Lynne Featherstone MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary for Equalities and Criminal Information
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

26 October 2011

Dear Lynne,

Thank you for your response to my Westminster Hall debate on preventing violence against women and girls earlier this month. I value the time you took to address as many of the points I raised as possible and your obvious personal and genuine commitment to ending gendered violence. I wanted to follow up on some specific questions and look forward to hearing from your further.

I appreciate you confirming that you will bring as much pressure to bear as possible in discussions with the Department for Education in connection with PSHE. You said that a consultation had just finished and the results would be published in November. Please can you clarify how the scope of this differs from the still live consultation on PSHE which closes at the end of November and which will presumably report a little later on?

You also said that you regard prevention through PSHE as vital but " we do not necessarily regard it as vital that it be statutory." In the absence of it being made compulsory, I would be interested to know how you intend to guarantee that every young person accesses education designed to reduce gendered violence.

Thank you for providing some information about your work as an international champion in tackling violence against women and girls - and for advising that you have a budget, which you are spending strategically in the areas where you can get most traction. Please could you let me know what that budget is for this year and for future years?

I welcome your commitment to keeping legal aid for victims in private family law cases where domestic violence is a feature. However, I am worried that the definition of domestic violence that is used in the current text of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is inconsistent with the definition used already across Government departments, including the Home Office, Justice Department and UK Border Agency. There is a very real risk, possibly unintended that this will have the effect of denying women who experience domestic violence access to legal aid. I have tabled an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Offenders Bill, which seeks to rectify this inconsistency. Whilst I recognise that the Government has not sought to change the definition of domestic violence, I share campaigners concerns that the Bill does not include the agreed definition. Please can you raise these points with the Secretary of State for Justice as a matter of urgency, if you have not done so already?

I also want to remove the 12 month gateway which is currently proposed and which does not in any way reflect the dynamics of domestic violence and the very real potential for post-separation violence. A time-limit of any duration, and particularly such a restrictive one, will make legal aid inaccessible for many women who have experienced violence.

Finally I wanted to follow up on the issue of female genital mutilation (FGM). You noted that there have never been any prosecutions and explained that this is because it is difficult to get evidence and make people come forward. I completely understand that obstacle and would be keen to know more information about what steps the Government is taking to try and counter such difficulties. It is my view that education can play a crucial role here, hence my enthusiasm for teaching sexual consent in personal, social and health education to include all forms of violence against women, including teenage relationship abuse, forced marriage, FGM and sexual exploitation. It should also be linked to work on gender equality and work that challenges gender stereotypes.

Yours sincerely,

Caroline Lucas, MP, Brighton Pavilion