Home Office cuts protection for victims of domestic violence

Police powers to remove violent partners for up to two weeks scrapped as the Home Office tries to cu

A scheme intended to help protect women from violent partners has been scrapped by the Home Office in its effort to cut spending, the Independent has learned.

The scheme would have given police the power to ban a violent partner from a family home for up to two weeks, buying women and other family members time to seek further advice to help remedy their situation. The Domestic Violence Protection Orders were due to be rolled out nationally next year.

A few weeks ago, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, told the Women's Aid conference that the coalition planned to "end violence against women and girls", and pledged more money for initiatives. But in a suggestion that perhaps foreshadowed the cost-cutting priority of today's announcement, she also proposed looking into using criminals' fines to pay for more rape crisis centres.

As for why the orders have been scrapped, May reportedly told charities that

. . . she had taken the decision to save money and because of worries about the legislation setting up the orders.

A spokeswoman for the Home Office revealed slightly more. Though reiterating the department's commitment to ending domestic violence, she said that "in tough economic times, we are now considering our options for delivering improved protection and value for money".

The Home Office needs to find £2.5bn of savings from its annual budget of £10bn.

The legislation creating the so-called "go orders" was originally promoted by Alan Johnson, but received cross-party support before being passed in April. Doubts were expressed in the Lords about how the banned party would be accommodated and cared for, but the bill was passed nonetheless.

With the autumn spending review just around the corner, this will most definitely not be the first time we see a minister reverse their position in order to make spending cuts.

More funding for services working to curb domestic violence was an issue on which politicians of all persuasions were able to agree. For it to be among the first to be cut is a dire sign of what is yet to come.

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.