David Norris (Independent)

——between various organisations. If anybody is battered, then it is a reproach to us all and we must all address it, while accepting that the preponderance of violence perpetrated by men, most of whom are intimately connected, is against women. That said, I very much welcome the commitment of the Minister of State to ensure the needs of men are facilitated.

I refer to the report conducted, I am glad to say, by an academic in my university, Trinity College. The Minister of State described the report as excellent and it indicated that it was inappropriate to address the issue exclusively as one of violence against women. An aspect of the report I found quite astonishing and which must be examined is that 49% of admissions to women's refuges were from the Traveller community which represents 0.6% of the entire population. That is an extraordinary disproportion. We need to find out the how, why, where and when, and what can we do. It is a gross distortion that 49% of admissions were from the Traveller community which represents 0.6% of the population. There is something seriously wrong in the Traveller culture that needs to be studied.

Women's Aid is a marvellous organisation and we are greatly in its debt. The report is of great concern. For example, there is a huge increase in calls, up 30% in 2005 from 19,000 to 25,000. Of greater concern than anything else is that 10,504 were missed calls, a matter to which the Minister of State should pay attention and which he should address urgently. The number of missed calls has increased in the past year from 26% to 40%. A woman or man has to get the courage to make that report and then they are blocked, do not get a reply and the call is missed for one reason only — a lack of adequate resourcing. Let us reflect on that — 10,000 people in distress whose calls are not listened to for this reason. Both the calls and the applications for refuge are increasing rapidly.

The report has an interesting chart showing the types and incidence of abuse involved. Some 57% were emotional abuse, 28% physical abuse and 6% sexual abuse. When one looks at it, emotional abuse sounds vague but it is a way of controlling people. The report states that the tactics of abuse used by perpetrators are deliberate, controlling and unrelenting. The repetitive nature of the abuse has the effect of wearing a woman down gradually, making her doubt herself, putting her in fear and isolating her from supports.

The report moves on to the physical abuse and points out the catalogue of things that are done: struck with golf clubs, thrown against the wall, hit with a hammer, burnt with an iron and shot at. This is astonishing and so much of this takes place within intimate relationships that must have started on a reasonably positive note. Emotional abuse includes being stalked and watched constantly, denied food — this is medieval — and having to ask permission to turn on lights. The mental cruelty involved in this controlling is all a question of power. Sexual abuse includes being forced into prostitution by somebody they had loved, married and lived with, and coerced into re-enacting pornography and rape. This is so degrading. It a question of control and power. The impact of the physical abuse includes foetal abnormality, which means it is passed on to another generation, miscarriage, and serious physical injuries which sometimes lead to attempted suicide. It is not surprising that when broken down, the preponderance of requests concern legal advice from solicitors, court accompaniment, refuge and housing.

Some 67.5%, almost 70%, of attacks are committed by male intimates, 30% by male family, and 8.5% by male other. There is no doubt there is a gender element. There is also abuse of children which follows a similar pattern. Children are even more vulnerable, yet they are beaten with weapons and are the victims of violent physical assault, attempted murder, being thrown across rooms and so on.

Women's Aid sent Members some briefing material which is interesting. It indicates that it has some concern about the shift that appears to be taking place towards including men. What it says needs to be listened to. Of great concern to Women's Aid is the way in which these contentions have been used to attack organisations working to end violence against women and to undermine the valuable work of refuges and frontline services. This must not be done. I did say there should not be a competition of victimhood but neither should reports be used to undermine the very valuable work of groups such as Women's Aid. It has certainly traditionally been regarded as an area that is heavily gender centred.

The recommendations made are practical and, perhaps, the Minister would look at and address them. Parents of the child in common but not residing together should be eligible for protection under the Domestic Violence Act 1996. Often the couples may not live together on a permanent basis. They have, however, a child in common and have access rights and so on. These people are entitled to be protected. It is not just a question of barring orders; it is a question of protecting the physical and emotional well-being of the people.

On a related issue there is the residence requirement for cohabitees applying for a safety order. This should be removed. It is a ridiculous qualification that they have got to be residing together. It is a question of protecting people from physical danger. A property qualification is appropriate for something to do with rates, it is not proper for something to do with physical violence. The residence requirement for cohabitees who have an equal or greater interest in the property should be removed from barring order applications. In the case at present of unmarried couples living together, a barring order may only be sought if the applicant has lived with the respondent for six of the previous nine months and has an equal or greater ownership right to the family home. This is all about property. This is nonsense. We examine the rights of individual human beings rather than this legalistic property requirement. Guidelines should be developed for the criteria for granting orders under the Domestic Violence Act 1996 because it fails to set out any of these criteria. We need to speed up the court process in situations of gross domestic violence in some cases leading to murder. Delay is not just justice denied, it is possibly lethal for the person who has applied.