Mrs. Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab): I apologise for not being present at the beginning of this very important debate: I was serving on a Standing Committee just along the Corridor. Luckily, it finished early, so I can take part in this debate, which is, sadly, vital.

As other hon. Members have said, domestic violence kills two women a week. In the view of Women's Aid, domestic violence is physical, sexual, psychological or financial violence that takes place within an intimate or family-type relationship and that forms a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. That can include forced marriage and so-called honour crimes, as other hon. Members have mentioned. Crime statistics and research show that domestic violence is gender-specific—it is most commonly experienced by women and perpetrated by men—and that any woman can experience domestic violence, regardless of race, ethnic or religious group, class, disability or lifestyle.

Domestic violence is repetitive and life-threatening; it can destroy the lives of women and children. We have heard horrific examples today. Domestic violence can also take place in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships and can involve other family members, including children. It is very common: research shows that it can affect one in four women in their lifetime, regardless of age, social class, race, disability or lifestyle. All forms of domestic violence—psychological, economic, emotional and physical—come from the abuser's desire for power and control over other family members or intimate partners.

British crime survey research found that women are most commonly sexually assaulted by men they know. The researchers asked women about the last incident of rape that they had experienced since the age of 16. They found that 45 per cent. had been raped by current partners, 11 per cent. by former partners, 11 per cent. on dates, 16 per cent. by acquaintances and 10 per cent. by other intimates. Only 8 per cent. had been raped by strangers.

That brings me to a case raised with me by one of my constituents. She was raped by her then husband. I will not name her for obvious reasons, but she is a professional woman—a teacher. Her relationship with her husband was tumultuous. He was extremely jealous and domineering. I do not know the full history of the relationship and whether there had previously been domestic violence, but I feel that there must have been. The incident that she brought to me was the final straw. One night, her husband came home and she was asleep in bed. She awoke to find that she was being raped. There had been no prior argument or anything else that led to that—not that anything could give someone the right to rape another person.

My constituent chucked her husband out, started divorce proceedings and is now divorced. The police were involved. The Crown Prosecution Service said that she had a very good case and that it would probably result in a conviction. Unfortunately, about six months later, the CPS wrote to tell her that the case was being dropped because it would not result in a conviction. I am pursuing the case now, although obviously I cannot have the case tried. Various reasons were cited for dropping the case. One was that the woman was drunk on the night. Another was that she would not make a good witness, for whatever reason. Yet another was that there was a discrepancy between the date on which my constituent claimed the rape happened and the date that the police had written down. The police have said that they made a mistake in their notes. I am not a legal expert, but I am following that up with the police and the CPS. We will probably receive only an apology; the case will not go to court.

As I said, my constituent is a professional woman. She did not want to let the case drop and felt that she was capable of pursuing it. She took out a private prosecution. When she got to court, her barrister said to her, "This judge won't be sympathetic. Don't take the matter any further. Don't put yourself through this ordeal. The best we can go for is an injunction." The man lived nearby and was starting to intimidate her. She has obtained about three or four injunctions. They started at about 500 yd or metres, but the figure went down to 250 yd. The man keeps appealing and the decision keeps going in his favour. At that point, my constituent could go within about 250 yd of her house comfortably. I think that the judge overruled the injunction because the man claimed that his mum lived within the 500 yd and he wanted to be able to go and see her. The area was therefore reduced.

There is one working men's club—it is the only pub—within the 250 yd, and the man claimed that he wanted to have access to his mam and to be able to go to that pub because all his friends go there. That is totally not true; it is where all my constituent's friends and family go. However, the judge allowed him to go and see his mam and go to that club. Now, my constituent basically cannot go out for a drink at night and does not feel safe anywhere, because that was her safe zone. Her case raises big issues.

I have other interesting statistics. In the "Routes to Safety" study, 76 per cent. of separated women reported suffering post-separation violence. That is what my constituent now fears. I asked her whether she was still frightened of her ex-husband and what she felt he was after. I have never been raped, but obviously I appreciate why she would not want to be in the same room as him. She said, "No, it's more than that." She feels that he wants to see her dead—that the situation is as black and white as that.

The figures that I have back up such fears. Seventy-six per cent. of the women I was referring to were subjected to continued verbal and emotional abuse; 41 per cent. were subjected to serious threats towards themselves or their children; 23 per cent. were subjected to physical violence; 6 per cent. were subjected to sexual violence; and 36 per cent. stated that that violence was ongoing. That is after they have stopped living with the abusive partners; it is ongoing domestic abuse.

What is the cause of domestic violence? Abusers choose to behave violently to get what they want and to gain control. Their behaviour often originates from a sense of entitlement that is supported by sexist, racist, homophobic and other discriminatory attitudes. Domestic violence against women by men is caused by the misuse of power and control within a context of male privilege. Male privilege operates on an individual and societal level to maintain a situation of male dominance in which men have power over women and children. Other hon. Members touched on that, and it was fantastic to hear some men make that very point.

Domestic violence by men against women can be seen as a consequence of the inequalities that still exist in our society between men and women. Such inequalities are rooted in patriarchal traditions that encourage men to believe that they are entitled to power and control over their partners. Domestic violence is learned, intentional behaviour rather than the consequence of stress, individual pathology, substance use or a dysfunctional relationship. Perpetrators of domestic violence frequently avoid taking responsibility for their behaviour by blaming it on someone or something else, by denying it took place or by minimising it.

Research shows that violent men are most likely to perpetrate violence because of their own sexual jealousy and possessiveness, which were the factors in my constituent's case, because they demand domestic services, or to demonstrate male authority. Some men believe that sex is another type of domestic service that they can demand. Violent men will typically justify or ignore their behaviour by minimising the violence—by saying that it was just a slap or that it was not that bad—by justifying their behaviour to themselves and blaming the victim, by denying that the violence happened or even by refusing to talk about it.

Can alcohol or drugs cause domestic violence? Many people who drink too much or take drugs do not abuse their partners or family members. Likewise, abuse does not occur exclusively when an abuser is drunk or under the influence of drugs. The use of alcohol or drugs is therefore not the underlying cause of domestic violence.

Abusers who use alcohol or drugs may use them as an excuse for their behaviour, saying that they were drunk or do not remember. However, even if they generally do not remember what they did, it does not remove responsibility for their behaviour. There is never an excuse for domestic violence, and the causes of domestic violence are far more deep-rooted than simply being the effect of intoxication or alcohol or drug dependency. If an abuser is alcohol or drug dependent, it is important that the dependency is treated in tandem with the violent behaviour. Addressing one without the other is unlikely to prove successful.

Women who experience domestic violence may turn to alcohol or drugs as a form of escape from the violence. Sometimes, abusers will then use their partner's addiction as an excuse for their violent behaviour, saying that they have been provoked into using violence. Excuses such as these are used by the perpetrator to deflect responsibility from themselves and to put the focus or blame for their violence onto the victim. In such situations, it is vital that women receive the support they need, but also that the perpetrator is held accountable for their actions and not excused because of the woman's behaviour.

A study of 336 offenders convicted of domestic violence found that alcohol was a feature in 62 per cent. of offences and that 48 per cent. of offenders were alcohol dependent. Some say that domestic violence is caused by a lack of control. That is just not true. Domestic violence is about gaining control, not a lack of it. If an abuser is careful about when, where and to whom they are abusive, they show sufficient awareness and knowledge of their actions to indicate they are not out of control.

So who is responsible for the violence? The abuser is, always. There is no excuse for domestic violence. The abuser has a choice whether to use violence, for which he is responsible and for which he should be held accountable, but he does not have to exercise that choice—he could choose instead to behave non-violently and foster a relationship built on trust, honesty, fairness and respect. The victim is never responsible for the abuser's behaviour.

It is important that any intervention to address domestic violence prioritises the safety of survivors and holds the perpetrators accountable. Couple counselling or mediation is often seen as a way of addressing the problem. However, there are two significant problems with such an approach. First, there is a risk to the woman's safety, as asking her to discuss the violence with the perpetrator present may lead to later reprisal. Secondly, the approach assumes that the woman is in some way responsible or capable of altering the perpetrator's behaviour. Women's Aid therefore does not support the use of couple counselling or mediation in situations where domestic violence has occurred.

In addition to the individual costs associated with a loss of quality of life—and the loss of life itself, in some cases—domestic violence costs our society as a whole. The estimated total cost of domestic violence to society in monetary terms is £23 billion per annum. That figure includes an estimated £3.1 billion as the cost to the state, £1.3 billion as the cost to employers and £17 billion as the cost of individual human suffering.

I end by thanking Women's Aid, whose website I found most useful in researching my speech. I quote from that website:

"Everyone has the right to live free from abuse and fear."

We all know only too well that there will be women in this country and around the world tonight for whom that statement is just that—a statement, words—as they are living lives of abuse and fear. It is for those women that debates such as this one are vital. As all right hon. and hon. Members have shown by taking part in this debate, we shall all feel that we have not really made a difference until the statement I quoted becomes a reality.

4.56 pm

9 Mar 2006 : Column 366WH