Police fail domestic violence victims

...as government launches action plan to tackle violence against women and girls.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has found that police response to domestic violence cases are not good enough and must be improved.

In a damming report published last week they found that only eight out of 43 forces were adequately serving domestic violence victims.

The report said there were 269,000 domestic-abuse-related crimes in England and Wales between 2012 and 2013 and 77 women killed.

Domestic violence incidents accounted for eight per cent of all recorded crime and one third of assaults with injury.

One in four young people aged ten to 24 said they had experienced domestic violence or abuse during their childhood.

On average an emergency call is made to the police about domestic violence every 30 seconds.

And domestic violence is estimated to cost £15.7bn a year.

While most police and crime commissioners say that domestic violence is a priority this is not being translated into reality.

Lancashire was deemed to be performing best, and seven other forces including Norfolk, Northumbria and Suffolk were praised, but the report found weaknesses in all other forces.

The authors had ‘very serious concerns' about the performance of the Greater Manchester, Bedfordshire and Gloucestershire forces which were causing particular concern.

The report found the initial response from police was too often poor, with inadequate collection of evidence, at the scene.

One third of victims interviewed said they felt no safer after a police visit and many said they didn’t always feel they were being taken seriously or believed.

The report concluded that many officers lacked the skills to properly deal with domestic violence cases.

It also found some officers had poor attitudes towards victims.

The centralisation of Serious Rape and Sexual Offence centres following spending cuts was creating ‘risky gaps’ in support available to victims.

The report said forces’ approaches to risk assessment were ‘confused’ and punishment of perpetrators ‘inconsistent’.

The authors call for the establishment of a national oversight group to report on progress on a quarterly basis, calls for all forces to have action plans for tackling domestic violence in place by September and that they should focus on improving police culture and attitudes.

Data, including the views of the victims, should be rigorously collected, analysed and published.

The College of Policing should review the way risk assessments are carried out, improve training and circulate good practice.

The inspectors say there should also be an investigation into the way health, local authorities and voluntary agencies work together with police to tackle domestic violence.

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, said the report made ‘depressing reading’, and that she would take personal charge of the response by chairing the national oversight group.

“The police now must take urgent action. The HMIC report shows that there needs to be a fundamental change in police culture,” she said.

But domestic violence charity Refuge called for a public inquiry.

The charity's chief executive, Sandra Horley, said it was a national disgrace that, decades after opening of the first refuge the police were still not responding adequately.

The government also launched the 2014 Action Plan of its strategy 'A Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls'.

In it, the government pledges to improve public awareness and attitudes, and will do so by  including better education in schools,  providing better training for frontline workers and supporting those affected by honor killings, Female Genital Mutilation and support for girls involved in gangs.

Story published on Women's Views on News, 31 March 2014.

Is UK immigration policy putting women at risk?

And the Immigration Bill, critics warn, puts migrant women and children at risk of sub-standard housing - or destitution.

On 22 October the UK parliament's Immigration Bill 2013-2014 is expected to have its second reading debate.

The Bill requires short-term migrants such as international students and those working in the UK for less than two years to pay a levy for NHS services when they apply for their visas.

Private landlords will have to check the migration status of tenants, banks will have to carry out checks on those wishing to open a current account and illegal migrants will not be able to obtain or retain a driver’s licence.

These measures have led to widespread concerns that women and migrant families will be denied access to healthcare, risk homelessness or be placed at the mercy of landlords offering poor quality and dangerous accommodation.

Although the government has given assurances that no patient in urgent need will ever be denied access to NHS treatment, there are concerns that the new restrictions will cause confusion and discourage migrants from seeking treatment.

The Roman Catholic Bishop for Migrants, Patrick Lynch, said: “The expectation placed on private landlords to conduct immigration status checks on tenants before providing accommodation, will deny many vulnerable migrants the right to suitable housing and could lead some migrant families into destitution”.

“The [NHS] charging proposal will not only deny access to healthcare but increase inequalities among members of society and will have a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable migrants particularly women and children."

Writing on the National Union of Students blog, international students' officer Daniel Stevens explained why the NUS was against the bill.

Among other points, he said that the new proposals would make international students feel less welcome and deter them from coming to this country to study.

And, he pointed out, the new landlord checks would turn ‘certain students over to a dangerous and illegal subsector of non-law abiding landlords, many of whom already prey on those who are unable to find accommodation elsewhere’.

The Home Affairs Select Committee has already criticised the standard of the accommodation that asylum seekers are forced to live in.

In a report published earlier this month, they said they were ‘alarmed’ by the ‘sub standard’ housing provided by companies like G4S, Serco and Clearel.

The committee also found that asylum seekers have to wait longer for a decision, some as much as 16 years.  It also criticised the authorities for forcing pregnant women to move around the country.

Committee Chair Keith Vaz said: "These companies must be held accountable and deliver a satisfactory level of service. It is unacceptable that in 21st century Britain thousands of people are forced into destitution due to the inefficiencies of the system."

Story published on Women's Views on News on 21 October 2013.

Hands off the Equality Act

Story published on Women's Views on News, December 17, 2012

Reducing red tape is no excuse for attacking women’s rights

In 2010 the Government introduced the Equality Act, bringing together laws like the Disability Discrimination, Race and Sex Discrimination Acts.

A year later, David Cameron announced that the Act would be the target of the Red Tape Challenge, a cabinet Office initiative aimed at cutting unnecessary regulation,

Members of the public, businesses and industry experts were invited to scrutinise the Equality Act and put forward recommendations for regulations which could be simplified, scrapped or clarified.

Last spring Home Secretary Theresa May announced that, as a result of the consultation, it would scrap the Third Party Harassment law which means employers will no longer be liable if a worker is harassed by a third party such as a customer.

Public bodies would not have to consider the impact of their decisions on social class, and employment tribunals would no longer be able to recommend employers make changes to policies covering all staff when an employee successfully brought a discrimination case against them.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) had its remit curtailed and its budget halved.

May also announced a review of the Public Sector Equality Duty which requires all public bodies to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equal opportunities and foster good relations between different parts of the community regardless of race, gender sexuality or religion.

Last Month Equality Minister Marian Miller announced the steering group and Terms of Reference for the review. 

The steering group will have just four months to gather evidence, reach its conclusions and write its report.  It can recommend the scrapping or amendment of parts of the duty if it feels they are too costly to administer.

The Fawcett Society is extremely concerned about this and said cutting red tape should not be at the expense of women’s equality.

“The Equality Act is an extremely important piece of law that brings together all preexisting equality law, including all the provisions enshrined in The Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

“Without this law, public bodies would have no duty to consider how to eliminate unlawful discrimination, including between women and men, and women would not be legally protected from unequal treatment in the workplace”, it said in a statement.

Fawcett and other organizations representing groups protected by the Act, are urging the public to visit the Red Tape Challenge website to register their comments in support of the Equality Act.

Because, as Fawcett says - any backwards step - let alone the repeal of this Act, would represent a transgression on the rights of women in the UK today and would severely undermine efforts to achieve equality between women and men in all spheres of life.