A simple change in the law to reduce domestic killings – half happening around separation – would be to let family courts attach powers of arrest again to non-molestation orders (“We’ve ignored the grim toll of femicide for too long,” Editorial). A misguided criminal law prevented judges from attaching these when breach of such orders became a criminal offence in 2007.
Before 2007, if a woman reported her injunction had been breached by a threat of violence or actual violence, the police had to immediately arrest the respondent and bring him before a senior judge within 24 hours for committal proceedings. Namely, to show why he should not be sentenced to a maximum two years’ custody if found in breach (“contempt”) of a court order. With consequences so immediate, 90% of orders were obeyed. The resulting calm allowed courts to decide issues keeping women vulnerable to former partners, such as jointly owned property, children matters and permanent accommodation.
Now, on breach, victims lose the injunction’s protection, and their legal aid, to become mere witnesses in criminal proceedings, if police believe there is a realistic chance of conviction – and if they can face these. There are already many criminal laws to punish abusers, with more coming. Yet women’s clear priority on separation is protection. Civil injunctions, without victim-empowering powers of arrest attached, cannot offer them and their children the safe, lasting route from abuse they once did. The new bill – another criminal justice response, like its failed predecessor – so far does nothing to address this.
Jan Williams, director, The Campaign for Effective Domestic Abuse Laws
Knaresborough, North Yorkshire
Give NHS staff a tax break
The outcry against the government’s proposal to award a 1% pay rise to NHS staff clearly demonstrates its inadequacy (“Ministers face public backlash on 1% pay offer to ‘NHS heroes’ ”, News). Instead of a percentage pay rise, I propose all NHS staff have their tax codes changed for the next two years, so that none pays any basic rate tax. This would provide a massive boost in take-home pay for lower-paid staff. It would be very simple to implement and would provide a strong incentive for staff to remain in their jobs.
Chris Bell
Sheepwash, Devon
Pain of special needs pupils
Chaminda Jayanetti highlighted the pressures faced by special needs pupils as schools reopened (“Many special needs pupils are dreading start of term”, News). My heart aches for the two children in the article and others like them. I am autistic and know what it is like to be bewildered and confused by the hurly-burly of classrooms and playgrounds, the butt of teasing and bullying, when all you want to do is hide in the library. I survived (I am 73), but not without some scars. Many do not survive and the result is talent wasted and lives blighted. The DfE spokesperson’s quote says that everything is fine, when it most emphatically is not.
Dr Margaret Pelling
Cumnor, Oxford
Doctors in fear of lawsuits
Surgeons are right to fear lawsuits as a result of the impact of the pandemic (“Surgeons fear wave of lawsuits over delays to cancer treatment”, News). In the Medical Defence Union’s experience of supporting more than 200,000 UK healthcare professionals, the NHS is facing a potential avalanche of litigation related to the pandemic.
The MDU has helped members with more than 3,800 complaints and adverse incidents since the first lockdown in March 2020. Many have the potential to become clinical negligence claims. Claims will be paid for by the state, affecting NHS finances. This does not mean healthcare staff are shielded from the lengthy and stressful process of litigation, long after the event, with all the damage that can cause the individuals concerned. The extraordinary circumstances described by cancer surgeons call for extraordinary action to be taken by the government to shield healthcare staff. If we wait until claims arrive, it will be too late.
Dr Christine Tomkins, chief executive, Medical Defence Union
London E14
Sturgeon’s brave stand
Sonia Sodha highlighted the incompetence of those involved in the original investigation of sexual harassment allegations against Alex Salmond and the hypocrisy, political opportunism and outright misogyny involved in the subsequent inquiry into the collapsed court case (“Why should a woman be held to account for a man’s transgressions?”, Comment). Nicola Sturgeon will certainly not emerge smelling of roses, but she has taken a stand against predatory behaviour by a one-time friend and colleague – how many others would do the same, especially if their career and ambitions were likely to be compromised?
Bill Stewart
Glasgow
Dumbing down at the V&A
Dalya Alberge rightly draws attention to the absurdity of turning the National Art Library at the V&A into “a publicly accessible reading room of the arts”, privileging those living in South Kensington (“Guardians of our literary jewels at risk in V&A plan to cut key library staff”, News).
Less obvious are aspects of director Tristram Hunt’s plans affecting the V&A’s curatorial and conservation staff who are not only to sustain inevitable cuts, but also have their departments reconfigured along chronological lines, drastically repurposing the museum and divorcing its experts from libraries and archives. This can only diminish the specialist knowledge for which the V&A is admired.
John Mallet
London W14
Deaf people deserve better
Susan Kelly’s legal action highlights the problems that deaf people – those who have no useful hearing – suffer in this country (“Widow sues NHS over deaf husband’s ‘diabolical’ care”, News). More people have British Sign Language as their first language than Gaelic, but it was only recognised by the British government as a language in 2003. In Scotland, BSL has the protection of legal status. Westminster has no appetite to do the same, so although you can legally take your dog into a consultation with your GP, you don’t have the right to a BSL interpreter.
Legally, deafness is a disability, but the Equality Act is insufficient to protect the deaf. Organisations that would quickly act if there was a problem with wheelchair access tend not to recognise their obligations to the deaf. The government shows the same disregard by not providing signing interpretations of its daily briefings.
Judith Harvey
London, NW8
