ordinating the Metropolitan police's response to domestic violence, in which it is doing an excellent job. She told me that, in 1985, 770 cases of domestic violence assaults were recorded by the police. Last year, there were over 9,800 recorded cases, and a quarter of all recorded assaults in London last year were domestic.

We still do not have a complete picture of the true extent of domestic violence. New surveys are planned to help us to find out more, but figures like those held by Scotland Yard will leave no one in any doubt of the challenges that are facing the police, local agencies and others in dealing with domestic violence.

Our response to the Select Committee report set out the plans we have to take work forward across Government and consider what new initiatives may be needed. In many areas, such as the criminal justice response, civil provisions, the welfare of victims, encouraging local action and long-term prevention, we are actively pursuing improvements.

Recent initiatives have been directed chiefly towards ensuring that the police and courts treat violence within relationships as seriously as assaults by total strangers. Three years ago this month, the Government issued guidance to police throughout United Kingdom on the need for a quick and effective response, taking account of the overriding need to protect victims. Within a year of the guidance, all police forces in England and Wales had developed clear policies on domestic violence, and most had introduced specific improvements to their response.

The Government agree with the Select Committee on the need to ensure that new policies lead to real changes. That is why a study is assessing the impact of the guidance on police forces in England and Wales in handling cases of domestic violence. An initial survey provided an overall picture in all forces. Interviews are now being conducted in five selected force areas with victims, police officers and other agencies in contact with the police.

In response to the Committee's recommendation, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has decided that domestic violence is to be a core subject for next year's inspection programme. The inspectorate will also formulate advice for police forces to ensure that domestic violence units are not marginalised.

In addition, researchers who are monitoring the arrest of suspects and decisions that are taken by the police in relation to proceedings have been asked to classify incidents involving domestic violence separately from other types of violence. The findings from all these exercises will inform future action, and will help to develop further the police response to violence within the home.

One of the key elements of strategy for tackling domestic violence is that perpetrators are brought to justice. As with the police response, there needs to be a consistent approach, and to that end the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance to all chief prosecutors about how they and their staff should deal with such cases. The CPS has also published a statement of its prosecution policy, which explains the factors relevant to the review and prosecution of domestic violence cases.

We will continue to stress the importance of treating domestic violence as seriously as we would treat violence outside the home. We also need to bear in mind the special needs of the victims of the crimes. Those needs were brought home to me when I visited the domestic violence unit run by Wandsworth police, and heard from two victims who had suffered over a number of years.

The Government recognise how important it is to provide immediate support and places of safety for those who are escaping from domestic violence. The guidance issued to the police stressed that victims of assault should be put in touch with support services. Such services can play a vital role in providing women not only with practical help and advice but with the emotional support they need—assuring them that they are not alone and that the violence is not their fault. That point was made by some hon. Members. Some 375 local victim support services are benefiting this year from Government funding of £8.4 million. In addition, the four women's aid federations also receive grant aid from the Government.

As we made clear in the response to the Select Committee's report, we also recognise the valuable role that is played by refuges in providing emergency accommodation and more long-term support for victims of domestic violence. We paid close attention to the points made by the Committee about the level of refuge provision in this country and the effect that that could have on overall response to domestic violence.

However, in principle we maintain the view that effective local support services, including refuges, are best provided at local level. Such provision can be based on an assessment of local needs and take into account the wider local response. Moreover, in the long term we must continue to pursue policies in other areas that will help more women to stay in their homes and reduce the need for such an enormous and desperate upheaval.

Refuge provision is to be one of a number of matters that will be discussed by the interdepartmental group on domestic violence. I have listened carefully to the views expressed here this afternoon, and tomorrow I am to meet the Women's Aid Federation of England. I want to hear its ideas, and I will think carefully about what it has to say as we take this work forward.

The Government welcome the Committee's endorsement of a number of permanent and experimental schemes that are being funded to provide support for victims during the legal process. To assist those who are attending court, the Crown court witness scheme started on a pilot basis in 1990 has now been permanently established. There are now schemes in 36 Crown court centres, with more planned to provide practical advice and emotional support to witnesses in criminal cases.

The Home Office programme development unit was set up last year to fund innovative local projects in the field of crime and criminal justice. Two such programmes are concerned with increasing and improving the criminal justice response to domestic violence, backed up with an increased range of services to support women and meet their welfare needs.

I saw that the Committee visited one of the projects in Islington, where, since February, a skilled civilian team has been attached to the police to work with women victims. The team can undertake immediate crisis counselling, to provide information and to refer women to other agencies in the area with whom the team has established close links. The project aims to encourage the use of legal sanctions, a prompt response to referrals and greater awareness of domestic violence within the community.

In Leeds, a package of projects has been set up to help identify the problems that are experienced by victims of domestic violence in gaining access to support services and to experiment with different responses. A civil court and criminal justice forum has been established to encourage understanding of the victim's needs and to provide an advocacy service to support women who are going to court. Specialised counsellors have also been attached to two local GP surgeries to provide specialised help and information.

Those two different experimental approaches are being evaluated closely. The findings will be disseminated widely to share the lessons that have been learned, and will inform future practical policy development.

Sir Dudley Smith

My hon. Friend has no responsibility for the judiciary, but will he tell me whether magistrates are being encompassed in the extra information which will be disseminated to give an end result of a better approach to the problem?

Mr. Maclean

I assure my hon. Friend that we want to ensure that all involved in criminal law, including magistrates, are fully informed of the resources and information available, particularly when it comes to sentencing offenders. The Government will make sure that magistrates are aware of the range of possibilities open to them.

The Select Commitee rightly identified the need for action against domestic violence which went beyond the criminal justice system. A wider response, involving not only Government but communities and local agencies, is essential. The Government have a role in encouraging local action and in disseminating good practice. More than 100 local schemes to help victims of domestic violence have been funded through the Home Office safer cities projects. In Derby, Hull, Islington and Tower Hamlets, safer cities money is funding domestic violence workers.

In Leicester, a major initiative has been set up to fit emergency alarms in the homes of women at risk from their partners. Similar schemes operate in Bradford and Islington. Multi-agency groups designed to improve local co-ordination have started in Coventry, Hull and Wandsworth. We what to build on the many excellent local initiatives which are being developed throughout the country.

Ms Corston

If that is the case, will the Minister explain why the Government have found it appropriate to cut safer cities funding?

Mr. Maclean

The hon. Lady will probably be slightly embarrassed when she discovers that we have expanded the safer cities programme. We expect to increase the number of cities covered from 20 to 40.

One of the tasks of the interdepartmental working group will be to consider how good practice can best be promoted. In particular, we shall consider ways of strengthening co-ordination at local level. Statutory and non-statutory organisations involved in tackling domestic violence have much to gain from exchanging ideas and practices and developing a shared understanding of how they can best respond collectively to domestic violence. Above all, the victims of domestic violence will benefit most from improved local co-ordination.

The way forward must also include steps to prevent domestic violence. One form of prevention which the Select Committee considered involved work with offenders to prevent future reoffending. The Home Office and the Scottish Office are jointly funding a research study to evaluate two innovative projects—the CHANGE project in Central region and the probation project in Lothian. Those projects aim to change the behaviour of men who abuse their partner.

We recognise the importance of raising awareness throughout society of domestic violence in schools, among professionals in services which may come into contact with domestic violence and among the public at large. The National Curriculum Council's guidance to schools on health education suggests that both sex education and family life education should be key components of the curriculum.

We agree with the Select Committee that there is a clear need for more public information on domestic violence. Such information should emphasise that domestic violence is against the law. It should encourage victims to seek help and advice, and it should explain where such assistance is to be found. The interdepartmental group will give thought to what more can be done and how it might be achieved.

Many hon. Members referred to the law on provocation in homicide. If the House will permit me, I should like to remind it of what we said in our response: As the Committee noted, the law has responded with flexibility to the particular circumstances of domestic violence victims, whilst maintaining the distinction between a less culpable (though still unlawful) reaction to provocation and murder. The Government does not. consider that the Law Commission's proposal on provocation would improve the courts' ability to draw that distinction in individual cases and has no current plans to amend the law in this area. The Government takes the view that the law on provocation, particularly in the light of the Lord Chief Justice's remarks in Ahluwalia, maintains a proper balance between a reluctance on the one hand to exonerate pre-meditated revenge killing and a desire to leave a judgment on the facts of the individual case to the jury. The law does not, in the Government's view, require the reaction to provocation to be instantaneous. However, it is quite right that evidence of pre-meditation should undermine a defence of provocation. A delay between the provoking circumstance and the act of killing may also provide evidence to undermine such a defence, but that is for the jury to decide on the facts before them. The Government does not share the Committee's view that the law is uncertain or unclear.

Mrs. Roche

The Minister rightly quoted the Lord Chief Justice. Does he agree that the Lord Chief Justice's remarks on provocation are obiter dicta? Does he feel that a new definition of the law is therefore necessary?

Mr. Maclean

No, I do not agree. The Select Committee's point was that the law was inflexible and could not respond to modern circumstances. It is clear that the law can be flexible and can change, as we have seen in the development of cases which resulted in Ahluwalia.

Mr. Cohen

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean

No. I must allow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton a few minutes to respond.

In the short time available to me today, I hope that I have provided an idea of the range of work currently in hand, and of our plans for the future. I have shown that progress has been made in recent years. But the Government accept that more can and should be done.

Since the Select Committee finished its investigation, we have begun the process of developing our proposals for future action in a committed and co-ordinated way. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), asked me whether the group had met. The official working group on domestic violence has met twice. It has discussed areas in which work can be taken forward at national and local level.

I can inform the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) that, thanks to the Scottish Office representatives in Edinburgh, the Edinburgh zero tolerance campaign was brought before the interdepartmental working group. The group has discussed and examined the campaign.

We believe that the interdepartmental group will make a significant contribution to co-ordinating our policies to tackle all facets of domestic violence. It is certainly not the end of the matter simply because the Select Committee has produced a report, the Government have responded to it, and we have had this debate. I assure the House that we shall continue to give this serious and widespread problem the priority that it deserves.

6.56 pm

Sir Ivan Lawrence

We have had an excellent debate, and I shall highlight some of the features that have made it so. First, there was cross-party agreement. There was a lot of light and little heat, which will have made it appallingly bad television. Secondly, there was agreement about the size of the problem and the matters which needed to be dealt with. Thirdly, the need for more refuges was highlighted. Such refuges need central funding, whether it is dispensed by local authorities or not.

Fourthly, there was a common welcome for the change in police culture. Domestic violence is now treated as a crime. The fact of arrest may provide a deterrent. Fifthly, there was agreement on the confusion of the law, which needs to be simplified. Out of that should also come better access to legal aid for afflicted women, and more victim-friendly court procedures.

Sixthly, the value of publicity was emphasised. We should bring it home to people that they are not alone if they go to complain about the treatment that they have received in their home. Seventhly, the problems of ethnic minority women were well covered in the debate.

Eighthly, disappointment was expressed that the changes which the Committee recommended on provocation were not welcomed by the Government. I hope that they will reconsider, because the feeling in the Committee was strongly that there should be some clarification. If the Law Commission has decided that the changes would be a good thing, a good thing they are likely to be. I do not suppose for a moment that the Lord Chief Justice would oppose the wishes of the Law Commission on that matter.

Ninthly, there was a broad welcome for the report. It is unusual for Select Committee reports to receive that response. It is also unusual to receive a reasonably enthusiastic response from the Government. The Government response was not unreasonable in all the circumstances. There may even have been some indication that there is a need for positive action and that the cost of meeting some of our requirements and our recommendations would be more than covered by the savings in the rest of system if there is inaction.

For all those reasons, it has been an excellent debate. It provides justification for the Select Committee system, it provides justification for having half a day to debate its provisions, and, hopefully, the beneficiaries of it all will be the victims of domestic violence.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).