F1 Bahrain GP LIVE: Norris struggling and trailing leader Piastri

F1 returns to Sakhir this weekend for the Bahrain Grand Prix and round four of the 2025 F1 season.

Lando Norris saw his championship lead cut to one point after Max Verstappen’s brilliant victory in Japan last time out, with the McLaren driver forced to settle for second ahead of his teammate Oscar Piastri.

It was another difficult weekend for Ferrari in Suzuka, short of pace compared to the frontrunners, with Charles Leclerc finishing in fourth and Lewis Hamilton down in seventh, though the Brit hinted that a change is forthcoming to the SF-25 car.

Now, the grid returns to Bahrain – where pre-season testing took place in February – for the second race in the Asian triple-header. Verstappen won last year’s race in Bahrain, leading home a Red Bull one-two.

Live stream link

Follow live updates from the Bahrain Grand Prix with The Independent – the race starts at 4pm (BST).

Body found in search for girl, 11, who went missing in River Thames

The family of an 11-year-old girl who went missing in the Thames last month have been told that a body has been found in the river.

Kaliyah Coa, who had been playing with another young girl and boy during a school inset day, slipped into the water on March 31 before a life ring could be thrown to her, nearby residents said.

She entered the Thames near Barge House Causeway, close to London City Airport, in east London, and was not found despite a large search by emergency services.

The Metropolitan Police have now said her family has been told that a body was found in the river on Sunday morning.

Officers were alerted to a body in the River Thames in Maritime Quay in east London on Sunday at 9.03am.

A police spokesman said: “The body is yet to be formally identified.

“However, the family of Kaliyah Coa have been informed of this development and are being supported by specialist officers.”

Kaliyah’s family ask that privacy is respected at this time, the force added.

This is a breaking story, more to follow…

Farage claims Musk was ‘trying to encourage him’ with sacking call

Nigel Farage has claimed Elon Musk was “just trying to encourage” him when he called for him to be sacked as the leader of Reform UK.

The former Ukip leader had a spectacular falling out with the billionaire adviser to Donald Trump earlier this year.

At its height, just hours after Mr Farage claimed his friendship with the Tesla founder made his party “cool”, Mr Musk called for him to be replaced at the top of Reform.

The row erupted over Mr Musk’s support for jailed far-right activist Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Mr Farage has consistently opposed allowing Robinson to join his political parties, describing him as “thuggish”.

At the time there had been speculation that Mr Musk could donate $100m to Reform, in what would have been the largest political donation in British history.

But after the two men fell out Mr Musk backed the now-independent MP Rupert Lowe, suggesting he could take over Reform.

Asked about the row on BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg, Mr Farage said he had since met Mr Musk and discussed the row.

“We talked about it,” he said, adding: “He was just trying to encourage me in a few policy areas, ones I wasn’t prepared to go down.”

He was also probed over his claim that his association with Mr Musk made the party look “cool”, just hours before the entrepreneur suggested Mr Farage should be replaced.

He said Mr Musk would “say what he wants to say at any moment in time”.

But, he added, “as far as young people are concerned in Britain, we are certainly cooler than the other parties”.

Before their row, Mr Farage said of the US President’s ‘first buddy’: “The shades, the bomber jacket, the whole vibe. Elon makes us cool – Elon is a huge help to us with the young generation, and that will be the case going on, and frankly that’s only just starting.

“Reform only wins the next election if it gets the youth vote. The youth vote is the key. Of course you need voters of all ages, but if you get a wave of youth enthusiasm you can change everything.

“And I think we’re beginning to get into that zone – we were anyway, but Elon makes the whole task much, much easier. And the idea that politics can be cool, politics can be fun, politics can be real – Elon helps us with that mission enormously.”

More UK children are in poverty than pensioners, Labour could do more

It’s been a fairly average few weeks for child poverty headlines in the UK, in that there have been many, and they’ve been brutal. A national crisis rolling on through 2025, the bodies of our poorest children falling beneath its wheels.

This week, findings from a research laboratory set up by Sarah and Gordon Brown confirmed that deprivation impacts a baby’s brain development. Last week, it was announced that 30,000 British children have been pushed into poverty since the election by the two-child limit. The week before: a new record was set, with 4.5 million children now living in poverty in the UK.

It’s not quite what we were promised. Not in the Labour manifesto – where there was a specific pledge to reduce child poverty – or on the campaign posters the party shared online that pitched their future for our country. The most emotive of which depicted a family flanked by tall wheatgrass, one child on the dad’s shoulders, a second backlit by the sinking, late-afternoon sun, and the words: “Change will only happen if you vote for it.”

Nine months on, that promised powder-blue-sky future has dissolved into fantasy land, with a Labour government now predicted to deliver an even bigger record: 4.8 million children living in poverty by the end of their first parliamentary term (which led Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group to comment, “Record levels of kids living in poverty isn’t the change people voted for.”)

It would certainly represent an extraordinary failure of this government, one that to date, hasn’t impressed with their work on the crisis. “Disappointingly, the UK government has not yet shown the level of political ambition and commitment needed to match the scale of the challenge,” Joanna Barrett, associate head of policy at the NSPCC, tells The Independent.

And the cost? It rains down on our children. The same children who were locked in their homes and out of schools in Covid (lest we forget theme parks opened before the classrooms did) – and emerged with anxiety and delayed development, some not emerging at all. British children have some of the worst health outcomes in Europe (including the lowest wellbeing of all countries) and see relatively little invested in their early care and education (0.5 per cent of GDP versus the likes of France and the Nordics, who spend double that).

Sometimes it feels like we’ve made a national sport out of failing our children – in the UK right now, they face higher levels of poverty than any other group in society (twice that of pensioners). “All children deserve the best start in life,” says Alison Garnham. “But far too many are denied that chance – that’s something that should put us all to shame”.

The shame is only growing. The recent welfare cuts – targeting disability and sickness benefits – announced by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, in the spring statement “pulled the rug from under people who are ill and disabled”, says Garnham.

With 44 per cent of children in poverty already living with someone who is disabled, the reforms, she says, “will drive child poverty higher still”. On that point, the government (kind of) agrees, their own impact statement putting the number of kids that’ll be pushed into poverty at some 50,000 (or the population of Durham).

Jolene, a neurodivergent mum of three neurodivergent children in Wales (and member of online lived experience documentary project, Changing Realities), knows exactly what those 50,000 kids face. Her own family plunged into hardship after she quit her job to care for her autistic child, who’d increasingly struggled during Covid.

“She stopped going to school, stopped sleeping, stopped leaving the house,” says Jolene. But her daughter’s crisis was met with threats of school absence fines, no offer of alternative provision, and a refusal of help from CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services).

After leaving her job working in an opticians, Jolene entered the “humiliating” and complex world of disability and sickness benefits. It took 18 months to receive PIP (personal independence payment) after an initial refusal by the Department for Work and Pensions (they U-turned just before a tribunal was due to hear an appeal).

“Things were severe,” says Jolene, whose partner worked full time. “We could just about afford food, the absolute basics.” How bad did the situation get? “One day I was going to kill myself,” she says of the substantial period of hardship, fighting for benefits she was entitled to and for support for her daughter. “I thought, this is the only way to get help for my children.”

After three years, Jolene was able to return to work part time, at a job she loves. Finally, she thought, her family’s fortunes were changing. Then, two blows in quick succession: the disability green paper and welfare reforms dropped, and just a week ago, the family’s PIP renewal was refused out of the blue, stripping them of £550 per month instantly.

Now, Jolene is preparing for another PIP appeal, but knows she’ll lose money regardless due to the reforms. “The level of trauma that comes from trying to navigate a system that is supposed to be a safety net…” she says with both sadness and anger. “There is no safety net.”

Far from driving her further into employment, which the government is relying on to ease hardship, she is now unsure how she is going to be able to afford to go to work with her caring responsibilities and the huge cuts to her family’s income. “I don’t know how we’re going to manage. I feel crushed. I was trying so hard to lift myself up from the depths of despair. What more can I possibly do?”

It’s a very good question. With 71 per cent of children in poverty living in a working household (at least one working adult), it’s not even the case that forcing people into employment via hardship is the fix. “Government knows that employment isn’t where the answers lie,” says Garnham, pointing to the actions of the last Labour government, which lifted hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty. “We know what key levers to pull.”

She points out – contrary to hysteria around spiralling benefits – that we spend £50bn a year less on social security than we did in 2010, and that benefits have been increased by headline inflation only five times in the last 14 years. “That should focus ministers on the need to reinvest.”

And there’s no investment more urgently needed than that to scrap the two-child limit – a welfare policy that blocks families in receipt of universal credit or tax credits from support for any child after the second. A policy called “obscene” by Labour in opposition after it was proven to influence women’s decisions on abortion.

Morality (and humanity) aside, the policy is an outlier, globally. Ruth Patrick, professor of social policy at the University of York and lead of Changing Realities calls it an “internationally unique policy” saying that “when we did a comparative investigation looking at the approaches other countries take to providing support for children through their social security system, the UK was the only country which limits support at just two children”.

And yes, when judged against other advanced economies, the UK experienced the largest increase in child poverty from 2014-2021, a rise entirely made up of bigger families (half of all large families now live in poverty).

As a tool wielded by the state then, it’s unparalleled at increasing hardship, forcing an additional 109 children every single day below the poverty line. And while the bad news is that the two-child limit is the single biggest driver of child poverty, the good news is that its end would be the quickest and most cost-effective solution, lifting 540,000 kids out of poverty at a cost of £2.5bn per year.

Too expensive, the government cries. Yet, it represents a lower cost per child than any other potential change in the benefits system. And even the most rudimentary maths suggests that with child poverty costing the country £39bn per year currently – and increasing year on year, hitting £40bn by 2027 – by my rudimentary calculations this one measure, would lift 4 per cent of children out of poverty and you could put just over £1.5bn back in the pot straight away.

And that number is even more likely to scream “bargain” when the more indirect savings are counted across an entire lifetime. With improved life chances for children, savings would be made in health, social care, and the criminal justice system when they become adults. Potential higher taxes could be counted on (just like Sure Start, which is now proven to have more than paid for itself in those areas). Not to mention the moral imperative of respecting a child’s most basic human rights to food, to shelter, to education, and life.

Currently, research shows that kids in our most deprived areas are far less likely to achieve a grade 5 or above in English and Maths, but are far more likely to be obese, to lose their teeth, to live in nutritional food deserts, to struggle with their mental health, to be absent or expelled from school, to be homeless, to even die sooner. And in adulthood, those who grew up in poverty earn less, are more likely to have long-term mental health issues.

Still, ministers – including work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall in an interview just last week – have continued to resist calls from the likes of the End Child Poverty coalition (a group of 130 organisations and charities) – to scrap it (“we will only make promises if we show we can afford it and how we’re going to commit to them”). Wait, she says, for the government’s child poverty strategy – now due in June, almost a year after they took office.

For the experts though, scrapping the two-child limit is non-negotiable. “If the government’s child poverty strategy leaves it in place,” says Garnham, “it will not be a credible strategy.”

India, a mum of four kids (aged 1-7) from Suffolk, found herself brutalised by the two-child limit after her life changed overnight. “This was not the plan,” she says of the unexpected separation from her husband while pregnant with her fourth, and youngest, child – an event that pushed her into homelessness and in need of desperate help from the state for the first time.

“A big shock” is how India describes the realisation, while applying for universal credit, that she would receive no support at all for her youngest two children due to the two-child limit – a loss of several thousand pounds. India was then also hit by the benefit cap – an intersecting limit on the amount of benefits all working-age people can claim – that cut an additional £250 a month from her housing benefit.

To say life has been a struggle since is an understatement. She buys her kid’s clothes, shoes and school uniforms second-hand or via donations, has used the local authority’s welfare assistance scheme, but still, after rent and bills, there’s little left.

“Sometimes there’s not enough for food, so I have to use food banks,” she says. “I’ll eat toast or whatever they don’t eat – but I don’t want them to realise [why]. They shouldn’t have to know.” For while the pressure on India is clearly immense and, at times, unbearable – “I’ve had moments where I feel like I’m failing as a parent, you have breakdowns, are in tears” – her only real concern is for her children, and the impact on them of living in poverty.

“I worry about it affecting not just their physical, but their mental health,” she says. She worries that being unable to afford anything extracurricular – “they would love to do swimming lessons” – means they “can’t experience those things that could help them later in life.”Like Jolene, India would love to work, but childcare costs would leave her in even deeper poverty.

Niña from London, now 19 and a youth ambassador for the End Child Poverty Coalition, whose family was pushed into homelessness by hardship, talks about the impact it had on her.

“It was really traumatising,” she says, becoming emotional. “I’m [still] always scared of losing my house, my home.” Growing up, Niña’s own long-term goals “had to take a back seat”. But she says: “It held me back socially more than anything”.

Fellow ambassador Sophie, 21, who grew up in a single-parent family in the northeast, recognises this pressure. “I couldn’t concentrate at school because I was worrying about my sisters and stuff [at home],” she says. “Like realising when I got older that my mam might be skipping meals.”

Now studying at university – due to sheer force of will and graft – Sophie has to work twice as hard as her peers just to keep her head above water. Whether it’s working “three or four jobs in the holidays” or finding (and paying) for a guarantor so she is able to rent a house without a home-owning parent. “I sometimes wonder why I’m doing it when it’s so hard,” Sophie says. “The worry never leaves you, the anxiety.”

All eyes then are on the government, the party of social and economic equality, to give children the same opportunity to thrive, to learn, to live. Their child poverty strategy is the only real chance to begin fixing this most urgent national crisis, one in which we’ve currently abandoned our poorest and most vulnerable children.

“Unless we see significant action on child poverty, the UK risks becoming an international outlier among richer countries in how badly it treats children living on a low income,” says Ruth Patrick. “The future of this nation and its children depend on it.”

Celebrity Big Brother: Mickey Rourke kicked off series

Celebrity Big Brother is officially back – and in the past week we’ve seen a new selection of famous (and not-so-famous) faces live together in the reality show house.

Controversial contestant Mickey Rourke, 72, has been the cause of significant controversy after he was issued a formal warning by Big Brother for making homophobic comments directed at 21-year-old Dance Moms star JoJo Siwa during Wednesday night’s episode (9 April).

On Saturday (12 April), it was revealed he had been kicked off the show by producers after an “unacceptable” run-in with Chris Hughes that will be shown in Sunday’s episode.

The controversy began with Rourke “ogled” the reality show’s co-host AJ Odudu upon his entrance, which had caused viewers to call for the actor to be axed from the series. One person wrote on X/Twitter: “He should be removed for this. It’s disturbing, particularly after how he was with AJ, too.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for the programme told The Independent: “All Housemates receive Respect and Inclusion training and an extensive briefing from the Big Brother Senior team to prepare them for living in the House and to set out Big Brother’s expectation for appropriate behaviour and language.

“Housemates are monitored 24 hours a day and instances of inappropriate behaviour are dealt with appropriately and timely.” Rourke’s representatives declined to comment.

While many thought Rourke would get the boot during Friday night’s eviction, former Tory MP Michael Fabricant was eliminated.

The series continues on Sunday at 9pm on ITV and ITVX.

The global event bringing fresh energy to planet-positive solutions

As we navigate significant environmental and social challenges, the return of ChangeNOW, the world’s biggest expo of solutions for the planet, is much needed to reinvigorate climate action. The 2025 edition, which will take place from April 24th to 26th, will host 140 countries, 40,000 attendees, 10,000 companies and 1,200 investors.

Visionary leaders, established businesses and start-ups alike will gather to showcase over 1,000 sustainable solutions and groundbreaking innovations in key sectors such as clean energy, biodiversity, sustainable cities and the circular economy.

The ChangeNOW 2025 summit will be held at the iconic Grand Palais in Paris, a nod to the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement. Reuniting for the occasion will be guest speakers Mary Robinson, the former (and first female) president of Ireland, Laurent Fabius, former French prime minister, Patricia Espinosa, former UN climate chief and diplomat and Diána Ürge-Vorsatz, leading climate scientist and professor – all of whom were in the French capital a decade earlier to help shape the Paris Agreement at COP21.

There may have been obvious setbacks to environmental policy around the world of late, the United States’ recent withdrawal from the Paris Agreement being a notable one. However ChangeNOW 2025 intends to reaffirm the spirit of Paris, while serving as a catalyst for progress ahead of COP30 and the United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC). “Ten years after COP21, ChangeNOW is where leaders and changemakers converge to accelerate the ecological and social transition,” states Santiago Lefebvre, founder and president of ChangeNOW. “Thousands of solutions will be showcased demonstrating that meaningful progress is within reach.”

His message of positive climate action will be supported by a multitude of world famous faces who will be in attendance at the auspicious event. Natalie Portman, Academy award-winning actress, director, author, activist, and producer; Captain Paul Watson, Founder of Sea Shepherd and Ocean Conservationist; Hannah Jones, CEO of The Earthshot Prize and Olympic champion boxer and gender equality advocate Imane Khelif are just a few of the names set to appear at ChangeNOW 2025.

With over 500 speakers and 250 conference sessions exploring climate action, biodiversity protection, resource management, and social inclusion, ChangeNOW 2025 will also hear the insights of acclaimed corporate leaders from Accor, Bouygues, Henkel, Lidl, Nexans, and Saint-Gobain, who will explain how businesses can be the ones to drive real change.

And the event will not only be an opportunity for global policymakers to discuss next steps in climate action, it will also be a platform for nations to showcase local innovations through their country pavilions. Expect impactful solutions from countries including South Africa, The Netherlands, and Ukraine – demonstrating international collaboration on the topic of climate.

In addition to the packed program of speakers, workshops, exhibits and networking opportunities, ChangeNOW 2025 will host the Impact Job Fair on Saturday, 26 April, with over 150 recruiters and training organisations offering in excess of 600 roles. Dedicated to the public and young professionals, the interactive workshops, educational activities, and career opportunities in sustainable sectors on offer aim to inspire the next generation of changemakers.

The summit will also present the annual Women for Change conference and the accompanying portrait exhibition, which showcases 25 women who are set to have a significant positive impact on their communities, countries or on a global scale over the next 10 years. Created in 2021, the Women for Change initiative aims to platform and provide opportunities for women who are leading change around the world but require further recognition or investment to continue their work. The annual flagship event, which takes place on the afternoon of April 24th, offers women the chance to discuss new ideas, network with likeminded people, and also acquire funding to help solidify their leadership, and amplify their impact.

Step outside the Grand Palais and take a few steps to the Port des Champs Elysées, on the bank of the Seine, where the The Water Odyssey village awaits. One of the event’s standout features, the immersive 1,000 m² exhibition is open to the public and highlights solutions to maritime and river sustainability challenges – offering a mix of conferences, interactive displays, and sensory experiences to engage all ages.

For three days, ChangeNOW will transform Paris into the global capital of impact, bringing together policymakers, entrepreneurs, investors, and the public in the pursuit of sustainable progress.

Book your ChangeNOW 2025 ticket here

Has the government given up on the grooming gang inquiries?

There is confusion about the government’s attitude to the local inquiries into the notorious activities of grooming gangs that sexually abused girls over many years. Many of the cases have involved men of Pakistani origin or heritage, with the victims young white girls.

Often the crimes took place in towns in the north of England, though there were also notable examples in Telford and Oxford. Because of the extreme and sadistic sexual violence employed by these groups, they are also described as “rape gangs”.

The matter has for a long time been fiercely controversial, with allegations that the authorities ignored the plight of the victims, and that the police, social workers and politicians were complicit. In recent days, the government has been accused of dropping the local inquiries that were promised by the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, in January. Some people are outraged; others are asking for a national inquiry…

It seems not, but it certainly allowed that impression to be formed. Under intense attack from the opposition and persistent questioning by the media, Cooper has insisted that the local inquiries into grooming gangs in five towns are still going ahead.

A number of factors. Earlier this month, the lawyer charged with helping set up the local inquiries, Tom Crowther KC (who chaired the 2022 inquiry into the Telford gangs), told a Commons select committee that he had been given little information about the role, and had needed to ask a civil servant “Do you still want me?”

It didn’t help that only one location out of the five – Oldham – was identified in January, and that none have been earmarked since for the “rapid” review, suggesting a certain lack of urgency. Seizing on the issue, the shadow Home Office minister, Katie Lam, demanded answers.

Unfortunately, when the safeguarding minister, Jess Phillips, made her “update” statement to the Commons, she didn’t say much about the local inquiries, and just confirmed that the £5m was still available. She also made her statement on the final day of the parliamentary session before the Easter recess, which made critics suspicious that the government was trying to sneak bad news out.

What Phillips said on 8 April was: “We will set out the process through which local authorities can access the £5m national fund to support locally led work on grooming gangs. Following feedback from local authorities, the fund will adopt a flexible approach to support both full independent local inquiries and more bespoke work, including local victims’ panels or locally led audits into the handling of historic cases.”

It gave the strong impression that the government was trying to downplay the local inquiries for political purposes. Trevor Philips, former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, put the charge against ministers forcefully, saying that they were reluctant to push ahead “because of the demographic of people involved… largely Pakistani Muslim background, and also in Labour-held seats and councils who would be offended by it”.

Aside from denying that they are being complacent, ministers have put forward a case that is rather bureaucratic, and comes late in the day, when the misunderstandings have (arguably) gained traction. They say they are awaiting a different inquiry, that being an audit by Louise Casey, the former victims’ commissioner. This is due next month and will “uncover the true scale of grooming gangs in the UK today, including looking at ethnicity”, according to the Home Office.

Once again, it’s not that clear. Some councils, such as Bradford, have rejected any further inquiries anyway. Keir Starmer, on the other hand, has opened up the possibility of funding for more than five local inquiries. But he and his colleagues say their emphasis is on implementing the recommendations made by previous inquiries – for example, creating a new criminal offence of obstructing an individual from making a report; making reporting of child abuse mandatory; and making “grooming” an aggravating factor in sentencing for rape.

We’ve had one lengthy one already – set up by Theresa May, and chaired by Alexis Jay – which reported in 2022. There have also been trials, along with various local investigations, such as in Derby, Rotherham and Telford, and considerable media interest (indeed, The Times broke the scandal in 2011).

The problem is that the Jay inquiry was national but very broad indeed, taking in so-called VIP abuse as well, while the local investigations have been piecemeal and lacked authority. Even if another five, or more, local inquiries took place, there would be areas left uncovered.

A more powerful argument is that the survivors and victims’ families want an investigation, and that they won’t feel that justice has fully been done and the truth made known unless an inquiry takes place that carries full judicial powers.

Grooming – and the sexual abuse of children in a broader sense – has never been confined to men of Pakistani heritage, but as a specific phenomenon, the gangs have aroused intense interest and debate. The topic is also being exploited, obviously, by racists and Islamophobes.

The clamour for a further national inquiry will not die down, and it feels inevitable that one will need to take place in order to restore some truth and perspective to the discussion. Meanwhile, in the local elections, the Conservatives and Reform are making the most of it.

Time to build a better future – Brick by Brick

The Independent is proud to be able to thank its generous readers and partner organisations for the completion of a new bespoke safe haven for women and their families fleeing domestic abuse.

Our Brick by Brick campaign, launched last September in partnership with the charity Refuge, asked for a £15 contribution per nominal brick for the buildings – and there was an immediate and enthusiastic response to the appeal. Construction of the first purpose-built house has now been completed, with a second to follow soon.

As soon as Refuge’s all-female team of decorators have finished up, the first residents will be welcomed into their secure and safe new home. Of necessity, the location of the properties remains confidential, which will lend additional comfort to those who have been subjected to horrific mental and physical torture.

In particular, Refuge, the Persimmon housebuilding company and its charitable trust have devoted enormous effort and care to the design of these new homes – with flexibility in the accommodation for children and appropriate security measures. Especially thoughtfully, pets are also allowed. These will be places of kindness as well as safety.

In the words of The Independent’s editor-in-chief, Geordie Greig: “This is a monumental achievement, and I’m immensely proud of the role our readers and supporters have played in building this house – Brick by Brick.”

Many politicians, royalty and celebrities have put their status to good use by lending their names to our Brick by Brick campaign, including The Queen, Sir Keir Starmer, Dame Helen Mirren, Dame Joanna Lumley, Olivia Colman, Victoria Derbyshire, Andi Oliver, David Morrissey and Sir Patrick Stewart.

Despite the near ubiquity of domestic abuse, which takes many forms, it rarely dominates the news headlines – another reason why The Independent has backed this effort. It is so much more than an exercise in “raising awareness” – a phrase that is often used but rarely matches up to the challenge of the problem.

As so much domestic violence goes on behind closed doors, police and social services never get to hear of it – but the best estimates of the incidence of this type of violence and its effects are sobering.

Last month, it was revealed that between April 2023 and March 2024, 98 victims of domestic abuse took their own lives – on top of the 80 who were killed by a current or former partner, and the 39 killed by a family member. Coupled with the 354 suspected deaths by suicide following domestic abuse since 2020, that brings the total number of domestic abuse-related deaths this decade to 1,012, according to the government-funded Domestic Homicide Project. There will be many hundreds of thousands more similar cases that have gone unrecorded, if not millions.

One reason for these types of crimes – which are often described as an “epidemic”, and one with a long and often hidden history – is that it is just so difficult for women and children to get away from an abusive man quickly and safely. Without a refuge, they can become trapped in barbaric, controlling relationships.

Shelters such as those provided by Brick by Brick will go a long way to remedying that. From a safe home, damaged people can begin to repair themselves, and their lives. They can also more readily seek what help they can from the authorities, as well as legal advice that will secure them justice. Such things are also crucial in rebuilding lives.

More needs to be done, which is undoubtedly more difficult at a time when there is less money around. The social services departments of local authorities have suffered successive waves of austerity, as have police forces. Yet they are there to save lives and prevent injury, and there can be few better uses for taxpayers’ money. More purpose-built refuges would also be a fine investment, saving on temporary accommodation and trying to fix problems when it is far too late to stop the harm. The children, after all, carry the physical and mental scars for the rest of their lives.

In its election manifesto, the Labour Party tried to build on the pioneering work in this field done by generations of campaigners and some politicians who cared enough to make a difference, notably Theresa May, whose government passed laws on disclosure and “controlling coercive behaviour”.

Mercifully, even in these polarised times, this is not a partisan matter. Labour, in its turn, promised to “introduce domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms so that victims can talk directly to a specialist, and ensure there is a legal advocate in every police force area to advise victims from the moment of report to trial”.

The party also promised to halve abuse against women and girls (much of it in the home) within a decade. Disconcertingly, the home secretary Yvette Cooper last November had to concede that she didn’t know how to measure “overall violence” against women and girls, nor “how you look at domestic abuse”. Of course, if any government sets a target (even one that may exceed its own lifespan), it needs to be able to quantify its success, but that should be no excuse for not getting on with the job and maintaining that momentum.

The creation of more safe refuges could be transformative in this effort, and it is something that should take its place in the ambitious housebuilding programme being overseen by the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner.

There are women at the top of government who understand the problem of domestic abuse, are committed to improving the situation of women and girls and have the power and responsibility to do something about it. They should build a better future, brick by brick.