House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I remind colleagues that a deferred Division will take place today on the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020. I have approved new arrangements for deferred Divisions to help ensure the safety of Members and staff. The deferred Division will take place in the Members’ Library between 11.30 am and 3.30 pm. Members will cast their votes by placing the completed Division slip in one of the ballot boxes provided. Guidance on the new arrangements has been sent to all Members. The result will be announced in the Chamber as soon as possible after 3.30 pm.
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
We have introduced an unprecedented package of support for businesses to get through this incredibly challenging period. More than £10 billion of grants has been paid and over 830,000 businesses of all sizes have been able to access more than £34 billion of finance through our loan scheme. As of 7 June, the self-employed income support scheme has paid out on 2.6 million applications worth £7.5 billion. Of these, 701,000 claims were from women, totalling £1.609 billion.
Theresa Villiers
Can the Minister provide any extra help for new mothers whose periods of maternity leave mean either that they are not entitled to help under the self-employment support scheme or that their entitlement is significantly reduced?
Paul Scully
The Government clearly understand the challenges for the self-employed, in particular, arising from the arrival of a new baby or adoption. We are working on additional guidance for individuals who took a break from work to care for a newborn or a newly adopted child, and for whom no income tax self-assessment tax return was submitted.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
We are taking the findings of PHE’s report, “COVID-19: review of disparities in risks and outcomes”, which was published on 2 June, very seriously. The next steps are to fill the gaps in the report, which necessarily had some limitations. The Race Disparity Unit and the Department for Health and Social Care are working with me to do this. This vital work will help us to take appropriate, evidence-based action to address the disparities highlighted.
Ruth Cadbury
Given the delays between publishing the report and publishing the recommendations, and the likely delay now in implementing those recommendations, how do the Government propose to rebuild trust and confidence in their actions with black and minority ethnic groups and individuals?
Kemi Badenoch
I believe the hon. Lady is conflating two different reports. There was no delay in publishing the first report, which did not have recommendations. The second report was published by PHE only yesterday, and many of the recommendations are already in train. I refer her to the written ministerial statement that I laid yesterday, which should hopefully provide additional clarity on that.
Dr Mullan
I begin by paying tribute to the very many BAME staff I have worked alongside in the NHS, including in recent months. They are an absolutely vital part of the NHS team. That is why it is really important that we get this review right. It is crucial that we get the necessary expert advice to help us to do that. What steps is the Minister taking to get that expertise to support the work she is undertaking?
Kemi Badenoch
I agree with my hon. Friend. We are determined to proceed with this in an evidence-led way, and we will be engaging with experts in the field. On Friday, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), and I held a virtual roundtable on these issues with a number of public health consultants and leading academics in this field, including Professor Michael Marmot. I am very grateful for their input. We intend to continue in this spirit by engaging with other experts such as the Office for National Statistics.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab) [V]
Professor Fenton’s report, finally published yesterday, highlights yet more evidence that socioeconomic inequalities, racism and discrimination are root causes of BAME communities being disproportionately harmed by covid-19, and that these injustices were already known and have already cost lives. The Government’s denial and delay further compound despair at their lack of care and concern. The seven practical recommendations that the Government should have acted on much sooner include risk-assessing our black and minority ethnic workers on the frontline. Black lives matter is more than just a slogan. So what immediate and decisive action will the Minister take now to develop and deliver culturally competent occupational risk assessment tools?
Kemi Badenoch
I refer again to the ministerial statement that was laid yesterday, which covers this. The Government did not delay publishing any report, and the recommendations that were published, on which most of the actions are already in train, can be seen on the gov.uk website.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Government are committed to helping all employees during this challenging time. The coronavirus job retention scheme is an unprecedented scheme to protect employment, and it has supported more than 9 million jobs. As always, equalities legislation requires that employers must not discriminate based on gender, or pregnancy and maternity, in the workplace.
Laura Farris
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that women are 47% more likely to have permanently lost their jobs since the start of the crisis and 15% more likely to have been furloughed. We know that social distancing has severely impacted hospitality, leisure and retail, where women are disproportionately employed in customer-facing roles. What steps can my hon. Friend take to ensure that women do not emerge as the accidental casualties of the crisis?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and, in particular, for highlighting the situation with regard to the hospitality and leisure sector. I speak to many of the people in that sector on a daily basis. We are actively monitoring the impact of covid-19 on the labour market, but it is too early to draw any firm conclusions. Equality legislation requires that employers must not discriminate based on gender, and this law continues to apply.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) [V]
As with any other economic downturn, it is women who are at risk of being worst hit by the economic consequences of coronavirus. As childcare responsibilities overwhelmingly fall on women, the closure of schools and childcare facilities could mean that many women are forced to leave work or to reduce their hours as the furlough scheme is wound up. The U-turn yesterday on free school meals is welcome and will help many families, but what will the Minister do to ensure that women are able to return to work in a flexible way in order to balance childcare commitments and not lose out financially, particularly as schools are not yet fully open?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. It is important that we manage to supply childcare. That is why women should be able to go to their local authority. They may not get their first choice of childcare provisions, but their local authority will be able to guide them. None the less, it remains the case that there should be flexible working: if people can work from home, they should be able to work from home, and employers need to be mindful of that.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
The Government’s Rose review into female entrepreneurship found that £250 billion of new value could be added to the UK economy if women started and scaled businesses at the same rate as men. We must take the opportunity, as we recover from the covid crisis, to help make this happen.
Craig Tracey
I recently highlighted to my right hon. Friend that very point about the £250 billion, and, as part of that solution, I have been working to try to deliver a set of women’s business hubs across the UK, which I know the British Library is also working on. What other steps can she take to ensure that part of the covid recovery benefits women across the UK and encourages more female entrepreneurs?
Elizabeth Truss
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work for the all-party group on women and enterprise. He is absolutely right: we need to make sure that, as part of our levelling-up agenda, this is a cross-UK phenomenon. We have growth hubs across the country. We are also working on mentoring schemes and on trying to ensure that investment is available right through the UK to help those start-up businesses get going.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has shown real passion and commitment to female entrepreneurship, which will be absolutely crucial as we seek to recover from covid. Unfortunately, those same women will not be able to start up their own businesses or to be assisted to go back into the wider workforce unless they can have reliable, accessible, available childcare. What specific discussions is she having across Government to ensure that that childcare is available? We recognise that there are challenges around social distancing and the hours that schools can operate, but will she please enlighten us on what she is doing?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the vital importance of childcare. We also need to ensure that the flexible working practices that have developed during this covid crisis are available to both women and men following the crisis. We are making sure that educational settings are open as soon as possible. More than 90% of nursery schools and colleges were open on 4 June, and I am working very closely with the Secretary of State for Education and his Ministers to ensure that we reform childcare and make more places available.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
No one should face discrimination. Individual Departments and their Ministers must take account of the equality impact of their policies, and I can assure the House that my ministerial colleagues take this very seriously. Across the whole of Government, we have already taken significant steps to tackle the sorts of concerns raised by the Black Lives Matter movement, including continuing to act on the Lammy report, working to improve trust between citizens and police forces and ensuring that record numbers of ethnic minority people continue to go to university.
Owen Thompson
Over the past two weeks, we have heard members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, repeat that black lives matter, yet their policies fail to reflect that. The Unity Project’s report presented the Home Office with evidence that the “no recourse to public funds” policy discriminates against black British children and leaves them growing up in poverty. What steps can the Minister take to protect black, Asian and minority ethnic groups, and black people in particular, against further discrimination to ensure that the UK Government’s words are matched by their actions?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The issue of no recourse to public funds has been raised multiple times, and the Government are doing many things to tackle situations in which people who may not necessarily have been able to access public funds are able to do so. For example, the Government are ensuring that anyone who needs NHS treatment is not being charged, and programmes such as the coronavirus job retention scheme are available to people who have no recourse to public funds.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I wonder whether the Minister agrees that some racism is down to unconscious bias, and helping people to recognise and address their own bias could make a real difference. If she agrees, will she welcome the creation of the all-party parliamentary group on unconscious bias? It will conduct several investigations, starting with racial bias, so will she commit to working alongside us and to consider any recommendations with an open mind?
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, I think that that is something that I can definitely agree to.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
Conversion therapy is a vile, abhorrent practice that we want to stop. We have commissioned research to look at the scope of the practice in the UK, and we will publish our plans shortly after we receive that research.
Christian Wakeford
I thank the Minister for her words on this abhorrent practice. Will she consider taking specific steps to protect under-18s from conversion therapy?
Elizabeth Truss
I am particularly concerned about under-18s being coerced into so-called conversion therapies, and that is one of the specific points that we will address when we launch our plans shortly.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Government take the public sector equality duty into account when developing, implementing and reviewing all policies, including the response to the covid-19 pandemic. We are gathering and developing evidence for the equalities impact of covid-19, which will be used to support and influence planning for the economic recovery.
Alexander Stafford
Flexibility of working is important for both men and women, so will my hon. Friend tell me whether the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has plans to make flexibility the default, rather than an option?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising flexible working. The Government have been clear about the benefits of flexible working for employers and their employees. The manifesto we stood on talked about an employment Bill, which we will bring forward when possible, to make flexible working the default. We look forward to introducing those measures, subject to consultation.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We remain committed to ensuring that the benefit system is effective and positive in supporting disabled people. That includes several measures, such as suspending face-to-face assessments, extending personal independence payment awards where necessary, and increasing the universal credit standard allowance and local housing allowance rates.
Debbie Abrahams [V]
We know that people with existing health conditions are more likely to become seriously ill with or succumb to covid-19 than the population as a whole. For example, more than one in four of all people who have died of covid in hospital in England also had diabetes. What assessment have the Government undertaken of the proportion of people with health conditions in receipt of social security support who have also died of covid?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising an important issue. The Department for Work and Pensions looks to identify and learn lessons swiftly. The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon is engaging extensively and holding conversations with charities and stakeholders on exactly these kinds of issues so that we can understand the impact on the most vulnerable.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
We want LGBT people across the world to be free to live their lives without discrimination or persecution. I am working closely on that with the Foreign Secretary and, as we launch trade negotiations with Australia today, I am delighted to have worked with high commissioner George Brandis, who played a leading role in Australia’s legalisation of same-sex marriage. We will continue to work with close allies to lead the world on this issue.
Peter Gibson
In the month of Pride, being celebrated around the world, and looking forward to the rescheduled global LGBT conference being hosted here under the chairmanship of the right hon. Nick Herbert, does the Minister agree that it is essential for us to deliver on our 2018 LGBT action plan in order to preserve our place as a co-chair of the global Equal Rights Coalition?
Elizabeth Truss
I take this opportunity to wish everybody the very best for a happy Pride. I am sure that we will be doing a lot of things virtually rather than on the streets, but it is very important that we celebrate, and I am delighted that we are hosting the LGBT conference on the theme of “Safe to be me”. In response to my hon. Friend’s question, we will be updating our plans for LGBT rights for 2020 and we want to continue to lead the world on this issue.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
All NHS organisations continue to make appropriate arrangements to support their ethnic minority staff, and NHS human resources directors are considering a range of mitigating actions, including redeploying staff to alternative roles, stringent testing procedures, equity of personal protective equipment provision and training, and improved occupational health support. For those in other key roles, Government have issued safer workplace guidance, which emphasises the need for employers to carry out risk assessments, to engage with their representatives and to take account of equality impacts.
Kate Griffiths [V]
In my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter, we have sadly lost a number of dedicated frontline workers from the black, Asian and minority ethnic community. My constituents are understandably worried, and I have raised concerns previously in the House about how we can protect those in at-risk groups who work on the frontline. Public Health England’s recent stakeholder engagement work contains a number of recommendations. Can the Minister give an outline of Government’s progress on them?
Kemi Badenoch
Many stakeholder recommendations are already in progress, as my hon. Friend states, and as part of existing Government work, we are collecting better data on ethnicity—that was one of the recommendations. We agree that that is imperative and we are working to overcome technical barriers. NHS employers have published some excellent frameworks and occupational risk assessment tools, which can be used now; the race disparity unit is working on communication with covid teams across Departments; and I have said that further research to fill the gaps in PHE’s review is one of my immediate priorities.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Government are committed to supporting disabled people through the covid-19 outbreak and beyond. We continue to monitor its impact on disabled people and those with a health condition, using existing and new data sources to improve our understanding.
Emma Hardy
Many people with disabilities and parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities have contacted me, feeling very fearful that they will face abuse for not wearing a face covering on public transport. Labour supports the use of face coverings, but the Government’s messaging needs to be very clear. Will they ensure that their public advertising campaign includes and explains the exemptions and look at supporting local charities that are trying to address that?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this point. We need to recognise that some people with disabilities face particular difficulty when it comes to social distancing and are impacted on by the reaction of others due to their inability to socially distance—I understand, particularly, the situation for young children. I reassure her that the Department for Transport has revised transport guidance for travellers and operators and considers the details needed for disabled travellers. I hope that that reassures her.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
To ease the burdens on businesses due to coronavirus, we suspended enforcement of the gender pay gap reporting in March. Despite that, more than 5,500 companies have reported to date, and employers continue to do so.
Mary Kelly Foy
Gender pay gap reporting was removed in March, yet even then, just two weeks before the deadline, only around half the businesses expected to report had done so. This cannot become a lost year for narrowing the gender pay gap. Eliminating pay inequality, especially for those women in low-paid, insecure work, must be at the heart of the recovery. Will the Minister tell me exactly when gender pay gap reporting will be restored and how the information will be used as part of the coronavirus recovery?
Elizabeth Truss
We are in a serious economic situation due to covid-19, and my priority, as the Minister for Women and Equalities, is to make sure that women stay in employment where possible and are able to get jobs where possible. That is where I am putting all my efforts.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
As we recover from the covid-19 pandemic, the Government will ensure that everyone has the opportunity to succeed, which is why the Prime Minister announced that we are setting up a new commission on race and ethnic disparities, and why we will be hosting an international LGBT conference once international travel allows. We will work to support businesses to maintain some of the positive changes we have seen, such as greater flexible working, which benefits women, men and their families.
Neil Gray [V]
In the light of that answer, I refer the Minister to the latest report by the Social Mobility Commission, which highlights that in the past seven years there was little or no action by successive Governments on a third of its recommendations, including on ensuring that child poverty is not exacerbated by universal credit, which received the lowest, red rating, based on evidence showing that 72% of children living in poverty live in households where at least one adult is in work and that black, Asian and minority ethnic children are more likely to be in poverty. Given the total lack of leadership by the Minister’s UK Government, as highlighted by the report, will she take ownership so that her Government can finally step up and ensure that that report, and the millions of children in poverty, are not ignored?
Elizabeth Truss
The most vital tool in social mobility is education, which is why we are absolutely determined to get children back to school and to support children who are not in school through virtual lessons. I encourage the Scottish Government to follow the leadership that we are showing.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and touches on why the Government have set up the commission: to understand why disparities exist, what works and what does not, and to present recommendations for action across Government and other public bodies. It should report by the end of the year.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab) [V]
The Government ran a consultation on ethnicity pay reporting that closed back in January 2019. Nearly 18 months on, the Government have failed to publish a response to the consultation and have said twice in replies to written questions on the issue that something will be published “in due course”. That is not good enough. Mandatory pay gap reporting will be one small but significant step towards addressing pay equality, so when will the Government finally publish their response to the consultation and take urgent action to introduce mandatory pay gap reporting?
Kemi Badenoch
Pay gaps are caused by a range of factors. The hon. Lady is right that we ran a consultation on this issue in late 2018; I will write to her to provide her with an update.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was a disgrace that that was being used as a defence in criminal cases of murder. I pay tribute to Members from all parties who have run an effective campaign and congratulate the Ministry of Justice on taking action on the issue.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the Disclosure and Barring Service.
Elizabeth Truss
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the Disclosure and Barring Service. It is something we are looking at, but it is important that we look at this across the board, and that is why we have set up the commission.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital we get our children back into school. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is working very hard on this, and we are doing everything we can to make it happen.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and I shall have further such meetings later today.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The journey of Munira Mirza from the pages of the Srebrenica-denying Living Marxism and the Revolutionary Communist party into the heart of No. 10 has not gone unnoticed. On Monday, the Prime Minister appointed them to lead the commission—the Government’s commission—on racial inequality, and it was greeted with some disbelief, given their well-known views on the matter. So I wonder: can the Prime Minister tell us today, does he agree with Ms Mirza that previous inquiries have fostered a “culture of grievance” within minority communities?
The Prime Minister
I am a huge admirer of Dr Munira Mirza, who is a brilliant thinker about these issues. We are certainly going to proceed with a new cross-governmental commission to look at racism and discrimination. It will be a very thorough piece of work, looking at discrimination in health, in education and in the criminal justice system. I know that the House will say we have already had plenty of commissions and plenty of work, but it is clear from the Black Lives Matter march and all the representations we have had that more work needs to be done, and this Government are going to do it.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can tell her and the House that any incident of vandalism or attack on public property will be met with the full force of the law, and perpetrators will be prosecuted. I can also confirm that we are looking at new ways in which we may legislate against vandalism of war memorials.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Can I start by welcoming the announcement of a major breakthrough in the treatment of coronavirus by UK scientists? That is really fantastic news. We are all behind it and I pay tribute to all of those involved.
Can I also welcome the Prime Minister’s latest U-turn, this time on free school meals? That was the right thing to do and it is vital for the 1.3 million children who will benefit. It is just one step in the fight against child poverty.
A report last week from the Government’s Social Mobility Commission concluded that there are now
“600,000 more children…living in relative poverty”
than in 2012. The report went on to say:
“Child poverty rates are projected to increase to 5.2 million by 2022.”
What does the Prime Minister think caused that?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said about dexamethasone, and I am glad that he is finally paying tribute to the efforts of this country in tackling coronavirus. But I can tell him, on free school meals, that this Government are very proud that we set up universal free school meals. I am very pleased that we are going to be able to deliver a covid summer food package for some of the poorest families in this country and that is exactly the right thing to do. But I must say that I think he is completely wrong in what he says about poverty. Absolutely poverty and relative poverty have both declined under this Government and there are hundreds of thousands—I think 400,000—fewer families living in poverty now than there were in 2010.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says that poverty has not increased. I have just read a direct quote from a Government report, from a Government commission, produced last week, which says that it has gone up by 600,000. The Social Mobility Commission has a clear answer to my question:
“This anticipated rise is not driven by forces beyond our control”.
I gave the Prime Minister the number: 600,000. He did not reply. The report goes on to say, and this is a real cause for concern—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister is chuntering. He might want to listen. This is a real cause for concern because the commission goes on—[Interruption.] I am sure that the Prime Minister has read the report. On the increase to 5.2 million, it states that
“projections were made before the impact of COVID-19, which we expect to push more families into poverty.”
This is a serious issue. I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that an even higher child poverty rate would be an intolerable outcome from this pandemic. So what is he going to do to prevent it?
The Prime Minister
I have understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about what he calls an anticipated rise rather than a rise that has actually taken place. A new concept is being introduced into our deliberations. What we are talking about is what has actually happened, which is a reduction in poverty. I can tell him that of course we are concerned. The whole House will understand that of course this Government are deeply concerned about the impact of coronavirus on the UK economy. I think everybody with any fairness would acknowledge that this Government have invested massively in protecting the workforce of this country, with 11 million jobs protected by the coronavirus job retention scheme, unlike anything done anywhere else in the world, and £30 billion-worth of business loans. We intend to make sure that we minimise the impact of coronavirus on the poorest kids in this country. One of the best ways in which we could do that, by the way, would be to encourage all kids who can go back to school to go back to school now, because their schools are safe. Last week, I asked him whether he would say publicly that schools were safe to go back to. He hummed and hawed. Now is his time to say clearly that schools are safe to go back to. Mr Speaker: your witness.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister obviously has not got the first idea what the social mobility report, from a Government body, actually said last week. He talks to me about consistency and U-turns. The Government have had three U-turns in the last month. First, we had the immigration health charges; then we had MPs’ voting; and then we had free school meals. The only question now is whether U-turns at the Dispatch Box are before or after. Three U-turns. He argues about one brief one week and one the next; he is an expert in that.
This is not the only area where the Government are falling short. During the pandemic, local authorities have been working flat out on social care, homelessness, obtaining protective equipment for the frontline, and delivering food and essential supplies. On 26 March, the Communities Secretary told council leaders directly and in terms, in a letter to council leaders and in a speech:
“The Government stands ready to do whatever is necessary to support councils in their response to coronavirus”.
Does the Prime Minister believe that the Government have kept that promise?
The Prime Minister
We put £3.2 billion extra into local government to tackle coronavirus, but I must say that we did not hear an answer, did we Mr Speaker? How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman talk about tackling the effects of coronavirus on the most disadvantaged? It is the most disadvantaged kids who need to go back to school, and it is those groups who unfortunately are not going back to school. Let’s hear it from him one more time: will he say that schools are safe to go back to? Come on!
Keir Starmer
This is turning into Opposition questions. If the Prime Minister wants to swap places, I am very happy. I could do it now. The only bit of an answer he gave to the question I asked was about £3.2 billion—[Interruption.] It is a lot of money. The Conservative-led Local Government Association has said that councils will have a shortfall of £10 billion this year—[Interruption.] The Health Secretary heckles. The Conservative leader of Lancashire County Council wrote a letter to the Communities Secretary a month ago, on 7 May. He said that
“the overall financial impact on councils nationally and locally will be far in excess of the £3.2 billion provided to date”.
He went on to say that
“we…would like some assurance from you that all councils will be fully reimbursed for the costs of…covid-19”.
These are the Prime Minister’s own council leaders. He must have known about this problem for months. Why has he been so slow to act?
The Prime Minister
We have not, because in addition to the £3.2 billion, we have already put in another £1.6 billion to support councils delivering frontline services, plus—from memory—another £600 million to go into social care. I want to return to this point about poverty. We want to tackle deprivation in this country. I want kids to go back to school. The unions will not let the right hon. and learned Gentleman say the truth. A great ox has stood upon his tongue. Let him now say that schools are safe to go back to.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister just does not get how critical this is. I spoke with council leaders from across the country this week. The Prime Minister must know that they face a choice between cutting core services and facing bankruptcy under section 114 notices. Either outcome will harm local communities and mean that local services cannot reopen. That will drive up poverty, something the Prime Minister says he does not intend to do. Local councils have done everything asked of them in this crisis—the Government have not. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility and actually do something?
The Prime Minister
With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have outlined what we are doing to support local government, and I think this country can be very proud of the investments that we have made. It can be very proud of the incredible work that local government officials have done across this country, but I must say that there are some councils, particularly Labour councils, alas, that are not opening their schools now when they could be opening their schools. I say to him, for I hope the last time: now is the moment when he can say to those Labour councillors that it is safe for kids to go back to reception, to year 1, to year 6, to early years, as they can. Will he now say it?
Keir Starmer
Every week, the Prime Minister seems to complain that I ask him questions at Prime Minister’s questions. If he wants to swap places, so be it.
Finally, I want to return to the Prime Minister’s other recent U-turn, which was on the immigration health surcharge for NHS and care workers. Following Prime Minister’s questions on 20 May, the Government announced that they would drop that deeply unfair charge—that is nearly a month ago. Nothing has happened. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and Unison have all written to the Prime Minister, so he must know about this. One doctor was quoted on Monday as saying:
“My colleagues who have applied, even yesterday, one of them said he had to pay for himself, his wife and four kids so that is £6,000…The Home Office is…saying that…nothing has been implemented”.
These are people on the frontline. The Prime Minister said he would act. When is he going to do so?
The Prime Minister
I am genuinely grateful for an important question, because it is vital that people who are working on the frontline, and NHS workers in particular, get the support that they need. That is why I said what I said a few weeks ago. What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that NHS or care workers who have paid the surcharge since 21 May will be refunded, and we are getting on with instituting the new arrangements as fast as we possibly can.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I can tell my hon. Friend that it certainly will when we become once again an independent coastal state. I know how brilliantly she campaigns for fisheries in Grimsby and I urge her to engage with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make sure that the people of Grimsby can exploit the recapture of our spectacular natural marine wealth.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
Marcus Rashford has shown more moral leadership in tackling poverty in a matter of days than this Tory Government have in the past decade of cuts, but, as he says, people are struggling all year round and more needs to be done. This morning, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Save the Children published research showing that the ongoing health crisis is causing six in 10 families to borrow money, seven in 10 to cut back on essentials and over five in 10 to fall behind on rent and other essential bills. An extra £20 a week in social security support would prevent millions of families from having to make the choice between paying their bills or feeding their children. Will the Prime Minister now immediately uplift the child element of universal credit and child tax credit by £20 per week?
The Prime Minister
This is a Government who have done everything we possibly can so far to help families in need to make sure that nobody is penalised for doing the right thing during the crisis. I know how difficult it has been. That is why we uprated the universal credit by £1,044, benefiting, I think, 4 million families in this country. I say in all sincerity to the right hon. Gentleman that we are fully aware that there will be tough times ahead and we do stand by to do more where we can.
Ian Blackford
Twenty pounds a week—twenty pounds a week to help families with children. That is what we are asking for. We are talking about an extra £20 a week to stop families having to make the choice between paying their bills or feeding their children. That is the harsh reality, Prime Minister. This is a question of helping people survive. This Tory Government have seen a decade of austerity that has driven people into poverty, and they have scrapped child poverty targets. Rather than reversing their damaging policies that have pushed millions into poverty, the Prime Minister is more interested in finding money to spend on his own vanity project: a luxury VIP plane. Is he seriously saying that he will not find £20 a week to help families who are struggling to survive?
The Prime Minister
No, of course not. That is why we are investing massively in universal credit, employment and support allowance, and benefits across the board, to say nothing of the novel schemes we have introduced, such as the coronavirus job retention scheme, which is a model that I think the whole world is admiring. There is no other country that has put its arms around 11 million workers in the way that this Government have supported jobs and supported incomes across the whole of the UK. We are going to get this country through it, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman supports our measures.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I have studied my hon. Friend’s proposals with interest. He is an expert in what he speaks of and we will certainly look at all kinds of imaginative ways in which we can stimulate a strong rebound, a strong economic recovery. He should stand by for what the Chancellor is going to be announcing in the next few weeks.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Due to the covid crisis, tens of thousands of British businesses face bankruptcy and millions of British people face redundancy. In Britain’s hour of need, will the Prime Minister put the practical imperative of saving jobs before his Brexit ideology, rather than risk a bad deal or a no deal due to the deadline set before coronavirus? Why does the Prime Minister not show some good old-fashioned British common sense, give our economy the chance to breathe, and accept the EU’s offer of a delay?
The Prime Minister
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there is another way of looking at it. The first point is that the people of this country are heartily sick of us going on about Brexit. They wanted to get it done. We got it done and we are going to move forward. The other point is that when we come to the end of the transition period, we will be able to do things differently. We will be able to respond to our economic needs in a creative and constructive way, looking at regulation and looking at ways in which we support industries in a way that we have not been able to do before. That will be very productive for this country. Let us not delay that moment; let us get on with it.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed; it is absolutely crucial that we do that. There is a big catch-up plan that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is going to be announcing very shortly. It is vital that kids catch up on the education that they have lost, but even more vital, as I think I may have mentioned to the House already this morning, that the kids who can go to school should go to school. Would it not be a fine thing, Mr Speaker, if we heard from all parts of the House that schools are safe to go to, rather than the wibble-wobble we have heard from the Opposition this morning?
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, because we take the issue of the UK steel industry very seriously. We are doing everything we can to maintain UK steel production. Clearly it was always facing difficulties, even before corona struck. I will make sure that I look at the particular needs of the concern that she raises in Newport East. We will ensure that we do everything we can. I just remind her that we have supported 9,200 workers in her constituency through the furlough scheme.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have provided 100% business rate relief for all new fibre investment. I am very happy to join her in thanking telecommunications workers for their amazing work. Many of them have kept going throughout the pandemic to put in that broadband infrastructure. I thank them with her.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I certainly had no correspondence about the matter myself, nor as far as I am aware did any of my officials, but if there is anything to be said, I think the hon. Gentleman has written to the Cabinet Secretary, and I know that he will be writing back.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for the way he campaigns for business in Aylesbury. We will do what we can to flex the social distancing rules, but only as we make progress in driving the incidence of the virus down. I think everybody understands the tension that the whole country is operating under and the trade-off that we have to make. We must continue to defeat the virus. We will stick ruthlessly to our plan to continue with the opening of hospitality sectors on 4 July at the earliest and proceed on that basis.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
No. The furlough scheme should be available for everybody.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. We will be bringing forward legislation that focuses on protecting people who have been involved, whether victims or veterans alike, ensuring equal treatment in Northern Ireland for our veterans and also for those who have served overseas.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Of course they should be eligible for those, but as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly in the Chamber, those who have no recourse to public funds do have access to the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employment income support scheme, the measures that we have introduced to protect renters and the mortgage holiday for those who need it. When an individual has been working for long enough in the UK and enough national insurance contributions have been made, they may also be entitled to employment and support allowance. Although “no recourse to public funds” sounds as though it means just that, it is a term of art. There are many ways in which we support the poorest and neediest in this country. We are proud to do so, and we will continue to do so.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I welcome efforts by companies such as Facebook to make the internet a safer and less misleading place. I know my right hon. Friend will agree that we cannot leave online platforms to regulate themselves, so may I urge him to allow no further delay in bringing forward the Government’s response to the online harms White Paper consultation and legislation that will enable this country to play the global leadership role on this that it can and should play?
The Prime Minister
I know that my right hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue, and I remember the interest that he has taken in online harms. They are an evil. There is a real risk that, during the lockdown, terrible things have been going on behind closed doors and closed curtains in this country on the internet. We had a summit on the matter in No. 10 recently, and we are working at pace, as he knows, on new legislation against online harms.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I am concerned about the behaviour of some companies, and many colleagues in the House will have received similar representations from their constituents. I do not want to single anyone out, but it is important that companies recognise that the Government —the taxpayer—have gone to huge lengths to help and to put our arms around UK business. They should do what they can as well to look after their workers in very difficult times, because those workers will stand them in good stead when the economy turns up again.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, I have the incredible Chatterley Whitfield colliery. Once the beating heart of the industrial revolution, Chatterley is now, sadly, at risk of being lost. Will my right hon. Friend support me, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Historic England and the Friends of Chatterley Whitfield to protect and preserve this historic landmark by creating an industrial heritage park to stimulate tourism, create new green jobs and memorialise the history from the pits to the pots?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Friends of Chatterley Whitfield colliery on the ambition that he has just outlined for a heritage park. It is a proposal that he needs to work up in more detail and bring to the Government, and we will certainly look at it with interest.
Mr Speaker
Question 25 has been withdrawn by Amy Callaghan. I am sure all those in the House pass on our best wishes to her and are looking forward to her speedy recovery and return to the House.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree with me that as our country emerges from this crisis, we have an opportunity to be bold in putting innovation at the centre of our response, to support high-growth sectors such as green energy and FinTech, and also to use innovative financial solutions such as social impact bonds as a tool in delivering our levelling-up agenda?
The Prime Minister
Yes. My hon. Friend may not believe it, but when I was the Mayor of London we pioneered social impact bonds to tackle the most entrenched rough sleepers and to give value to companies and charities for their success in dealing with that terrible problem. I am proud to say that those social impact bond schemes are now being used in seven projects across the country to tackle rough sleeping. We have made huge progress in dealing with rough sleeping. The number of rough sleepers has been a scar on our consciences. It has got much, much better over the crisis, but we must make sure it does not recur.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Beef farmers in my constituency produce high-quality products in which consumers can have confidence because our farmers can demonstrate lifelong traceability of their cattle. Their efforts, however, are undermined by labelling legislation in this country, which allows beef from anywhere in the world to be labelled as British beef as long as it is packaged in this country. If the Prime Minister is serious about maintaining food standards, especially in light of any future trade arrangements, will he do something to close that loophole?
The Prime Minister
Yes. If what the right hon. Gentleman says is indeed the case—I am sure that he knows exactly whereof he speaks—I can only say that it must be one of those things that is currently governed by the laws of the EU, to which he is bound to return an independent Scotland, should that catastrophe ever arise. On this side of the House, we intend to take advantage of the freedoms that we have—the freedoms that the British people have decided to take back—to make sure that Scottish beef farmers have the protections that they need.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Coronavirus
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question) To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on coronavirus.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I am grateful for the chance to update the House on the urgent matter of coronavirus.
Yesterday’s treatment breakthrough shows that British science is among the best in the world. As a nation, we can be incredibly proud of our scientists. The UK is home to the best clinical trials, the most advanced immunology research, and the most promising vaccine development work of any country. We have backed the science from the start, and I am sure the whole House welcomes the life-saving breakthrough that was announced yesterday. Today, I will briefly update the House on all three aspects of that national scientific effort.
First, on clinical trials, our recovery programme, which looks at the effects of existing treatments in real-world hospital settings, is the largest of its kind. As of yesterday, 11,547 NHS patients had been recruited to the programme, which is operating across 176 sites in all four nations. In Oxford University’s dexamethasone trial, over 2,000 NHS covid patients were given a course of the drug—a commonly used steroid—over 10 days. For patients who were ill enough to require oxygen, the risk of dying fell by a fifth, and for the most seriously ill patients on mechanical ventilators, the risk of dying fell by over a third.
This is an important moment in the fight against this virus, and the first time that anyone in the world has clinically proven that a drug can improve the survival chances for the most seriously ill coronavirus patients. In February we began the trial, supported by £25 million of Government funding, and in March we began recruiting patients, and started the process of building a stockpile in case the trial was successful. As of today, we have 240,000 doses in stock, and on order. That means that treatment is immediately available, and already in use on the NHS. I am incredibly proud that this discovery has happened right here in Britain, through a collaboration between the Government, the NHS, and some of our top scientists. It is not by any means a cure, but it is the best news we have had.
Throughout this crisis, our actions have been guided by the science, and that is what good science looks like: randomised control trials; rigorous and painstaking research; moving at pace, yet getting it right. The result is that we now have objective proof—not anecdotes, but proof—that this drug saves lives, and that knowledge will benefit many thousands of people all around the world.
Seven other drugs are currently being trialled as part of the recovery process, and a further nine drugs are in live clinical trials as part of the ACCORD programme, which is looking at early-stage treatments. We look forward to seeing the results of those trials. I thank everyone involved in that process, and put on the record my thanks to our deputy chief medical officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, who led the work in Government, as well as to NHS clinicians, the scientific teams, and the participants in the trial who took the drug before they knew that it worked.
Our immunology research, again, is world leading. Last month I announced a new antibody testing programme to help us understand the immunological response to the disease, and whether someone acquires resistance to coronavirus once they have had it and recovered. I am part of that programme, and as of yesterday, 592,204 people have had an NHS antibody test. The nature of immunity research means that it takes time, and we must wait to see whether someone with antibodies gets reinfected. However, with every test, we improve our picture of where the virus has been, and we grow the evidence to discover whether people who have had the disease and have antibodies are at lower risk of getting or transmitting the virus again.
Crucially, that work will help to inform how we deploy a vaccine, and it is moving at pace. Earlier this week Imperial College began its first phase of human clinical trials, and 300 participants will receive doses of the vaccine. Should they develop a promising response, Imperial will move to a large phase-3 trial later this year. Yesterday, AstraZeneca signed a deal for the manufacture of the Oxford vaccine, AZD-1222, which is the world’s most advanced vaccine under development. Its progress, while never certain, is promising.
None of that happened by accident. It happened because the British Government, scientists, and the NHS put in place a large-scale, programmatic, comprehensive, well-funded, systematic, rigorous, science-led system of research and innovation. We have been working on it since the moment we first heard of coronavirus. There is more to do in this national effort, but that is how we will win the battle. We will leave no stone unturned as we search for the tools to hunt down, control, and ultimately defeat this dreadful disease.
Mr Speaker
May I just say to the Secretary of State that he has gone way over the allocated time? It would have been easier for him to make a statement rather than having to have an urgent question. In future, perhaps he could come forward with a statement if he needs the extra time, and I will certainly grant that and support him in doing so. Some extra time for Jonathan Ashworth as well, and for Philippa Whitford.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I welcome the news from the Secretary of State about Dexamethasone. As he said, this is an important moment and good news, and I congratulate all those involved. It is a reminder that we can be immensely proud of our science base in this country. I note what the Secretary of State said about vaccinations. A vaccine is crucial, and I hope he will join me—I am sure he will—in saying that when a vaccine is available, we must have no truck with those who spread poisonous anti-vax propaganda on social media. Vaccinations save lives, and ultimately that will be the exit strategy from this dreadful, horrific disease.
The good news is tempered by the high death rate. The Prime Minister likes to boast of flattening the sombrero, and it is certainly true that deaths from hospitalisations are coming down, but we still have 58,000 excess deaths across England and 13,000 in care homes; and 300 health and care staff have sadly lost their lives. All our NHS staff deserve great praise, so may I ask the Health Secretary about a specific matter that has emerged in the past couple of days? Why are student nurses who joined the frontline six months ago as part of the coronavirus effort now seeing their paid placement schemes terminated early, leaving them with no income? That is no way to treat student nursing staff.
This week, the World Health Organisation has warned that the UK remains in a “very active phase of the pandemic”.
The right hon. Gentleman will accept that if a second wave comes, especially if it coincides with flu season, that would be completely disastrous. Can he reassure the House that the decisions that he and the Prime Minister are making on easing lockdown measures, such as the mooted relaxation of the 2-metre rule and the opening of non-essential retail this week, will not precipitate a deadly second wave of the virus? Would he update us on the latest thinking on that by the Home Department? In the past, the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is prepared to institute local lockdowns, but local authorities continue to say that they do not have the resources or powers to enforce that. Can he update us on when he will give local authorities powers to enforce those lockdowns?
Yesterday, the Health Service Journal said that for people in the shielding group, shielding will come to an end at the end of July. We were promised a full update on shielding on 15 June, two days ago. Can the right hon. Gentleman update the House now on what is happening and what the future is for the shielding group with regards to getting their medicines and supplies and whether they will be able to leave their homes by the end of July?
We have always said that testing, tracing and isolating is crucial to the safe easing of the lockdown. On testing, local authorities say that they are still not getting the specific test data that they need. Indeed, the Deloitte contract, as confirmed in a written answer from the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, did not specify that it needed to report test results to GPs and local directors of public health. We need to fix that.
Why is the right hon. Gentleman still not publishing the number of people who have been tested, and can he explain something that is puzzling many of us? The tracing figures that he revealed—we are grateful for them—suggested that 8,000 people went into the contact tracing system in England, but in that week, the Government testing figures said that there were around 12,500 positive cases in the UK. Even if we can make an assumption about how many of those cases are in England, that still suggests that there are around 2,000, perhaps 3,000, cases not being traced and contacted. Can he explain why that is and what he is going to do to fix it?
Finally, we have now seen Public Health England recommendations on the impact of covid on those from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Those recommendations are welcome. Many of them, such as mandated ethnicity data collection and recordings on death certificates, should have been done years ago, but when will those recommendations be implemented? Black people are nearly four times as likely to die from covid as white people, and over 90% of doctors who have died during the pandemic were from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, so surely this is a matter of urgency. We cannot wait, and we need those recommendations to be implemented straight away.
Matt Hancock
I will try to answer as many of the questions as I can. First, I concur entirely that we should have no truck with anti-vaccination campaigners. The reason we are working so hard with full-blown clinical trials on these vaccines is to ensure that they are safe, and if they are declared scientifically safe, anyone who is recommended to have one should have one.
The hon. Gentleman made a case on student nurses. It is wrong to suggest that student nurses and midwives are being made redundant. All student nurses and midwives are required to complete placements during their training. As part of the response to covid-19, those hours have been paid and will be until the end of the summer. NHS England has been provided with the funding for student salaries as part of our response to covid-19. The chief nurse has taken that forward.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about local authorities getting data. We have provided more data to them, and we will continue to do more. He asked about the steps that will be taken in future on lifting the lockdown. As ever, we will move carefully and cautiously. Thankfully, all the main indexes—the main ways that we measure this disease—are moving in the right direction. We are winning the battle against this disease, but we will be careful and cautious in the next steps that we take.
We are working very closely with local authorities on local lockdowns. The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the point about powers, as he has before. I have powers under the Coronavirus Act 2020, passed by this Parliament. If powers are needed by local authorities, then there is a process to raise that requirement up through a command chain that leads to a gold command, which I chair, and then those powers can be executed on behalf of local authorities if they are needed.
The hon. Gentleman asked about shielding. We will bring forward the proposals for the next steps on shielding very shortly.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the positive cases that do not go into the NHS test and trace scheme. That is largely because they are in-patients in hospital, and therefore testing and tracing in the normal sense does not apply because we know exactly where the person is and who has been in contact with them as they have been in hospital, in a controlled environment. That is the case for the large majority of the gap.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
On that last point, 20% of the people with coronavirus in hospital are estimated to have caught the virus while in hospital. So when does the Health Secretary plan to introduce weekly testing of all frontline NHS and care home staff as a way of bridging the still very significant gap between the number of people we test and trace and the number of people getting the infection every week?
Matt Hancock
The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee makes an incredibly important point. The approach we are taking is a targeted one of repeat testing, which has started already but needs to spread much further. The reason is that some people in hospital settings are at higher risk, and it is better to focus the resources for repeat testing on those at higher risk. For instance, somebody working in finance might be at lower risk than somebody in a frontline setting. The NHS has a strategy on this, and I will write to him with further details of how that is going to work.
Mr Speaker
We are now heading to the SNP spokesperson, Dr Phillipa Whitford, with some extra time.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
I, too, welcome the positive outcome of the recovery trial showing the contribution of dexamethasone—a drug that is cheap and accessible across the world.
Despite claiming to be well prepared for this epidemic, the Secretary of State has struggled to provide sufficient personal protective equipment to NHS staff in England. He has now awarded £350 million of PPE contracts, but can he explain why £108 million of that was awarded, without being advertised, to Crisp Websites Ltd, which trades as PestFix, a small pest extermination company? Why was such a large contract awarded to a company with no expertise in trading or supplying any PPE, let alone highly specialised equipment for NHS staff? How do the Government think that such a small company, with only £18,000 of registered assets, can manage the cash flow required to procure £108 million-worth of PPE? Is this not just a reprise of the Seaborne Freight scandal—the ferry company with no ships?
Matt Hancock
No. We have enhanced, under the leadership of Lord Deighton, the supplies of PPE across the whole United Kingdom. I work very closely with the SNP Government on this matter. We have made sure that PPE is now available, in large part, across the whole NHS and social care workforce, and for all those others who need it. Demand for PPE rose exponentially across the world in this crisis. It was difficult for a time—there is no point denying that—but we have made huge strides in ensuring that we now have long-term contracts in place. I am really glad that the supply and distribution of PPE is much wider.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his science-led strategy, from which we are now reaping the dividends and which is genuinely saving lives. But the science also tells that as we reduce the propensity of the virus in the population, we can also reduce the social distancing that we applied. Businesses, residents and teachers across Arundel and South Downs are united in their appetite to move to 1 metre as quickly and as carefully as possible. Will he update us on that?
Matt Hancock
The answer is that we keep all of our non-pharmaceutical interventions—the social distancing measures—under review. The 2-metre rule is another social distancing measure in the same way that other parts of the lockdown have been. It is the sort of thing that, of course, we want to lift, but we need to do that in a way that is careful and safe. The scientists, along with the economists, are reviewing it, and we will take forward further measures on this when it is possible and safe to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as vice-chair of the all-party group on pancreatic cancer. My colleague the other vice-chair is the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), whom you referred to earlier on, Mr Speaker. After discussions with other Members, I am glad to hear that she is showing some improvement. Very clearly, Mr Speaker, that is an answer to our prayers.
The Secretary of State has been made aware of the concerns of the leading cancer charities, which say that it is estimated that 2.4 million people are waiting for cancer screening due to the delays caused, in part, by lockdown. Can he outline his intention to implement the 12-point recovery plan, which is backed by 24 cancer charities, including the one for pancreatic cancer?
Matt Hancock
I am incredibly grateful to the cancer charities for the work that they are doing, highlighting the importance of people coming forward for screening, which has been part of the problem, and making sure that we get the screening programmes back up and running in the full sense as quickly as possible.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, although we have reached the peak of the transmission later than other areas, the virus is in decline in the midlands, and my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent are safe to go out and shop and can do so as long as they follow social distancing guidelines?
Matt Hancock
Yes, that is right. In the midlands, as in other parts of the country, this virus is abating. The number of cases is coming down, which is good news. That means that we were able to relax some of the social distancing measures, for instance, on Monday, saying that it is perfectly safe for people to go and shop and that the shops can open so long as they do so in a covid-secure way. I am glad to say that the vast, vast majority of shops have been very careful about how they have reopened, making sure that that social distancing is in place, and therefore it is safe to shop in the west midlands and in the rest of the country.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
One in six people in the UK have hearing loss and rely on lip reading and facial expressions to communicate. The use of face coverings, while important for controlling the virus, is a real barrier for them and risks increasing misunderstanding, anxiety and isolation. That is particularly the case when they are used in hospitals. What is the Secretary of State doing to accelerate the development, testing, production and use of clear-panel face masks, including for clinical settings, and, more immediately, will he support a public awareness campaign on good communication tactics?
Matt Hancock
Yes, the hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that matter. It is a really important consideration. I have been talking to audiologists in the NHS about what we can do to try to make sure that we have the least negative impact as possible. Obviously, a face covering has an impact on people who are lip reading. It is an unfortunate but entirely natural consequence of wearing a face covering, and anything that we can do to mitigate that, I am up for doing.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
Remarkable consultants, doctors, nurses, support staff and domestic workers at Princess Alexandra Hospital in my constituency of Harlow have saved and nursed back to health more than 270 patients from this awful coronavirus. Will my right hon. Friend pay special tribute to the workers at Princess Alexandra Hospital and the management team and also confirm—because of the pressures on that hospital—that we will get our new hospital and a new site as soon as possible?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend is the greatest friend that there is to the Princess Alex Hospital in Harlow. He has campaigned on it absolutely rigorously—ruthlessly, too—since he was first elected. First, I pay tribute to all the frontline staff and support staff, who have worked so hard at the Princess Alex through this crisis, for their service. Secondly, I reconfirm that we will rebuild the Alex and make sure that it is a world-class hospital.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
One of the recommendations of the now fully published Public Health England report into the impact of covid-19 on the BAME community is that the Government should look to reduce health inequalities, and fast. This is something the Welsh Labour Government are taking seriously, with a comprehensive risk assessment of BAME workers devised by Professor Keshav Singhal being rolled out across the NHS in Wales. The risk assessment is simple to use, produces clear outcomes and will save lives. Can the Secretary of State outline exactly how and when a comprehensive risk assessment will be implemented in England to protect our BAME communities and prove that black lives really do matter?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady is right to raise this important issue. We are rolling out a risk assessment across England for all those with a higher risk of suffering from coronavirus, including BAME staff in the NHS in England, who do so much to keep the service on its feet.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]
The impact of coronavirus has been significantly greater in less affluent areas, such as Stoke-on-Trent Central, where one in four children have free school meals. Does my right hon. Friend agree that tackling the health inequalities in constituencies such as mine is essential if we are to make progress on the issue of inequality of opportunity?
Matt Hancock
I agree 100%. The need to level up is no greater than in health inequalities. The differences in life expectancy between different parts of our country is stark and has been laid bare further by this crisis. The crisis has been like sheet lightning that has laid a light on some of the health inequalities that were there before but which must with increased urgency be addressed. That is one of the big learnings from this crisis. It is something we all knew before but which we must redouble our efforts to resolve after this crisis is over.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Last Friday, it was confirmed that the UK was eligible to participate in a European scheme to place advanced orders for vaccines currently in development and to ensure priority access to any successful vaccine. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the potential merits of UK participation in such a scheme?
Matt Hancock
We are having such discussions—I have had conversations with my German, French and Italian counterparts on exactly this subject—but the most important thing is that we will not let those discussions get in the way of the much more advanced discussions we are having directly with the vaccine producers to make sure that even if the two great British vaccine hopes do not come off, or if one from somewhere else in the world comes off first, we have access to a vaccine for citizens across the UK.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
It is fantastic news for the whole country that Oxford University has successfully trialled a drug to reduce mortality rates by up to one third for covid patients on ventilation. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that will be made available soon so that the people of North Cornwall can benefit from it as part of the wider NHS?
Matt Hancock
I am delighted to say that, because we made the stockpile in advance, the treatment is already in place, as of yesterday afternoon, in Cornwall—in Treliske Hospital—and right across the country.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
Any reduction at all in social distancing inevitably carries a risk of increasing the spread of the disease, so can the Secretary of State give an assurance that before the Government announce any reduction, he will publish his assessment of the public health, transmission and infection implications of any such change?
Matt Hancock
I am legally obliged by the Act that governs this area of policy to undertake such a review before those changes are made.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The drug trial breakthrough is fantastic news and will save a huge number of lives, and it is great news that, as the Secretary of State said just now, the drug treatment is already available on the NHS. On the vaccination trials, it is great that Britain is leading the world, but this is a global problem. What steps are we taking to work with vaccination trials across the world so that we can get a vaccine as soon as possible?
Matt Hancock
That is a really important point. Not only do we contribute more to the global vaccination funding programme than any other country—and we hosted the GAVI summit, which raised over £8 billion for global vaccine research—but we are engaged with other countries on the two British vaccine candidates, particularly the Oxford one, because it is so much further advanced. It is the most advanced in the world and the soonest hope for a vaccine, should it come off—touch wood; none of these things is certain. We secured early doses here in the UK, and it was confirmed yesterday that these are being manufactured, with the contract agreed between AstraZeneca and the manufacturer. AstraZeneca is now engaging with countries across the world—in Europe, in the United States where a deal has already been signed, and elsewhere—to ensure that, if the vaccine works, it will be available globally.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
All of us who grew up in Wythenshawe are very proud of Marcus Rashford today. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Health Foundation that people facing the greatest deprivation have a higher rate of exposure to covid and more severe outcomes when they contract the virus? Wythenshawe residents are twice as likely to die as those in neighbouring areas.
Matt Hancock
Yes, I do agree. I pay tribute to Marcus Rashford. The way he has conducted himself in making his argument has been absolutely brilliant. I was reading Harry Potter to my son last night, and it was clearly still stuck in my mind at 7 o’clock this morning, when I started on the TV. We all make errors sometimes, and I apologise to Marcus for getting his name wrong on one occasion. I had no reason to make that mistake, but what really matters is his brilliant campaign and the volunteering that he has done throughout this crisis.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
It is great news that steroids can save some lives, and I pay tribute to those involved, but as the Secretary of State has said, many people will not get a treatment that works. He says that there are seven other treatments in tests, which presumably started at a similar time, using different groups and families of drugs with different impacts. When will we know the results of those?
Matt Hancock
As soon as possible. The trials will also look at whether, in combination with dexamethasone, which we now know is effective, these drugs save lives. The way the trials work is that we will keep the treatments in trial until we know, to a point of rigorous scientific proof, that they work. As soon as that point is reached, we will roll them out. That point was met on Monday; I was told on Monday night about this success. We had stockpiled in advance, so we could immediately make the announcement and make the change through the NHS. I do not have a date, because it is all driven by the science.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Government’s handling of coronavirus has been marked by complacency. Complacency led to NHS cuts and PPE stockpile shortages; complacency led to a delayed lockdown, the disaster in care homes and the neglect of test, track and trace. We have one of the highest death tolls in the worlds, and scientists say that tens of thousands of deaths could have been avoided. Will the Secretary of State end the complacency, put public health before private profit, and ease lockdown only when it is safe to do so?
Matt Hancock
We will of course ease lockdown only when it is safe to do so, but had the hon. Lady listened to my statement, she would know that the case I was making was that right at the start we put the science in place and started to stockpile. We gave scientists support and funding so they could deliver on the sort of research on which we have led the world and delivered ahead of anybody else.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Despite the virus being with us since January, it took until mid-April for the Government to issue guidance for routine testing to take place before discharge into care homes, and now, regardless of whether or not people have the virus, homes are still expected to take residents. Every week, I speak to distressed staff and heartbroken families. Over 16,000 people have died in our care homes. Does the Secretary of State accept any responsibility for that?
Matt Hancock
I accept responsibility for everything that happens across the health and social care piece. It is incredibly important to work with care homes, as we have, and to fund care homes, as we have, to put in place infection control. Of course, being in hospital is also not a safe place for people who do not need to be in hospital. The infection control procedures are now there in care homes, with the funding, and that has been the case since the start—since well before the date the hon. Lady mentioned. Although the challenge in care homes has been very significant, we have thankfully seen in this country a lower proportion of overall fatalities from this disease in our care homes than in those across the rest of Europe. That is a good thing, but that is not to say that there have not been significant challenges.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
What further examination of the potential use of co-trimoxazole has taken place, and when will we know the results?
Matt Hancock
Co-trimoxazole is another the prospect that we are looking at, but I am afraid that, as with my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), the timing has to be driven by the science. If we get success, when a result in which the clinicians have scientific confidence can be met, we will stick with the clinical trial methodology that leads to concrete results. Too many other places around the world have pulled clinical trials early because of promising results that have turned out not to be well founded.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
The Fawcett Society has completed an important report that addresses the mental health issues of women with disabilities during this pandemic. As chair of the all-party group on disability, I am particularly concerned that the report found anxiety and isolation in more than 50% of respondents. Will the Secretary of State increase funding to mental health providers, with a view to helping disabled people to access the specialist support that they so crucially need?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady asks an important question. We have been increasing funding to mental health services, which are an incredibly important part of the response. Our mental health services, certainly across England, the area for which I am responsible, have risen admirably to the extraordinary challenge presented by coronavirus and I pay tribute to their work.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I represent a number of aerospace manufacturing companies; the whole sector is currently very hard hit and is particularly worried about the impact of the 14-day quarantine. The Secretary of State will know far better than I, but is it not possible to do very simple temperature checks on people as they come into this country?
Matt Hancock
I have looked into that idea in great detail, and I am afraid that I am advised, and have been persuaded by that advice, that it will not work. It has been tried in other parts of the world and they have found that the number of false positives is very high, meaning that they end up quarantining more people. The number of false negatives is also very high, so such checks actually find very few of the people they are looking for. I am afraid it is not a recommendation that I feel I could make on the current evidence that I have seen.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Which are the countries in Europe that have a higher infection rate than us and from which we are protecting ourselves with the Secretary of State’s blanket quarantine policy?
Matt Hancock
First, I would rather not see any new infection coming to the UK. Secondly, on a point of policy, the approach that we are taking is to ensure that we protect this country from the incidence of disease coming in from abroad, and also to look at travel corridors when we can be confident that we can have that travel without reimporting the virus.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The chief executive of the Nuffield Trust has written:
“Even if a second wave is prevented, resuming routine hospital, primary care and dental services…is going to be all but impossible without a vaccine.”
The Secretary of State will be aware that losing such vital services will simply lead to lives being lost through a variety of other causes, so what discussions has he held with healthcare professionals about a medium to long-term strategy to allow vital services to resume under the changed conditions of the new normal?
Matt Hancock
This is an extremely important point. Infection prevention and control within the NHS is vital, but it also leads to constraints on how the NHS can operate, and it is one of the main things that we are worried about as we get the NHS restarted.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the British Army units based in my constituency, in Wiltshire, on the support that they have given to the NHS in coping with the crisis on logistics, building the Nightingale hospitals and so on? Does he welcome the new spirit of collaboration and openness by the NHS, which has shown a great willingness to collaborate with other parts of the public sector? Can we hope that that might be sustained?
Matt Hancock
Yes, it must. I agree with my hon. Friend strongly on both counts. The Army and all the armed services have played a huge role in responding to this crisis, on the logistics, the delivery of testing, the building of Nightingale hospitals right across the UK and much more. The NHS has worked like never before with organisations public and private outwith it, and that culture of openness, porous borders and working collaboratively with councils, the armed services, private companies and the rest of Government has been a huge step forward for the NHS and one that we should never take back.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Research from Harvard and Queen Mary University clearly shows a dramatic increase in the level of deaths and infections from covid-19 in higher pollution areas. Given that BAME communities tend to live in higher pollution areas, will the Secretary of State accept that this is a major factor in their disproportionate death rate? What is he doing with colleagues to ensure that we have low pollution levels as we come out of covid? Will he meet me to consider proposals from scientists, businesses, academics and local authorities, published by the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution, on a strategy for coming out of lockdown with low air pollution to reduce death and infection rates?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman—he is my hon. Friend when it comes to air pollution—and I share a passion for clean air. He is right about deaths being correlated with areas of high air pollution. We are looking at the reasons behind the disproportionate number of BAME deaths, and we will take air pollution into account in that work. On the final point, it is a bit like an earlier question asked by one of my hon. Friends from a completely different angle—some things have got better in this crisis. Overall, of course, the crisis has been terrible, but some things have got better. One is air pollution. Let us cling on to that and redouble our efforts to keep clean air for the future
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
During the covid crisis, the relaxation of constraints on data sharing has enabled my local hospital, Stepping Hill, Stockport Council and other bodies such as the CCG and partners to work together. The information sharing that they have been able to do has given a better service to patients. Is that something we could take forward? Perhaps a report could be commissioned by the Department or the National Audit Office on the benefits of enhanced data sharing.
Matt Hancock
Yes. This is the third question in a row on some of the benefits we have learnt about during the coronavirus crisis. We made clear at the start of the crisis that data-sharing rules should not get in the way of treatments that can improve and save lives. That has had a hugely positive impact on people’s capability to treat individuals and do research, and we will not be going back on that. The one pager that we put out to the whole NHS on how to manage information governance in a way that keeps information secure but does not get caught up by some of the out-of-date data protection rules that had been followed will stay. Indeed, I hope to strengthen it in order that data can be better used right across the NHS.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving us this update. Groups such as Links Counselling in my constituency report that referrals to children and adolescent mental health services are down as much as 50% in some areas during lockdown, which he will agree is very concerning. Can he outline what recent assessments have been made of the impact of covid-19 on children and young people’s mental health—specifically the impact of school closures—and what steps he will take alongside the devolved regions to address this vital issue?
Matt Hancock
This is a vital issue and the hon. Lady is right to raise it. We have to ensure that we have the mental health services and that, crucially, people come forward for support for their mental health if they need it. We have found in paediatric mental health that telemedicine—treatment and psychiatry over a screen—can in fact be more effective than face-to-face treatment, because it is easier to do it in one’s own home rather than having to go through the worry and concern of travelling. That is an interesting and important finding. We have to make sure that we seize those benefits, as well as, of course, ensuring that people come forward and that the availability of mental health treatment is there.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
In Buckinghamshire and the south-east, accident and emergency activity is still down by about 22%, and cancer referrals are running at about 60% of the baseline average. Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending out a clear message once more that if people think something is wrong and they need medical treatment, our incredible NHS is open and they should seek the help they need?
Matt Hancock
Yes. The NHS is open and we need people to help us to help them by coming forward, especially if they have a fear of cancer, heart disease, stroke or any of the predictive signs of a much more serious illness. On A&Es, we have seen a very sharp decline in the number. We want people who need emergency treatment to come forward. The sharpest decline has been in the number of people attending with the lowest acuity problems. They may be able to find healthcare more appropriately elsewhere. People should consider carefully whether they really need to go to A&E. Instead, it may be beneficial to call 111.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Further to that question, there are two other aspects of the coronavirus lockdown. First, a lot more people are using bicycles, which has led to a very significant increase in the number of head injuries, in particular to children who are not wearing helmets. Some areas are reporting that the total this year has already exceeded the total they had for the whole of last year. Secondly, a lot more people are in the open air and in the sun. Many of them are not covering up and getting sunburnt, which is a real danger in terms of future skin cancers. Can the Secretary of State please start two specific pieces of work: on skin cancer and ensuring we get the right message out about covering up in the sun; and on wearing a helmet and looking after people who have had brain injuries?
Matt Hancock
Yes. I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about what we can do in those two areas, on which I know he has campaigned very hard. The one thing I would say on the positive side is that over the past few months the early signs are that the likelihood of dying as a 5 to 14-year-old has probably been at its lowest ever. It has been much safer in lockdown because, for instance, there are far fewer road traffic accidents and because the likelihood of dying from coronavirus as a child is very, very low. Overall, it has been a safe time if measured by that ultimate measure of how many children have died. It is much lower than usual, which is a good thing, but he is right to raise the points he does.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Over 10,000 people in the UK, including my wife, suffer from cystic fibrosis. Coronavirus adds a significant risk to CF patients, who already have a limited life expectancy. CF sufferers and their families were offered a significant lifeline when the Secretary of State agreed to fund the lifesaving drug Orkambi last year, but there is a new drug called Trikafta that has been granted a licence in the US. This is a wonder drug that will extend the lives of CF patients. The father of Sarah Jayne Lilliman, from Eastwood in my constituency, who sadly passed away a few years ago, has asked if the Secretary of State can assure the CF community in the UK that he will do all he can to make sure this drug is available and extend the lives of thousands of people.
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will do absolutely everything I can. I did not know that my hon. Friend’s wife suffered from cystic fibrosis. I am absolutely determined to make this happen. I worked really hard with the CF community to land Orkambi and I was very proud when we managed to do that. Thank goodness we did that before coronavirus struck, because for many who caught coronavirus it was literally a lifeline. Trikafta has great promise: it promises to be able to treat almost all CF sufferers, as opposed to the approximately half that Orkambi successfully treats. I have been working on that even during the crisis and I really, really hope we can make some progress.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP) [V]
On 5 May, the first trial of the NHS covid-19 app started on the Isle of Wight. Since then information on the app’s development has been scarce. It has been beset by delays, with media reports suggesting that the app has some technical problems with accurately estimating distance between phones. That is worrying because the app is intended to expand contact tracing in England. When will the Health Secretary publish the results of the pilot and outline his plans for a wider roll-out of the app?
Matt Hancock
Those reports were wide of the remark and the app does not have a problem with the measurement of distance. But I will come forward with an update very soon.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
The staff at Epsom General Hospital and the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust have done a fantastic job in recent weeks dealing with the virus. The Secretary of State will know that this is one of the trusts that has a provisional allocation of funds to build a new hospital in the area. I am particularly concerned to ensure that before final decisions are taken on exactly how that money should be spent, the lessons from the pandemic are learned and any changes that need to be made as a result of what we now know and that may be needed for future hospital services are taken into account. Can he give me an assurance that he will make sure that happens?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend is an incredible campaigner for Epsom General Hospital. The injection of approximately half a billion pounds into the local health economy will be a very welcome step. We absolutely have to ensure that the lessons of covid are learnt before the new development goes ahead, but I commend all those staff at the Epsom and St Helier hospitals for the work they have done, some of which has been done under great pressure. I also commend the leadership of the trust, who have done a fantastic job.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State did not answer the question from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), so I thought I would give him another chance. Can he explain why £108 million of the £350 million of personal protective equipment contracts was awarded, without being advertised, to Crisp Websites Ltd, which trades as PestFix, a small pest extermination company? Why was such a large contract awarded to a company with no expertise in trading or supplying any PPE, let alone highly specialised equipment for NHS staff? How do the Government think that such a small company, with only £18,000 of registered assets, can manage the cash flow required to procure £108 million of PPE?
Matt Hancock
When the demand for PPE shot up, as it did not only here, but around the world, we worked with so many companies to deliver extra PPE, and we have managed to deliver on what was needed. That is why we have now the medium-term supply chains in prospect. I pay tribute to all my commercial team, who did extraordinary and sometimes innovative things in order to make that happen, and that is what they did.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
From the very beginning, clinicians in every developed country in the world have thrown the entire contents of the medical cabinet at this disease in the hope of finding something that works. To what does the Health Secretary attribute the success that he has reported today?
Matt Hancock
I attribute the success to great British science, Government-supported funding, the NHS, and the three working together. I put it down to British ingenuity in our brilliant university base, combined with the funding that we put in right at the start and with the fact that with the NHS we can get easy access to a very large patient base, which means we have the biggest clinical trials in the world. In addition, crucially, when we were under pressure and others around were saying, “Hydroxychloroquine is going to solve all your problems”, we stuck with the clinical trials and with the science, and we have successfully delivered this one treatment. It is not a cure, it is a treatment, but it is a good stride down the road.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State mentioned student nurses who were taken on for six-month extended clinical placements back in March and said that he would continue to pay them until the end of the summer. Can he just clarify for the House that that means the full six-month contracts will be honoured? Many of these nurses gave up other paid jobs and will be left in hardship if they do not have their contracts honoured.
Matt Hancock
The statement that I read out in response to the urgent question was drawn from work that Ruth May, the chief nursing officer, has been doing to ensure that that is what happens.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Loneliness and isolation have been the constant companions of many over these past few weeks, so I warmly welcome the social bubbles that will help ease them. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking my constituents Tracy Carr of Talk It Out, Beverley-Jayne Last of Super Neighbours, and the occupational therapist Justine Norris, who have been working tirelessly over the past few weeks to support the mental health and wellbeing of so many people at home during this pandemic?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend speaks movingly of the support that so many have given, and her three constituents deserve our praise for their work—along with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others—to support those who have been living alone. Whether the 2.2 million people who are shielding because they are clinically extremely vulnerable, or the over 8 million people who live on their own and therefore have had to stay on their own during lockdown, this has been a difficult time for many. I pay tribute to the community spirit and support for others that so many have demonstrated.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The link between poverty and poor mental health is well understood. As the covid easing continues, we face the prospect of an economic depression the likes of which we have not seen since perhaps the 1930s, and ahead looms the potential for a post-covid mental health pandemic. What specific and additional resources is he prepared to commit to alleviate that risk?
Matt Hancock
Nobody wants to see the sort of economic consequences that we have already seen—even if there are more to come—but we have to take these measures in order to tackle this pandemic. We have put extra support into mental health, and more is to come. It is a really important part of the solution.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
This is the first opportunity that I have had on the behalf of my constituents to thank publicly the Secretary of State, his ministerial team, the entire civil service team and all their families for what they have contributed in this national effort. I thank all those people through him.
Local authorities in Bedfordshire have the highest incidence rate of coronavirus across the east of England. The Secretary of State said in his statement that the processes are in place to escalate concerns if there needs to be a local lockdown, but there are local concerns about the availability of local data. What is the current state of localised data? What efforts is he making to improve its availability?
Matt Hancock
Localised data is available through the work of Public Health England and local directors of public health, including the director for Bedfordshire, and then through our survey data, although that is stronger at the national level than at the regional or local levels. Pulling all this data together, and then ensuring that it gets to the decision makers so that they can base their decisions on it, is the task of the joint biosecurity centre. I will ask its head to write to my hon. Friend with details of the data it has on Bedfordshire and what further data it is working on in order to answer the questions that my hon. Friend rightly asks.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Will the Health Secretary confirm that, in May, his Department wanted local councils to have local outbreak plans ready for 1 June, but that councils had to ask him to move the deadline to later this month because his Department had been so late in asking them?
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The nation’s health recovery and the important strides made in recent weeks give us an opportunity, as well as a responsibility, to leave no stone unturned in our drive for economic recovery. To that end, does my right hon. Friend agree that the regeneration of Winsford town centre, the building of the women’s football national centre of excellence, and the reopening of Beeston Castle and Tarporley station are all projects in Eddisbury that a go-getting Government can now get on and deliver?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. Given the economic consequences of the pandemic, it is vital that we get on with these go-getting economic projects. I wish my hon. Friend well in his support of them, and I wish everybody involved in them well in delivering them.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Test, trace and isolate is obviously key to stopping a second wave, particularly in England, where lockdown has been relaxed at quite the rate. Is it not therefore a little bit shambolic that the Government’s flagship app is still only available on the Isle of Wight?
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I would like to begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on the successful roll-out of dexamethasone, but my question is about international comparison. We were one of the later countries to be hit by the virus. There are others who have begun the process of moving out of lockdown ahead of us. What countries does my right hon. Friend see as the paradigm for the United Kingdom, and what steps, if any, are we taking to share information with healthcare professionals to emulate best practice?
Matt Hancock
This is a great question, and we look all the time for countries around the world that we can learn from. It is true that, in terms of where we were on the epidemiological curve, we went into lockdown before many European countries—before Germany, Spain and Italy—with lower cases per million. But we still learned from them. For instance, one of the lessons from Germany is that a massive testing regime is incredibly important, and we now have a much bigger testing regime than Germany, which is terrific, and we have built that up. We also look to the far east, with its lessons from severe acute respiratory syndrome and middle east respiratory syndrome, which it learned more directly. It has the contact tracing which we are putting in place. We are constantly learning. Probably the single most important thing that we can do in this crisis is constantly look around the world for places where we can learn best practice, and then implement it here.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State will be reassured that on Monday the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government heard from representatives of the Local Government Association and directors of public health that relationships and co-ordination between the local level and the centre on testing, tracing and contacting people had substantially improved. But two concerns were raised. First was the number of people who were testing positive and refusing to give details of their contacts. Should we not bring in penalties to try to ensure that that happens? Secondly, there was concern about people who were contacted after having been traced, but did not want to isolate. Recognising that people can lose substantial amounts of income in this situation, should we not bring in something like the furlough scheme to recompense people who can lose out financially by isolating themselves?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman raises three points. First, we have put a huge amount of effort into ensuring that the local-to-national links are strong in test and trace. I pay tribute to Tom Riordan, the chief executive of Leeds City Council, who has come into the programme on secondment from Leeds in order to deliver those links. He has done an absolutely brilliant job, and I pay tribute to him. On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, we do not rule out mandatory contact tracing, but we want to get the system up and running, and it would be far better if it worked on a voluntary basis in the first instance. On his third point, we have put in place more support to ensure that people get the financial support they need to be able to do the right thing. The evidence is that the vast majority of people do, but of course we keep this under review.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the tremendous news on treatment with dexamethasone. Following on from that, can he update the House first on what progress we are making towards a vaccine, and secondly on what progress we are making with our manufacturing capacity for a vaccine, so that when we get it we are able to roll it out at speed, including with Cobra Biologics in my constituency?
Matt Hancock
I am absolutely determined that should a vaccine come through, we are able to roll it out—in the first instance to those who are most vulnerable—across the UK, including to my hon. Friend’s constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme. That is incredibly important. As I said in my statement, AstraZeneca has now signed the contract to manufacture the vaccine, even ahead of the successful conclusion of clinical trials, which shows confidence. The Imperial vaccine, which is not as far ahead as the Oxford vaccine, but is promising and based on a different vaccine technology, which is important—it is slightly different—has gone into human trials as well.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The findings of the PHE report into the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on black and minority ethnic people are or should be embarrassing—they should be collectively embarrassing. If we agree not to point the finger and if we all take our share of the blame for the structural racism that so very clearly exists, can we stop denying it, stop making excuses for it and start working together to dismantle it? And can we do it quickly, because people have rightly had enough?
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I join my right hon. Friend in celebrating this best of British treatment that we are getting, but does he also share my concern that not everyone is going to the NHS who needs to for cancer and A&E? Will he join me in telling the people of Rother Valley, “If you need treatment, please go to Rotherham Hospital, please go to the NHS, please get treated.”?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is quite right. The NHS is open, and if people need NHS treatment, please come forward. If people are advised by a clinician to go to hospital, please do that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Absent a vaccine, the key to unlocking our economic and social lives is an effective test, trace and isolate system. The app, which can really help save lives, is behind schedule, so can the Secretary of State update us on the Isle of Wight trial, and specifically whether it has raised issues with the technology on Apple and/or Android phones; the levels of take-up; and an idea as to when it will be more widely available?
Matt Hancock
As well as being a huge enthusiast for the A&E in Chorley and working on that, Mr Speaker, I am also a huge enthusiast for the use of technology. The No. 1 lesson we learned from the Isle of Wight was that it is important to get the human contact first and use the technology to underpin the human contact tracing. What is interesting is that we are learning that to persuade people to isolate—it is obvious really—a human contact, a phone call with a real person on the other end, is the best way to do it. We have a much higher number of contact tracers per head of population in this country now than almost any of our comparators.
Mr Speaker
I am pleased the Secretary of State is a fan of Chorley A&E: we look forward to it opening very shortly. I call Flick Drummond.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I welcome the psychological first aid training that my right hon. Friend launched this week so that frontline workers can support people with mental health problems. However, I am also concerned about the mental health of key workers themselves, particularly those in the NHS who have been working non-stop since January, many with last-minute rota changes and no prospect of a break soon. Will my right hon. Friend outline what we are doing to support key workers at this difficult time?
Matt Hancock
Yes. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is that the mental health of our key workers, including those working in the NHS and social care, is incredibly important. One of the things we put in place in the crisis is a hotline. That support should have been there long before, frankly, and we will maintain it for as long as possible, because is so important to support the physical and mental health of the carers who care for us.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members who have been participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am now suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession)
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Today’s launch of trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand is an historic moment for this country. When we left the EU, we did so on the promise of trading more with friends and allies across the world. Deals with Australia and New Zealand are a powerful expression of our new-found independence and our intent to build a global Britain. I say to our old friends: Britain is back. These agreements will strengthen ties with like-minded countries who share our values and our commitment to free trade. They will create more opportunities for British businesses and more choice for British consumers, and provide us with greater economic security. Strategically, they will also help us to forge closer economic ties with the wider Pacific region.
The foundations for both deals are strong. We already have close ties in areas such as cars, steel, services, and food and drink, and 31,000[Official Report, 24 June 2020, Vol. 677, c. 4MC.] small businesses export to Australia. One in every five bottles of wine drunk in Britain comes from Australia. Free trade deals can build on those successes, boosting UK exports to both countries by around £1 billion. They will also show the rest of the world that Britain is prepared to defend and advance the ideals of free trade and freedom.
Deals with Australia and New Zealand are a key step towards membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the largest free trade agreements in the world. Along with Japan, with whom we launched trade negotiations last week, both Australia and New Zealand support our membership, and today we have formally announced our intention to pursue accession to the agreement. We do so for three reasons. First, we do so to secure more trade and investment, to help our economy to overcome the challenges posed by coronavirus. Hitching ourselves to the fastest-growing part of the world will help to deliver on the growth and prosperity we urgently need. Secondly, it will help to diversify our trade and supply chains, to make our economy more resilient and open up new export opportunities in industries such as tech and digital, food and drink, and automotive. Thirdly, it is an important part of our strategy to turn the UK into a global trading hub. We want to put the UK at the centre of a network of modern free trade agreements.
CPTPP is a high-standards agreement, spanning four continents. Its members are 11 like-minded nations, all of whom believe in the principles of free trade, international co-operation and the rules-based system. Our trade with individual CPTPP countries is already worth more than £110 billion. By joining the agreement, we can open up even more opportunities for our go-getting businesses and turbo-charge trade and investment. Membership will help us to sell more British buses to Mexico, more life-saving antibiotics to Vietnam and more medical technology to Peru, and, of course, it will help us to export more of our world-class food and drink, including more Welsh lamb to Japan and Scotch whisky to Canada.
We firmly believe membership will support all UK businesses, not least the small businesses who have suffered most during coronavirus. Access to the agreements dedicated SME chapter will ease barriers to trade for small businesses by cutting tariffs and reducing red tape. It will give thousands of businesses access to this most dynamic group of markets and couple Britain to one of the most vibrant economic regions in the world. We have already explored membership with all 11 countries, in line with CPTPP’s accession process, and we are now moving to the formal stage.
At a time of unprecedented global upheaval, now is the time to look out to the world, not turn our backs on it. It is a time to be ambitious and seek trade deals with nations who share our values and our commitment to free trade. Agreements with New Zealand and Australia and are an important step towards our vision of a truly global Britain—a Britain that is once again a fierce campaigner for free trade; a Britain that leads by example. Membership of CPTPP is the next logical step. Joining the agreement would show the rest of the world that we are back as a proud, independent nation, prepared to look far beyond our own shores. I commend this statement to the House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and for always keeping the House up to date on the progress of her trade negotiations. On my count, in those six weeks, the Secretary of State has formally launched new trade negotiations with four different countries—the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand—on top of the 16 negotiations that she is already leading to roll over our EU third country agreements, all of which, according to her own timetable, she wants signed and sealed within the next six months. In addition, we now have today’s statement committing the Government to begin negotiations on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP—I am going to pronounce it “C-tip” for short.
As the Secretary of State said, CPTPP currently comprises 11 members, accounting for 13% of global GDP, making it the third-largest free trade area in the world. So in theory, the UK becoming a member sounds like it deserves the fanfare that the Secretary of State has given it today. However, let us now look at those 11 countries. With seven of them, we already have free trade agreements, courtesy of our membership of the EU—that is Japan, Canada, Singapore, Mexico, Chile, Peru and Vietnam. With two of those—Chile and Peru—roll-over deals are in place to continue free trade beyond December. With the other five, bilateral negotiations are still ongoing to get roll-over deals agreed. That is seven out of the 11 taken care of.
Then, just this morning, the Secretary of State formally launched free trade negotiations with another two CPTPP members, Australia and New Zealand. Just to be clear, according to the Secretary of State’s plans, by the time we join CPTPP, we should already have bilateral free trade deals in place with nine of its 11 Members, accounting for 95% of the UK’s current trade with the CPTPP area. In fact, the only new free trade agreements that we stand to gain from membership of CPTPP are with the kingdoms of Malaysia and Brunei, which, between them, accounted for just 0.37% of the UK’s total world trade last year.
I ask the Secretary of State: what are the benefits of joining CPTPP for UK trade, growth and jobs, over and above the benefits that she has already forecast from trade deals with Japan, Australia and the seven other CPTPP countries with whom bilateral negotiations are already complete or still in train? Could she then tell us how these potential benefits stack up against some of the potential risks of CPTPP membership? First, will the UK be subject to the provisions in CPTPP for investor state dispute settlement, with all the risks that that poses to our ability to protect public services, consumers and the environment from corporate profiteers? Secondly, will membership of CPTPP demand the sharing of our citizens’ data, including health records? If so, how will that data be protected? If other CPTPP members are not compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation, how will that affect the ability of UK service companies to access EU citizens’ data?
Thirdly, will CPTPP membership oblige us to accept a “list it or lose it” approach to private competition in the public sector? If so, can the Government guarantee a blanket exception for our NHS and other essential public services? Fourthly, will we be obliged to accept the regulatory standards on animal welfare and food production established under CPTPP and, if so, are they compatible with other existing standards?
Finally, will the Government negotiate the terms of our CPTPP membership to benefit key British trade sectors, or will we have to accept the existing terms of an agreement shaped in the interests of others? I raise those questions not from confirmed opposition to CPTPP but simply because we need to know whether the risks are worth taking if the only distinct benefit is the prospect of free trade with Malaysia and Brunei. That debate has not yet been won, and I urge the Secretary of State to reopen it for consultation with industry, unions and other stakeholders who did not have the time to study the proposals properly during the busy Brexit negotiations in autumn 2018.
In closing, we cannot divorce this debate from that around the still busy Brexit negotiations. The businesses I speak to around the country simply cannot understand why the Government are spending so much time and effort trying to negotiate international trade deals of relatively low value when they have yet to secure our continued trade with Europe. I am all for expanding the 0.3% of global trade that we share with Malaysia and Brunei, which is all the statement ultimately amounts to, but as the 47% of our trade that depends on Europe is hanging in the balance that is where the Government’s priorities should lie.
Elizabeth Truss
I am not surprised that the right hon. Lady is trying to do down our efforts to secure trade agreements with the vast majority of the world and join some of the most exciting free-trade areas in existence, because the Opposition refused even to support trade deals with Canada and Japan when we were members of the EU. She talked about a continuity agreement, but she did not even support signing it in the first place. Only the Labour party could call low value a trade area where the UK has £100 billion-worth of trade. I do not know what mathematics or economics that relates to, but it is certainly none with which I am familiar.
Let me be clear with the right hon. Lady. The deal of which we would be part with CPTPP goes much further than the existing roll-over agreements that countries such as Canada have with the EU. For example, CPTPP has an advanced digital and data chapter. The UK is a data and digital superpower. We are third in the world for the number of billion-dollar tech companies, after the US and China. CPTPP has an advanced digital and data chapter to which the EU would not sign up. That chapter gives us access to that in Canada, Mexico, Peru and Chile across the agreement.
This agreement removes 95% of tariffs—again, going further than many of the roll-over agreements. We are talking about joining one of the most advanced trade agreement areas in the world. The measure goes far beyond what the EU was willing or able to agree, which is a huge opportunity for the UK. It is completely wrong to suggest that this is about Malaysia and Brunei, although I do not deprecate Malaysia, which is a fast-growing market and a good trade opportunity for the UK.
To say that CPTPP is simply equivalent to the deals that the EU is negotiating with those nations betrays a lack of understanding of the text of these trade agreements. I am very happy to share with the right hon. Lady the additional chapters in question.
The right hon. Lady suggested that I will close all these trade deals in the next six months, and I am very flattered by her belief in my superhuman power to do so. I have not said that we are going to close all the trade deals we are negotiating in the next six months. For example, we have set no timetable on a United States trade deal, so it is simply not true to say that we have a target of closing all of them in the next six months.
We will do deals that are good for Britain, and we will be prepared to walk away if we do not get what the UK wants. For example, the national health service is not on the table and the price we pay for drugs is not on the table. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady has asked me a series of questions, and she might listen to the answers, rather than chatting to her colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson).
I am very clear that we will not lower our food import standards. We have an excellent independent agency, the Food Standards Agency. As part of the withdrawal agreement, all of our import standards, including those on chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, will be on the UK statute book, and it would take a vote in Parliament to overturn them. We are not negotiating that as part of any of these trade agreements. It is simply scaremongering from the right hon. Lady.
We have a huge opportunity here to forge a new future for global Britain, and we are not going to listen to the scaremongering and negativity from the Labour party. We are going to take those opportunities, and we are going to move forward.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. If Britain joins CPTPP, it will create a trade grouping of roughly the same size as the European Union, now that Britain has left, but without the political restrictions on the UK and with some new strategic advantages, not least vis-à-vis China. Of course, trade is not just about trade agreements, so can my right hon. Friend tell us what help will be given to British exporters to help them get into the markets of CPTPP, both here and overseas? Without trade, trade agreements are no more than a piece of paper.
Elizabeth Truss
First, I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work he did as International Trade Secretary in pursuing this ambitious agenda. It is great that I have the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), the Minister responsible for exports, on the Front Bench with me, and we are working on a new export strategy precisely to take advantage of the new trade agreements we are negotiating. One thing we are negotiating in all those agreements is a dedicated SME chapter to make it easier for our small and medium-sized enterprises to get through procedures, to get rid of a lot of the red tape and to get into those overseas markets. We will be spending this year helping those companies to do that.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for early sight of it. I agree with her that forging trade links with the wider Pacific region is a good thing to do. I would also say that membership of CPTPP, if we can join on the right terms, may help to claw back some of the enormous losses that will result from Brexit.
At its heart, however, the Secretary of State’s statement was little more than hopeful rhetoric about the UK’s future trade prospects, and those prospects are by no means certain, as is evidenced by the rather modest rise in Canadian exports to partner countries. Her statement did not tell us in any detail what is actually proposed to be discussed, and it does rather beggar belief that she did not see fit to report to the House the challenges, difficulties and sticking points that she foresees in future negotiations; nor, I suspect, has she given any comfort to those who raised many significant concerns over accession in the last consultation.
What limits will the Secretary of State set in her negotiations on lowering barriers to allow for greater market access for foreign services suppliers? What limits will she place on the removal or weakening of behind-the-border non-tariff barriers, and what about important things such as workers’ rights, product safety regulations and food quality standards? What action does she propose to ensure that the monitoring of partner countries adheres to core International Labour Organisation standards, and that freedom of association is allowed in partner countries? What action will she take to avoid product dumping via partner countries becoming a very real problem? How will she allay concerns over investor-state dispute settlement provisions reducing the Government’s ability to legislate? Unless and until those and many other concerns are fully and transparently addressed, huge anxiety will remain in the public about whether CPTPP is even right for the UK.
Elizabeth Truss
What we are announcing today is our intention to accede, and we are talking to all 11 partners of CPTPP to have those preparatory discussions. Our formal application to CPTPP will require 11 different market access agreements to be sought with all the separate nations with which we are negotiating. We have absolutely no intention of lowering our food safety, environmental or labour standards, or any other standards. We are a high quality, high standards nation, and we want to work with the CPTPP countries on that basis. We believe in free trade and the rules-based system, and that is very much what CPTPP stands for.
The hon. Gentleman asked about investor-state dispute settlement systems. We have signed up to a number of those already, in a series of investor agreements that the UK has already made. Indeed, there are investor provisions in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which we are seeking to roll over with Canada. We will always ensure that the UK Government have the right to regulate, that we have control of our public services, and that the NHS is not on the table. If we do not get those things in any of the agreements we try to negotiate, we will simply walk away.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
There can be no doubt that my right hon. Friend is doing all she can to seize every possible opportunity as we grasp our new freedoms, not least for Melton’s stilton and pork pie producers. Does she agree that our joining CPTPP is important if we are to strengthen trading relationships with allies who respect international norms and values, better to isolate rogue trading practices by states that use trade as a weapon?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend make an extremely important point. One benefit of CPTPP is that it is a free-trade, high-standards arrangement with countries that follow the rules. We want to create alliances with like-minded allies across the world, and ensure that that is the way the world trade system operates. It is also important to diversify our trade, so that we are not dependent on single countries or regions for imports, or for where we export to. We must have options as a country, and be able to work with those who share our values.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Many people in my party have long had their suspicions about the extent of the Government’s plans after Brexit, but I do not think that any of us, even in our wildest dreams, imagined that leaving Europe meant relocating to the Pacific. Given that the Government have such limited time and bandwidth while dealing with the pandemic, is this the right time to be entering into negotiations to join a partnership that currently represents just 8% of our exports? We are still a long way from agreeing a trade partnership with the EU, which represents 45% of our exports. What are the Government’s priorities?
Elizabeth Truss
As we seek to recover from coronavirus, it is incredibly important that we protect and expand our exports, which represent 31% of the UK economy and include vital industries such as the steel industry, the car industry and the food and drink industry. We must find new markets for those exports and link to fast-growing parts of the world. We must also protect against protectionism. One of the benefits of signing free trade agreements is avoiding tariffs on our goods and services, and CPTPP represents 13% of the global economy—16% if we add the UK—and includes fast-growing parts of the world. At a time when we are seeking to revive the economy, this is exactly the type of agreement we should be joining. In parallel, of course, we are negotiating with the EU to secure a good agreement with it. It is not an either/or; we need to be trading with all the world.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Montgomeryshire has many Japanese-owned manufacturing businesses and the UK’s largest livestock market ready to ship Welsh lamb across the world at the drop of a hat. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Given that Japan accounts for nearly half of the GDP of this partnership, what outreach have we done with our close economic friends and allies, what are the Japanese Government saying about our accession, and what support can we rely on from our allies to help us accede to this great partnership?
Elizabeth Truss
Japan is a very important partner of the UK, and we are separately negotiating our bilateral trade agreement, but when I spoke to Minister Motegi, who is responsible for negotiating on Japan’s behalf, he was very clear that he supported the UK’s accession to CPTPP. We are also pursuing accession with Australia and New Zealand. These bilateral partnerships are a way of accessing that wider arrangement in Asia- Pacific. My hon. Friend is right—there are huge export opportunities for Britain into Japan and huge investment opportunities for British firms into Japan and for Japanese firms into the UK.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I too welcome the negotiations the Secretary of State has announced with Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand is an interesting case, because CPTPP includes provisions for an investor-state dispute settlement, allowing major corporations to challenge the ability of Governments to regulate in areas such as environmental protection. Will she follow the example of New Zealand and seek to exclude the UK from this mechanism?
Elizabeth Truss
In the negotiations, we are very clear that we will not allow any agreement to interfere with our right to regulate in areas such as the environment, food standards and public services such as the national health service. That is a clear red line for us.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
In my constituency, we do not have any shipping ports, but we have plenty of computer ports that connect us to entire world. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the CPTPP negotiations and discussions, and all the work being done, will enable all the digital businesses in my constituency to trade gladly around the world?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right that the advanced digital and data chapter in CPTPP will provide huge confidence for those seeking to buy products in that region from British businesses. It is extraordinary that the Labour party does not think that is of any value. It does not think that the EU, which is prepared to sign these digital and data chapters, has agreements any different from the type of agreement we are seeking to accede to, missing out a huge part of the UK economy.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said earlier, the original consultation on membership of this partnership took place over a three-month period in autumn 2018, when most of industry and this country was preoccupied with the Brexit negotiations. Would it not be sensible now to have a second consultation so that stakeholders can have a proper chance to assess and comment on the implications for them?
Elizabeth Truss
We have conducted a consultation already. We gave businesses a chance to respond. But rest assured we will engage with businesses throughout this process through our system of expert trade advisory groups, which consult specific industries on the aspect of agreements they relate to. We are negotiating these deals precisely to benefit British businesses—to get the tariffs removed on cars, whisky and so on. We will consult businesses throughout this process to make sure every sector and area of the UK benefits.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland has a great trading history, and that its historical links with Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada place it well to take advantage of the negotiation that she is announcing today? Do quality products such as Scotch whisky not give us an advantage? This is about quality; it is not about reducing standards.
Elizabeth Truss
Scotch whisky is a hugely successful export right around the world, including to Japan, Australia and New Zealand. One of my aims in these negotiations is to get the tariffs removed on this excellent product so that people can drink even more of it around the world. My right hon. Friend is right about Scotland’s proud trading history. I hope that the businesses and people of Scotland listen to him rather than the negative voices we heard from the SNP.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now go to Stirling, to Alyn Smith.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
An apposite time to make my contribution, Madam Deputy Speaker—thank you.
I have to stress that Scotland’s farmers are united in their concern about what they are losing from leaving the European Union rather than otherwise, however much breathless vacuity can be presented about the ambitions of these trade deals. They are deeply concerned, to the extent that the Secretary of State is having to misrepresent the views of, particularly, the National Sheep Association. I refer to her article in The Scottish Farmer newspaper last week. Phil Stocker, the chief executive of the National Sheep Association, took her to task on this, saying that her misrepresentation of its position as in favour of her plans was
“a result of either laziness, or manipulative intentions.”
Can she tell us which it was, and can she assure the House that she will not do it again?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure the House that for every sector of agriculture there are benefits to be found from the trade deals we are negotiating around the world. Currently, UK lamb is not allowed into the US market due to a ban. I want to get that ban removed. The US is the second largest importer of lamb in the world. That is a huge opportunity. Likewise, we will make sure that we maintain our standards, that we do not lower our import standards, and that we protect British farming against any unfair competition.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State is well aware of my passion for maintaining our strict animal welfare and food standards. She also knows what a challenging time it has been for my dairy farmers and my sheep farmers during this covid crisis. What trading opportunities with New Zealand and Australia does she see for them as we go through the CPTPP?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is a huge champion for his farmers. What we have seen in British agriculture is increasing success in exports. We are now a net exporter of dairy products for the first time in recent years. We are getting increasingly large exports of all kinds of meat products, dairy products, and finished food and drink products. He can be assured that when we are negotiating the specific market access schedules in CPTPP, we will always be looking out for British farmers, making sure that they are getting the benefit of the deal.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
Nearly half of the UK’s carbon footprint probably comes from our trade overseas to satisfy UK demand. What impact assessment has the Secretary of State made of the environmental costs of expanding UK trade into the Pacific region?
Elizabeth Truss
We are very committed as a country to our zero carbon target by 2050, and we are working hard on the new COP—conference of the parties—summit to make sure that we achieve that. In all the trade negotiations we are conducting, we want to have strong environmental protections protecting our environmental legislation in the UK but also reduced tariffs on low and zero carbon goods.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the good progress she is making with the bilateral trade agreement with Japan, which will be very welcome to many people employed by Japanese companies in Shropshire. I welcome her announcement and, indeed, the announcement by the Prime Minister on Australia and New Zealand today. Specifically on the partnership agreement that she has announced, could she give the House an idea of an indicative timetable—when she thinks it might be signed and whether she thinks that will be quicker than many of the trade deals that the European Union has signed?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his overall comments. In terms of the timetable for CPTPP, it is an agreement with 11 members, so inevitably that means that we have to be in discussions with all those 11 members and seek agreement with all 11 members. The convenient aspect of course is that there is already an agreement fleshed out, and we will be working within that framework. We are already in discussions with all 11 members. We are negotiating bilateral deals with some of them. When we are in a position, we will put forward our formal application, and I hope we can make rapid progress. There certainly is enthusiasm about having the UK as part of CPTPP, because people see us as a high-standards country that believes in free trade and the rules-based global system. I will reach an agreement as quickly as I can, but I will make sure that at all points we get a good deal for British industry and that we do not cross any of our red lines.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. If everyone who has expressed an interest in speaking is to have the chance to do so, we will have to go rather faster. I make no criticism of the Secretary of State, who has had to answer complicated questions and give lengthy answers. If the questions are shorter, then the answers can also be shorter, and then everyone will get a chance to come in.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Given the Secretary of State’s ambition to have tariffs removed, will she tell us why nine of 11 products—including cheese, honey and butter—that the EU can export tariff-free to South Korea are subject to tariffs for this country under the UK-South Korea continuity agreement, which the Government have negotiated?
Elizabeth Truss
It is my aim in all our agreements to secure the maximum tariff-free access for our products, but in any given agreement there are always trade-offs. My key priority is making sure that we do not cross any UK red lines.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, looking across the world, free trade agreements have been shown to reduce inequalities, create jobs and boost incomes? As such, the opportunity is great from these trade deals with fast-emerging countries, both for the people of Grantham and Stamford and for Britain as a proud global independent nation.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. Free trade has lifted a billion people out of poverty in the past few decades, and that is a record that no other policy prescription can match.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
As an integral part of the United Kingdom, businesses and people in Northern Ireland, including my constituents in Upper Bann, want to benefit from the deal in the same way that any other constituted part of the UK can. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Northern Ireland protocol will not affect Northern Ireland exporters’ ability to benefit from any trade deal and Northern Ireland businesses and consumers being able to import goods covered by such a deal?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure the hon. Lady that we are working very closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure that Northern Ireland is fully part of any trade deal we agree, and we are specifically consulting Northern Ireland businesses to make sure that they benefit.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement today. The Pacific region has a growth rate that is double that of the EU. Does the Secretary of State agree that, while the modern dynamic free trade agreement that is sought stands to boost trade enormously, it is not all about numbers? We should also be welcoming the chance for close strategic ties with friends who share our interests.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to pursue a trade policy that is economically beneficial to the UK and levels up our country, but helps achieve more resilience for our country, protects us against protectionist urges that we are seeing around the world and diversifies our trade away from dependence on single nations or regions that we might come to regret.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a bit difficult not to come to the conclusion that, basically, the Government want to form new trade deals with countries that are less financially significant to us in terms of trade but speak English. If we add up all the trade that the UK does with the countries in the Commonwealth, it does not add up to the trade that we presently do with France and Germany, does it?
Elizabeth Truss
I could read to the hon. Gentleman the list of 11 countries—I assure him that many of them do not speak English as their main language, but that is not really the point. The point is that we want to be the centre of a global trading network. That network, of course, includes our friends and partners in the European Union. It includes the United States and the Americas. It includes the Asia-Pacific region as well. We can have all those things by creating this network of free trade agreements, and we are making rapid progress on that.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Indo-Pacific region represents 50% of international trade and is the fastest growing region in the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that being able to accede to the CPTPP, with all its opportunities for our strong services economy, highlights the Brexit benefit of having an independent trade policy that we can pursue on our own terms?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. She is right that we are able to pursue this policy because we are not a member of the EU, and we are able to sign up to things, such as an advanced digital and data chapter, that the EU does not want to be part of. We have recently launched our new network of digital trade emissaries around Asia precisely to push the case of British business.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
While part of the EU, quotas are imposed on imports of New Zealand lamb. With the free market deal that the UK Government are chasing, and their willingness for a no-deal crash out of Europe in December, do Scottish farmers not face a double whammy of greater imports of New Zealand lamb and tariffs being applied to lamb exported to the EU?
Elizabeth Truss
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that New Zealand is not actually using all its current quota of lamb, because there is massive demand for New Zealand lamb around the world, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, which is closer to production. I can assure him that, when we are negotiating these deals, we will make absolutely sure that British farmers do not have their standards undermined.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Our application to accede to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, alongside our application this week to become a dialogue partner in our own right to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, highlights our commitment to Asia, as the Secretary of State has said. It is worth noting that the Kingdom of Brunei Darussalam is both party to the TPP and in the chair of ASEAN next year. Does she agree that it would also be a huge game changer if the United States of America decided to become part of the Trans-Pacific partnership, as it has already mooted?
Elizabeth Truss
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his excellent work as trade envoy to countries such as Malaysia. I know that he is a big fan of Brunei and visiting it and working with it. In terms of the Americans’ trade strategy, I would not presume to advise them on which networks they should seek to be part of. It is certainly the case that the TPP is a very high-quality agreement, and we want to make it one that more members who believe in free trade and the rules-based global system want to join.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
If we go a bit faster, we will be able to get everybody in.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
We all want the highest standards. Can the Secretary of State explain a bit more the road map to ensure the highest food standards? Will the Government look again at setting up a food standards commission when it comes to trade deals?
Elizabeth Truss
We already have the Food Standards Agency, which is specifically established as a non-ministerial department to ensure independence over high-quality food standards. Any change to British food standards would need to be voted on by the UK Parliament. That is very strong protection.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
This is great news for global Britain. The Trans-Pacific partnership contains countries stretching from the Arctic to the Southern ocean, from South America to Asia. I very much welcome today’s start of talks with Australia and New Zealand on a trade agreement, but is this not also a good opportunity to engage with emerging markets, particularly in south-east Asia?
Elizabeth Truss
It is correct to say that there are major opportunities with Australia and New Zealand. As well as being champions of free trade in that region, they are extremely well-connected to the Pacific market, so it is an opportunity to reunite with our old friends and allies, as well as to reach out to new trading partners across that very important region of the world.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement by the Secretary of State to the House today. Does she agree that what this country and British business need is confidence at this time of uncertainty? They need messages that bring about greater opportunity for diverse trade and increasing volumes of trade and that do not compromise on our stance of free trade wherever possible. They do not need the opposite messages that we are hearing today, which destroy confidence in British business.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. There are people in this Chamber who seek to do our country down and say, “We can’t achieve this. We can’t sign up to these deals. It is all too difficult. Let us have another consultation and delay it for another few years.” Then there are those people who are go-getters, who want to help businesses in their constituencies to succeed, and who want to help us recover from coronavirus. I know which side I am on.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Let us be clear: irrespective of what the Secretary of State delivers, she will be unable to replicate the economic success of our membership of the European Union, but, if she is intent on going down this path, can she give a cast-iron guarantee to UK manufacturers and producers that they will not have to compete with cheap goods being dumped in the United Kingdom?
Elizabeth Truss
That is a bit of a cheek coming from a party that wants to separate from our extremely successful Union here in the UK. We want a good trade deal with the EU, just as we want a good trade deal with CPTPP.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Unlike SNP Members, I very much welcome the opportunities of international trade not just for Scotland, but for the entirety of the United Kingdom. I know that the Government recognise the importance of Japan to Scotland and to UK farmers, particularly to those farmers who export malting barley and grain. Does the Secretary of State agree that a new trade agreement with Japan not only helps Scotland’s farmers to exploit those opportunities, but potentially gives us access to that part of the world?
Elizabeth Truss
We are the second largest malting barley exporter to Japan after Canada and we have fine products both in Scotland and in my own region of East Anglia. Getting access to that wider CPTPP agreement, as well as reducing the tariffs in Japan, will give more opportunities to those fantastic producers.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
With the grave threat posed to our own public services, let alone to those of developing nations, by the investor-state dispute settlement, will the Secretary of State commit to seeking an exemption in future trade deals, as has been achieved by New Zealand through bilateral negotiations with CPTPP?
Elizabeth Truss
I have already said that I will not sign up to something that threatens our right to regulate here in the UK.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The CPTPP comprises a dynamic mix of nation states, from like-minded Commonwealth countries to rapidly developing economies. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the UK’s accession will encourage further expansion of the trade bloc to the benefit British exporters?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right that it is an agreement of which many people want to be a part. In fact, other countries are looking to accede alongside the UK. One reason that our friends and allies across the world want us to join is that they see the UK as a key asset to CPTPP.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Will the Secretary of State ensure that product, environmental, health and workers’ standards do not fall below EU standards in order not to jeopardise an EU trade deal that is 47% of our trade? Equally, will she seek an exemption, as New Zealand has, from the investor-state dispute settlement, so that, in the event that we want to raise our standards of health and environment above EU standards, we will not be sued by big corporations? She has given a verbal undertaking, but will she put that into action and seek an exemption now?
Elizabeth Truss
I have been clear about my position on ISDS, but in the EU negotiations that are being conducted by our lead negotiator, David Frost, we are very clear we are not having a level playing field with the EU. One of the reasons for Brexit is so we can decide our own regulatory policy independently.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The agreement goes much further than the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement of 2018 and there is much to like about it, not least for businesses in Cumbria that want to trade out and into the world. What assurances can she give me that we will not go back on our high food and environmental standards in joining this agreement?
Elizabeth Truss
We are absolutely committed to our high standards. That is one of the reasons why countries and people around the world want to buy British products. They trust British products, they trust the Union Jack flag, and they appreciate what we offer. Let me be clear: any change to domestic legislation resulting from any trade agreement would need to be voted on by this House, so there is a clear parliamentary process to make sure that any change has full support, but we will not be lowering those standards.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
On the topic of East Anglia, I am sure my right hon. Friend will recognise the importance of a port at Felixstowe and how it needs to have the infrastructure necessary to step up to help Britain achieve its global potential. Will she commit to working with Highways England to make sure that its ridiculous plan to close a bridge when it is windy is stopped, so that we never have to go through another windy period in winter when our town grinds to a halt because road freight from the port of Felixstowe has to go through a town centre and not across a bridge?
Elizabeth Truss
There is no greater supporter of East Anglian infrastructure than me.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
My constituents in Putney are very worried about the implications of the partnership and all the Brexit agreements for the NHS. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the NHS and other key public services will not be opened up to competition under the negative list system in the trans-Pacific partnership?
Elizabeth Truss
The NHS is not on the table. The price the NHS pays for drugs is not on the table.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I welcome the accession to the CPTPP, which could be good news for UK dairy farmers. Canada, which is a member, has a lot of unused quota and there are not many other dairy producers in the partnership, so there is a huge opportunity for UK dairy there. More important, though, is transitioning the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement, because this will be a medium to long-term ambition. Where are we on the transition arrangement for CETA?
Elizabeth Truss
I had a good conversation with my Canadian counterpart, Mary Ng, last week to talk about, first, our mutual commitment to free trade, but also how we are going to improve our trading relationship with Canada.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
One of the reasons why the UK Government and in particular Tory Brexiteers were salivating over the idea of Brexit was about reducing red tape and cutting lots of regulation, so clearly when embarking on trade agreements the Government are going to compromise on things like food standards and workers’ rights. Will the Secretary of State tell us up front which of them she will throw on the Brexit bonfire, like the Brexiteers wanted?
Elizabeth Truss
It is a shame that the SNP appears to be intent on scaremongering rather than looking at the opportunities for Scottish farmers and businesses from this excellent deal.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Conservative Members are optimistic and positive about the opportunities ahead. We have heard about the opportunities for our dairy farmers, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the opportunities for our arable sector in striking a deal with the Japanese, whose desire for British malt is insatiable, at a time when so much malting barley is sat in the sheds and warehouses of our brewers and farmers? We should be excited about opening up these new markets.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. This country produces high-quality malting barley, and my ambition is to overtake Canada in exports to Japan and to become No. 1 on the Japan malting barley list.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State referred to CPTPP as “11 like- minded nations” and said that
“now is the time to look out to the world”.
Will she not therefore see that it is time to follow Canada’s example and give a formal role to the devolved Administrations in establishing trade policy? Or will Scotland get that opportunity only with independence?
Elizabeth Truss
We have in this country a clear procedure for determining our trade agreements and a clear treaty-ratification process, which I think works well. We are committed to working closely with Scottish Members of Parliament and Scottish businesses to make sure that every part of the UK benefits from our trade-negotiation strategy.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
When I think about trade deals, I think about the benefits that deals like CPTPP will bring to exporters in my patch, such as Equus Leather in Winston, which my right hon. Friend visited with me a few months ago. As she is a champion of global Britain and of free trade, does she agree that UK businesses want the UK to sign up to CPTPP and cement our relationships with top economies such as Japan, Australia and New Zealand?
Elizabeth Truss
Equus Leather is a fantastic business, but the fact is that it currently has to fill in lots of forms when it wants to export not only to America but to other parts of the world. I want to get dedicated SME chapters to get rid of that red tape, so that companies can focus their efforts on producing fantastic products that people around the world want to buy.
Points of Order
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House authorities have done a magnificent job in this time of covid-19 in terms of preparations for debates and voting in the House. Today, we are engaged in, and some of us have already cast our vote in, the deferred Division process, but much to my annoyance I discovered that there was no attempt by anyone to ascertain my identity as I voted. I cast my vote in the Members’ Library with a deferred Division slip, but there was no personnel present to establish that I was who I said I was, and I saw no means of identification other than a signature on the deferred Division list. Is that the process? Is it appropriate that that is how we should vote in a deferred Division Lobby?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Yes. The hon. Gentleman’s signature is unique, and it is recorded here in the House because he will at some point have put his signature in a book in front of the Clerks—when he swore in at the beginning of this Session of Parliament, he will have gone out there and given his signature—so his signature on that deferred Division form is his form of identity. If the hon. Gentleman were to suggest to me that there was some sort of forgery going on, we would have to look at that, but for the moment hon. Members are honourable and their signature identifies them.
Mr Gregory Campbell
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not in any way attempt to challenge your ruling—I accept it—but given the subject matter of the deferred Division, which is the abortion regulations in Northern Ireland, about which Northern Ireland people feel very strongly, I would have thought there should have been some way of personnel establishing that each Member is who they say they are, as we do in the normal process. There appears to have been no communication about this beforehand.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. We are not going to have a prolonged argument about it; the signature is the identity. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that some sort of personation has occurred or some sort of fraudulent action has occurred, I hope he will come to see Mr Speaker about it privately, because it would be a very serious allegation. That not being the case, I am certainly satisfied that hon. Members are honourable and there is no suggestion that anyone has attempted to vote who does not have the authority to do so, on that subject or on any other subject.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is on a completely different matter. You will know that yesterday the Prime Minister announced that he intends to merge the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. He said in the House that he was intending that there would still be proper scrutiny of both elements of that work by the House. I gather that yesterday the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary wrote to the Chair of the International Development Committee to tell her that her Committee would be abolished. Can you confirm that that is actually a matter for the House? It is a matter for our Standing Orders whether that Committee exists. For that matter, the allocation of Chairs between the various Select Committees of the House is a matter that has to be arranged between the usual channels.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Yes, the hon. Gentleman, as usual in these matters, is absolutely correct. The House will be well aware that when changes are made to Select Committees—the chairmanship, the membership, the name, or any changes made to a Select Committee—they appear on the Order Paper and the matter comes before the House. There is the potential for a vote to take place upon it, so, yes, I can confirm that these matters will be dealt with in the proper manner.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As we have had a pause between the previous business and the next business, I do not propose to suspend the House for three minutes. It appears to me that everyone who was going to leave has already left, so let us go directly to the 10-minute rule motion. I call Tracey Crouch to move the motion.
Sexual Offences (Sports Coaches)
Wednesday 17th June 2020
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sexual Offences (Sports Coaches) Bill 2019-21 View all Sexual Offences (Sports Coaches) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to make sports coach a position of trust for the purposes of child sex offences; and for connected purposes.
I rise today to introduce this Bill out of sheer frustration at the lack of progress to extend the positions of trust legislation to sports coaches. I was in post as sports Minister when the scandal of historic abuse in football broke. It was a no-brainer that while safeguards in sport are much better than they were, loopholes existed and this is by far the greatest of them all. When positions of trust was first discussed in the late ’90s, organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Christian Institute and others raised concerns about the exclusion of sports coaches. They continue to welcome efforts, alongside newer organisations such as the Offside Trust, to expand the legislation to protect young people from abuse by those who hold some form of power over them.
I will never forget the bravery of the former Crewe Alexandra player Andy Woodward, who publicly revealed that he was a victim of Barry Bennell, a prolific sex offender who is now in prison for multiple counts of abuse. Due to Andy coming forward, the Football Association and the NSPCC set up a hotline dedicated to helping footballers who had experienced historical sexual abuse. In the first week, the hotline received nearly 900 calls. The footballer sexual abuse scandal has been widely documented, but the problem is not limited to football. In the weeks that followed, I listened to heartbreaking testimonies of athletes from various sports, speaking out about their experiences of historical sexual abuse at the hands of coercive coaches or managers who abused their position of trust for their own gratification.
How sport reacted to those horrific stories is something that should be recognised. The FA did what it had to do for football and the same was done for other sports. Within a relatively short time, sport as a whole, while recognising that many of the incidents in the press were historical and took place before much of our child protection legislation was in place, instigated internal changes to safeguarding practices to ensure that procedures were in place today to maximise protection against abuse in sport. All sport, with support from Sport England and the NSPCC’s Child Protection in Sport Unit, made positive changes in a relatively short time to the way they keep their participants safe. They rightly took responsibility and they took it seriously. Yet the one reasonable request of Government they asked, one that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and I supported, is the one area that still lacks progress: to close the loophole in the misuse of positions of trust legislation to include sports coaches.
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is illegal for certain professions, such as teachers, to engage in sexual activity with a 16 or 17-year-old, as they are considered a person in a position of trust. The Act prescribes a limited number of roles, but does not extend into a range of non-statutory settings that may be subject to far less scrutiny than those covered by the Act. We should perhaps reflect briefly on why we have that particular section of legislation in the 2003 Act. People who work in schools as carers or youth workers will have gone through the required Disclosure and Barring Service checks. Although some might fall through the cracks, ultimately people who pose a known risk to children or vulnerable adults will not, if the system works properly, be allowed to work in that sector. The legislation adds an extra layer of safeguarding to prevent those in positions of trust from forming relationships with children who, although they are over the age of consent, are not considered legal adults and could be abused, given the nature of the power balance. At present, a continued reliance on the law of consent and the accompanying Crown Prosecution Service guidance, such as the aide-mémoire on the abuse of power, places the responsibility on young people themselves to recognise and resist sexual advances from adults in positions of authority over them who are not on the current prescribed list.
Therefore, when an adult occupies a position of authority over a child it is not practical or possible to differentiate the inappropriate utilisation of this position by the adult from the potential exertion of the influence. It also requires children to go through a criminal justice process that some might argue is currently not supporting victims of child sex abuse, given that the latest Office for National Statistics data suggest that only 4% of cases of child sexual abuse reported to police lead to a charge.
I have spent a significant amount of my life coaching sport, so I concur with sports and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that in sport, especially but not exclusively, the elite pathway is a vulnerable area. In my view, the Ministry of Justice should have acted straightaway to close the loophole in the 2003 Act. When I was dealing with the issue as sports Minister, it was claimed that if the legislation was extended to sports coaches, it would also need to be extended to music teachers, private tutors, and faith and driving instructors. My response, as the daughter of a social worker who has spent her working life dealing with child sexual abuse, is, “Yes, it absolutely should be.” I fail to understand why it should not. Concern about the scope of the prescribed list is a poor reason to avoid taking a policy position and changing the positions of trust provisions. Anyone in a position to influence another person’s journey through life, meaning that a power balance rests with them, should not be able to abuse that position via a sexual relationship. Someone’s place in the team or time on the pitch, or the competitions in which they are entered, should not be vulnerable to another person’s physical or emotional demands.
The legislation can be easily amended, either by adding to the list or removing it altogether. The MOJ, at the time, asked for evidence of why change was required, and although evidence was provided, nothing has happened. A freedom of information request found that between 2014 and 2018 there were 653 cases in which adults who could be regarded as being in a position of trust had had a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17-year-old. Of the 495 cases in which the adult’s role was recorded, the majority were in sport, and the data showed that such incidents had increased. Sport is doing what it can to prevent dangerous people from working with children and young adults. It has enhanced its safeguarding procedures, as part of the implementation of the sports governance code, which I oversaw as Minister, and many use enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks. However, while the loophole exists, in the eyes of the law it is deemed okay for someone to have sex with someone over the age of 16 who is in their trust while in sport. Therefore, coercive and abuse behaviour will continue, legally, and the lives of many more youngsters will be ruined. There is no time for dither or delay. The legislative loophole needs a legislative solution. So although I do not need to, as it goes without saying, I commend my Bill to the House.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak very briefly and strongly in favour of this 10-minute rule Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the procedure, and I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He only has locus to speak at this point if he wishes to oppose the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I was giving the hon. Gentleman the chance, in a lawyerly way, to say that he is opposing the Bill in order that he might say what is good about it, but given the time pressure today, I would appreciate it if he did not try to do that, as he cannot now speak in support. I note that he has registered his support for the Bill, and I think the House and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) are grateful for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tracey Crouch, Richard Graham, Sarah Champion, Jim Shannon, Carol Monaghan, Sir Roger Gale, Bambos Charalambous, Damian Collins, Christina Rees, Jonathan Gullis, Anthony Mangnall and Holly Mumby-Croft present the Bill.
Tracey Crouch accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 140).
Madam Deputy Speaker
As we did not suspend the House after the previous item of business, I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order that the usual cleansing process can take place.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 17th June 2020
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 View all Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 17 June 2020 - large font accessible version - (17 Jun 2020)
18:01 - The Committee having divided: - Ayes: 31 / Noes: 400 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s Chair during the Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. If Members obey the rules to the letter, the occupant of the Chair at this time should be addressed not as Deputy Speaker but as Chairman of the Committee. Just before we commence, I should inform the Committee that there has been a production error on the amendment paper. The names of Bob Blackman and Nick Fletcher should not have been published in support of new clause 4 and new clause 5.
Clause 1
Divorce: removal of requirement to establish facts etc
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 8, leave out “20” and insert “46”
This amendment would extend the minimum legal period for a divorce from six months to one year (with the additional six weeks between the conditional and final orders).
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, page 2, line 9, at end insert—
‘(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), “the start of the proceedings” means—
(a) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by both parties to the marriage, the date on which both parties apply for an order under subsection (1), or
(b) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one party to the marriage only, the date when the notice of an application for a divorce order has been received by the other party to the marriage.’
This amendment would define the start of divorce proceedings so that it is clear when the 20-week period would start.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
‘(8A) In the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one party to the marriage only, there shall be no commencement of financial provision proceedings until the end of the period of 20 weeks from the start of the proceedings for the divorce order unless—
(a) the other party to the marriage agrees to the commencement of financial provision proceedings, or
(b) there is an application under section 22 for the court to make an order for maintenance pending suit.’
This amendment would ensure that there are no discussions about financial settlement in the 20 week period unless both parties agree or there is an application to the court for interim maintenance and financial injunctions.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 9, at end insert—
‘(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), “the start of the proceedings” means—
(a) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by both civil partners, the date on which those persons apply for an order under section 44(1), or
(b) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one civil partner only, the date when the notice of an application for a dissolution order has been received by the other civil partner.’
This amendment would define the start of dissolution proceedings so that it is clear when the 20-week period would start.
Amendment 5, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
‘(5A) In the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one civil partner only, there shall be no commencement of financial provision proceedings until the end of the period of 20 weeks from the start of the proceedings for the divorce order unless—
(a) the other civil partner agrees to the commencement of financial provision proceedings, or
(b) there is an application under schedule 5, paragraph 2(1) for maintenance pending suit.’
This amendment would ensure that there are no discussions about financial settlement in the 20-week period for the dissolving of a civil partnership unless both parties agree or there is an application to the court for interim maintenance and financial injunctions.
Clauses 4 to 8 stand part.
Government amendment 6.
Clause 9 stand part.
New clause 1—Increased support for marriage and civil partnerships—
‘(1) Section 22 of the Family Law Act 1996 (Funding for marriage support services) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “may” substitute “must”.
(3) In subsection (1)(a), at end insert “, both before and during a marriage”.
(4) After subsection (1)(a) insert—
“(aa) marriage counselling for any partners to a marriage where an application has been made to the court to dissolve the marriage under section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.”
(5) After subsection (3) insert—
“(4) Any reference to marriage or marital breakdown in this section also applies to civil partnerships.”’
This new clause would ensure increased support for marriages and new support for couples where an application for divorce has been made to the court.
New clause 2—Report on the impact on divorce applications and marriage support—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the impact of this Act on divorce and dissolution proceedings and marriage and civil partnership with the first report to be published no later than 18 months after the day on which this section comes into force.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—
(a) the number of divorce and dissolution applications made under the provisions of this Act by the sex and income of the applicant and respondent, and
(b) the number of children in the relationships subject to the divorce and dissolution applications, and
(c) the number of married couples or civil partners who seek counselling during the divorce process, broken down by geographic location, and
(d) a statement on the support services and marriage counselling available to married couples or civil partners as an alternative to divorce proceedings under this Act, broken down by geographic location.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.’
New clause 3—Divorce after one year separation with consent—
‘(1) The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1(2), omit subsection (d) and insert—
“(d) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least one year immediately preceding the presentation of the petition (hereafter in this Act referred to as “separation for one year”) and the respondent consents to a decree being granted;”
(3) In section 10(1), substitute “separation for one year” for “two years’ separation”;
(4) In section 10(2)(a), substitute “separation for one year” for “two years’ ”;
(5) In section 10(2)(b), substitute “separation for one year” for “two years’ ”.’
The intention of this new clause is to adopt in England and Wales the approach currently available in Scotland allowing a no-fault divorce to be granted on consent grounds in just one year.
New clause 4—Civil legal aid for divorce, dissolution or separation—
‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 18, insert—
18A Civil legal services provided in relation to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004.’
This new clause would add divorce, dissolution and separation proceedings to the list of civil legal services qualifying for legal aid.
New clause 5—Legal aid for divorce proceedings report—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the cost and benefits of providing legal aid for divorce proceedings.
(2) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must take account of the disparity between men and women in their capacity to afford legal advice in matrimonial proceedings.
(3) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a copy of the report of the review to be laid before both Houses of Parliament no later than six months after the date on which this Act is passed.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review within six months of the impact of extending legal aid for divorce proceedings, taking account of any disproportionate effect on women of lack of access to legal aid.
New clause 6—Financial abuse qualifying condition in legal aid family matters—
‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 12 (1) (a) after “violence” insert “or financial abuse”.
(3) In paragraph 12 (1) (b) after “violence” insert “or financial abuse”.
(4) In paragraph 9, at the end insert—
““financial abuse” includes—
(a) having money or other property stolen,
(b) being defrauded,
(c) being put under pressure in relation to money or other property, and
(d) having money or other property misused.”’
This new clause would add financial abuse (as defined in section 42 of the Care Act 2014) to the domestic violence condition under which civil legal aid may be provided in a matter arising out of a family relationship.
New clause 9—Review of Act in relation to children’s financial status—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the financial effects of this Act on families where the marital status (including a current or dissolved civil partnership) of a parent explicitly determines the eligibility for benefits for dependant children.
(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a copy of the report of the review to be laid before both Houses of Parliament no later than six months after the date on which this Act is passed.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish by the end of this year a report on how this Act will affect the financial status of children and families where benefit entitlement is linked to the civil partnership or marriage status of one or both parents.
Amendment 7, in the schedule, page 19, line 4, at beginning insert—
‘( ) Section 22 of the Family Law Act 1996 (funding for marriage support services) is amended as follows.
( ) In subsection (1), leave out “may, with the approval of the Treasury,” and insert “must”.
( ) In subsection (1)(a), at the end insert “, both before and during a marriage”.
( ) After subsection (1)(a) insert—
(i) marriage counselling for any partners to a marriage where an application has been made to the court for a divorce order under section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.”
( ) After subsection (3) insert—
“(4) Any reference to marriage or marital breakdown in this section also applies to civil partnerships.”’
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Fiona Bruce
This Bill is a bad Bill. It sends out the wrong message at the wrong time. No-fault divorce is really state-approved unilateral divorce. Ministers like to say that it is all about the divorce process and not about marriage. They are wrong. The removal of fault sends out the signal that marriage can be unilaterally exited with no available recourse for the party who has been left. The public get it, even if Ministers do not. In the “Finding fault?” national opinion survey, 71% thought that fault should remain in law. That is a survey on which, in other respects, the Government have relied in bringing forward this legislation. Even in the Government’s own consultation, 80% opposed the proposals, and the Bill was not even in our manifesto.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for her considerable contribution in setting the scene for us. She and I have a very similar outlook on life, as I believe others in this House have as well. Is it her intention to ensure, through her amendments and new clauses, that services to save marriages—Relate and others—are available from the very beginning of a relationship breaking down to almost the end of it, so that every person at every stage will have a chance and an opportunity to save a marriage, rather than let it fall apart?
Fiona Bruce
I absolutely agree—indeed, not just from the very beginning of a marriage, but from before it, as I shall mention shortly when I refer to new clause 1.
I return to the important point that a great many family breakdowns may be a lot more salvageable than is commonly assumed, and therefore help towards that is important. Statistics bear this out: only 9% of married couples who split one year later could be categorised as high conflict couples who reported quarrelling a lot in the year before the split, and 60% of married couples who split were low conflict couples who also reported some degree of happiness. This Bill should have focused on helping to keep them together, not least, as has just been mentioned, by offering every couple going into marriage a pre-marriage course.
Such courses would help couples to appreciate that it is not all plain sailing; to understand what the commitment they are making will involve in practice and how to resolve conflict; to understand that better times do not always follow a break-up; and to equip themselves to persevere through difficulties to better times within their marriage. Such difficulties include the disruption a first child can bring, which is so often a crunch point in a marriage, and the current lockdown crisis, which has understandably exacerbated stress in some relationships. Indeed, lawyers report an increase in divorce inquiries of over 40% at present. The last solution offered by the Government for this should be a quick, spur-of-the-moment escape route.
This Bill is not focused on helping to keep marriages and families together; it does exactly the opposite. That is why new clause 1 is so important, and I am also minded to test the will of the Committee on it. New clause 1 would ensure increased funding for relationship counselling and new support for couples where an application for divorce has been made to a court. The availability of marriage support services in this country is wholly inadequate and requires substantially greater Government investment. This is no doubt one of the reasons why we have one of the highest rates of relationship breakdown in the western world.
It was encouraging that, in the last Budget, the Chancellor committed £2.5 million towards this, but much more is needed. Importantly, it is needed for less well-off couples, who cannot afford the private relationships counselling that better-off people can afford. The Government say that they want to remove conflict flashpoints and reduce areas of conflict in the divorce process. Improved relationship support and counselling would help achieve that. The Bill should have focused on it, and new clause 1 will amend this omission. I was encouraged by the support from those in many parts of the House for this on Second Reading.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is most gracious in giving way. She will understand and agree with me and probably others that churches offer such services. Is it possible within this legislation, with the extra money that will come through if the new clause is accepted, for the Government to work alongside churches to ensure that relationships can survive?
Fiona Bruce
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Some excellent marriage counselling and, indeed, pre-marriage courses are supplied through church organisations. They are very popular, and I personally think it would be marvellous to see a lot more of them and to see some Government-funded support for them.
Counsellors help parties to understand the implications of what marriage means and, when difficulties occur, of what splitting up would mean for them, their children, and their wider families. They help people to consider what a split will involve practically, regarding contact arrangements and finances, and whether the option of staying together might be something that they could look at. Counsellors give people tools to help work through the problems, since they may not have had a role model to copy in earlier life. Critically, if the divorce goes ahead, such help can assist a couple to navigate their future relationship in a way that is best for the future wellbeing of their children, and that will, hopefully, foster continued co-operation and constructive communication, while avoiding, or at least minimising, unnecessary acrimony and relationship acidity over the many years—often decades—to come, for the benefit of all involved. It might help people who receive such counselling to know two interesting facts. First, in a study that involved more than 1,500 people, Professor Janet Walker found that two years on from a divorce, many people wished they had been warned beforehand of the harsh realities of life after separation, and said that if they had been forewarned, they might have sought reconciliation. Another piece of research from the US in the early 2000s found that people who are unhappy in their marriage are more likely to be happier five years later if they do not divorce than if they do.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am learning a lot from my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for her contribution. She will be able to inform me better, but one thing that occurred to me is that in the process of divorce—I am talking about friends of mine who have been through this—all the voices are about separation. That could come from the legal profession, to which I mean no disrespect, or from friends who get drawn into separate camps, but there does not seem to be much space for conciliation in the most important contract that two people will ever make. Does new clause 1 seek to address that disparity, and the way that such forces work in those difficult circumstances?
Fiona Bruce
That is exactly its point—very much so. That goes to the heart of the key purpose of new clause 1. Relationship support for couples in difficulty can help them to work together, so that the roots of their conflict can be addressed and terminated, rather than the relationship itself. Investment in relationship counselling would help not just the parties, but their children and wider society. Strikingly, the one provision of the Family Law Act 1996 that was retained is section 22, which enables the Government to provide funding for marriage support services, research into the causes of marital breakdown, and research into ways of preventing marital breakdown. Sadly, in recent years it seems that those provisions have not been used, and no funding has been provided specifically for marriage support. In February 2020 the Government said that between 2014 and 2019 they had invested £46.9 million in relationship support services. With family breakdown costing the UK at least £51 billion each year, surely it is now time to increase support specifically for marriage with this new clause.
On Second Reading, the Lord Chancellor said that he is a supporter of the institution of marriage. I encourage him to take a leaf out of the forward to the consultation response written by his predecessor, who stated:
“I believe that we should do everything we can to try to rebuild relationships before they become irretrievably broken down…This includes, where possible, helping to ensure that relationships can be saved before they are legally ended.”
Will my right hon. and learned Friend pass what might be called the “Gauke test”, by doing everything he can to support saveable marriages and support new clause 1?
Let me turn to amendments 2 and 4. Amendment 2 would define the start of divorce proceedings, so that it is clear when the 20-week period would start. This is an important concern about the Bill. Amendment 2, and amendment 4 with regard to civil partnerships, seek to deal with a serious defect of the Bill. At present, the petitioner for a divorce must prove service on the other party before proceedings get under way. That means that they must prove, on the record, that the other party has received notice and knows that they are being divorced. This Bill contains no such requirement. The applicant can simply lodge his application at court and the 20-week clock referred to in the Bill for proceedings to commence starts ticking.
The Bill needs amending to provide for the 20-week period not to start until the application for a divorce has been received by the other party to the marriage and this has been confirmed at court. Otherwise, as the Bill now reads, one party to the marriage could have far less than 20 weeks’ notice—if, for example, they are away from home, ill, or for some other reason the notice is not effectively served on them—prior to a court making a conditional order, leaving only six weeks left before a final order. Worse still, the Bill, as currently worded, gives a green light to unscrupulous petitioners to ambush their spouse by ensuring that by one means or another, their spouse does not receive the notice of claim filed at court promptly—so-called bombshell applications—because proposed new section 1(3)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 says that if the 20-week clock has ticked, the court
“must…make a divorce order”.
That can leave as little as only six weeks, or a few days more. It is possible for a devious partner to give a vulnerable spouse little over six weeks’ notice that they are being divorced—as I have said, a petitioner’s charter. That mischief needs correcting.
The Government will say that the Bill limits the opportunity for respondents to delay, control or frustrate the divorce application, and I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify where in the Bill it states that.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
On the very good point that people need to know that the proceedings have commenced, what does my hon. Friend think would be good service so that we can be satisfied on that matter?
Fiona Bruce
In my view, it is important to ensure that service is recorded. Service can be made by someone who professionally serves notice and then registers that fact at court. At present, the process of service has to be evidenced before the divorce proceeding process continues any further. All I am asking is that we have the same regulations now.
Even the Law Society, which supports the broad principles of the Bill—to my regret, as I am a member—is supportive of both parties having the same minimum period, so this is a very serious point, which needs to be addressed. As it stands, the 20-week period starting on application is, I believe, defended by Ministers because it makes the process simple. However, in this Bill’s simplicity lies its harshness or, as the noble and learned Baroness Deech has said in another place, its brutality. The shock for many people of being divorced within six months will be hard enough. The shock of being divorced in little over six weeks would be wholly unjust.
The Lord Chancellor has said that he will work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to address this point. I await the Minister’s reassurance on this, which will need to be very strong to counter my view that this amendment to protect vulnerable respondents needs to be on the face of the Bill.
I now turn briefly to amendments 3 and 5 and new clause 2. Amendments 3 and 5 would ensure that there are no discussions about financial settlements in the 20-week period— or ideally, a longer period if amendment 1 is passed—unless both parties agree, or there is an application to court for interim maintenance and financial injunctions. The point of these amendments is that they give a breathing space for the parties to dialogue. Sadly, there is no requirement for this in the Bill—a litigation- free period in which it is hoped the parties may take counsel and try to establish whether they could be reconciled.
New clause 2 would require the Government to report annually on the impact of this Bill on divorce applications and marriage support. It would require them to report to this place on the impact of the Bill and, importantly, on those who are vulnerable, whether financially or otherwise, including children, and, equally importantly, on the availability and take-up of counselling and support services for those involved in divorce proceedings across the country.
In conclusion, as I am sure colleagues will now be aware, I fundamentally oppose this Bill. It does not promote fairness or justice, as I have sought to explain. What is fair or just about someone being able to just walk swiftly away from their relationship responsibilities, especially if children are involved, with no dialogue and without being held to account? Nothing in this Bill will help to reduce the inherent pain of the ending of so many relationships—of the rejection, the loss, the severance of a relationship that started with so many high hopes. This is a sad day for this House and my saddest in 10 years here.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Put simply, Labour supports this Bill. It is in line with Labour party policy. It sends the right message, we believe, many years later than it should have arrived in this place.
We support reforming some of the archaic and outdated hoops that people have to jump through if they want their marriage to end. People who may never have sought or needed a divorce may not know that there is currently no such thing as a no-fault divorce and that one of the parties must be “to blame” for a relationship ending. They may not know that if there is no blame to be laid, people must spend two years separated before they can file for divorce. They may not know that if one of the parties objects to divorce, the other must remain married to them for five years. That is why we hope that Ministers will reject amendment 1. I will turn specifically to that soon.
Marriage is supposed to be a happy and special occasion where two people come together in front of their loved ones and commit themselves to each other, and then set up their lives together. But we would be naive to think that all marriages will last forever. People change and life changes. Something that may have once seemed perfect will not necessarily be that way forever. There is no reason why, in situations where there is no fault, two people should be forced into a hostile situation where they have to find blame, keeping them married for long periods and preventing them from moving on with their lives.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Of course what the hon. Gentleman says is entirely reasonable—that where there is no fault it is right that that should be acknowledged. Where there is fault, should that be acknowledged, or ignored or concealed, or what?
Alex Cunningham
I think that is a matter for the individuals involved. Adults who are embarking on divorce are supposedly mature people and they should be able to sort these things out for themselves. If they want to blame somebody for some reason, that is very much a matter for them.
It is right that this Parliament is taking action to bring divorce law into the 21st century and recognise that in many cases there is no blame—there is just no desire to be together any more. We should be facilitating peaceful endings of marriages where that is possible. I am pleased that this Bill makes excellent moves towards achieving that.
Yet the Opposition have identified several related matters that we felt needed to be heard and considered. From the list of amendments, I see that some Conservative Members also felt that some changes were needed. I plan to address these in turn. Amendment 1 would extend the minimum legal period for a divorce from the six months in the Bill to a year. Wo did not see what value or benefit this would provide; it would simply force two people together for longer than they need to be.
Fiona Bruce
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened to my speech when I was talking about the opportunity for more time to discuss potential reconciliation.
Alex Cunningham
I think that when people embark on divorce proceedings, it is not because they have just changed their mind overnight—relationships break down over a long period and they get to that point. So extending the period anywhere beyond six months does not serve any great further purpose.
I know that it is up to the Government to defend their Bill, but we hope that Ministers will not give way on this issue. Amendment 1 is not within the spirit of the Bill, and it fails to recognise that, by the time a married couple reach the stage of deciding to file for a divorce, they have already made their decision. It is highly unlikely that they will change their minds simply because they have to wait longer for the divorce to be finalised. We are talking about adults—adults who were deemed to have the ability to consent to get married in the first place, and adults who still have the capacity to consent to end that marriage.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
What does the hon. Gentleman make of the surveys that show that up to 50% of people who divorce come to regret it? Does he think that they are merely deluded, or are those surveys wrong? What is his assessment of that?
Alex Cunningham
I will address that later in my speech, but I am in favour of greater support for people who want to see whether they can reconcile their relationship.
Let us not prolong the hurt and difficulty that people inevitably go through when they decide that their marriage is no longer what either of them wants. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, a minimum period of six months provides
“an equality of approach that will no longer discriminate in favour of those couples who perhaps have the means and the wherewithal to either separate and live separately”—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 97.]
We must take into consideration the impact of our decisions on people’s lives. I see no reason why six months would be too short a time for this process to take place. Dragging out the proceedings would not be fair to either party, and it certainly would not be fair on any children involved; we have a duty to take their welfare into consideration too. It would be infinitely better for children to have two parents who separated and divorced quickly and quietly, rather than those children enduring years of something that can be very traumatic and have a lasting impact on them and their future relationships.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said:
“We have all experienced in our surgeries those parents who continue to use their children as weapons in prosecuting a continuing war against their former partners. The removal of fault will not remove that entirely, but I am confident that it will certainly diminish it.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 113.]
He was right. Why should anyone’s children be used as weapons for years on end, causing more pain, distress and doubtless illness as well? Let us not delay proceedings even further. Let us acknowledge that, by the time a divorce has been filed, the parties have already made up their mind and should be allowed to dissolve their marriage without having the legal period extended to a year.
Amendments 3, 4 and 5 appear to be an attempt to frustrate the process of a speedy resolution to divorce proceedings. Amendments 3 and 5 would strengthen the hand of the person who has control of the financial resources in situations where there is financial abuse. Maybe I have missed something, but it seems to me that it would do nothing to help the party who does not have the financial upper hand. Financial settlements are needed as quickly as possible to enable a divorcing couple to live apart. If the intent is for divorcing couples to remain living together during the period of the divorce due to financial restrictions on one party preventing them from moving out, this would be ill-advised. It would not lead to some miraculous reconciliation, but will allow for even greater friction, and it would be counterproductive to the aims of the Bill to encourage amicable divorce and separation. The Law Society has said:
“There can be severe, sometimes irretrievable, financial prejudice to an applicant if final divorce is granted before a financial settlement is reached.”
It is important for discussions on financial settlements not to be delayed, which would only delay divorce proceedings and cause further hurt and frustration.
I turn to new clause 1. I do not think anyone can fail to agree that increased support for marriages is a good thing, but we need much more clarity on how it would work and how it would be funded. I certainly do not think it is something that could or should be made mandatory for couples who are petitioning for divorce. The availability of support for people who wished to access it would be welcome, and I am mindful that couples who would like support may not have the resources that others are able to pay for. If the Government are not minded to adopt this new clause, perhaps the Minister could commit to bringing his own plan to the House designed to provide more support for couples petitioning for a divorce, as well as support for couples who want help to try to put things right before they petition for a divorce.
On new clause 2, we would be in favour of a report on the impact on divorce applications and marriage support. This House works best when it is informed by facts and the reality of people’s lives, and the hope is that this report would give us a true insight into the impact of the Bill. I hope the Minister will comment on that.
Jim Shannon
I probably have a different opinion on this from the hon. Gentleman, but if we are dealing with facts, I understand that there is an evidential base of facts that shows that 50% of people who have divorced, as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) referred to earlier, wish to have had the opportunity not to have divorced. If there is an evidential base and the facts are there, why not take those on board?
Alex Cunningham
We do take the facts on board. People may feel that they have got it wrong, and we have all seen examples of people who get married, get divorced and get remarried. We have seen examples where people have done that more than once, which is remarkable. People have the choice, but that does not mean we should lengthen the period that people have to wait before they can divorce. It will be particularly interesting to see how many couples opt for no-fault divorces as an alternative to laying the blame at the feet of one person in the relationship.
Some of the impact of this Bill may be unmeasurable, but it does not make that impact less important. For example, we might not know the true impact of quicker and more amicable divorces on children and how that affects their wellbeing and future lives, but I am confident in saying that having two parents apart but happy is infinitely better for a child than having parents stuck in an unhappy marriage for years on end. I hope the Minister will comment on that.
That leads me to new clause 3, which would reduce the time period to allow a divorce with consent from two years to one. I do not believe the new clause is needed, as the provisions within the Bill are better than what the new clause would achieve. It would still require couples to stay married for a year before they can petition for divorce, and it completely ignores the reality in which people live their lives. To be separated, people have to live apart and at least sleep apart, which simply is not possible for many people. Many homes do not have the luxury of extra bedrooms, and I doubt that 12 months on a sofa is very acceptable. Many couples do not have the disposable income for them to live separately and they have nowhere else to go, so I am not sure what benefit the new clause is supposed to have. Allowing a no-fault divorce is infinitely preferable to forcing an unhappy couple to stay married for a year before they can divorce.
New clause 4, which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, me and other hon. and right hon. Members, relates to funds and income. It is undeniable that there is a problem with access to legal aid, not just in divorce, but across a wide spectrum of areas. The huge cuts made to funding over the past 10 years have led to unfairness and a lack of justice across our nation. Without adequate legal aid for divorce proceedings, we have a situation where some people cannot afford to petition for divorce. We are essentially forcing people to stay married to someone they do not want to be married to simply because they do not have enough money to take legal action.
If the Minister agreed to act, he would have the support of the Law Society. In a briefing, it told me that respondents should have sufficient time to respond to a petition and seek advice. It also stated:
“In our evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in regard to the human rights implications of the Bill, we highlighted that there is the potential for issues under article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 due to its potential to have a particularly detrimental impact on women, who due to a range of societal issues are more likely to be less resilient to financial risks…While divorce affords some protections to women at the end of a marriage, they can only make best use of these legal safeguards if they can participate in the proceedings fully.”
It is right and just that we extend legal aid to divorce, dissolution and separation proceedings to allow people to escape unhappy marriages and civil partnerships. While we welcome the provisions in the Bill to make divorce easier, will the Government acknowledge that without legal aid, we are simply making divorce easier for those who have the funds to petition, while little change will be made for those who do not have such funds? I hope the Minister will go away and consider that, as we must do better for those who do not have the resources to use the legal system.
New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review within six months on the impact of extending legal aid for divorce proceedings. We on this side of the House are particularly interested in the disproportionate impact that an absence of legal aid has on women and how Government can help put a stop to that. Does the Minister agree that we should be conducting research to collect facts about the impacts of decisions made by this House and the potential impacts that decisions made by this House could have? With this in mind, I hope the Minister will accept that we must actively seek out areas where a group of people are being disproportionately negatively impacted, and make the necessary changes to fix that.
We know that legal aid is available in some circumstances, but, as we say in new clause 6, we would like to see financial abuse listed as a specific condition under which civil legal aid may be provided in matters arising out of family relationship. If a person is being financially abused, they simply do not have the funds to petition for a divorce. Does the Minister accept and acknowledge this fact? If he does, perhaps we can make some progress. This could be transformational change for those who have been essentially kept from having their freedom by their partners because they do not have the resources to pursue a divorce. Can the Minister tell me now whether he will seek to introduce financial abuse as a part of the domestic abuse conditions that allow access to legal aid? If not, is it the case that the Government do not wish to provide real and tangible assistance to those who are being financially abused and cannot escape an abusive relationship without that assistance?
There are other areas of family law that I would like to be addressed in the Bill, such as the out-of-date, archaic approach which means that families are entitled to bereavement support only if the parents are married. Not only does this fail to recognise that many families have happy and secure lives without the need for marriage, but it means unhappy couples may be discouraged from petitioning for a divorce because of the potential financial consequences. However, it goes much wider than that.
I have a constituent who when living with her partner had a child with him. Sadly, the relationship was not sustained but her partner, who left, kept up regular maintenance payments for his child until his death. Despite having those regular payments, my constituent is denied bereavement support. When I wrote to the Government seeking clarity on this, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Baroness Stedman-Scott, responded by simply saying that marriage was a key part of benefit entitlement. This is an outdated approach, and we must reframe our public policy on it. We live in a society where families come in all shapes and sizes, and we should not be deeming one shape or size as preferable to another.
The chief executive of Child Bereavement UK said:
“The inequality that unmarried parents face in the bereavement system denies them access to this financial support at a time of great distress and anxiety on many levels following the death of a partner…It is a gross injustice that the current system ultimately disadvantages bereaved children, who have no influence over their parents’ marital status.”
For bereavement support when one parent dies to be permitted only if the parents were married is backwards, and I hope the Government recognise that and will take action to right this wrong.
New clause 9, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and in mine, is an important one. I will not steal my hon. Friend’s thunder, but it is absolutely right that the Secretary of State publish by the end of this year a report on how this legislation will affect the financial status of children and families where benefit entitlement is linked to the civil partnership or marriage status of one or both parents. As I have said, basing benefit entitlement on marital status is outdated and not representative of the modern society in which we live.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the YouGov poll commissioned by Resolution, which represents more than 6,000 family lawyers and family law professionals? It shows that 71% of the population agrees that no-fault divorce is urgently needed to protect the long-term interests of children.
Alex Cunningham
I have seen that particular information. It cuts to the very core of what this is about. It is not just about the two partners in a relationship; it is about the children. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke about the extended family and the need for grandparents to be involved with their grandchildren. It would absolutely break my heart if I were to lose contact with my grandson. It is very important that we recognise that this will actually make life easier for children, which is why we support it.
As I was saying, basing benefit entitlement on marital status is outdated, so I hope the Minister will go away and collect the information to share with the House. The Government have acknowledged that we need to make divorce easier and more straightforward, which this Bill does, but the Government cannot and should not ignore the negative repercussions of the positive changes being brought in with this Bill.
In conclusion, this is a good Bill that will change people’s lives for the better. But there is always room for improvement, especially changes in the spirit of this Bill recognising modern relationships and families as well as legal aid. I hope the Minister will agree that there is much more change needed in this area of family law, but this is a good first step.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Rosie, and to follow the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham).
I listened with great care to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I have great respect for the sincerity with which she expresses her views. I have to say that I profoundly disagree with the fundamental basis of her analysis, but I do not mean that with any disrespect to her or others who take a different view. This is not a Bill on which we should be judgmental, any more than we should be judgmental in relation to divorce itself. The Bill is, to my mind, a sensible one. It reflects reality, which is often painful—painful not least for the parties and for their families. As I said on Second Reading, I start from the proposition—it also informs my approach to these amendments—that nobody gets married setting out to get divorced. Divorce arises only as a result of a great deal of hardship, heartache and heart searching.
In my experience, as a constituency MP and lawyer—I did not predominantly practise family law as a lawyer, although I did a bit at one time, and I have many friends who continue to do it at every level—divorce is not undertaken lightly, any more than any relationship breakdown is undertaken lightly. When it happens, however, it is better that it should be done with the minimum of conflict and the minimum of confrontation. Over the years, we have made reforms to the law of divorce to try to make it closer to the reality of the society in which we live, because, ultimately, that is what law has to serve. In this regard, I support the Bill for attempting, and succeeding in large measure, to do that. So although I understand that the amendments are well intentioned, I cannot support them.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend will, of course, understand from the personal experience of his constituents and from other experience that he has enjoyed that the acrimony he described is often about the dispersal of assets and the custody of children. It is not about the process of divorce; it is about the business of divorce. The custody of children and the agreement about assets will continue regardless of the process. Acrimony is a feature of the human condition, not a legal process.
Sir Robert Neill
The only part that I agree with my right hon. Friend about is the fact that acrimony can be a feature of the human condition. I am afraid that I have to profoundly disagree with the rest of his analysis. I regret to have to say that a divorce process that entrenches confrontation absolutely has the reverse effect to that which he suggests. The reality is that the acrimony, sadly, has arisen in the course of the breakdown, which, all too often, may have been a long time coming and may have happened for a number of reasons, which cannot be laid necessarily always at the door of one party or the other. But the law, as it stands, does not fit that reality fairly and sensibly. Whatever its intention, it actually makes matters worse, so I do have to part company with my right hon. Friend on that.
There is much to be said— I will take it out of turn but I think it relates to the principle of this—for the various amendments that relate to improving the attempts to support marriage and conciliation. I understand that and hope the Minister will have more to say about what more we can do in that regard. The truth is that, by the time we get to the issuing of the proceedings for divorce, the horse has bolted. We should do more to prevent that from happening and help couples when they run into difficulties at the beginning, but that is not what this Bill is changing.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Do I detect from what my hon. Friend has said that he is supportive of new clause 1 and amendment 7, which are, in fact, identical in terms of marriage and relationship support? That has always been a feature of this aspect. It was part of the Family Law Act 1996. Is he supportive of what those two amendments are trying to do?
Sir Robert Neill
I am supportive of the objective, but I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on whether those are the best means of achieving it in the context of the Bill. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says about the objective, and he and I share views on a number of issues. I would prefer to see the Bill pass cleanly and then to work constructively with the Government to find means of giving that sort of support, because there are other methods that I think could be used to do that. However, I take on board the importance of the point he makes.
Against that background, it is important that we seek to minimise conflict and that we face the fact that, however much we might wish it were otherwise, a bond that is no longer meaningful to a couple is not best served by forcing them together. That is neither socially desirable nor just; nor is it Christian or ethical in terms of any faith.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend used the phrase “the horse has bolted” in reference to the time the petition is initiated. In fact, in recent years tens of thousands of petitions have been abandoned after being lodged at court; the marriages have remained intact. Is not that something we should celebrate and encourage?
Sir Robert Neill
I think it rather depends on the grounds on which the petition is abandoned. If someone was coerced into abandoning a petition, I would not regard it as something to celebrate, to be perfectly frank, as that would be allowing a coercive party to win. That may not be the case in most instances, but that is a reality as well. The evidence also shows that about 10% of petitions do not proceed to their final conclusion, but that is very often because of procedural reasons, and sometimes because of no co-operation on the part of the respondent. With respect, I am not sure that that is the best argument.
Unfortunately, and as has been pointed out, amendment 1 appears simply to delay dealing with an issue that needs to be resolved. It is merely reinserting and increasing the time period. The longer the period goes on, the greater is the likelihood of conflict and hardship, and the greater is the risk that the stronger partner—whether financially or emotionally—in a relationship that has not always been happy and who may have verged on being coercive or been outright coercive, will have all the cards in their hands. The longer it goes on, the more they can push back against the person who is seeking to leave an unhappy relationship and genuinely move their life on. I do not believe the amendment would have the effect my hon. Friend seeks of making the divorce process easier or better.
Naz Shah
The hon. Gentleman is making very valid points, which I agree with. Does he agree with me that, especially where domestic violence is involved, that partner has the power to prolong cases for up to two years —in some cases, five years—which has a negative impact on both the abused partner and on the children?
Sir Robert Neill
Unfortunately, that is also true. I think most of us will have seen that in our surgeries.
It is also worth saying that the pilot information meetings held under the Family Law Act 1996, which was passed but never brought into force, indicated very strongly that, by this stage, very often people have made a decision and want to move on. In reality, there may be another family, or a new relationship has started. People should not be forced to point a finger of blame. A law that requires that is doing no social or ethical good.
Amendment 3, in effect, restates and retains the fault- based approach. That is opposed by Resolution—an admirable body—and not supported by the Marriage Foundation either. I simply do not think that professionals believe that anything is gained by this approach.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman has reiterated that certain professionals will not gain out of this, but is not the unfortunate fact that some professionals in the legal field will set themselves up as the expert in finding the loophole, the expert in the quickie divorce, the person who can get people over the hurdles even faster? As we have seen in other fields, there will be some unscrupulous individuals who market themselves on that basis. That is a problem that the Bill introduces.
Sir Robert Neill
I do not think the Bill adds to that problem at all. If it exists, it can exist in any profession and can be dealt with by proper regulation. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, that the current situation makes that problem worse, because people have to go through what is rightly described by the research from the University of Exeter as a legal farce—a legal ritual of saying, “What is the minimum form of words that your client will accept that will meet the legal test to enable us to get divorced?” That is the sort of thing that can be taken advantage of and it is where the unscrupulous will come in. Removing fault removes the ability for the unscrupulous person to play upon fault, be they a purported adviser or a party to the divorce. Maintaining that approach and resisting these amendments, however well intended, is important and I urge the Government to do so.
It is important to look at the international comparisons. In England, a disproportionate amount of reliance is placed upon fault as the grounds for divorce. There are other grounds for divorce, but because it is complicated at the moment some 60% of divorces in England are based upon allegations of adultery. By that stage, people have split up and are often living apart. There is the business of having to point the finger about who did what. My old pupil master, whom I believe I mentioned on Second Reading, was around when we still had to go through the charade of getting an affidavit from a chambermaid or the receptionist in a hotel to prove divorce. It was a demeaning business and thank God we got rid of that. Maintaining a fault system, which, as I say, entrenches conflict, does us no credit as far as that is concerned.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that there is only one ground for divorce, which is irretrievable breakdown, and there are five areas where one can adduce evidence of that irretrievable breakdown? Should we not be concentrating on that one issue: irretrievable breakdown?
Sir Robert Neill
It seems to me that that is precisely what the Bill is seeking to do. The problem is the requirement to prove the following facts to support that because, inevitably, that evidential requirement elides into the grounds, and the conflict created by the need to prove one or other of those facts is the difficulty. So I think that the Bill is moving in the direction that my hon. Friend, with his own experience in the law, will probably wish us to go.
Fiona Bruce
So now we are substituting the requirement to prove a fact with someone merely being able to state their opinion and that being accepted as fact. Does my hon. Friend think that is right?
Sir Robert Neill
If the ground is made out that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, I think most people would say that there is no merit in seeking to go beyond that. I know it is suggested that there ought to be some finding of fault on the record. This is not a criminal process and I do not think that helps anyone. Ultimately, the court process is not there even to assist someone in a measure of trauma, I have to be blunt about that. That is not what the court process is there for. By all means, help people when their relationships get into trouble and do more than we already do. I would not support the Opposition’s amendment in the form in which it currently appears, but I hope the Minister will have more to say about what can be done to make access to legal advice more readily available to people when their relationships start to fall apart and when divorce looms. Legal aid was withdrawn from divorce overall. I understand the financial reasons behind that and I understand the argument that, if we move to a system where we do not have the level of confrontation, it may not be necessary in many cases, given the other changes—the online portal and other matters—to go down the route of requiring lawyers at every stage.
Alex Cunningham
Would the hon. Gentleman support the idea that information relating to financial abuse should be specifically categorised in the law so that people get legal aid in those circumstances?
Sir Robert Neill
That is an interesting point and I would like to see what the Government can come up to deal with that, but I am not convinced that it needs to be in the Bill. I do, though, think that the Government need to look at it, not least because under the existing legislation that is retained there is, very properly, the ability to take conduct into account when dealing with financial matters. To me, that is where conduct ought to be relevant, rather than in proving the fact of an irretrievable breakdown. That is the way I would look at it.
I know that the Minister is particularly alert to these matters, and I hope he will want to think about how we can have greater access to early legal advice for people. Legal aid may be one route for that, but there may be other means that we can use to supplement it. One of the things that was said when we withdrew legal aid from family cases was that many more will go to mediation; that never happened, and the reality is that that is because lawyers are normally the gateway to mediation. Unless someone has some form of legal assistance to go to a lawyer in the first place, they are not going to end up moving into mediation, which is where we want people to be. That is where I am in agreement with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), but I hope that there is another means of achieving what he is looking for in a proportionate way.
I hope I have set out why I think Members will resist the amendments—not because they are not serious issues, nor because every one of us does not want to try get the Bill into the best possible condition, but because they would muddy the waters of the Bill and, in fact, would undermine it in a number of important respects by adding back in much of the confrontational process, and they would cause delay when delay is many people’s biggest concern. In particular, some of the technicalities of the amendments would actually strengthen the arm of the spouse who wants to exert influence on the petitioner either not to proceed with the divorce or, even worse, to settle for an unsatisfactory financial arrangement or an unsatisfactory arrangement for the children.
I do not see how, whatever their intention, amendments that have the practical result of strengthening the hand of the party who is putting pressure on someone at a time like that are in the public interest. For those reasons, I hope very much that the House will not accept the amendments but will take on board some of the legitimate points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and by the shadow Minister, which I think would chime with many people throughout the House, about how best we give people support at such a difficult period in anyone’s life.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I associate myself with the comments from my colleague and good friend on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who gave us a clear outline of where the Labour party and the Opposition are on the amendments that have been tabled.
I rise to speak in particular to new clause 9 and to ask the Ministers to consider the financial status of children. I also associate myself with the comments from Members from all parties about the importance of supporting people with marriage, because it is obviously an issue for people to access support.
New clause 9 speaks to the conversation that we appear to want to have as a House. We should talk about marriage, and we should talk about how marriage and divorce are seen in public policy making, because there are ramifications, and there are ramifications that go far beyond the straightforward question of whether and how people can get married.
I wish to start with a wonderful quote that struck me very strongly:
“People stay married because they want to, not because the doors are locked.”
Those words were said by a gentleman who had a 50-year marriage: the great actor Paul Newman. Many of us are aware of Paul Newman’s marriage to Joanne Newman, which was celebrated throughout Hollywood—perhaps an area to which the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) would not look for marriage guidance, and I probably agree with her about that. Nevertheless, when we think about our role as parliamentarians in law, it is worth reflecting that even Paul Newman was married to somebody else when he met Joanne Newman and had three children.
The reality is that sometimes relationships do not work out, and sometimes people choose not to use marriage as a way of cementing their relationship. In the 21st century, it is right that, when we look at legislating on marriage and divorce, we ask ourselves what the consequences of any changes we might make will be for people’s real lives. It is right that we never lose sight of what really matters here, which is the people we represent and their families and day-to-day lives, and what the consequences would be. Indeed, it was Nietzsche who said that it was
“not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.”
An environment is created when we say that we are either standing up for or detracting from marriage, because forcing people to stay unhappy or, as some are suggesting with this Bill, making divorce easier and therefore traducing the concept of marriage, misses out something fundamental about this legislation and about how we treat marriage within the legislative process. That is where new clause 9 is coming from.
New clause 9 seeks to take up the test that the hon. Member for Congleton set out in her amendments. She suggested that people will marry less and cohabit more and that somehow, therefore, we need to act against that. My point in tabling this new clause, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, who feels strongly about this too, is that we can lose sight of what really matters here and, in particular, lose sight of the consequences for children. I would wager that the hon. Member for Congleton and I may have differences of opinion on many things, but we would agree that children should matter and that we should never legislate in this place without thinking through the consequences for children.
The challenge here, and the reason why I tabled new clause 9, is that the way in which marriage it is portrayed in our legislative process, in particular how it is explicitly referenced when it comes to benefits, has consequences. It has very real consequences for the destitution of children. I agree with the hon. Member for Congleton that marriage breakdown is hard on children, but imagine a child who loses a parent and how awful that must be for that child. The trouble here is the way in which we think about marriage has consequences for children who are already facing the trauma of having lost a parent.
I hope that new clause 9 is actually a relatively straightforward piece of work, because there is a hangover from the Beveridge report, which sought to support widows, particularly widowed women who lost their husbands and, therefore, were having to look after children after losing the family income. The challenge for this piece of legislation, because I know Dame Rosie would say, “Well, this is a separate issue,” is that when we change the way in which we talk about marriage—or when we change the way in which we talk about divorce, because this will affect the children of divorced parents, too—the knock-on consequences may have severe financial effects for children. If we do not give them a voice in this process, we miss a trick. New clause 9 asks us to do precisely that.
Although the hon. Member for Congleton and I may have different views on marriage, we would find common cause in saying, “Well, actually, we should look and see whether this is going to affect that group of children,” because right now we know that the way the law is cast does affect those children. It affects thousands of people in this country who are already facing the trauma of losing a family member, whether through terminal illness or through sudden death, and who suddenly find that they are not entitled to support because of the marital status of their parents,
The widows legislation was in the Beveridge report, and it was updated in 2001 to take in fathers—some hon. Members will be pleased to hear that, and I would agree that we should not discriminate between fathers and mothers. Having worked on this issue for a number of years, with some fantastic organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group, the Grieving Parents Support Network, and Widowed & Young, I have heard some horrific stories about families and the impact of the changes upon them.
Crucially, this is based on national insurance contributions. That is why when we change access to marriage or change the rules around divorce, it has a knock-on effect on this particular piece of welfare policy. There are few other areas of policy that I can see that have such an explicit connection to marriage and divorce. The benefit is specifically not available—this is written into law—to partners who were not married or who were divorced. In earlier incarnations, it was also not eligible to parents whose partner was in prison— I am not quite sure why that was—or if the parent marries or cohabits. It was changed again in 2017 to the bereavement support allowance, and it was altered to shorten the amount of time that a family might be eligible to it, not to recognise the families who may miss out.
However, those are the very families about which I am sure the hon. Member for Congleton would say, “Well, actually, they should be getting married, and what we should be doing is having legislation that encourages and promotes marriage.” The challenge that I have here is that unless we recognise that people may choose for their own private reasons not to marry or may be in the process of getting married, we hit those families when we change the law on marriage and divorce. We are talking about a not inconsequential sum of money. Over the course of 18 months it adds up to £10,000, so we can see immediately that for families who lose a parent and a breadwinner, whether through terminal illness, which might have already caused problems for their finances, or through sudden death, the loss of £10,000 on top of the loss of a partner is a huge cataclysmic shock to them and their family. The reality is that in modern Britain one in five parents are raising children who cannot claim this benefit if their partner dies. That is about 2,000 families a year, which is about 3,500 children in total.
Some 49% of cohabiting couples believe that being in a cohabiting relationship gives them legal rights, which obviously is incorrect. The Bill will reinforce some of those challenges. Crucially, that number rises if they have children: 55% of cohabiting couples believe erroneously that, were the worst happen, they would still have the same right as if they had been married to that support which they have, after all, paid for with their national insurance contributions. I think that is why the Government have lost several court cases on this issue, yet we have not seen any progress being made. I believe we have not seen any progress being made because of the idea, to which the Bill speaks, that somehow we must cement marriage to the exclusion of all other concerns within our public policy-making process.
In August 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that denying the widowed parent’s allowance to unmarried parents was incompatible with human rights legislation. In February this year, the High Court ruled that denying the new bereavement support allowance to bereaved parents was also incompatible. Every day that we delay resolving this situation, recognising that how we talk about and legislate on marriage has practical implications for families who face the trauma of losing a parent, there are more children in this position. Indeed, in the current circumstances where people cannot have marriages unless in extreme circumstances—it is only recently that we have seen that—we face the vision of families losing someone to this awful virus and then discovering that they are in a financial crisis moment because they cannot get the support that they reasonably thought they were entitled to, because their family member had paid their national insurance contribution.
Other countries, which have strong feelings and strong legislation on marriage and divorce, have treated the matter differently. Other member states of the Council of Europe and Canada either pay a survivor’s pension direct to the partner or pay what is called an orphan’s pension to the child. They explicitly say, “However strongly we may feel that we want to promote marriage and however strongly we may feel that divorce in itself should not be something that the state is propagating, we do not punish the child for the decisions of the parent. We do not push the child into financial destitution. Whenever we change the law on marriage or divorce, we seek to put the child at the heart of the decisions we make.” If the Minister wishes, he can read the stories of women like Laura Rudd or Joanna Niemeyer from my community in my constituency, or the examples raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, about the human consequences of talking about marriage and divorce to the exclusion of all concerned, for children who may have to deal with the aftermath.
If my new clause is about anything, it is about understanding the true effect of everything that we are doing. The Minister may say to me, “Well, it would not just cover bereavement support payments.” That is true. We would probably have to look at the married couple’s allowance, which is our previous attempt to promote, encourage and sustain the concept of marriage. I am very mindful that that is not claimed by the vast majority of people who are entitled to it. This is a small change to protect bereaved families. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of people: a few thousand people every year could be covered by it. If only 1.7 million of the 4.2 million families who are entitled to the married couple’s allowance claim it—one question the review could consider is whether the ways in which the Minister is changing access to marriage and divorce might affect that—then the £20 million we estimate it would cost to put this right could come from that budget and we would not be asking little children who face the loss of a parent to deal with a double financial blow because their parents were not married. After all, when their parents are alive we recognise their relationship in the tax credit system. It is a hangover from a previous era in how we dealt with benefits and marriage. It is right, when we are looking at legislation on marriage, to ask whether there will be a further consequence.
I ask the Minister—I recognise that he may say the Bill is not the right place for this debate—not to forget those children in this debate.
Will he go to the Department for Work and Pensions and say, “It’s been two years since the courts said that this was a human rights breach. That’s thousands more children who have been left out and left in destitution, who have missed out on that money, which their families need at a crucial, vulnerable time”? Whether their parents would choose not to get married because the law is changed to make it easier to get divorced, or whether that would not make any difference, they deserve to be heard in this place, they deserve an answer, and they deserve our support. It is never right to tell a child that the sins of the father should be prosecuted on them, and yet by default the way we treat marriage in public policy will do that to these children.
Sir Christopher Chope
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who made a compelling argument in support of new clause 9. I am convinced by it, and I hope that others will be as well.
I wish to speak in support of the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). If any more evidence was needed that our Government have lost their moral compass, this Bill provides it. I never thought that I would be asked by a Conservative Government to support a change in the law that gives unilateral access to the courts without any requirement to establish facts. It is completely at odds with the values of justice that I hold and which I think most members of the Conservative party, if not the nation, also hold.
I was a pupil in chambers specialising in family law around the time that the 1969 legislation was introduced that changed the divorce laws to say there was only one ground for divorce, and that was that a marriage had broken down irretrievably. There were five ways in which that irretrievable breakdown could be satisfied on the evidence. The Bill retains irretrievable breakdown as the ground for divorce but enables that to be proved by mere assertion by one of the parties to the marriage without the need to provide any evidence in support, even if the other party profoundly disagrees.
We know that our courts are under pressure, but how can this justify the expedient of removing the requirement to adduce any facts as evidence? Reliance on mere assertion was how we used to deal with witches, and it is still a favourite tool among dictators such as Putin and Erdoğan, who govern by decree. I did not think we were going to venture down that route in this Parliament under a Conservative Government.
I am particularly attracted to the provisions of new clause 3, which skilfully avoids the use of summary justice. It adopts the Scottish approach to separation with consent by reducing the separation period from two years to one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has told us that some 95% of divorces in Scotland are now on the basis of that provision—in other words, with consent after one year. The Law Commission recommended that instead of one year or six months, the right time would be nine months. The Lord Chancellor has arbitrarily rejected that suggestion. The argument deployed was merely that the approach to divorces in Scotland is piecemeal. I profoundly disagree with that conclusion. I think the approach in Scotland is a much more sensible one, and I do not say that just because I had the benefit of a Scottish university education when I studied Scots law, among other things.
Many marriage breakdowns are temporary and not irretrievable. That is why the issue of evidence for irretrievable breakdown is so important. Sometimes the parties interpret a breakdown as irretrievable, they get divorced and they live to regret it later. Who can doubt that many divorcees on their own during the covid-19 lockdown desperately wish that they had persisted with their marriage? My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) referred to some 50% of people who get divorced having regrets about having done so. I suspect that, following this lockdown, that percentage might increase even further.
Andrea Leadsom
Further to the statistic that up to 50% of people said they regretted divorcing, the reasons they gave were things like they felt they still loved their partner and that they missed their partner, so for all the huge number of comments that it is all financial, it is very genuinely emotions.
Sir Christopher Chope
This is a very emotional subject, and we ignore that at our peril.
The Bill and the lack of response by the Government to the criticisms that were made on Second Reading lead me to believe that the Government do not really accept the important role that family life has to play in maintaining social cohesion in this country, with the institution of marriage at its heart. The Government almost seem to be venturing down the same route as those who support cultural Marxism. Are the Government inadvertently collaborators with cultural Marxism in seeking to undermine nuclear families?
In the opening speech on Second Reading, the Lord Chancellor said that
“it is often too late to save a marriage, once the legal process of divorce has started.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 95.]
but he sought to avoid the concerns of the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about access to free counselling for those with marriage difficulties, and he cited the Department for Work and Pensions programme of £39 million on reducing parental conflict as the solution.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman mentions my comments to the Secretary of State last week. I do feel that the opportunity for Relate and marriage guidance should be available, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, before the marriage starts but also as the process comes to its end. It should not just be available in the early stages—I understood from what the Secretary of State said that it would only be available early. Is it not important that at all stages the chance to reconcile and save a marriage should be paramount and should be tried in every case?
Sir Christopher Chope
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My regret is that the Marriage Guidance Council ever changed its name to Relate because I do not think that as many people understand what Relate is actually about. Of course, after the hon. Gentleman put that point to the Lord Chancellor, there was a non-response—I think that is the generous way of putting it. Then my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire intervened and asked about guarantees that the DWP programme would continue, because at the moment it is only funded for the next nine months. Again, there was no willingness to give any assurance from the Front Bench that that programme would be renewed or even that the Lord Chancellor would support such a renewal. That is why I am sceptical about all this.
The Lord Chancellor said that the aim of the Bill is to “reduce conflict”. He described it as being about the “legal process”, not about stopping the decline in the institution of marriage or, as he put it, “committed relationships”. He also conceded that this Bill is not going to make divorce less attractive, and he did not think it was intended for that end. However, surely this is a golden opportunity to expand marriage guidance services and to make them more easily accessible. It is an opportunity that has been missed, and that is why I shall be supporting new clause 1 if it is put to the vote.
Marriage is something that people have to work at, and I think most marriages will have had their ups and downs. The temptation now is that a party to a marriage going through a bad spell can suddenly, arbitrarily, unilaterally and without consulting their spouse terminate the marriage, and then within six months have a divorce, and I think that is highly unsatisfactory.
The Lord Chancellor seems to believe that nobody embarks on divorce other than in circumstances where the marriage has ended. May I draw his attention to the fact that one of the side-effects of this will be to facilitate the development of more sham marriages? A sham marriage can then result in a sham divorce, and sham divorces will be able to follow on much more quickly than they have been able to do hitherto. Ironically, I think this is going to promote sham marriage and all the abuse of our immigration law and other laws that that leads to.
This Bill is essentially introducing what I would call marriage shorthold, a legal agreement that can be terminated unilaterally after six months, without any evidence of fault. Is it not ironic that, while the Government are introducing marriage shorthold, they are seeking to abolish tenancy shorthold? Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 allows a six-month housing tenancy to be terminated unilaterally after six months, without evidence of fault. What is the justification that the Government are putting forward for ending tenancy shortholds? It is because tenancy shortholds undermine security. What does this lead us to conclude? It leads me to conclude that the Government value housing security above marriage security, and I think that is a really perverse order of priorities.
I suppose, as a supply side supporter, I could be arguing that, in the same way that the supply side reforms in the 1988 Act—I was privileged to be a Minister in the Department of the Environment when we bought it in—had the consequence of increasing the number of tenancies and the availability of rental options, perhaps the supply side changes to our divorce law will have the consequence that people will feel they can enter into marriage more easily because they are going to be able to end it after six months if it does not work out. That is not a justification so far put forward by the Government, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister how he finds consistency in the approaches to shorthold tenancies and to shorthold marriage.
I think this Bill lacks ambition, and that is another reason why I am not going to be able to support it. I think it should be used as an opportunity to help address conflicts in marriage and between married partners, but it should not be designed, as I think it is, to undermine the institution of marriage in itself.
In conclusion, let me just say this. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has repeatedly described himself as a doughty champion of family values, but I think it is significant that throughout the debates we have had on this Bill, he has been remarkably diffident about promoting the positive benefits of marriage, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have done during the course of this debate. Unless the Government accept the amendments before the House today—particularly, in my view, new clause 1—there will be no evidence to back up the Lord Chancellor’s assertion of being a champion of family values. Indeed, like a party to a divorce under this Bill, he will have absolved himself of any requirement to establish the facts. What a sad state of affairs that is.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that because we are in Committee I cannot impose a time limit, but I am sure that everyone can see from the call list that there are still nine speakers. The debate has to finish at 6 o’clock. I am sure that hon. Members will want the Minister to have a good chunk of time to address the points that have been raised and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) to have some time to respond. If everyone continues to speak for 15 minutes, not everyone is going to get in. I am just pointing that out and will leave colleagues to adjust their speeches appropriately.
Andrea Leadsom
I went into politics to make the world a better place. It has been my lifelong ambition since I was a kid to try to improve the world around me. The problem I have with this Bill is that it is just not clear that it does that. When I was four years old, my parents divorced, so I know first-hand what it is like to be the child of divorced parents. I have met so many of these people in my constituency surgeries. There are the estranged wives who say, “He’s a beep beep beep, he’s been horrendous, he does not turn up when he says he will, he’s been a terrible father.” Then the men come into my surgery saying, “She denies me access to the kids, she was unfaithful, she was this, she was that.” I have seen the problem of warring couples. Of course, as many colleagues have said, the children are often the ones to suffer.
Now we also have the more modern case where a couple cohabit and either do or do not have children, with the challenges for them of relationship breakdown and how they solve that. In recent years, since I have been a Member of Parliament, we have introduced civil partnerships for same-sex couples and then for opposite-sex couples, all designed to give people options, but ultimately, in my view, to help people have strong and happy relationships.
What do we do in this place if it is not to try to help people have better, happier lives—and what does that mean? I have heard an awful lot of, frankly, lawyers talking about the problems of this and the problems of that, the legal position here and there, and the financial position and so on, but ultimately this is about human happiness. What all of us in this place know is that human beings need to be together in communities. Just over the past few months, we have tested to destruction the idea of separating people into their single units to be lonely and isolated. We know that people want to be together, and yet what we never do in this Chamber is say, “We stand up for people being together and sticking together and loving each other, and we want to help them in every way we can.”
I really do not know what to make of this Bill, as someone who experienced divorce myself, and whose kids, now in their teens or early 20s, have friends whose parents split up and whose lives have been wrecked by the experience. I know so many people who have been through traumatic relationships. I also know lots of people who have divorced and got back together again—people whose relationships have been severely challenged and they have managed to find a way through it. I cannot see in this Bill any attempt to help them to stay together, to help them to get through a rough period, or to encourage them to stay together to focus on the children. It does not seem to me to do any of those things, which we all absolutely know are in the interests of a stronger and a happier society.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Lady is outlining the issues clearly. I understand that when relationships break down there is anger, pain, and hurt, but at the same time there are also children, grandparents, and other family relationships. How important is it to ensure that there is time for people to consider those matters before the final step, which could be a detrimental and backward one, is taken?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he brings me to my key point: I totally support the idea of minimising the angst, pain, and further acrimony of a terrible divorce, as that is in no one’s interests—it is not in the interests of the warring couple, and it is certainly not in the interests of any children—but we are not talking about the other side of the coin. We are saying to people, “You can get divorced much more easily”, and that, in my view, is a good thing, because if the relationship is irretrievably broken down, it is right to make the process much easier. However, statistics show that up to 50% of people later come to be sorry about their divorce, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), that is because they still love their partner, or miss them, or because they are lonely. Yes, it might be because they are financially deprived. They might now be in a one-bedroom flat, whereas previously they were in a nice three-bedroom house with a garden. People may regret a divorce for all sorts of reasons, so why would we make this provision for six months? I literally do not get it.
Why not say that a couple can judicially separate after six months—they can move out of the family home, divide up their possessions, sort out arrangements for any children, decide who gets the cat and so on—but that they should at least then have a period of reflection? I simply do not understand. I think all the points have been made, and as a non-lawyer, I do not propose to get into that area, but I just feel that we are missing an opportunity to add to human happiness.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred division on the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No.2) Regulations 2020. The Ayes were 253 and the Noes were 136, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), with whose comments I completely agree. The community I represent contains some of the most deprived wards in England, and the magnitude of some of the social challenges in Blackpool is frankly enormous. When I visit our local soup kitchens, or work with community groups who help the most marginalised in society, I speak to many of those who are reaching out for support. There are, of course, a wide variety of different personal circumstances, and a plethora of reasons why people need additional help. It always strikes me, however, that some form of family breakdown usually lies at the heart of it.
The traditional family is a cornerstone of a strong society, and marriage is the glue that holds families together. Marriage creates a stable environment in which children can thrive, and we know that children born to married parents are more likely to go to university, get married themselves, and find long-term employment. Strong families and marriage provide the support and stability that benefits not just the individuals concerned, but society as a whole. Indeed, it is a sad fact that anything we do to weaken the family unit and marriage by making a divorce easier to obtain will result in greater family breakdown, and there will be more people falling on hard times and invariably presenting themselves for support at those community groups and food banks that I visit in my constituency.
The benefits of marriage speak for themselves. There is so much more that I would like to say on this, but I would like to associate myself with the comments made in the excellent speeches on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who highlighted many of the points that I would make this afternoon, had I more time.
I have reservations about this Bill and the message that it sends out to society. As a Government, we should be encouraging marriage and supporting the principle of the traditional family. If we introduce compulsory no-fault divorce in a six-month timeframe, the result will inevitably be an increase in the divorce rate and the problems within society that family breakdown creates.
One obvious way of mitigating the impact of the Bill is the provisions in new clause 1, which would ensure increased support for marriages and new support for couples where an application for divorce has been made to the court. Of course, there will be sad occasions when it may not be in the couple’s best interests to stay together, but I am speaking more generally when I say that it is in the national interest for couples to stay together.
Surely it would be an effective use of public funds for the Government to make available grants for marriage support services before marriage and during a marriage—that is, before couples appear before a court seeking a divorce. The estimated cost of family breakdown is £51 billion per year. In stark contrast, the Government’s forecast spending on relationship support in the last financial year was a paltry £10.2 million. So family break- down costs us £51 billion, yet we spend only £10 million trying to fix the source of it. Sadly, I am not sure that will make much of a difference.
A number of Government Members have expressed concerns about the Bill. It would go some way to show the Government’s support for marriage if they were minded to invest in relationship support, counselling and marriage preparation. Those programmes will make a significant difference. The Government’s own commissioned evaluation of relationship support provided in the UK found that counselling and relationship education resulted in statistically significant
“positive changes in individuals’ relationship quality, well-being and communication”,
and that couple counselling and certain types of marriage preparation were
“cost effective, providing substantially greater savings to society than they cost to deliver.”
The Relationships Alliance, a group that includes Relate, has published evidence on why good-quality couple and family relationships matter. In that publication, it stated:
“International evidence, including several randomised control trials, shows that relationship counselling or therapy can be effective in improving relationship quality, relationship satisfaction, conflict resolution skills, and wellbeing and mental health.”
Relationship support really does work, and it is clear that it would make a significant and effective difference. Services offered should be local and able to respond to a couple’s needs within days, especially given the minimum timeframe that the Bill currently specifies. I sincerely hope that the Government will see that the proposal in new clause 1 fits with their key policy objectives on divorce law reform, which include sufficient opportunity for reconciliation, and will therefore ensure that marriage counselling is made available to spouses when an application has been made for divorce.
Andrew Selous
When we had the Second Reading debate on the Bill not so long ago, the Lord Chancellor made the very good observation that if we were serious about strengthening marriages and relationships in this country, we needed to do so through what was termed
“the right end of the telescope”.—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 99, c. 677.]
I think he meant that we needed to have a greater focus on three areas: marriage preparation; marriage enrichment; and marriage counselling when marriages get into difficulty and relationship support for all couples. I like the phrase used in the Family Law Act 1996, which talks about marriage and relationship support, and as I said on Second Reading, although I am an enormous fan of marriage and always will be, I will always stand up for people who have never been married and those who are divorced as well as those who are married. I think that that would go for all my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches and no doubt across the House.
Returning to the Family Law Act 1996, a previous Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, was absolutely clear at that time that marriage and relationship support services were an entirely necessary part of divorce reform. That was a good, sensible point, and I do not want this Government, of whom I am an enormous supporter, to depart from that principle. What worries me a little is that the Government’s position appears to have moved slightly away from wanting to try to support saveable marriages. I say that because the previous Lord Chancellor, talking of these reforms, said:
“Sometimes, a marriage will still be reparable at the point at which one spouse seeks the divorce”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 March 2020; Vol. 802, c. 1431.]
The current law offers little opportunity for repair, but it was a clear commitment by the previous Lord Chancellor, not so long ago, that we should look at being able to save marriages even when a divorce is potentially imminent.
However, what the previous Lord Chancellor says contrasts with the view of the current Lord Chancellor, of whom I am also a great fan. I believe him when he says that he supports marriage and family life, but he did say that
“by the time a decision to issue a divorce petition has been made, matters have gone beyond that, to a great extent—not in every case, but in my view, in the vast majority of cases.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 95.]
I am a huge fan of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) , and I know that he is personally a great supporter of strengthening marriages and couple relationships, but perhaps he could explain why the Government’s position seems to have hardened a little in this area of marriage and relationship support over the past six months.
Looking at the figures, I note that in 2018 in England and Wales, there were 91,299 divorces. My parents also divorced, so I know the pain and grief that that causes. In some ways, I think it is a greater pain even than a bereavement. We know from academic studies that around 10% of people who engage in marriage counselling services, even when a divorce is starting to be undertaken, decide not to divorce. That would be around 9,000 divorces a year that potentially would not take place, were we to offer services that the previous Lord Chancellor seemed to say were sensible; Lord Mackay of Clashfern said they were an absolutely essential part of divorce law reform.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is making a compelling argument on an amendment that seeks to make what most sensible people would regard as a modest change to the Bill, which is simply to say that where we can support reconciliation, we will do so. The Government have been offered that compromise, and I am astounded, frankly, that they have not accepted it.
Andrew Selous
I agree with what my right hon. Friend says.
Eagle-eyed observers of the amendment paper will have noted that new clause 1, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and amendment 7 are identical. In fact, I have a confession to make to the House: neither my hon. Friend nor I wrote it. In case we are accused of plagiarism, I think it came from Lord Michael Farmer in the other place. It was a good amendment; it was raised in the other place a couple of months ago, and it has stood the test of time. When it was in the other place, I noted that it had the support of Conservatives, a Member of the Democratic Unionist party, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and the Bishop of Salisbury.
From what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), said today, I think he supports the spirit of the amendment—not perhaps the actual words, but the objectives, as far as I understood him. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, also said he supported the spirit of the amendment, so I think we have a great deal of cross-party consensus on this issue, which I really hope we can take forward.
New clause 1 and amendment 7 need not actually cost the Government anything. Although “may” changes to “must”, the measure just says “make grants” in respect, effectively, of marriage preparation, marriage enrichment and marriage support, and the same for civil partnerships and more widely for relationship support. However, it does not specify an amount. We are not imposing a financial requirement on a Government who, my goodness me, are already struggling with enormous financial demands on them at the moment, but we are specifying where this work should take place, and on a very good evidential basis.
It was noted in another place, when the Bill was debated there, that support for marriage and relationship support has seemed to depend a bit over the years on the whim of whoever was Prime Minister and whichever set of Ministers were in place. That is a pity because, until recently, there has been cross-party support on this issue. Labour and Conservative Governments, ever since the Denning report of 1947, have seen it as core business, and there is a greatly increased need for it, not least because of lockdown, which has been referred to.
We know that family relationships are under enormous pressure in the pressure-cooker environment of lockdown at the moment. We also know that families coming through lockdown perhaps slightly better than others are often those where there are strong family relationships, and they have helped children and others to cope well. I know that Marriage Care, which contacted me after Second Reading, is having many people come to it asking for support that it and other members of the Relationships Alliance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) quite properly mentioned, are unable to provide, because the financial means is not there, as Government support in the reducing parental conflict programme is quite narrowly focused on working couples where there is parental conflict—a laudable objective, but not actually wide enough.
Understandably, the Government are always nervous about new requests for spending, but the fact is that when these relationships go wrong, the Government pick up the tab big time. There is no debate about the benefits, the extra housing costs, the mental health support and other health support that will be paid out. We pay that out in our billions without question, so, as my hon. Friend said—and, indeed, as the Lord Chancellor said on Second Reading—let us put a bit more emphasis on the other end of the telescope to try to strengthen these relationships in the first place.
As we—hopefully—emerge from the pandemic, we need to rebuild not just a strong economy, but a strong society. All my hon. Friends were elected only last December on a manifesto that said absolutely clearly that a strong society is built on strong families. As one or two of my colleagues have said, we need evidence of that. That is a grand statement, with which we all agree. What are the actual building blocks to put that in place? I do hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, of whom I am a great fan—I was absolutely thrilled to see him be promoted—will give us some comfort on that, because very many of us really want to see it.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 1 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and in so doing I take this opportunity to praise her, particularly for all the work that she does in this and so many other areas, and our former colleague, David Burrowes, who also has done a huge amount of work on this issue. Amendment 1 would increase the minimal legal time period for divorce to 12 months, instead of the six months proposed in the Bill, and it is both necessary and sensible.
I toyed with thinking that I would not speak in this debate, because it would be a waste of time. I have been a Member of Parliament for a little while, and I have been a member of my party for more than 50 years, and when I first joined, the view that I have was the majority view. As each Parliament has gone by, I have seen some slippage, certainly among my colleagues, but I am delighted to be speaking now, because I have heard a number of speeches that I have been particularly encouraged by, including from a new colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). What a joy it was to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) speak. My goodness am I glad that I supported her in her first attempt to become leader of my party. She addressed a whole range of issues in a succinct way, and I entirely agreed with everything she said.
This is not a debate about whether it is right that people live together and do not get married; it is not that sort of debate. It is a debate about marriage itself. Marriage is very popular in the Amess household at the moment. Last year, one of my daughters got married in America. It was one of these new-style weddings, where it is an open venue. Next week, I have another daughter in America who is getting married. My wife and I cannot be there, and it is saving us a huge amount of money. Next year, we will have another wedding here, which will be slightly over the top. Another daughter was due to get married this year in August, but as with many other colleagues, that wedding cannot go ahead and will be taking place next year.
I have many constituents who have been married for 70 years, and I say to them, “Aren’t you sick of each other?” They say, “No, we still love each other just as much as when we first got married.” I can hear my own father being asked whether he had ever had a row with my mother. He would say, “Only once, and that row hasn’t finished yet.” In my own household, my wife and I never row, because she is right about everything. Well, I give her the impression, anyway, that she is right about everything.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous)—that I and other colleagues are delighted to see him as a Minister, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire said earlier, the Bill seems to treat this as a legal matter, and the emotional side just is not there at all.
When the House debates anything that can slightly be termed “moral”, the general public are not enamoured by that, because we as a class of politicians are seen as big-time sinners who should not have a view. I so agreed with what my right hon. Friend said, having represented first the constituency of Basildon, which in those days had the highest number of single parents in the country, and now Southend West. So many of us in our surgeries can see the impact of divorce at a practical level, and it seems crazy that we have people planning for their marriage for a year, two years or three years and it can now end in six months. That is quite extraordinary.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that under the new law,
“the legal process of divorce will take longer for about four fifths—80%—of couples”.—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 104.]
There is a crucial caveat in that sentence that the House must be aware of, namely that the Secretary of State is talking about the legal process of divorce—that is only the time from the first application to the final decree. The problem with that analysis is that it does not take into account that the proposals in the Bill operate in a fundamentally different way from the current law.
In the current system the period of two years’ separation with or without fault or five years’ living apart comes before the legal process of divorce, and that accounts for about 40% of divorces. In the proposed system, the period of separation starts after the legal process has begun, so it is disingenuous to compare the length of legal divorce proceedings under the Bill and under the current law.
That is comparing the Pope with Donald Trump, frankly. It is simply not defensible to say that 80% of divorces would take longer under a six-month separation period, when 40% of divorces currently take more than two years.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. A reminder that there is pressure on time. There are still quite a few speakers, who would be well advised to take pretty well under 10 minutes to allow everyone to speak. I call Sir Edward Leigh.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 3, which stands in my name. It would replicate Scottish law, which replaces the two and five-year separation with a no-fault divorce after one year. It is a moderate compromise and I have no doubt that the Government will accept it.
I believe the Government are making a huge mistake. That is not just my opinion; the research is clear that liberalisation and expansion of no-fault divorce, wherever it has been introduced, has led to the most vulnerable in society being worse off. Look at the evidence from Sweden, Canada, and various US states—it all points in the same direction: we will have more divorces, and the worst-off will be hurt the most.
The Brining study in the US showed that 75% of low-income divorced women had not been poor when they were married. The Parkman studies show that, overall, women living in American states with no-fault divorce work, on average, 4.5 more hours a week than their counterparts in states with fault-based divorce. In this country in 2009, the then Department for Children, Schools and Families produced an evidence review that showed that a child not growing up in a two-parent household was more likely to be living in poor housing, to experience more behavioural problems, to perform less well in school, to need more medical treatment, to leave school and home when young, to become sexually active, pregnant or a parent at an earlier age, to report more depressive symptoms, and so on.
We now understand the intent behind the Bill: it is to make divorce easier and to propel more families, and particularly more women, into poverty. We know that, in reality, the Government’s intention is to speed up the divorce process, which they say will make it more efficient, but look at the side-effects I just described. Surely the cure is much worse than the disease? I realise that I am out of alignment with Government policy—a rare event for me—so I want to outline the purpose and rationale of the new clause. I admit it would constitute a rewrite of the Bill, but I think it is quite a moderate rewrite, and it accords with the central purpose of the Bill, which is to encourage no-fault divorce and, like it or not, to speed up the process.
Hon. Members will recall that the current law sets down the five facts that must be established before a divorce is granted. The separation ground does not require proof of fault, so we already have no-fault divorce, but the Government say the period is too lengthy. The problem campaigners have with the current no-fault divorce law is that it takes too long, and I agree. As Baroness Deech in the other place has said,
“the essence of the demand for reform is speed.”
I think the Government should be honest about wanting to speed up the whole process. Ministers do not like to be reminded that they are making divorce easier, but we must be honest: if a process is made easier, human nature being as it is, more people will do it. Of course, for many divorce is an agonising decision, but when married couples are having problems, the quicker and easier it is to get a divorce, the more likely they are to choose divorce, instead of choosing the hard work of talking out their problems.
My parents met at Bletchley Park during the war, and it was a great pleasure to attend their 50th wedding anniversary celebration in 1994, shortly before my father’s death. It was a shock for my sister and me to find some extraordinary and poignant letters written in the 1940s that showed our parents were clearly having enormous problems, but it was just as obvious that they were determined to make a go of it. People might say, “It was a previous generation,” but there were many couples like my parents in their generation. I owe them so much for keeping together and looking after us, and always being ready to help my brother, my sister and me. I am proud of what they did and the sacrifices their generation made, and I worry about what my own Government are doing in sending the wrong signal—sending the signal that marriage is not one of the most precious things in the world.
It has already been said that people can sign up to a mobile phone contract and be stuck with it for two years, in which they have to fulfil the obligations of the contract, but they can have a church or civil ceremony, profess lifelong fidelity before the law, before God, before friends and neighbours, and after just six months walk away. Basically, they just say, “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you,” and that is that. What sort of message is our own Conservative Government sending to society? I believe we should be Conservative with a big “C” and conservative with a small “c”—socially conservative. I know that not a lot of people in Parliament agree with that message, but I have no difficulty with it. People out there understand what is at stake. In one poll, 72% of people said that no-fault divorce may make people more blasé about divorce. We do not need to look at a poll; it is obvious that it will make people more blasé about divorce.
Clause 1 abolishes all five fact grounds and replaces them with a system where one spouse can simply resign from a marriage and get a divorce in six months. My new clause would make a much less dramatic rewrite of the law. We can maintain the fault grounds for those who wish to use them, while substantially speeding up no-fault divorces, but still giving people time to reconsider. Far from giving couples in difficulty more options, this Bill takes them away. Is it a Conservative option to take away options, rather than keep them to provide people with different ways of getting a divorce if that is what they really want to do, and give them more time to reconsider?
We should think of the wife who is faithful to her husband for 30 years only for him to run off. She will have no way of getting a divorce that recognises who was in the right and who was in the wrong—that is taken away. Abolishing fault deprives spouses who wish to obtain a divorce on fault grounds any opportunity of doing so. We should think of the man or woman who is mentally or physically abused by his or her spouse. He or she will be unable to get any recognition of that through the divorce process. This new system will be blind to all suffering and to all injustice. The spouse being divorced against his or her wishes will have zero opportunity of contesting the divorce to try to save the marriage or to slow things down and plan for the future.
Sir John Hayes
But it is even worse than that because, as the Law Society points out, the respondent might not even know that they were being divorced. It will usually be a lady who is divorced by a man who has gone, as my right hon. Friend has described, and they might not know and then they would be divorced by January. That is the harsh reality we are facing and it is appalling that a Conservative Government should impose that on us.
Sir Edward Leigh
Some of our amendments make it clear that there must be proper service and a reasonable length of time, and the respondent must know that the service is being made. Those are quite reasonable amendments, and I suspect that they will all be resisted by the Government.
My new clause simply mirrors the approach taken in Scotland—quite a sensible jurisdiction, you might think. It would leave open the option of seeking a fault-based divorce, while reducing the separation periods to one year with consent and two years without consent. Just 5% of divorces in Scotland now take place on fault-based grounds, so it is there for the minority who need it, while the majority can choose a no-fault option. This is Scotland. It works and it is not unreasonable. I see no reason why we should not replicate Scottish law, and that is what my new clause does. I cannot understand why the Government have not chosen a more sensible route such as that, as it would be far less controversial. Members will recall that the public consultation on these proposals met with considerable resistance—80% did not agree with the proposals, but they were ignored.
One argument made in support of the Bill has been that the waiting periods for separation encourage or force couples who want a divorce quickly to use fault facts rather than separation facts. If we really are worried about people using the fault grounds to speed up their divorces and allegations of fault increasing acrimony, what is wrong with the Scottish approach, where people can get a no-fault divorce on consent grounds in just one year and where only 5% of divorces now allege fault? Why not make no-fault divorce an option for those who want it, rather than forcing everyone to do it the Government’s way?
Again, we should think of the most vulnerable in society. Let us consider what happens in Sweden, a place that many Opposition Members praise. Even the extremely generous Swedish welfare state has proved totally ineffective at breaking the link between family breakdown and poverty. The incidence of poverty among children in single-parent families is more than three times that in families with two parents. The number of Swedish households in poverty headed by a single parent is more than four times the number of households in poverty headed by couples. It must be emphasised that Parliament does not exist in a vacuum. The laws that we make here will have repercussions in every community in the country. Do we want more children to be disadvantaged? Do we want to see women poorer and working longer hours? Do we want to deprive innocent spouses of having their blame business being recognised in the divorce process? I hope that the answer is no.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
We have had a very wide-ranging debate this afternoon with some very impressive contributions from Members. I wish to focus on two particular areas of concern for me, which are my driving motivation for supporting the Government in bringing forward this legislation. They are the significance of fault in the context of divorce and, most importantly from a personal perspective, the impact that it has on children and their future life chances.
On the significance of fault, it is very clear from all the contributions made by hon. and right hon. Members in the Chamber that there is strong cross-party consensus about the importance of supporting effective, strong and stable relationships for the benefit of our society. All of us will have seen in our constituency casework those situations where relationships have broken down. For a variety of reasons, they may well not be the reasons that end up being cited as couples seek to part through the process of divorce. An example of that is domestic violence, which can be enormously difficult to prove. Abuse may have been going on for a long time behind closed doors, but the requirement to demonstrate fault and to demonstrate that through the legal process may lead to other issues being used as a proxy in a way that demonstrates something that is deeply unproductive for people who are seeking to bring an end to a relationship in the best possible interests of each party. For society as a whole, it may lead to us pushing our citizens down a route that forces them to bring about an acrimonious end to a relationship with all the damage that that causes to their family and their wider community of friends and neighbours when there is an alternative available to us that is represented in this Bill. Therefore, it seems that it is a positive step that we will no longer require people who wish to separate to enter into this deeply conflictual and damaging process.
Sir John Hayes
We are already in that place. There was a time when what my hon. Friend says is right—that fault had to be established to get divorced at all. But for a very long time now, we have had a legal circumstance where people could get divorced without fault by being separated, and the significant majority go down that road.
David Simmonds
My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, but we also need to recognise that the context of our society today is very much of the view that five years is a long time to wait and that the process that is required where fault is established in order to undertake the divorce more quickly is one that inevitably leads to this degree of conflict. Let me move on to the key point—
David Simmonds
If I may, in respect of others who wish to speak and time being short, I will move on.
This issue of conflict and the impact that it has on children is at the heart of the concern that I feel and, for me, the significance and the value of pressing ahead with this legislation. The organisations that I have cited previously in the discussions on this issue—the Early Intervention Foundation, Tavistock Relationships and the Local Government Association—have a huge stake in supporting children in our society. They may have a political or a religious affiliation or no affiliation whatever, but all identified that it is not the fact that a divorce is taking place, but the fact that there is conflict in the relationship between those two parents that causes the damage to children and their life chances. For me, that is incredibly important, and it is backed up not just by the evidence on the relationship damage caused by divorce, but, conversely, by very good evidence about the significance of really effective and positive co-parenting. Society, I think, has already moved in that direction. We see many, many examples of non-traditional couples, who are brilliant and effective parents, giving children a fantastic start in life. Of course, many of us enjoy and are positive about seeing that in the context of traditional marriage. However, we need to recognise that, when such a relationship runs into difficulty, the opportunity we can create through this Bill for a less acrimonious separation—to help preserve and support that effective co-parenting relationship between the two separating adults—is incredibly important for the future opportunities and life chances of those children.
Finally, I would like to make the point that I very much support what a number of colleagues have said about the significance and importance of counselling. When people have made the enormously important decision to get married, it is a very significant decision to move away from that, and counselling should be supported and made available as far as possible. However, that is not a reason not to support this legislation.
I am extremely passionate about the significance that the absence of conflict will have for ensuring that children, who could benefit from a constructive co-parenting relationship with adults who have none the less sought to divorce, is available to those children, rather than potentially perpetuating a situation in which acrimonious division between separating parents has a lifelong impact on those children for their futures. For those reasons, I remain strongly in support of the direction that the Government are taking.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Twenty-two years ago, I did a silly thing—I got married. It was not the marriage that was the problem; it was a fact that I coincided it with my wife’s birthday, thinking it would be a money-saving tip. It has been nothing of the sort, and it has caused me hardship on 27 June ever since. However, in tune with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), when we talk about the marriage, I say, “I would never leave my wife—I just couldn’t go through this again.” Again, that is not a negative; it is because I know the hard work that we have both had to put in to get to what is now a rich and fulfilling marriage, which is also raising three fantastic children.
The truth is that, in 22 years of marriage, the only involvement of the state has been when we signed the register and when we received the marriage certificate. I am fortunate to be one of those who still received a certificate when it was handwritten, and beautifully handwritten at that. The only thing I have received from the Government in support of my marriage is the certificate.
It is true that Parliament has played quite a big part in my marriage. It has not always helped. In fact, looking back, the last three years have made it somewhat stronger. However, I often think of my wife, as well as the many wives, husbands and partners around the House, having to go through a pretty torrid time because of the life that we have chosen.
I have some sympathy with the intention of the Bill, because if it can lead to easing additional acrimony in family breakdown, I would support that. However, I have risen to speak today in support of amendment 1 and new clause 1, basically because I believe there is an argument, as has been said already, for extra time and for extra money. I appreciated a lengthy conversation with the Minister before the debate last week—it was really helpful—and I appreciated and listened carefully to all that was said on Second Reading last Monday, but I believe there is something of an identity crisis for marriage, which has partly been exposed by this Bill.
I guess the question is: who owns responsibility for marriage—is it the Government, the Church or faith groups, the spouses themselves, or close family, close friends and society as a whole? I would suggest that all share some responsibility and some part, but today we are talking about the arrangements made in law when a marriage fails. Because the state sets the rules for the marriage to start and, sadly, at its end, it is my view that the state and the Government cannot shrug off responsibility for marriage itself.
As I have said, in 22 years of marriage, the state’s involvement has only been the certificate and signing the register at the time, and, as I have said, I am one of the fortunate people who received a handwritten certificate. My wife and I have enjoyed the support of the Church, close friends and family. That is not the privilege of many. Even if it was, the state has, over time, increasingly taken a back seat when it comes to helping marriages thrive.
With that in mind, it is imperative that the Government adopt these amendments, to give more time, to offer appropriate support, to give an opportunity for a marriage to be restored before it is too late and to commit much more finance towards tools and proven methods that help to strengthen marriage and family life, to avoid the devastating and acrimonious divorce proceedings that the Bill attempts to address. The arguments on those points have been made well this afternoon.
I will conclude, because I appreciate that time is short. The state taught me maths, English, science, rugby and even the Cornish language. It has never taught me how to have a strong marriage or any other relationship, how to manage my money or how to raise my children. As the Government consider how marriages can be brought to an end when necessary, we should also look at the causes of marriage breakdown and ensure that we provide support in all areas of life, not just academic support. Marriage, raising children and managing money are such a big part of today’s society—a part that the Government could do more to support.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill and to outline my concerns about some of the amendments that have been tabled. As a proud Conservative, I fundamentally believe in individual freedoms, and I believe that current divorce laws inhibit that freedom in the broad, vague name of keeping families together. In reality, these laws foster conflict and blame, driving families even further apart and affecting children the most. To be the child of a broken home is not easy, but nor is it easy being the child of parents forced to stay together, witnessing their arguments, the sheer unhappiness and the downward spiral of their parents’ mental health. That can be even more damaging for a child than a divorce, particularly a divorce that can be carried out swiftly and without blame, as the Bill intends, allowing both parents to move on, regain their happiness and provide not one unhappy home but two happy and loving homes for their children.
Nobody enters into a marriage lightly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) outlined in his typically well-considered speech, nobody gets married setting up to get divorced. Nobody enters into a marriage imagining or hoping that it will fail. Marriage vows often say, “until death do us part”, and that is taken very literally by many, but I believe that the death spoken of in marriage vows can occur without the loss of life; it can occur in the death of a relationship itself. It is a fact of life that sometimes relationships fail—marriages fail. Sometimes this is recognised by both parties, but in some circumstances, only one partner sees it. In those circumstances, the unhappy partner may be trapped in that marriage, with their spouse unwilling to accept it, ready to contest it or even to dither and delay and refuse to sign papers.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke about the importance of considering how the legislation we discuss in this place will have very real consequences for people in our communities. For our constituents—those we are here to represent—our existing outdated divorce laws can have real impacts. Let me give an example. A couple of days ago, I received a Twitter message from a young man thanking me for supporting the Bill on Second Reading, because for over two years, his mum had been trying to divorce his dad, but his dad refused to give consent. He spoke of the devastating impact that this had on his mum and on him, and of the bitterness, anger and hardship of living in a friction-filled home. In this place, we can help those people by passing this Bill.
I personally know people who are deeply unhappy in their marriages and are desperate to separate but are fearful of filing for divorce because they cannot afford the legal costs, should it be contested. Let me make this point really clear: a divorce should not be a luxury item. Our constituents on low incomes—those we are here to represent—should not be priced out of their happiness. Allowing blameless divorces and divorces without contest in the courts reduces the amount of legal representation needed and will help to keep the cost of divorce down.
For some in our society, our existing and outdated divorce laws mean being trapped in abusive relationships. There are women in our country behind closed doors pulling down their sleeves and putting on extra make-up to cover up bruises—women checking their bank statements, fearing that they cannot afford a divorce were it to be contested, and knowing that if it were, they would have to battle through the courts and face potential repercussions from their partner before they can escape. This Bill is for them.
On that note, I cannot support amendments 2 or 4. Giving those in abusive relationships the breathing space of submitting their divorce petition, knowing it cannot be unfairly dragged out by abusive partners, is a way to help them escape that coercive control.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
C S Lewis said:
“We are all fallen creatures and all very hard to live with.”
Since the fall from the state of grace, the prevailing condition of humankind has been imperfection. Because we are imperfect creatures the relationships we form are imperfect too. They are full of the joys, triumphs, disappointments and disasters that perpetuate through the human condition and that everyone in this place will have known during the course of their lives. So it is preposterous to suggest that a change in the process of divorce will iron out enmity or acrimony. The end of a love is by its nature acrimonious. It is full of disappointment and sorrow, and it will ever more be so. Let us not pretend that we are in a fairy tale, whereby if we change the business of divorce, we will change the content of that doubt and disappointment, for we will not.
As I said in an earlier intervention, the principal cause of that enmity is issues over children, and they will remain. The second cause is the sharing out of assets, and that will remain. Arguably the period of time that currently prevails gives a chance to sort that out, and certainly it gives a chance to take advice, to consider carefully, to contemplate and to reflect. One in 10 divorces that are begun do not end for that very reason—people do think again and when they think again, they often try again.
We are condemning many women, in particular, to a very sorry future, because for the most part it will be women who are left by men—not always, of course, but for the most part—and many will not even know they are being divorced, as the Law Society points out in its analysis of the Bill; divorce will be initiated, and women will learn that they will be divorced in a few months, but they will be given no cause, no reason, no justification and no explanation. That is what this Bill does. Thus I regard it as extraordinary that the imperfections that, as I say, have always been so are not recognised by this House as being bound to prevail regardless of this Bill.
Governments are imperfect, too. I spent 19 years on my party’s Front Bench, many of them as a Minister, so I know how imperfect Governments are. Governments bring legislation to the House that is ironed out during its scrutiny. I do not blame for a moment the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, because he is a new Minister, a good man and a fine fellow, and he would not be calling the shots on this, but I find it extraordinary that the Government have not compromised.
All the time I was in government—people on both sides of the House will remember this—I used to listen to arguments from both sides to allow legislation to develop and mature through scrutiny and argument. Many times, I would go to my civil servants and say, “Well, the point that the shadow Minister is making is right, isn’t it? We ought to take that on board.” Yet this Government have remained entirely resistant to the measured overtures of the Bill’s critics. We conceded on the point about fault, but all we asked was that the Government think again about the time. The duration could be 12 months, as recommended.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Member will be aware that the Government have said that they are going to reduce it to six months, but is he aware that the pilot scheme was able to do divorce proceedings in three months? In other words, a quick divorce could become a really, really quick divorce if we follow the process proposed by the Government.
Sir John Hayes
Yes, if the Government carry on down this road, we will have Las Vegas-style drive-through divorces. The hon. Gentleman is right. The Law Society suggested 9 months, and it was 12 months the last time reform of the law was suggested some years ago, so I am astounded, frankly, that we have come up with six months. It is an imperfect world, but a still more imperfect Government and, most of all, a wholly imperfect proposal, on which the Government have been resistant to amendment or change in any way.
The second thing I want to talk about is learning, because we learn from listening. The Government issued a consultation, and completely ignored the fact that most of the respondents did not want what the Bill now proposes. Most people felt that, even where they believed that the law should be changed, it should not be changed in this way. This is the most radical reform of divorce, with no public appetite for it, which completely contradicts the Government’s own consultation. That is how bad this is. I have seen many pieces of legislation come before this House as I have endured and enjoyed many Governments of many colours, but I can rarely remember a Bill that I would be less likely to vote for than this one.
Sir John Hayes
I will happily give way briefly, but I do not want to truncate the Minister’s time.
Carla Lockhart
The Government did consult, and does he agree that, with three quarters of respondents disagreeing with the Government plans, this Government are making people disenchanted about consultations on such issues?
Sir John Hayes
With a mix of assiduity and diligence, for which she is becoming well known in this House, the hon. Lady has fleshed out my argument with the facts that I did not have at my disposal, so I am grateful. She is right. I mentioned that the consultation was not listened to, but she has shown just how much the Government ignored what they were advised by the people they consulted.
The third thing I want to talk about is time. It is absolutely right that we should take time over this sort of legislation, which is challenging by its very nature. The Bill is being rushed through the House at a time when we are enduring one of the worst health crises of all time—certainly, the worst in our memory—and families are under intense pressure and relationships are strained, inevitably. Yet the Government regard this as the right time to bring this Bill before us for consideration? I find that quite extraordinary—quite astounding.
In respect of time, let me say this. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who spoke at the beginning of the debate, is absolutely right that time is necessary so that people can engage with those services designed to encourage the very reflection I recommended. Counselling does matter. Time to think about how you are going to sort your life out, even if you cannot rebuild your relationship, matters. To limit that to a few months—what amounts, in practice, to a few weeks, because of the way the process is now going to work—seems to fly in the face of all experience, given what we hear from those engaged in that process of mediation and counselling.
Dehenna Davison
Does my right hon. Friend not agree, though, that a lot of that consideration is done before the point at which people will initially file for divorce? That six-month period is not really a six-month period, but is more prolonged.
Sir John Hayes
Yes, that is certainly true. Relationships do decline over time. Of course, my hon. Friend is right that in some cases the process of beginning a divorce will not be the start, but a fingerpost to a destination that had been established long before. In some other cases, however, a divorce will come as a complete surprise, because the Bill moves the emphasis towards the person who initiates the divorce and away from the respondent to such a degree that the respondent—usually, in my judgment, a woman—will be profoundly disadvantaged by this legislation.
Mr Evans, what a delight to have you in the Chair and to speak under your benevolent guidance. Finally, let me deal with the matter of family breakdown and children. A lot has been made of that in this debate. We know from all the evidence—I saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) in his place a few moments ago—and in particular the evidence from the Centre for Social Justice, that typically children do considerably worse in broken families. In broken families, children tend to do worse educationally and in all kinds of other ways. It is our job as a society to build strong and stable communities which comprise strong and stable families, and the Bill just will not support that objective. We want a better society. That is why we are all here across the House. Marriage is a key component in building that more wholesome and better society which will allow us to bring up children in a responsible and dutiful way to be the citizens of tomorrow.
The Bill undermines marriage, weakens families and risks weakening social solidarity. It is being rushed through the House by Ministers who refuse to listen to measured and moderate argument. If hon. Members do not agree with any of that, they can vote for it. On the other hand, if hon Members think that any of what I have said is meaningful, they should certainly vote against it. In doing so, they will be sending a signal from this House to the people that we care about marriage and, because we care about marriage, we want fewer people to be divorced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
It has been a genuine privilege to hear the speeches today. They have been powerful, poignant and humorous, but above all, on every single occasion, principled. From whichever point of view people have approached this argument, it has been from a position of principle. As I say, it has been an enormous privilege to have heard it.
Before I respond to the amendments and new clauses, let me make some brief introductory remarks. First, there is a suggestion that the Government are somehow diffident about marriage; that is not so. We recognise—and we are not diffident about saying it—that marriages and civil partnerships are vital to society. Why? It is because they are a way in which couples can not only formally express their commitment to each other but, yes, contribute, through stable relationships, to stable communities. I support marriage and the Government support marriage.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
On speedy divorce, the difficulty is that there is a statistic available that states that in 50% of divorces that have taken place—that is quite a high percentage—people regret going through the divorce process. The Bill will just make it all the more easy for it to happen.
Alex Chalk
If that is right—I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about the statistics, although I have not seen the study—surely if we are in favour of reconciliation, we should be in favour of a process that does not so irretrievably toxify relations, so that there may be the chance of reconciliation. Instead, we are accessories to a system that encourages people to sling mud—mud that ultimately they cannot substantiate, which means that people can end up branded as unreasonable without the court having made a finding to that effect. That, in and of itself, reduces the chances of reconciliation.
Sir John Hayes
I say this in the spirit of generosity that characterises my view of the Minister, but we conceded that point about fault. The amendment suggests that the Government support reconciliation, irrespective of the fact that the Bill gets rid of fault. The amendments are incredibly measured and moderate—the Minister must know that.
Alex Chalk
I do not suggest that any of the amendments are improper or immoderate, but not all of them would have the impact that my right hon. Friend calls for.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Minister knows my grave concerns with the Bill, especially about the quickie nature of divorce. Will he reassure me that the Bill does not undermine the sacred marriage vows that I, and so many hon. Members, have taken?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is another example of an extremely principled individual who I know has misgivings about this Bill. I can give him that assurance, but I want to deal with that point specifically in the course of my remarks. He has spoken to me; he has principled objections that I have listened to carefully.
On amendment 1, let me begin by noting what appears to be common ground between all parties—namely, all are agreed that introducing a minimum period before someone can apply for a conditional order is a sensible way forward. Currently—this bears some emphasis—there is no minimum period. Using the online service, a divorce can currently be secured in a matter of weeks—it is currently an average of 17 weeks up to the conditional order, which the Government think is too short. That is why we have prescribed a minimum period of 20 weeks before the conditional order, and six months in total, to allow time to reflect and, in appropriate circumstances, to think again. Crucially, however, as a result of the Bill, that reflection need not take place in an atmosphere that is toxified by hurtful accusations.
I also stress the word “minimum”, because issuing an application does not start a sort of countdown clock, or a ticking bomb that proceeds remorselessly to the dissolution of a marriage; no, it simply imposes a minimum period which, on expiry, changes nothing. The court makes no order, until such time as the further active step is taken to apply for a conditional order. At that point, the marriage still endures, and a further minimum period is triggered. Once again, at the end of that period the marriage does not automatically dissolve; it persists until such time as a further active step is taken to apply for a final order. In other words, it takes three active steps before a marriage can be dissolved. It is no wonder that the impact assessment prepared in advance of this Bill—here I am in the unhappy position of gently disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) who gave such a brilliant speech—indicated that around 80% of divorces are expected to take longer as a result of these measures. I respectfully suggest that that gives the lie to the “quickie divorce” label.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) wishes to extend the 20-week element to 46 weeks, so that a marriage cannot be legally ended until more than a year after the initial application, averring that it has irretrievably broken down. My first concern is that the amendment would not affect civil partners—that cannot be right, although I do not suppose it was deliberate. On the wider issue of the appropriate minimum period, to make a fair judgment we need an appreciation of the state of relations between the parties that typically prevails at the time a petition is issued—my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) made this point. Is it the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said, that applications—which, by the way, cost £550—tend to be issued in a fit of pique after a row, or as she powerfully put it, on the “spur of the moment”, or does the issuing of a petition tend to come at the end of many months, or even years, of sorrow, pain, periods of separation and attempts at reconciliation, counselling, or all of the above? Overwhelmingly, I respectfully submit, it will be the latter. The solemn and grave decision to seek a petition is rarely taken lightly or impetuously. That assessment does not only reflect our lived experience of the world that we bring to these proceedings; it also reflects empirical evidence from the 2017 study by the Nuffield Foundation, which is the only recent large-scale study on this issue in England and Wales.
Fiona Bruce
I do not believe that I gave the impression, and if I did I wish to correct it, that the majority of cases would be issued on the spur of the moment, but I did say that I believed that some would be.
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
On that issue, though, the 2017 Nuffield study noted that for people who have come to the hard decision to divorce and have begun the legal process of divorce, only one of 300 cases was known to have ended in attempted reconciliation. We believe that a total minimum period of six months, mindful of the circumstances that prevail at the time that it starts, is the proper—difficult, but proper—balance. We should bear in mind, too, that for those applicants who take the step after years of domestic abuse—again something that we have not really considered in this debate—six months may feel markedly or even unfairly onerous. Some people need to move on with their lives. Let us not forget the point made by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham)—that 12 months would be especially harsh for couples who had already been separated for any length of time, not least because of the potential financial hardship. That, as I say, has a particular application for victims of domestic abuse, as they may be left in dire financial straits. Put simply, until they can sort out the divorce—until they can finish the process—how can they then move on with their lives, fund their lives, and fund the lives of their children?
Amendment 2 talks about joint applications. I will not go into that because I simply do not have time, but let me talk about sole applications. This is a really important point, and I have enormous sympathy with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton effectively says that we should start the period when notice of proceedings has been received by the other party. I absolutely get this point. We entirely understand that no one wants to see respondents being ambushed; it would be nonsensical. I listened very carefully to what she said about this so powerfully on Second Reading. I will return shortly to the measures to address the risk. In fact, I will have to do it now because I am running out of time. In short compass, I spoke to the chair of the Family Procedure Rule Committee only this week. We would like, through that committee, to ensure that timings are imposed when people should serve these notices. That is a really good thing.
I anticipate that my hon. Friend will say, “Well, that’s very interesting, but why didn’t you put it on the face of the Bill?” My simple point about that is that overwhelmingly, whether in the criminal jurisdiction, the civil jurisdiction or the family jurisdiction, it is left to the rule committees to provide these rules. Indeed, there are rules for service of claim forms, particulars of claim and so on. It would create a strange imbalance if we had some rules in statute and some in the rules. It would create inconsistency that would be difficult for practitioners as well as, most importantly, for the individuals concerned. However, we entirely sympathise with the point and would want to see it addressed.
Amendment 3 seeks to prevent either party to a sole application for divorce from making any financial applications, pending suit, if the other party agrees to a financial application during the 20-week minimum period. While acknowledging the intention behind the amendment, such a restriction would introduce the scope for significant adverse financial impact on one or both of the parties, and, most importantly, on any children.
There is so much that I would love to go into, but I cannot, and I will have to write to my hon. Friends to give time for my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton to respond. We are unable to accept the amendments or new clauses. The points have been made very powerfully, but we are left with the position that this Bill, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), will be pro-happiness because it is anti-bitterness. I commend it to the Committee.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for his comments about addressing with the Family Procedure Rule Committee the very great concerns that I have regarding shortage of notice. I look forward to hearing from him as to how that issue will be addressed. Obviously I would have preferred it to have been in the Bill, but I thank him for his assurance.
I am sure that the Minister will have heard the grave and fundamental concerns about this Bill, particularly among Conservative Members. By my reckoning, more than half of today’s speakers have spoken with deep concern about the implications of the Bill. Given, in particular, the weight and volume of opposition during this debate on the shortage of funding support for relationships, for marriage and for reconciliation, I am minded to test the will of the House on that issue and, in due course, to press new clause 1 to a vote. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I now have to say something, because we are moving into new territory. The Speaker announced yesterday that we will be using the new system in the voting Lobby, recorded by pass readers. I will not give the instruction to lock the Doors earlier than 25 minutes after this Division has now been called, although I expect that time to be reduced as the new system beds down. I urge all hon. Members to be patient during this process and, in particular, to observe the requirements of social distancing. I ask all hon. Members, other than the Front Benchers and Tellers, to leave the Chamber by the Doors behind me. Members should join the queue to vote in Westminster Hall to vote. Members should enter the Lobby and swipe their pass on one of the pass readers.
Robert Buckland
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their careful scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage. I am deeply grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate in Committee today and on Second Reading last week. I acknowledge that there have been some dissenting voices on reform of the law—first, as a matter of principle—and differing opinions as to precisely how to reform it, but I am happy to make it clear that those contributions have been of no less value than those that have supported the purpose of the Bill and its approach to reform. We have been fortunate to have these debates enriched by the variety of viewpoints expressed.
During the passage of the Bill, Members have rightly raised questions about its potential impact on families, but I believe that it actually has marriage and families at its heart. It is for that reason that I believe so strongly in the measures contained within it. While no one wants marriages to break down, the proposals in the Bill are based on the very sad reality that some do. When they do, the law should seek to reduce conflict and to create the best opportunity for the parties to agree future arrangements. It is not for the law to try to keep a couple in a loveless marriage, and nor can the law in practice adjudicate on who was to blame for its breakdown. That is an intensely private and personal matter between the couple themselves.
This is a measured Bill that will bring much-needed reform. It is reform that many of its supporters believe is long overdue. It will allow parties to move forwards, not backwards, and it will deliver a legal process that reduces conflict and its impact on children while safeguarding the importance of marriage.
During its passage through both Houses, the Government have listened with interest and care to the issues raised. In the other place, there was debate concerning the law on financial provision on divorce and concerns that it, too, can drive conflict. Some Members in this place have also made that important point. My noble and learned Friend Lord Keen gave assurances that the Government would conduct a review of that area of law, which has remained unchanged for nearly 50 years. That is a substantial undertaking where we will need to be led by the evidence, which is yet to be gathered, and it is thus not a matter for this Bill.
We have also listened to concerns about the start point of the new 20-week minimum period prior to the conditional order of divorce, and we have given an undertaking that we will work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to consider how court rules may provide for a requirement on applicants to serve notice within a specified period. We listened to concerns from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about two delegated powers in the Bill that would allow the legal minimum periods for divorce orders and dissolution orders to be amended. Those powers will now be subject to the enhanced scrutiny procedure via the affirmative mechanism.
Beyond the Bill, many detailed changes will be needed to divorce procedure, court IT systems, online information and guidance. We will take the opportunity to look at ways to improve signposting to the services that can help couples when facing the prospect of a divorce and during the subsequent legal process. We recognise the value of relationship support and mediation services, which can play a vital role in addressing relationship breakdown. The Chancellor announced £2.5 million to fund research into how best to integrate family services, including the emerging family hub model. The Department for Education will ensure that strengthening relationship support is part of that research programme, so that vital work is completed in that area.
It is important to take a moment to focus on what the Bill does not do. I believe that that is necessary because I have been concerned about certain misconceptions that have arisen about it. First, it is not a quickie divorce Bill—quite the contrary. It will, for the first time, provide a new 20-week minimum period between the start of proceedings and the conditional order. Secondly, the Bill does not undermine marriage. It is a Bill to reform the legal process for divorce once the sad stage of irretrievable breakdown has already been reached.
Thirdly, the Bill does not in any way undermine the hugely valuable and vital mediation, counselling and relationship support services that can and do assist reconciliation. Finally, the Bill definitely does not come at the wrong time. Its current stage is the culmination of a lengthy process.
Andrew Selous
I apologise for missing the start of my right hon. and learned Friend’s remarks. I do not know whether he had a chance to watch any of the Committee stage, but looking at what his predecessor said on the Bill, there seems to have been a slight hardening of the Government’s stance in relation to counselling provision. The previous Lord Chancellor was open to that, but it seems that my right hon. and learned Friend is not quite as keen or does not think that there are so many possibilities at that stage. Could he address that specific point?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continuing interest in, support of and commitment to issues relating to the family. They are values and views that he and I share. I take the view that this legislation is not the vehicle to deliver the sort of services and support that he and I want to see. This is very much about the end of the process, as opposed to what he and I think needs to be done well before that, to support families to help themselves, to enrich family life and to ensure that every proper assistance is given to couples who perhaps do not have the benefit of wise advice from parents or other support circles and might be dealing with the problems and challenges of every relationship alone, and who, frankly, could benefit from the wherewithal and the support that I know he believes in so passionately.
For that reason, I take what I would regard as a more direct and straightforward approach. I make no apology for that. I think it is important to be direct about these issues and not to conflate legislative process with policy progress. My commitment to my hon. Friend and to all others who are legitimately concerned about these issues is that, as a Government, we will work harder to co-ordinate, to bring together the strands of policy that sit with various Departments and to ensure that we have a family policy that is fit for the 2020s, in the way that he wants to see. I look forward to that continuing dialogue with him.
As I was saying, the Bill does not come at the wrong time, because its current stage is the culmination of a lengthy process that was delayed by a general election and a new Parliament. Its timing has nothing to do with the current covid-19 emergency. The Bill’s reforms will not come into force on Royal Assent, because time needs to be allowed for careful implementation. At this early stage, we are working towards an indicative timetable of implementation in autumn 2021. As I have said, the Bill will deliver much-needed reform in respect of which there is clear, strong and broad consensus. I again thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.
Alex Cunningham
I thank colleagues who contributed to the robust debates we have had on Second Reading and in Committee. The Opposition are pleased to support the Bill at its final stage. We are correcting an outdated notion that the only reason two people should get divorced is if there is some blame to be laid. We know that that is not always the case in every relationship. Sometimes marriages break down over time—not always because one great wrong has been committed by one party, but because people change, situations change, and compatibility at one time is not always permanent.
It will always be a difficult time in any relationship for two people to acknowledge that the marriage is over, but it is still best for them to part ways. The best role that we as law makers can play in such a situation is to make sure that they are able to part quickly and amicably. This is not just in the best interests of the spouses; it is crucial in limiting the emotional pain felt by children left in the middle as their parents’ marriage is split apart. The Bill will help to limit the turmoil of divorce because it acknowledges that sometimes there just is no fault.
I have enjoyed the specific discussions on the amendments and new clauses and on how the Bill could be improved. Although the proposed changes did not make it into the final Bill, I hope Members will agree that there was real merit in many if not all the issues raised. On some cases, such as families in which the parents are unmarried not getting benefit payments, I hope that the Government will go away and reconsider their position.
I was a little disappointed that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), did not have sufficient time when he summed up to address the issue of legal aid. I hope the Government will take that away and look particularly at the issues when there is financial abuse in a relationship.
As I have said, we have made great progress with the Bill in recognising how modern marriages, relationships and families are; it would be a great shame if we failed to recognise that across other policy areas. We do not oppose Bills for the sake of it; we want to do what is right. Today, we have achieved real progress that will have a real and positive effect on people at one of the most vulnerable points in their lives.
Sir Robert Neill
It is pleasure to see the Lord Chancellor in his place. I am sorry if the queue—or perhaps short legs—meant that I arrived just as he was getting to his feet. I did not get the chance earlier, but I pay tribute to the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who dealt with the Committee stage with great skill and commitment.
I welcome the Bill because, as I said on Second Reading, I am a one nation, mainstream Conservative who believes that it is as well to legislate for the world as it is rather than the world as it should be. That is what we have done with this Bill. Ultimately, a law that does not reflect the way people live their lives falls into disrepute. We are avoiding that situation with this legislation. I know that that is genuinely painful for a number of Members in this House, but it is also genuinely painful for anyone to go through the matter of divorce.
I was glad that my right hon. and learned Friend gave the indication that he did to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), because he raised an important point about how we deal with assisting people through this most difficult of situations. I know of my hon. Friend’s good faith in this matter and that he will pursue that; many people have much sympathy with that point.
I wish to say one other thing. We will rightly remove the question of the need to prove fault and the contention and antagonism that that causes. I hope that we can now concentrate on the question of financial orders and children, and that we make sure that that can be done as expeditiously as possible. The other thing that could perhaps remove antagonism in the process is access to early legal advice.
I have always taken the view, as the Lord Chancellor knows, that we perhaps took too much out of legal aid funding in some areas; the removal of legal aid support for early advice in matrimonial matters was, I think, an error, and it does no harm to admit that. The Justice Committee has called in a number of reports for it to be reinstated. I accept that this Bill is not the vehicle for it, but I hope that, when the Lord Chancellor has discussions with the Chancellor and others, he will bear in mind that that would be a sensible, humane and civilised thing to do. In practical terms, it will be much better if mediation can be used to resolve many of those matters once the process of divorce is dealt with in a much less stringent manner, and it has been demonstrated clearly in evidence to our Select Committee that the best gateway to mediation and a much more collaborative approach to achieving resolution is through early access to a lawyer, because the lawyers are the gatekeepers of the mediation process. Money spent on that would, I submit, be money well spent both in terms of savings of court time and burdens on social services when having to resolve confrontational custody and child-related applications, and in terms of society as a whole. It would also be the decent thing to do. With those comments and with the knowledge that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will take them on board, I commend the Bill the House.
Sir Edward Leigh
Introducing Third Reading, the Lord Chancellor said that this is not a quickie divorce Bill. It is a quickie divorce Bill—six months sounds pretty quick to me. The Lord Chancellor said it does not undermine marriage. This Bill does undermine marriage, because it can be dissolved without people giving any reasons at all—indeed, it forces people to get divorced without giving any reasons. The Lord Chancellor said it does not undermine reconciliation. Well, it certainly does nothing for reconciliation.
The amendments we proposed were moderate. We simply asked for more time—from six months to nine months or one year. All our amendments have been swept aside by the Government. In the last vote, we asked for more money to be given for reconciliation. The Government brought the full might of their machine to vote down our amendment—a very moderate amendment. Divorce costs us £50 billion a year, but we are spending only £10 million. In his introduction, the Secretary of State said that the Bill is not coming at the wrong time. It is the wrong time—precisely the wrong time, when relationships are under so much strain.
We have a fundamental principal objection to the Bill. The Bill furthers the claim that the present law is based on hypocrisy. Leaving aside the fact that no one has to allege fault, this is part of a liberal point of view that getting rid of any sort of moral compass in society and any pain means that society will suddenly become painless. No doubt the next argument used by our Government will be that our present abortion laws are based on hypocrisy, because anyone can get an abortion but they have to give a reason, so why not have abortion on demand all the way through? Or they will say that our present laws on euthanasia are based on hypocrisy, because in reality we all know that many people are not kept alive and their lives are quietly ended painlessly, so let us have euthanasia. We will have abortion on demand and euthanasia on demand, and we have divorce on demand.
I tell right hon. and hon. Members that if they get rid of pain, if they get rid of all moral compass, they will find that it is not the process of divorce that causes the pain; it is the fact of divorce and the fact that we have one of the highest rates of marital breakdown in the world. It is a bad Bill, it is a quickie divorce Bill, it comes at the wrong time, and we do not agree with it.
Sir David Amess
I am not a lawyer and I make no apology for that. We who are elected here come from all sorts of backgrounds, and whatever our background, we are equal and our voices should all be heard.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said about fashions and all of that. When I was first elected to Parliament, Margaret Thatcher was the Prime Minister and Lord Hailsham was the Lord Chancellor. I fully accept that the world was different then. When I and people like me compare what our party is doing now to what it did then, it is a bit of a shock. If I fast forward to when Lord Mackay of Clashfern was Lord Chancellor—a wonderful Lord Chancellor, who is very much on the ball these days, even though he is over 90—and remember the position he took in 1996, I share his worries.
As I said earlier, I do not think this debate is about saying that people should not live together, or that it is about celebrating marriage. Regardless of how my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has explained the situation, I am worried that my party is giving out a message, and when messages are put out on social media and in the newspapers, that is what people grab. I am just a little worried that, although my right hon. and learned Friend, to whom I listened carefully, has reassured us about reconciliation and all other matters, it may just make a margin. I go back to what I said, to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, that yes, people change, but at the end of it all, human beings are human beings and relationships are relationships. It is a big step to get married, and the fallout of divorce is truly shocking. The Minister, who did a wonderful job in summing up, responded to the amendments earlier, but I repeat that I would much prefer fewer people getting married, if marriage is no longer going to be fashionable, than see divorce increase.
The final thing I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend is that I think the whole House wants him to succeed with this legislation, but if he is wrong and I am right, and we see more divorces, I would be very interested to learn how the Government will deal with that situation. Obviously, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend is right about what he wants to achieve, but I have been here and listened to many Ministers state things before, and of course there is a huge gap between their saying something and learning how it impacts five, 10, 15 or 20 years later. I just hope that on this occasion I am wrong.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I intend to speak only briefly, but I would like to reflect a lot of the wisdom that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has brought to bear not only on this Bill, but on other Bills, such as on the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill the other day.
I speak as a supporter of marriage, but also as a supporter of the Bill. I think that, wherever possible, divorce needs to be amicable, and we need to remove blame as a necessity. In earlier stages of the legislation, we heard some hon. Members, including from my recent intake, speak personally of the pain they are going through at the moment with the blame levels in divorce. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I think the Bill does help remove some of that pain by removing some of the blame, and we are doing an important thing today in removing that.
I conclude by saying that I support the Bill, and I am glad the Government have brought it forward. As somebody with grandparents who have been married for 66 years and parents who are rapidly approaching their 40th wedding anniversary, I hope they continue, but I also hope, for others who are not in such a lucky situation, that the Bill will help remove some of the burden on them.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the deferred Division on abortion legislation for Northern Ireland was announced, and the votes were Ayes 253, Noes 136. My mathematical calculations indicate that there were 261 abstentions. My understanding would be that many of those people abstained because they felt the Northern Ireland Assembly should have been the body that looked at this. If we add the Noes, who voted against the abortion legislation in this House, and the abstentions, it comes to a figure of 397 out of 650. My point of order is: has the House expressed its true wishes in relation to this legislation?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. The short answer to that is yes: we only count the votes of those who actually vote. We do not know what lies behind those who abstain.
Covid-19: Asylum Seeker Services in Glasgow
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope before I start the debate that you will allow me to say a few words about the scenes in George Square this evening. A peaceful protest—a peaceful protest—of those who wish to campaign about the conditions of asylum seekers has been met by a counter-demonstration of the far right who sought to disturb that particular demonstration. I am sorry to see scenes of violence on social media in relation to the protest. Let me be quite clear that I condemn the racism of the far right and I celebrate those who wish to protest about the unfair conditions that asylum seekers are faced with in Glasgow. No doubt further news will develop as this debate goes on, but I want to make it quite clear that this demonstration tonight had nothing to do with statues, but was to address the issue of conditions in the city.
I thank you for allowing me to say that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate on a topic that has gained much media interest both in the mainstream media and the new media outlets with some horrific stories of asylum seekers and their treatment by the Home Office contractor. We have also seen the sorry sight of asylum charities having to submit supplementary written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in response to Mears, the Home Office contractor, and the claims of how asylum seekers are being treated in Glasgow. We have seen the campaigning ability of organisations such as Living Rent and the No Evictions! campaign, organising to help their friends and neighbours.
There are a number of issues: first, the Home Office cannot be allowed to regress to business as usual, and it must fit with—and not fetter—devolved Government and local authority public health recovery plans. I want to focus much of my remarks today on the asylum support regime, and the need for Ministers to act responsibly in full compliance with public health policy and, as such, with local and devolved Government covid-19 recovery plans.
I must start with the asylum support rates. I understand that the Minister is well known for collecting data, so he will know that the asylum support moneys are only at about 42% of the social security breadline. That is not a lot and is less than every other person in this country is entitled to. I am not a data man. I am more interested in real life, so, to illustrate, the data tell us that a 300-page pad and six pens are sufficient for a child’s home education. That is what the methodology states, but even with the pitiful amount of £39 a week, the Home Office only raised the old rate by 26 pence per day. I see asylum-seeking families every day. There are 2,000 of them in Glasgow and I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that 20 pence per week is pitiful. The difference that makes is that a child can ask their mum or dad to get them a tiny chocolate Freddo bar.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that there are wonderful facilities in Glasgow for asylum seekers, but that asylum seekers generally in this country are not treated with and given the dignity that they deserve, particularly at this moment during covid-19, when we should be thinking much more about them than we are at the moment?
Chris Stephens
I certainly agree with that. Many of the asylum seeker services are actually provided by the charities. The support that they provide to asylum seekers is often against Home Office policies, and I will come on to that later.
Let me be clear that I am being not trite, but deadly serious. This increase was an insult to desperate people and children and to add to the injury officials quite callously did not make that data-driven decision until after lockdown, rather than before it. I urge the Minister to look beyond the data and show a bit of leadership. Perhaps he should give Marcus Rashford a call, because he can give Government some tips, as he told the Prime Minister, about real life, about children and parents going hungry, about how terrified mums and dads are about how their child will keep up at school when they go back to blended learning in August or September because, as we know, there is no wi-fi in asylum accommodation. There is no digital connectivity and no computer for the children to do their homework on. That is the real world.
Chris Stephens
It would not be an Adjournment debate without the hon. Gentleman, and, for the benefit of his many Twitter fans, I give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Jim Shannon
What a really good issue this is. I have had similar correspondence in my constituency, and Refugee Action is one of the charities that have contacted me as well. It is difficult for people in our asylum system to buy food and other essentials in sufficient quantity to minimise trips or to prepare for self-isolation, and it is incredibly hard to make a choice between food and medicine. Does hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister must respond in a way that ensures that asylum seekers who are in a crisis get the financial assistance they need at this time? That is why I support the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the asylum support work of Refugee Action and other charities, and I certainly support what he said today.
My constituent Simon wrote to me in advance of this debate:
“Access to a mobile phone and the internet has never been more important. As well as Refugee Week, this is also Loneliness Awareness Week and action is needed to address loneliness and social isolation in the asylum system, including by ensuring that people seeking asylum have the digital resources that they need to stay connected, access support and continue education.”
Simon goes on to say:
“The UK continues to face a global health emergency that has disproportionately affected people from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups, including here in the UK, with many minorities living in deprivation simply left dead by covid-19, not protected adequately by the UK Government. It remains vital that everyone, irrespective of their immigration status, can live in dignity, afford the most basic things and to be safe.”
My constituent Saffie also wrote to me:
“Even before coronavirus I was barely surviving on around £5 per day. We have to travel to the bigger shops that have lower prices, but now with lockdown we can’t travel and the small shops have hiked their prices. Things like soap and hand sanitiser are very expensive and leave only a few pence for food and other essentials. Since lockdown, essential support services…have closed their doors, so you have to have phone credit or data to even contact them for help. This means deciding to eat or to get phone credit. The recent increase of 26p per day to asylum support is heart breaking. I just want to live in dignity, afford the most basic things and to be safe.”
My first question to the Minister is: as we come to Refugee Day this Saturday, will he please reconsider the asylum support rates, and will he promise not to penalise asylum-seeking families who receive digital packages and laptops so that their kids can keep up at school with blended learning? The coronavirus is a public health crisis, but it is also a humanitarian crisis for people in the asylum process.
I turn now to a welcome and, in public health terms, essential safeguard to asylum accommodation when lockdown was announced. It was stated that asylum seekers would not have their financial support and accommodation cut off—that they would not be evicted—and that that would last until, at the very least, the end of June. As the Minister will be aware, we in Glasgow have called for an end to asylum homelessness and eviction for years. Most recently, we resisted Serco when it tried and failed to make hundreds of people street homeless through cruel forced lock changes. We showed the way, and we urge all dispersal areas to resist asylum accommodation evictions and homelessness.
I welcomed the pause in evictions, as did Glasgow city council and many other asylum local authorities, who for years have demanded that the Home Office take responsibility for the care of vulnerable asylum seekers, rather than shunt them heartlessly onto the streets.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Through him, I say to the Minister that we need to look again at this idea of how we disperse asylum seekers throughout the city of Glasgow, moving them on so often. Asylum seekers, who will often get involved in community group, a church or with charities, are frequently moved on to another area, where they will have no community support. I commend what is being done, but if we are to have a wider conversation about accommodation, we need to impress upon the Minister the need for people to be able to stay in one part of Glasgow, rather being shunted around all the time, which is no good to them.
Chris Stephens
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope the Minister responds to that. I will have some questions for the Minister about his contact with Glasgow City Council, but I am sure that all us Glasgow MPs would welcome any opportunity to meet him to address the many issues that asylum seekers face in the city of Glasgow, including how to give them better protection.
Let me tell the Minister that the asylum evictions policy has, way before covid-19, blighted the lives of women and men thrown into homelessness on to the streets of councils that have been, and remain, decimated by the Government’s austerity programme. What a short-sighted and irresponsible policy austerity was. It has been ruthlessly exposed by the dreadful covid-19 pandemic. As the Health Secretary knows well, the facts are that we are no longer in a fragile recovery phase out of lockdown. The virus is still out there and the R rate varies by locality. It attacks the most vulnerable. They were the most vulnerable before the pandemic, have been during it, and, unless the Government act, will be after it.
I and many others are furious to now learn that last Thursday, when I was being told that I had been selected for this debate and presumably in a ministerial office far from the streets of Glasgow, Liverpool, Swansea and Middlesbrough, the Government decided to restart support cessations and, by implication, the imminent eviction in July of asylum seekers, both those who have been granted refugee status and those who are being refused asylum. That could mean hundreds and thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers rendered street homeless into an ongoing life-threatening pandemic. To increase the risk, it will be happening in some of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister and his staff were telling local authorities in these areas last Friday that that is what they plan to do.
Let us just think about what that means. The Government are getting back to the Home Office’s “business as usual” while everyone else in society is grappling with the new normal. Why is the Home Office different? This “business as usual” will make people street homeless at a time of an ongoing pandemic. This is all to happen while all other evictions are rightly postponed. The Housing Secretary in this place has paused evictions until the 23 August, so why have the Home Office not done the same?
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Would he agree that any such drastic decision could not possibly have been made, surely, unless the Home Office had sought advice from Public Health England? If that is the case, it is imperative that the Minister publishes the advice he received from Public Health England on the matter.
Chris Stephens
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. There should also be an equality impact assessment of the decisions the Government are making in that regard.
In cutting off support and making people homeless, the Government are not only placing them at acute health risk, including from covid-19, but are undermining the wider community and the local government and devolved Government recovery out of covid-19. What was decided last Thursday is, in my view, deeply irresponsible. I urge the Minister to reconsider, and I know I am not alone in that. I know that local authorities and, I am sure, public health directors feel the same way. It is basic common sense that you do not evict anyone into homelessness during an ongoing pandemic. It is inexcusable, especially for asylum seekers and those in the black and minority ethnic community.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for taking an intervention. I had been intending to stand and talk about the No Evictions Network: what good people they are and the incredible work they do in not just holding up placards, but providing one-to-one, face-to-face support for people. I am sorry I missed the beginning of the debate. I am sure he has mentioned, or will mention, the attacks they have come under in Glasgow tonight. Does he agree that another issue with asylum seekers being made street homeless is that if the people campaigning for them are being attacked by the far right just for supporting them, they will be in even more danger and that makes it even more irresponsible?
Chris Stephens
At the very start of my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker allowed me to say a few words to condemn the violence we have seen in Glasgow tonight, as I am sure the Minister will. There is no place for far-right thuggery anywhere in the United Kingdom. People are entitled to protest peacefully if they think the Government are not making the correct decisions. A peaceful protest was planned for tonight and they were met with thugs. I am sure that we will see and hear more about that on the news later this evening.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. May I urge him to please urgently reconsider and confirm to me today in writing that he will not restart any support cessations, or the evictions that will inevitably follow, without the express agreement of asylum local authorities, public health directors, and, where relevant, devolved Administrations? Will he confirm that the last meeting to have taken place with local authorities, political leaders and Ministers was just less than a year ago, when the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was the Immigration Minister? What does that say about the Home Office and its relations with political leaders in local government dispersal areas? Can he tell us when the next meeting with the local government dispersal areas will be?
On the acute risk of covid-19 and severe illness and death for BAME communities, I turn briefly to a critical matter touched on earlier that is of the utmost public interest. As the evidence is now overwhelming that BAME communities living in areas of deprivation and often higher population density are at an acutely high risk of contracting covid-19 or of dying from it, this already high risk will escalate if BAME communities are made homelessness. The asylum seekers are from BAME groups, with people from Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Sudan, Afghanistan, and China, among many others. They are at a higher risk of dying from covid-19. Surely given that, the Minister must not end, but extend, the ban on asylum support cessation and evictions. It would be even more irresponsible in public health and safety terms to restart business as usual. Given the evidence about those who are homeless catching covid-19 and, for BAME communities, of dying from it, will the Minister urgently extend the ban on asylum support cessation and evictions, and set out how he is paying due regard to this public sector equality duty in deciding to end the current pause on cessation and evictions?
My third point is about hotel detentions, which was the subject of tonight’s peaceful protest in Glasgow. I have read the exchanges between Mears and the Home Affairs Committee. I have seen that the asylum charities have had to supply supplementary evidence. I have read the reports in the media and new media, and I have read the Minister’s letter to Councillor Jen Layden, so let me lay out the facts.
A decision was taken by Mears in the first week of lockdown, on 23 March, to quickly uproot 300 asylum seekers from single-occupancy or two-bedroom serviced apartments in the city—de facto households—into hotels. Asylum seekers have contacted my office and the offices of asylum charities to say that asylum seekers were bundled into vans with no social distancing and transported to these hotels—not quality hotels by any manner of means. In some of these hotels, the food provided has been mouldy and unfit for consumption, and in some it is culturally inappropriate, to the extent that around 20 asylum seekers are currently on hunger strike.
Asylum seekers have contacted my office to say that, due to the food provided, they have been unwell. That is not acceptable. It is so bad that charities have had no other choice than to step in and provide food. I can confirm, as a trustee of the Feeding Britain charity, that it has agreed to contribute to the provision of meals that are of sufficient quality and cultural appropriateness for families. I should add that 300-plus people uprooted from their serviced apartment accommodation, on arrival in the hotels, had all financial support cut off, which is not something that was required by asylum support. However, the Government and the Department chose to do that, and people are suffering every day. How would we feel when we leave this room today—how would any of us feel—if we were told that we had no money at all?
There is no social distancing and health concerns are too often ignored or met with a dismissive attitude. Claims made in ministerial correspondence that organisations such as the Red Cross and the Scottish Refugee Council have inspected the site and raised no concerns are denied by those organisations. As the Red Cross put it:
“I have confirmed with our operational staff that the offer of a visit to hotel accommodation was not taken up by our staff due to public health guidelines advising against all non-essential travel, this however may change as we transition out of lock down”.
The Scottish Refugee Council said:
“We declined the first invite to a hotel for lockdown public health reasons. We accepted the second invite to visit one of seven hotels in use, which we did, but we said to Mears before then, during it and after that visit, that there is not much we can meaningfully say on conditions and how people feel, on the basis of one short visit to one location. Mears accepted this was the case.”
It is the case that the decision to place asylum seekers into hotels results in those individuals losing that state financial support. The argument that this is not a cost-cutting exercise just does not wash, and sadly, there has been one tragic death.
Can the Minister confirm whether, on what date and to whom in Glasgow City Council Mears gave notice of the plan, with effect from 27 March, to move those 300-plus asylum seekers who were already on section 98 support and who were in serviced apartments in the city? Did Mears not give advance notice to the council in that regard?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The case to which my hon. Friend has referred was in my constituency. A young man called Adnan passed away at the start of May in temporary and inappropriate hotel accommodation with insufficient mental health support. Does my hon. Friend agree that the conditions that vulnerable people are expected to live in are entirely inappropriate, and does he share my concern at the reports from the Glasgow No Evictions Campaign of two further people in temporary hotel accommodation who were refused medical assistance over the weekend by staff at the hotel and Mears staff?
Chris Stephens
I am aware of those claims, and I would say to my hon. Friend that the Home Office must immediately intervene and establish the facts in that regard. If people need medical care, they should get medical care. Indeed, the Minister’s letter to Councillor Jennifer Layden outlines that there is supposed to be immediate medical care for those asylum seekers who are in hotels.
A further question to the Minister relates to deaths that take place in asylum accommodation. Will he set out what steps his Department takes in relation to a death in asylum accommodation? I understand that he may not be able to talk about the current case, but can he signpost me to the policy that the Home Office follows in these situations? Lastly, can he tell me when hotel detentions will end and when asylum seekers will be returned to suitable accommodation?
In closing, I can tell the Minister that Glasgow is a political village. People know when someone is not telling the truth or the full facts. They know when someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. A number of things in his correspondence to the council are simply not the case. In Glasgow, asylum seekers are our neighbours and friends. They are part of the community. Any move to detain them in hotels or to evict them from their accommodation will be met with the same resistance that led to the rent strikes led by the great Mary Barbour, and the same resistance shown by the great Glasgow Girls. All we ask is that our neighbours, our fellow Glaswegians, are treated with respect, because that is what they deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this evening’s Adjournment debate. Let me start by putting on record my agreement with the remarks he made at the very beginning of his speech in relation to the disturbances and the violence—the counter-demonstrations—in the city of Glasgow. Violent protest of any kind is abhorrent. People have the right to peaceful protest, and I join him—and, I am sure, everybody in the House—in condemning the acts of violence to which he referred.
Let me start by laying out the United Kingdom’s generosity in welcoming people who are granted asylum and, indeed, people who claim asylum. Last year, the calendar year 2019, there were about 35,000 claims of asylum, which was one of the highest figures in Europe—not the highest, but one of the highest—and last year we granted about 20,000 asylum grants and other forms of protection, so more than half those claims were granted. At the same time, we welcomed 3,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—the highest number of any country in Europe. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, although he did not mention it in his speech, that just last week or the week before, we announced a significant funding increase to local authorities to support looking after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We increased the support by £17 million from about £218 million to £235 million a year. At the same time, we increased the care leaver grant for those people who were UASC but are now part of the post-UASC care leaver cohort, to £240 per care leaver per week, which was an increase of between 20% and 60%, depending on which local authority we are talking about.
Of course, at the same time as we offer that support to asylum seekers, we have the largest—or certainly the second largest—overseas aid budget in Europe. We are the only G7 economy to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid, around £13 billion or £14 billion per year. We are doing a great deal to help people not just to come to the UK, but who are at risk overseas.
David Linden
I withdraw the word “crap”, but the Minister is talking absolute nonsense. He talks about how welcoming the UK is. They are the same UK Government that had “Go Home” vans going round communities, and the hostile environment. I suggest that he cuts the talk about DFID, which has been abolished this week, and focuses on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).
Chris Philp
I will certainly come on to that point, but no amount of huffing and puffing can disguise the fact that we are the only G7 country meeting the 0.7% of GNI commitment. No huffing and puffing will disguise the fact that we gave 20,000 grants of asylum and protection last year.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman can shake his head all he likes, but those are the facts. They are facts that evidence the compassion with which the United Kingdom deals with those very vulnerable people. He can shake his head, and he can fold his arms, but those are the facts.
Let me come on to some of the questions that have been raised. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West spoke at some length about the asylum support rate, but he did not talk about everything that is provided in addition to the cash sum of money, which was increased by 5%, well above the rate of inflation. The cohort concerned get free accommodation. All utility bills are paid for, council tax is paid for, free health care is provided under the NHS, and any children get free education. The method for calculating the cash support rate was tested in court some years ago and found to be lawful. The amount of money is essentially calculated by a formula which has been endorsed by the Court of Appeal. When Members talk about asylum support, I urge them to keep in mind all those other things—the free accommodation, the utility bills being paid, the council tax being paid, NHS healthcare and free education.
The covid situation that the country has been facing is thankfully now easing, but it has of course been a very serious public health crisis. We took the decision on 27 March to suspend the policy of the cessation of support. That is where an asylum seeker’s claim is decided, either positively or negatively, and we ask them to—with notice, of course—leave the supported accommodation estate. Clearly, if they have had a positive decision, they are entitled to find work or to universal credit. If they have a housing problem, obviously they are entitled to all the support that any of our constituents would be entitled to in the ordinary course of events. Clearly, they cannot continue to be supported in asylum accommodation indefinitely as they are essentially members of society like the rest of us who live their lives, just like all of us and our constituents do.
In the event they get a negative decision, the expectation is that they return—
Stuart C. McDonald
That was a very welcome decision, and I think it was based on advice from Public Health England. Can the Minister say categorically that Public Health England has been consulted on the decision to go back to cessation of support and evictions, and will he publish that advice as well as the earlier advice?
Chris Philp
I was just about to come to that point. When the decision was taken on 27 March to suspend the cessation of support policy—I am grateful that Opposition Members welcomed that move—it was announced as being effective until the end of June. To be clear, no eviction notices have been issued. We are going through the process of thinking carefully about how we transition back to a more normal state of affairs as the coronavirus epidemic abates, and we are doing that in a thoughtful and considered way. We are thinking carefully about all the angles, and we will talk to the relevant authorities, including local government, and take public health advice seriously. This matter is being considered and thought about carefully, and we will proceed in a careful way that gives proper attention to the various considerations. As I hope Members will have seen from our decision, we are determined to be responsible and careful in the way we handle this issue, and I believe our conduct has reflected that.
Let me say a word about the implications of our decision. Although we suspended the cessation policy, we still have intake because people are still claiming asylum. Either they present as cases under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, or they make fresh claims for asylum. Those claims are not at the level they were before coronavirus, but the level is still quite high. The number of people who are being accommodated in asylum support is going up a lot. Indeed, in the past 10 weeks, it has risen by about 4,000—a significant number. We are working night and day to find accommodation for those extra 4,000 people, and the numbers are going up on a weekly basis. Members will understand that trying to find extra emergency accommodation is difficult, particularly in the middle of a pandemic, but we have done it. We have risen to the challenge, and I thank local authorities, and Home Office officials, for their tremendous work in finding those 4,000 extra places at short notice and in difficult circumstances.
Some questions were asked specifically about the city of Glasgow, which is well represented in the Chamber this evening. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said, a decision was taken in late March in relation to 321—he said 300—people who were in temporary serviced apartments. For a variety of reasons, it was decided that those apartments were not appropriate in the context of the coronavirus epidemic—they were not safe to stay in, and as a consequence, people were moved into hotel accommodation. Let me be clear that that is a temporary measure and is categorically not permanent. As soon as circumstances allow, if those people are still receiving asylum support, they will be returned to the sort of accommodation they were in previously.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned cash savings. Over the past 10 weeks, the additional cost of accommodating those extra 4,000 people has run into tens of millions of pounds, and possibly more than that. I assure him that no cost saving is being made anywhere in that part of the Home Office budget. The hotels provide three meals a day that meet dietary requirements. In terms of cultural sensitivity, Korans and prayer mats are provided, and during Ramadan, late evening and early morning food is provided for those who observe it.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned connectivity. Each room has a TV and, critically, wi-fi, and 24-hour reception staff are available, as are translation services and staggered meal times to cater for social distancing. There is full access to the building for cleaning and repairs. Laundry facilities are available on site; there is space for NHS staff and medical consultation, and full provision of things such as towels, soaps, sanitiser, bed linen, toiletries, and feminine hygiene products—all those things are provided. If any areas require further attention, the hon. Gentleman is welcome to write to me and I will happily address those matters.
Chris Philp
I have only a minute left, but I will take a quick intervention from the hon. Gentleman who secured the debate.
Chris Stephens
Will the Minister commit to meet Glasgow MPs, because there are major discrepancies between what he is saying, and what we are being told? I would be obliged if he would meet us.
Chris Philp
Of course—I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to discuss any specific concerns. It would be helpful if he could write to me in advance to lay those concerns out in writing, so that I can come with answers, rather than reply off the cuff. If he writes to me first, I would be happy subsequently to meet him and go through his specific concerns.
This country takes its responsibilities very seriously. As I said, we granted 20,000 asylum and protection orders last year, and we have one of the biggest overseas aid budgets in the world. We can be proud of our record, and I am happy to stand here and defend it this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) | Jim McMahon |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Peter Kyle |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) | Kim Johnson |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Clive Efford |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) | Chris Elmore |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) | Owen Thompson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) | Alex Norris |
Sir William Cash (Stone) | Leo Docherty |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) | Owen Thompson |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Chris Elmore |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Alex Burghart |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Chris Elmore |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) | Conor McGinn |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) | Patrick Grady |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) | Chris Elmore |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Chris Elmore |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Theo Clarke |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Tracey Crouch |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) | Aaron Bell |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) | Julie Marson |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Chris Elmore |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) | Wes Streeting |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Ruth Edwards |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khal (Manchester, Gorton) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Owen Thompson |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Rosie Duffield |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Chris Elmore |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) | Chris Elmore |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Cat Smith |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Sir David Amess |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) | Kim Johnson |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Florence Eshalomi |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) | Owen Thompson |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) | Alex Norris |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) | Chris Elmore |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Owen Thompson |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) | Owen Thompson |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) | Robert Courts |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) | Chris Elmore |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) | Patrick Grady |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) | Chris Elmore |
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) | Chris Elmore |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Ben Lake |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) | Rachel Hopkins |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) | Owen Thompson |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) | Chris Elmore |
Deferred Divisions
Petition
Village Surgery in Askam, Furness
Domestic Abuse Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Wednesday 17th June 2020
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 June 2020 - (17 Jun 2020)
The Chair
I remind everyone about social distancing, which is very important. If anyone is unhappy with the social distancing in the room, please let me know and we will try to do something about it. It would help Hansard enormously if we could email copies of notes or speeches to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
New Clause 25
Repeal of provisions about defence for controlling or coercive behaviour offence
“In section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship), omit subsections (8) to (10) (which make provision for a defence in proceedings for an offence under that section).”.—(Peter Kyle.)
This new clause seeks to repeal the ‘carers’ defence’ for the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate or family relationships.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is great to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Bone—welcome back to the Committee. I rise to speak to new clause 25, on the repeal of provisions about defence for controlling or coercive behaviour offence.
Domestic abuse against disabled people is simply not discussed enough. They are hidden victims. When abuse against disabled people is raised, it is usually in the context of adult safeguarding processes, which labels disabled people as vulnerable adults and which disabled survivors and specialists in the field tell us is failing them.
The new clause reflects 10 years’ worth of casework by Stay Safe East, one of only two organisations in England and Wales led by disabled women supporting disabled survivors, and its partner organisations, in an advisory group on domestic abuse and disability. That is two specialist disability and deaf services for a disabled population of 10 million people.
The data on abuse against disabled people is grim. Disabled adults are at least 1.5 times more likely to be a victim or survivor of violence than non-disabled adults. Disabled women are at least three times more likely to experience domestic abuse from family members, be that their partner, parents, siblings, adult children or other family members. Some of the abusers will also be the person’s carer. It is highly likely that those figures are an underestimate, as the only example—the crime survey—is not in an accessible format for deaf and disabled people to participate in, and many survivors cannot access external help.
The rate of domestic abuse against disabled men is also higher than against non-disabled men, but disabled women are more likely to experience repeated, sustained and more violent abuse than disabled men. Disabled children, and particularly disabled girl children, are more likely to experience sexual violence and physical abuse than non-disabled children. What is more, disabled people may have other people in their lives who have a level of control, whether that is unpaid carers or paid carers from an agency, or a personal assistant.
This is the case for disabled women across all communities, of all ages and all backgrounds. Disabled women face specific forms of abuse at the hands of partners, family members and paid or unpaid carers: control of communication; control of medication; restricting access to disability support; using a person’s impairment to control them—for example, playing on their mental health or taking advantage of the fact that they have learning disabilities—forced marriage on the grounds that the partner “will look after you when I am gone”; and constantly abusing women because of their impairment. That, in itself, is a form of hate crime.
Abusers hold the very real threat that, “They will take your kids away from you” over a disabled woman. In the experience of both Stay Safe East and SignHealth, a deaf-led service for deaf survivors of domestic abuse, deaf or disabled mothers are at much higher risk of losing their children through the courts or other domestic abuse. In some cases, the courts opt to place children in the care of an abusive father rather than letting them live with a disabled mother, who is considered a poor parent for reasons simply of her disability, and providing support to keep the children with her.
Unfortunately, disabled victims who are able to speak out against this face multiple barriers to gaining safety and justice. Poor access to refuges or emergency accommodation; voice phone-only contact with many services, which excludes deaf women and those without speech; services not set up to deal with victims who need long-term support; a lack of quality, accessible information or British Sign Language interpreters; no access to counselling—the list is very, very long.
Worst of all is not being believed by police, social workers or health workers because they are disabled women, which is something that is frequently reported by deaf and disabled women who approach the two specialist organisations. A little-known clause, now subsections 76(8) and (9) of the Serious Crime Act 2015, introduced what has been dubbed “the carers’ defence” by disabled survivor groups. It introduced a worrying caveat into what was a piece of legislation to protect victims of abuse, by allowing an abuser who is facing charges of coercive control to claim that they were acting in the best interests of the victim.
That provision was originally brought to the attention of legislators through the efforts of Sisters of Frida, a disabled women’s collective, and Stay Safe East, but it became part of the 2015 Act. Although the clause may have been introduced with the best of intentions, to avoid unnecessary prosecution of carers who were, for example, preventing somebody with dementia from going out alone because they were at risk, there is a real risk that it could be used by abusers to claim that they are acting in the best interests of somebody they are controlling with malicious intent.
That is especially true of people who might be seen to have capacity issues, such as deaf people, people without speech, people with cognitive issues as a result of a stroke, people with learning difficulties and people with mental health challenges. That, of course, is a substantial number of potential victims among those who face the greatest barriers to safety and getting justice.
For example, the parents of a young woman with mild learning disabilities stopped her going out alone, only letting her go to college with a chaperone, on the grounds that she was at risk from strange men. The parents had failed to teach their daughter about safe relationships, had removed her from personal, social, health and economic education lessons in school, and had controlled her friendships with her peer group. The family claimed that they were protecting her. The young woman initially believed that her parents were doing their best for her, but as she grew up she came to realise that she could make her own decisions. It subsequently emerged that, on top of all the coercive control, the family were taking the young woman’s benefits, and there was also physical abuse.
The section gives a clear message to disabled survivors and victims generally: “Your decisions are not your own, and abusers can claim to be acting in your best interests.” “For her own good” is an expression we often hear abusers using, even if they are abusing that very interest, and the courts will let them get away with exercising abuse of power over their victims.
In a context where disabled survivors are the least likely to speak out, and where, if a case does go to court, the chance of a successful outcome for the victim is very low, especially for disabled victims, that is not the message that we want legislation on domestic abuse to give to survivors or, for that matter, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or abusers. The Care Act 2014 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 both provide sufficient protection for genuine carers who face malicious allegations. A law to protect victims is not the place for a clause that protects potential abusers.
All too often, concerns about disabled victims are ignored. The Government now have a real opportunity to listen, and we urge the Minister to take full advantage of that opportunity. We are talking about a group with many intersectional and very complex challenges, which provide additional areas for abusers to exert control and abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
This is the first of two debates on different aspects of the controlling or coercive behaviour offence in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. As the hon. Member for Hove has indicated, new clause 25 seeks to repeal the defence in section 76(8), which has been labelled by some as the “carers’ defence”.
Currently, the coercive or controlling behaviour offence allows for such a limited defence if the accused believes that they were acting in the best interests of the victim. It is important to note that the accused would also need to demonstrate to the court that in all the circumstances of the case their behaviour, while apparently controlling, was reasonable. This defence is intended to cover cases, for instance, in which the accused was the carer for a disabled spouse, and for medical reasons had to compel their partner to take medication or to stay at home for their own protection.
It is worth taking a moment to consider the sorts of circumstances in which that defence might apply. Imagine a situation in which neighbours walk past a home and see someone who wants to get out of the front garden and on to the road, and is in some distress at not being able to do so. That neighbour calls the police, and the police then investigate. It emerges that the person trying to get on to the road is, very sadly, suffering from dementia, and their partner is a person of unimpeachable integrity and good character—a decent, loving partner of many years’ standing who has shown nothing but care and compassion for that individual, but who is concerned that if they get out on to the road, they will be a danger to themselves and others. Is it seriously to be suggested that that person should be at risk of conviction, punishment and disgrace?
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
That is not what has been outlined. It has already been clearly stated that provisions in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 would allow for that exact defence. Also, can the Minister not imagine a situation in which if a victim in that exact circumstance says she is a victim of domestic abuse, that might be the case?
Alex Chalk
Of course it might be the case, but the important thing is that this defence allows a proper opportunity for a tribunal of fact to consider that, and I think it is absolutely right that it should do so. It is worth noting that under section 76 the burden is on the individual to advance that defence, and for a tribunal of fact to then consider whether it has been disproved. In other words, if that individual advances something that is utterly implausible, a jury—or indeed a bench of magistrates—would have little difficulty in exposing it as such.
Peter Kyle
It is important to note that we are leaping straight from a hypothetical, in which a woman with dementia is trying to climb over a fence, to court. However, between those two stages we have the first responders. Having experienced the training, care, compassion and expertise of the frontline responders in the prevention team of Sussex police, I would find it extraordinary if a frontline responder could not tell the difference between these scenarios, or certainly determine whether there is enough evidence to pursue the kind of prosecution that the Minister is describing.
Alex Chalk
We have to be very clear about this. If an individual does not have that defence, considering the elements of section 76, we would be left with a person who is apparently being caused some distress—as would be evident to the first responder, or indeed to a police officer, who might have to effect an arrest—and the distress would appear to have been caused by that person’s liberty having been restricted. In those circumstances, unless the individual has the defence that they were exercising proper control in the interests of the other person, they are at risk of being arrested and prosecuted. That would be a serious concern, would it not?
I should also add—I do not think this point is controversial—that there is an exemption within section 76 concerning under-16s. In other words, where people are in a position of responsibility for somebody who is under the age of 16 and may have to inhibit that person’s liberty, that is considered perfectly understandable and justified. The argument would therefore be this: why is it that in circumstances where, sadly, an individual is at risk and vulnerable, it should not be open to that carer—who everyone accepts is loving, decent and caring—to say that this was in the interests of the individual?
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise that it is possible that some people would seek to advance an unmeritorious defence. That is absolutely right, but I respectfully say to him that when he says, “The courts let them get away with it,” he is unfairly labelling the courts. In my opinion, the courts have shown themselves well able to see through a spurious defence. The carer who seeks to try it on and to abuse this proper defence will be given short shrift by a bench of magistrates, or indeed by a jury. We should trust juries and courts to do justice in each case.
Jess Phillips
Why does the Minister not think that the courts and juries can be trusted on the rough sex defence?
Alex Chalk
Because juries have to have a rough sex defence to consider. That is our job. Our job is to create the statute.
Alex Chalk
No, it is not the same at all. If the hon. Lady will listen for a moment, the point is that there is, on the face of a statute, a defence that the jury can consider. They get to consider it only if a judge is satisfied that there is a prima facie defence—in other words, if what the defendant is advancing is patently and transparently unmeritorious, it may well not even go to a jury. A judge might say, “This is such a load of old nonsense that it doesn’t even cross the threshold for a jury to decide.” It is simply where there is a prima facie case. We should trust juries to say, “Is there something in that, or is there not?” It is not for us to adjudicate in every single case. Trust juries; trust the people. It is different from the point that the hon. Lady was making about rough sex, because there was a lacuna in the law. Our job is to fill the lacuna and then leave it to juries, who have shown for many centuries that they are well placed to do justice in a specific case.
I will make a final point on this issue, because I do not want to dwell too long on it. If the policy were not in place, there is a danger that the same people that the hon. Member for Hove quite properly wants to stand up for, and who we want to stand up for—namely, people with disabilities—could be disadvantaged if people take the view of, “Hold on a moment. By doing what I think is genuinely and objectively in the best interests of an individual, I am at risk of conviction, punishment and disgrace. Do you know what? Why on earth should I be doing that? Why should I be putting myself at risk in that way.” We have to ensure that we do not inadvertently, and despite the best intentions, find ourselves making life more difficult for the people we want to support.
Peter Kyle
The Minister is a very effective advocate, but the bottom line is that all the agencies representing frontline victims and survivors are speaking with unanimity. They want the law changed and the new clause struck off, because they say it is affecting their service users. There is no organisation out there working with service users that is defending the clause; it is only him.
Alex Chalk
With respect, that is not a fair characterisation. Parliament had the opportunity to consider the Bill in 2015. It went through Committee stage in this House, and it went through the House of Lords. It was Parliament’s will that it should exist. What is now being suggested, less than five years later, is that we should sweep away something that was there in the past. In my respectful submission, the case for that has not been made.
Of course, all matters are considered with care, particularly matters of this kind of sensitivity, but we have to be alive to the fact that sometimes, if we remove such a defence, we risk making the position far worse for the people we want to protect. We see that time and again when people are concerned that if they are not given the opportunity to advance their defence and simply to say, “Listen, you decide whether I have got this wrong.” If they do not have the option at least to put forward their defence so that 12 people who have no prior knowledge can make a fair decision, it would be unfair on them and would risk unfairness to people with disabilities.
The final point that I want to make is that the equivalent domestic abuse offence in Scotland contains a similar defence, under section 6 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, as does the proposed new domestic abuse offence in Northern Ireland, which is clause 12 of the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill, currently before the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is not an outlier provision, I respectfully submit.
Notwithstanding the very proper concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, I invite him to consider that, set in a wider context, seeking to exclude the provision is not necessary. In the light of my explanation, I invite him to withdraw the new clause.
Peter Kyle
With your permission, Mr Bone, may I speak without a jacket on in this stuffy weather? I do not want to offend your sensibilities.
Peter Kyle
Thank you, Mr Bone.
We need to make progress today, and we have a lot to get through. I will withdraw the new clause, in the clear hope that, as the Bill progresses through Parliament and goes to the House of Lords, they may have more time to spend on such matters. They might be able to have more consideration and ventilation of the debate, which we were too speedy on today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
Controlling or coercive behaviour offence
“(1) In Part 5 (protection of children and others) of the Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
‘(2) “Personally connected” has the meaning set out in section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020.’
(3) Omit subsections (6) and (7).”—(Jess Phillips.)
This new clause would ensure that those who were previously personally connected are protected from coercive and controlling behaviour (including economic abuse) that occurs post-separation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Jess Phillips
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I also do not have a jacket on, but I am not compelled to wear one—I think the only uptick of being a woman in this place is that we can wear whatever we want; it is one of the benefits. I also have trainers on.
Jess Phillips
I will discuss some of the potential foibles of the 2015 Act, which we have already mentioned. I say graciously before I start that Parliament does not always get everything right, and I loathe the culture in which we have to call something a U-turn, when actually evidence and other things change, different things come to light and people change their minds. That is okay, but we are not allowed to do that in politics without it being labelled a certain thing. I totally support the legislation but, specifically in the coercive control measures, there are some errors. In reality, only time and test ever measure these things.
In discussing the new clause, I will focus on post-separation abuse, but I will first talk briefly about economic abuse by way of context, as they are closely linked in this instance. I welcome the inclusion of economic abuse in the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill, recognising how that is often hidden but incredibly destructive as a form of abuse. The Bill now acknowledges and names the experience of the victims and their families, supporting them to find justice by holding a perpetrator to account across a full range of abusive behaviours.
That move has been hugely welcomed, particularly by organisations that work with victims and see day in, day out how perpetrators use economic abuse to exert control, whether to trap the victim so that they cannot afford to leave, or to force them into destitution after they have left, so that they are unable to move on and rebuild their lives. One of those organisations is the UK charity Surviving Economic Abuse, which exists solely to raise awareness of economic abuse and to transform the responses to it.
The term “economic abuse” may be new to domestic abuse legislation, but that form of abuse is certainly not new. One in five women in the UK report having experienced economic abuse from a current or former intimate partner, and 95% of domestic abuse victims report that they have suffered economic abuse. It is widespread.
Economic abuse makes the victim dependent on the perpetrator and limits their choices and their ability to leave. The behaviour is insidious and might not be recognised by the victim. The perpetrator might introduce it as an offer to help, or to take away the worry and burden of dealing with finances, seemingly in a caring way, or they might have simply assumed control through force, threats and coercion.
Through economic exploitation, the perpetrator looks to benefit from the victim’s economic resources and, in so doing, sabotages their economic independence. That exploitation may consist of things such as demanding that the victim alone pays the household bills, while the perpetrator spends their own money on whatever they like. The perpetrator may also build up debt in the victim’s name, through coercion or fraud, or steal or damage the victim’s property, which then has to be replaced. In my experience, the thing that is seen the most is the build-up of debt in someone’s name; certainly that is the thing that people struggle to live with thereafter.
This all has a hugely destabilising impact on the victim’s economic wellbeing and, again, limits their choices and ability to leave. Economic abuse can leave victims trapped and destitute, either while in a relationship with the perpetrator or post separation as they navigate life with inescapable debt, insecure housing and financial hardship. Economic safety underpins physical safety. Building an independent life can, for many victims of economic abuse, feel impossible.
Why is the new clause vital? To answer that question, I want to talk about economic abuse following the end of intimate partner relationships. Economic abuse does not simply stop when the relationship ends. Control continues through joint resources, and in fact the perpetrator can still sabotage the victim’s resources even if they do not know where the victim is. An abuser might wipe out money in a joint account that a victim relies on, or refuse to pay an overdraft so that penalties build up and the victim cannot afford to continue paying it. The end of a relationship does not prevent the abuser from taking away a victim’s home, interfering with their ability to work and earn money, or constantly taking the victim to court in connection with their children. It also does not mean that the abuser suddenly forgets the victim’s personal information, which can be used to apply for credit in their name.
In reality, economic abuse can continue, escalate or even start after separation. Research has shown that economic abuse is actually more prevalent post separation. It is clear why: when other forms of control may have been removed, controlling an ex-partner’s access to economic resources, such as by refusing to pay child maintenance, which we heard about yesterday, or refusing to sell a jointly owned home to free up much-needed money, may be the only way in which the abuser can continue to control the victim—and what powerful and destructive control that can be.
Victims can be left with such significant debts and poor credit ratings that they are unable to move on or rebuild their lives, yet at present legislation does not afford victims the protection that they need. The link between economic abuse and controlling and coercive behaviour is stark. Analysis by Surviving Economic Abuse of successful prosecutions for the controlling or coercive behaviour offence shows that six in 10 involve economic abuse, yet limitations within the controlling or coercive behaviour offence mean that, at present, victims of economic abuse post separation are unable to seek justice.
As a result, the perpetrator can continue to control their ex-partner for years and even decades. That is because, for the abuser’s actions to fall within the controlling or coercive behaviour offence, perpetrator and victim must have been “personally connected”, as defined in the Serious Crime Act, and that definition differs from what we have in the Domestic Abuse Bill, which clearly states that someone has been in a relationship or is no longer. That is clearly outlined in this new and better definition.
Under the Serious Crime Act, two people will be considered as personally connected if they are in an intimate relationship with each other, or they live together and either are family members or have previously been in an intimate relationship with each other. The result is that where a couple are no longer in an intimate relationship and they do not live together, behaviour by one of them towards the other cannot fall within the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour.
That is why the new clause is vital. We know from research and what we have heard throughout the progress of the Bill that coercive control continues after the victim’s relationship with the perpetrator has ended and they are no longer living together. That is particularly true of forms of abuse that do not rely on physical proximity or the continuation of intimate relationships with the perpetrator, economic abuse being the key example.
Surviving Economic Abuse has shared the story of a woman in this position, and I want to share it with Members. Layla—not her real name—was married for more than 20 years to her abuser and has three children. Throughout the marriage, her husband was controlling and coercive, both economically and emotionally. He would do things such as pressure her to transfer money into his bank account and force her to let him use her credit card. He ran up debt on her credit card and, after separation, forced her to release hundreds of thousands of pounds of equity from the mortgage. Layla continues to pay the debts that he has put in her name, including bank loans of £70,000. He continues to use her contact details rather than his own, so she is being regularly chased by creditors for money. She has also been regularly visited by bailiffs demanding payment of the abuser’s debts, which she has to pay.
Layla has been to the police, but they said that
“the continuing economic abuse cannot be considered under the coercive control offence as the perpetrator had left her.”
Where is the justice in that? We must change that and bring the definition of “personally connected” as it is defined in the Serious Crime Act in line with what we have in the Bill, so that victims such as Layla no longer face the possibility of being a victim of economic abuse going unchallenged for the rest of their lives.
The Bill recognises that abuse can continue post separation and that it does not require the abuser and victim to be in an ongoing relationship or living together. Through the new clause, which has been called for by Surviving Economic Abuse and which has support from SafeLives and many other organisations in the violence against women and girls sector, we can bring those definitions in line with each other so that the intentions of the Bill are not undermined by other legislation, and victims are protected by law and can seek justice. The new clause does that by removing the requirement for intimate partners or family members to be living together for the abuser’s actions to fall under the controlling and coercive behaviour offence.
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent and helpful representations. The context is that I entirely agree with the premise of her point. If I can crystallise it, she is in effect saying, “Look, one of the most pernicious ways you can abuse another individual is through economic abuse.” It is worth stepping back for a second to say that, although we recognise that in this room, if we went back as little as 15 years ago, that might have been a moot point. People have come to realise that this is a particularly potent and cruel weapon to use, and that acknowledgement is a thread that is increasingly starting to run through the law.
The hon. Lady rightly points out that the Serious Crime Act 2015 creates the offence of coercive control, but the definition of domestic abuse in this Bill is one reason why it is it such an important piece of legislation. If someone had been asked what domestic abuse was 15 years ago, they would probably have said, “Domestic abuse is domestic violence, isn’t it?” No, because clause 1(3) says:
“Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of any of the following—
(a) physical or sexual abuse;
(b) violent or threatening behaviour;
(c) controlling or coercive behaviour;
(d) economic abuse (see subsection (4));”
When we turn to subsection (4), it says:
“‘Economic abuse’ means any behaviour that has a substantial adverse effect
on B’s ability to—
(a) acquire, use or maintain money or other property, or
(b) obtain goods or services.”
I wanted to take stock of where we have come to, because that will inform some of the points that I make in response.
The final thing that I will say by way of context is that the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill, which I am taking through the Committee of the whole House this afternoon, considers precisely this issue. When we say that a minimum of six months is the appropriate period for people to move on from a relationship, where some have said that it should be longer, one of the important rebuttal points is, “Hold on a minute. If someone needs to move on with their lives, potentially from an abusive relationship, they need to make sure that it can happen within a reasonable period so that the economic abuse cannot be perpetuated.” We absolutely get that point, and I would say—I hope not immodestly—that we have spearheaded it.
I entirely agree with the Surviving Economic Abuse charity raising the issue, and it has done an important public service in doing so. To turn to the specific point, as we have heard, the new clause seeks to address another aspect of controlling or coercive behaviour. As the hon. Lady indicated, there have been calls from Surviving Economic Abuse and other domestic abuse charities and victims to expand the offence under section 76 of the 2015 Act by removing the living together requirement for former partners. As the offence stands, it applies only to controlling or coercive behaviour between intimate partners or former partners and family members who are living together.
Alex Chalk
I am sure that hon. Gentleman does look at it.
The 1997 Act was amended to include section 2A, which deals with the “Offence of stalking”. Section 2A says:
“A person is guilty of an offence if… the person pursues a course of conduct… and… the course of conduct amounts to stalking.”
Then, however—this is what I think is brilliant—the 2012 Act goes on to look at the sorts of behaviour that might constitute stalking. Subsection (3) says:
“The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking… following a person… contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means… publishing any statement”
relating to that person. It continues:
“monitoring the use… of the internet… loitering in any place… interfering with any property in the possession of a person… watching or spying on a person.”
The reason why that is important is that it sets out the sorts of behaviour that could be stalking, but it is not exhaustive.
The reason why I say of all that is that if someone at the end of a relationship, when the two people are no longer living together, engages in a course of conduct that, to the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus, is a bit like stalking—whether or not that means trying to exert economic control—there is the potential for offences there, and I will come on to them while I am still sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley.
I am particularly mindful of that because in my own county of Gloucestershire—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle has already mentioned this—Hollie Gazzard was brutally murdered. Those who have been victims of stalking say that it is like murder in slow motion, because of so much of what precedes it in terms of stalking behaviour. My point is that that can include economic abuse as well.
However, Surviving Economic Abuse argues further that stalking and harassment offences, although relevant, are not designed specifically to prosecute the sort of behaviour we are discussing. I accept that, but it is also fair to point out that, because of the way that stalking offences are drafted, it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to conceive of how they could be included, based on the facts of a specific case.
In addition, the new statutory definition of domestic abuse includes ex-partners among those defined as “personally connected” and does not have a “living together” requirement. Therefore, an amendment to the controlling or coercive behaviour offence could be seen as conforming within the definition in clause 1.
However, the case is not clearcut, given that the offence is still relatively new, and there is currently limited data available in support of a change. Because the case is not clearcut, the Government committed, in response to our 2018 consultation on domestic abuse, to conduct a review of the offence, as the hon. Lady is aware.
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady loves a review, she says sotto voce.
Although Home Office officials have made good progress with the review, I am afraid that it has been one of the casualties of the covid-19 pandemic, which has meant that focus has had to be reapplied to supporting victims of domestic abuse at this time. However, the review is in place, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her acknowledgement and understanding of the situation.
We hope to conclude the review by the early autumn, because it is important that we have a sound evidence base for any changes to the offence, but we have heard what the hon. Lady says; the points she made are not improper or unmeritorious, and we invite her to await the outcome of the review. I hope that, in the light of my explanation, and on the understanding that we aim to complete the review by early autumn, the hon. Lady will see her way to withdrawing the new clause.
Jess Phillips
Absolutely, and I feel that I have the ear of the Minister in this particular regard. The case is quite clear to me; in the circumstances he has outlined, he is absolutely right. If he thinks that people do not read the statute here, I should say that they certainly do not in Stechford Police Station.
The reality is, what would the charge be? I find it difficult to think that the copper, in reality, on the ground, is going to say, “Actually, I think this will be a stalking charge.”
Alex Chalk
I grappled with this as a Back Bencher when we wanted to increase the maximum sentence, and for precisely that reason—would a police officer, or the CPS, think it was worth the powder and shot to charge someone with stalking when the maximum sentence was only five years? It is now 10 years, because of the private Member’s Bill. If someone engages in a course of conduct that seriously damages an individual, be it by economic abuse, or by hanging around outside the school gates or whatever, the courts have the power to impose what lawyers pompously refer to as “condign punishment”. That provides a powerful incentive for police officers, who want to do justice in the case, to reach for the lever available to them.
Jess Phillips
I appreciate that, and I hope that that would happen in these cases. However, the cases that I am sure will inform the review that the Minister talks about show people often left without an option, rather than with a plethora of different statutory instruments that they could use. The reality is that lots of people simply get sent away with no further action. However, I take on board what the Minister has said about the review. As everyone knows, I absolutely love a review—for the benefit of Hansard readers, I am being sarcastic. I will await the autumn. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 29
Domestic Abuse: immigration and nationality legal aid
“(1) The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows: in Part 1 of Schedule 1, delete paragraphs 28 and 29 and insert—
‘Immigration and nationality: victims of domestic abuse
27A (1) Civil legal services provided to a victim of domestic abuse in relation to rights to enter, and to remain in, the United Kingdom and to British citizenship, but only in circumstances arising from that abuse.
27B (2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Parts 2 and 3 of this Schedule.
27B (3) The services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include attendance at an interview conducted on behalf of the Secretary of State with a view to reaching a decision on an application.
27B (4) In this paragraph—
“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;
“victim” includes the dependent child of a person who is a victim of domestic abuse.’” —(Jess Phillips.)
This new clause would provide for legal aid for survivors of domestic abuse (and their dependent children) in relation to their immigration or nationality status or rights insofar as the need for legal aid arises from the abuse’
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 35—Victims of domestic abuse: leave to remain—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of this Act being passed, lay a statement of changes in rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (‘the immigration rules’) to make provision for leave to remain to be granted to any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom.
(2) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules for the granting of indefinite leave to remain to any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom; and the statement must provide for those rules to be commenced no later than one month of the laying of the statement.
(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for granting limited leave to remain for a period of no less than 6 months to any person eligible to make an application under the immigration rules for the purposes of subsection (2); and such leave shall include no condition under section 3(1)(c)(i), (ia), (ii) or (v) of the Immigration Act 1971.
(4) The Secretary of State must make provision for extending limited leave to remain granted in accordance with subsection (3) to ensure that leave continues throughout the period during which an application made under the immigration rules for the purposes of subsection (2) remains pending.
(5) Where subsection (6) applies, notwithstanding any statutory or other provision, no services shall be withheld from a victim of domestic abuse solely by reason of that person not having leave to remain or having leave to remain subject to a condition under section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971.
(6) This subsection applies where a provider of services is satisfied that the victim of domestic abuse is eligible to make an application to which subsection (3) refers.
(7) The Secretary of State must, for the purposes of subsection (5), issue guidance to providers of services about the assessment of eligibility to make an application to which subsection (3) refers.
(8) In this section an application is pending during the period—
(a) beginning when it is made,
(b) ending when it is finally decided, withdrawn or abandoned, and an application is not finally decided while an application for review or appeal could be made within the period permitted for either or while any such review or appeal remains pending (meaning that review or appeal has not been finally decided, withdrawn or abandoned);
‘person subject to immigration control’ means a person in the United Kingdom who does not have the right of abode;
‘provider of services’ includes both public and private bodies;
‘services’ includes accommodation, education, employment, financial assistance, healthcare and any service provided exclusively or particularly to survivors of domestic abuse.”
This new clause would make provision in the immigration rules for the granting of indefinite leave to remain to migrant survivors of domestic abuse and limited leave to remain to a survivor who is eligible to make an application for indefinite leave to remain.
New clause 36—Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors—
“(1) The Immigration Acts are amended as follows.
(2) In section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 after subsection (10) insert—
‘(11) This section does not apply to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom.’
(3) In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ca) to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom, or’
(4) In section 21 of the Immigration Act 2014 at the end of subsection (3) insert ‘or if P is a victim of domestic abuse’.
(5) In section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State may not make or maintain a condition under subsection (1)(c)(ii) on leave granted to a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom; and it is not a breach of the immigration laws or rules for such a victim to have recourse to public funds.’
(6) For the purposes of this section, evidence that domestic abuse has occurred may consist of one or more of the following— For the purposes of this section—
(a) a relevant conviction, police caution or protection notice;
(b) a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders), including a non-molestation undertaking or order, occupation order, domestic abuse protection order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction;
(c) evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic abuse;
(d) evidence that a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference;
(e) a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic abuse;
(f) a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming injuries or a condition consistent with being a victim of domestic abuse;
(g) a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she is satisfied on the basis of an examination that a person had injuries or a condition consistent with those of a victim of domestic abuse;
(h) an undertaking given to a court by the alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse that he or she will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse;
(i) a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in providing services to a person in respect of allegations of domestic abuse;
(j) a letter of support or a report from a domestic abuse support organisation; or
(k) other evidence of domestic abuse, including from a counsellor, midwife, school, witness or the victim.
‘domestic abuse’ has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;
‘victim’ includes the dependent child of a person who is a victim of domestic abuse.”
This new clause seeks to ensure that certain provisions under the Immigration Acts – including exclusion from public funds, certain types of support and assistance and the right to rent – do not apply to survivors of domestic abuse.
Jess Phillips
There is a lot of me today, Mr Bone. Today we will discuss the issue that has come up every single day that we have sat in Committee. It will come up every single day in between now and Third Reading. In the three years of the passage of this Bill, this issue has been raised pretty much every day. I do not want people to feel that this is my particular hobby-horse, although the issue of how migrant women are treated by our current system is something that I care deeply about, and we should not make laws that exclude them. It is not only my hobby-horse; it is a hobby-horse that I share with a number of hon. Members.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), a one-time Immigration Minister, spoke up in favour of extending the domestic violence destitution funding that currently exists within the Home Office. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who is here, said,
“I ask that the Government revisit there being no recourse to public funds for victims with certain immigration statuses.—[Official Report, 28 April 2020; Vol. 675, c. 285.]
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said,
“there are currently no provisions in the Bill for migrant women facing domestic abuse”.—[Official Report, 28 April 2020; Vol. 675, c. 249.]
The hon. Members for Gillingham—I am not sure how to pronounce that; sorry, I have never been there—and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for Moray (Douglas Ross), and shockingly, but everybody has a good day, even the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) put their names to the Home Affairs Committee report, which stated:
“insecure immigration status must not bar victims of abuse from protection and access to justice.”
Alongside the right hon. Member for Basingstoke on the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill were the hon. Members for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), both now Ministers of State. They asserted:
“We recommend that Government explores ways to extend the temporary concessions available...to support migrant survivors of abuse”.
This is not some liberal elite, Guardian-led campaign just for people like me, who might be expected wave a banner. This week, The Sun newspaper backed the campaign to protect migrant women in this Bill. I am sure my father will be thrilled with this, but The Sun said:
“Jess Phillips is absolutely right. Domestic abusers don’t discriminate, so why should the law discriminate against their victims?”
I thank The Sun newspaper for its support.
Specifically on the new clause, which we have now established are not just part of my conspiracy, and before I begin talking about why it is so important, I will briefly explain what no recourse to public funds means. No recourse to public funds—NRPF—is a legal restriction that bars people on certain visas from claiming most benefits, tax credits or housing assistance paid for by the state. That means, for example, that someone could come to this country and stay on a student visa, but they would not be entitled to any benefits, most tax credits or housing assistance. That is all well and good, and well understood by the vast majority of people, but when a migrant woman or any migrant victim—many of whom are children—who has no recourse to public funds becomes a victim of domestic violence, the restriction hinders their ability to access life-saving refuge support and other necessary welfare provisions.
New clause 29 would remove the statutory exclusion that prevents migrant survivors from accessing the support and assistance that they need and would ensure that no survivor, whatever their immigration status, is treated as being in breach of immigration laws or immigration rules by accessing that support or assistance.
Research by Women’s Aid found that only 5.8% of refuge vacancies in England in 2018-19 could accept a woman with no recourse to public funds. Three out of every five referrals to refuge are refused because of a lack of availability, and 64% of all referrals to refuge were declined. That rises to 80% for black and minority ethnic women. The chances of a migrant woman being able to access refuge are slim, bordering on impossible.
In very simple terms, in order to escape abuse, an individual needs to have somewhere to go—a safe, warm place, a bed, food, and travel for themselves and their children. All the new clause seeks is to ensure that if someone is a survivor of domestic abuse, they can access those most basic necessities, regardless of where they were born. Surely, in 2020, we can agree that we should not be turning away victims of horrific crime from refuges because of what it does or does not say in their passport. We should not look the other way when we hear from survivors, as we did in our first session, who tell us that they were left sleeping on the streets with a nine-year-old child because they had been brave enough to leave an abusive relationship.
What was clear from the testimony of survivors and from written case studies provided to us is that migrant survivors often have complex situations and face multiple barriers to finding safety. They are often too scared to report. They can be investigated and even detained if they do. They cannot access safe accommodation, and their abusers use their immigration status as a tool of coercive control against them. These are complex cases, but I am pleased to say that they have straightforward solutions. The new clause provides one of those straightforward solutions.
Refuges cannot take women with no recourse to public funds because they cannot access housing benefit. Isn’t the most straightforward solution to give them access to housing benefit?
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that this country stands at a pivotal point in its race relations? If we accept the new clauses and recognise that women should be entitled to the protection of the law, regardless of where they were born, it would make an important statement about what the Government and this place are prepared to do and prepared to change in our society’s attitude to race.
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. I will no doubt come on to the issue of discrimination, but all I would say on that matter is that we have a chance in the Bill to say that all victims and all lives should be included. We could certainly pass comment on the lives that matter and those that do not.
Women without access to public funds cannot support themselves and their children independently from the perpetrator. As is often the case, the perpetrator is in control of the income and the bank accounts. Isn’t the most straightforward solution to that to ensure that survivors can access welfare support?
Women without secure immigration status are prohibited from renting accommodation, so refuges find it difficult to take them. Most refuges want to take these people, but if they cannot get somebody out of the refuge because that person cannot rent somewhere afterwards, refuges are left knowing that the move-on options are incredibly limited. Isn’t the most straightforward solution to that to let survivors rent?
According to Southall Black Sisters’ estimates, we are talking about a group of individuals numbering in the low thousands a year. We are not talking billions of pounds, but for each of those women, the impact on their lives would be immeasurable. At the most vulnerable, scary point in their lives, they need to be believed and they need to be told that they can be helped When their abuser tells them, “You can’t leave, you have no access to public funds, no one will help you, you’ll be on the streets,” they need to know that he is lying. At the moment, he is right.
Peter Kyle
We are using the term “migrant woman” to describe all the people here. Should we not place on record that they are not migrants first and foremost? They are mothers, neighbours and the people we pass in the street and talk to when we are on public transport. They are colleagues in workplaces, universities and places of education. They are fully formed human beings integrated into our world here and they are also people who come from other countries.
Jess Phillips
Absolutely, I have absolutely no doubt that today in this building there is somebody serving us coffee or doing something of service who has no recourse to public funds and is affected by the problem I am talking about. My hon. Friend is exactly right. They are our careworkers and NHS workers. They are the students who keep our universities in money. They are the people who serve us every day. They are our family members. They are people who deserve help when they are harmed. They are taxpayers. They are people who give in both effort and resource. They deserve exactly the same as everyone else. If I walked into a police station today, nobody would ask me for my immigration status. Nobody would care. It would not be the thing that they thought they had to care about. They would ask me if I was all right and would treat me as a victim. If I was from Bolivia, they would ask me about my immigration status.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said, we are at the precipice. It is not okay that some people matter and some people do not. It is one thing to try to undo things from the past—to topple statues and try to deal with complex cases from the past—but we are making this law today, and we are not making it for everyone. That is fundamentally wrong.
There are women like Myra—the final case study—who attempted to leave her abusive husband a number of times, having reported her rape to the police. They took no further action and did not refer her to local domestic abuse services. After three years, she made the decision to find safety and leave. She had no recourse to public funds, and contacted 10 refuges, which were unable to offer assistance due to the NRPF condition. During that time, she was forced to remain at home with her husband and faced further abuse, which took its toll on her mental health. She said:
“many times, I thought of giving up, many times.”
Those case studies all come from the Women’s Aid “Nowhere to Turn” report.
I can already anticipate that the Government’s response to what I said will be to point out the ongoing Home Office internal review into NRPF. I am sure the Minister will mention how the Government have recently announced £1.5 million for a pilot fund to cover the cost of support migrant women with NRPF in refuge in order to better assess the level of need for that group of victims to inform the spending review decisions on a longer-term basis. Both those proposals fail to appreciate the urgency and seriousness of the risk of abuse and destitution that abused migrant women on non-spousal visas face.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Yesterday, the hon. Lady referred to the destitution domestic violence concession as a lifeline to those on temporary visas. Does she agree that a very high proportion of migrant women are helped to access that kind of support thanks to the tampon tax funding?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely do think that, but obviously not all of them, by any stretch of the imagination. We were told that we were taking back control, but the only thing I feel we actually took back control of was the extra quid I have to pay when I have my period. We will not have to pay the tampon tax anymore. Some of the most vulnerable people in our society are relying on the good will of various pilot projects here, there and everywhere, and we are not expressing in our laws that we see those victims. I recognise that that fund has helped lots of people, but we have an opportunity to change this permanently.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Just to be careful, the tampon tax funding was to assess the nature and scale of the women who cannot claim DDVC. Of course, women who do claim DDVC—there are about 2,500 of them—are not dependent on tampon tax funding. That is business as usual for the Home Office. It is funded by the taxpayer year in, year out.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. I love the DDVC and what I am asking for is business as usual for the people serving coffee. I want the situation to be business as usual for everyone. Business as usual should mean that in this country, if someone, no matter who they are, gets punched in the face, or raped in the evening, we say “D’you know what? We’ll help you.” That is the kind of country that we want to live in.
As I was saying, with both the proposals currently in the pilot projects there is a failure to appreciate the urgency and seriousness of the risk of abuse and destitution that abused migrant women and those on non-spousal visas face. Pilot projects take considerable time—sometimes years—to complete and evaluate, and can be followed by further pilot projects. That simply delays the introduction of the urgent measures that are needed now to protect abused migrant women.
Also, I am not sure why we would not write the pilot project in question into the Bill, because, as everyone knows, there are a number of pilot projects in it. Domestic abuse protection orders are in a pilot project, and so is polygraph testing. The Bill loves a little pilot project. The Home Office has been stalling on addressing the need to implement immediate protection measures for migrant women. It is not good enough just to have an ongoing internal review. We need action.
The internal review has been supplemented by a series of meetings, including ministerial roundtables and periodic calls for evidence, as well as engagement with the sector organisations on a regular basis. I am disappointed that the Home Office has not yet published the outcome of the review, ahead of Committee, so that it could be properly scrutinised, and that it has chosen instead to announced a proposed pilot project.
My position, which reflects the overwhelming views of the sector—the police, the Victims Commissioner, the domestic abuse commissioner, the Children’s Commissioner and social services—is that the domestic violence rule and all the ways in which it works brilliantly should be extended to all migrant survivors. That brings me to new clause 35, which would do exactly that. If I could have anything of all the items in the group—and I recognise that I do not get everything I want—it would be new clause 35.
The domestic violence rule was introduced in 2002. We did not call it that in 2002; it was called the Sojourner project, which I like to say with a Birmingham accent. It was introduced to provide migrants on a spousal or partner visa with a way to apply for indefinite leave to remain when the relationship had broken down because of domestic violence.
In 2012, the destitution domestic violence concession was introduced. It gave domestic violence rule applicants three months of temporary leave and a right to have access to limited state benefits while an application for indefinite leave under the domestic violence rule was considered. The domestic violence rule and destitution domestic violence concession work. Well done to the Home Office. Bravo. It did a great job. It works. It is not perfect, but it does a good job.
That twin-track approach provides a vital lifeline for domestic violence victims on spousal and partner visas, because it allows survivors to resolve their immigration status as well as having access to emergency funding. Ultimately that helps them to become independent of the perpetrator and the state. Yet currently the domestic violence rule and destitution domestic violence concession do not extend to migrant victims on non-spousal visas. That includes victims who are on student or other visas such as work permit holders and domestic workers. We have essentially created a two-tier system. What I find unusual about that two-tier system is that, in my experience of some of the more problematic issues in the visa system and its use for safeguarding, the spousal visa bit is not what I would favour.
Between April 2015 and March 2016, 67% of users who accessed the Southall Black Sisters no recourse fund, supported by the tampon tax, were on non-spousal visas. A survey conducted by Southall Black Sisters between November 2012 and January 2013 found that 64% of 242 women did not qualify for the DDVC and were without a safety net. Similarly, Women’s Aid reported that over a one-year period, two-thirds of its users with NRPF were not eligible for statutory support because they were on non-spousal visas and had no recourse to public funds.
Jess Phillips
I am not wholly sure that we will be hearing from all the immigration solicitors that I have come across in my life. I think there is a definite problem in the system with regard to some immigration advice that I get to see being charged for and paid for.
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for making that incredibly important point. When somebody is prosecuted by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, it is a serious issue of unscrupulous, unqualified, unethical individuals giving legal advice, and that is a particularly shabby thing to do when know the impact on the victim is known.
Jess Phillips
It certainly is. In these circumstances, people turning up to my office, having forked out £5,000 for a form that they could definitely have filled in by themselves, even if English is not their first language, is a phenomenon. I am afraid to say, I even have some come to my office and ask me to refer people directly to them, as if, like a quid pro quo, they will give free legal advice if we send people. It is a wild west situation.
That brings me to new clause 29, which seeks to provide migrant survivors with legal aid. Often, the cases are complex and it cannot be left to specialist BAME organisations to provide that legal advice. As I mentioned, there is already a deficit in specialist BAME services. Failure to protect all migrant women from abuse has wide-ranging financial and societal consequences —consequences that exceed the cost of extending eligibility of the DV rule and the DDVC.
The economic cost of supporting migrant women with NRPF is often borne out. We might not be paying for it at the Home Office, but it is often borne out by local children’s services, local councils, health and education services, the police and the criminal justice system, as well as by non-statutory agencies. Many women rely on section 17 support under the Children’s Act 1989, which would not be the case if they were eligible for the DV rule and the DDVC. We end up somehow paying for it with either lives lost or some other scheme somewhere along the line.
In its briefing paper on migrant women, Southall Black Sisters highlighted that London boroughs in 2017-18 supported 2,881 households with no recourse to public funds, at a cost of £53.7 million. That was primarily linked to the discharge of their duties under the Children’s Act 1989. The average duration of local authority support is under two and half years, with 30% of families being made dependent for 1,000 days or longer, often because of Home Office delays in resolving immigration claims. One of the primary groups referred to local authorities with NRPF is single mothers who are subject to domestic abuse. The majority of households no longer require local authority support when they are granted leave to remain, because they go on to find work. Surely that is what we all want to see happening.
What assessment have the Government made of how much it would cost to extend the domestic violence rule to all migrant victims? I guess it would cost less than the millions run up by the statutory and non-statutory services to support migrant women. It would be cheaper, and it would certainly be kinder. Although it would perhaps not be so ideologically pure, it would be the right thing to do. Furthermore, by hindering access to life-saving support, there are wider implications for the Government’s international human rights commitments and obligations to combat violence against women and girls.
In their October 2019 report on the ratification of the Istanbul convention, the Government amended the status of their progress on article 4.3, which is the non-discriminatory section, and on article 59, which includes measures to protect victims whose residency status is dependent on a partner, from “compliant” to “under review”—going backwards. As a consequence of their inadequate response to migrant victims of domestic abuse, the Government must now use the opportunity provided by the Bill to ensure meaningful protection for all women.
I am nearly done—worry not—because I want the Minister to have plenty of time to respond. In the evidence session, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle talked about the national referral mechanism after it was raised by another Member. In fact, a victim of domestic violence was asked during the evidence session whether she had been referred to the national referral mechanism. As somebody who used to be one of the people administering the national referral mechanism and who ran one of the trafficking services for many years—in fact, I helped to set it up with the Salvation Army as one of the sub-contractors—I want to express, for the benefit of the Committee, some concerns about the cross-over with the national referral mechanism in such cases.
The national referral mechanism has never been used to deal with cases of domestic abuse; that was never its intention. I read the guidance during the weekend after the evidence session. The only mention of domestic abuse in the thousands of pages of guidance suggests that when people identify a victim, they should use some of their experiences with victims of domestic abuse, because victims might react similarly and might not want to talk. That is literally the only mention.
There is some mention of forced marriage and sham marriage in the guidance. However, I have been speaking to the providers this week and have been asking them about how many cases they have seen where those are factors. It is vanishingly rare. Lots of the providers offer both domestic violence services and trafficking services. There is Ashiana Sheffield and Black Country Women’s Aid, where I used to work. They provide both domestic violence services and trafficking services, which are completely distinct. There has never been any suggestion that migrant victims with no recourse to public funds would be able to get through the NRM. As someone who has taken referrals through the NRM, I can tell Members that if a person tried to take these cases through that mechanism—probably with some immigration lawyer helping them to do so—it would count against them. It would look as if they were gaming the system, because these cases inevitably would not get through the NRM. Almost no migrant women on non-spousal visas would be able to access the NRM: it is not for them. They have not been exploited, there are not means, and there are not the three main things that are needed to make a trafficking referral.
However, well over five days ago, I tabled some named day questions to the Home Office. I have not had a response, but I have chased them again this morning; maybe the Minister can answer some of those questions. I asked whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department would
“publish all correspondence between her Department and the contract provider for the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract on the inclusion within that contract of support services for victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds.”
I also asked the Secretary of State
“how many applications to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) made reference to forced marriage in the last full reporting year; of those how many people were (a) accepted into the NRM and (b) had their application declined.”
Southall Black Sisters, working with a number of other agencies, has circulated a pretty comprehensive guide to why these particular victims would not qualify. That is not to say that the NRM is not a good system; these victims just would not qualify for it, and it is quite laborious to try to put them through it, so I am not sure why we are currently wagering on the NRM.
Julie Marson
Given the schemes we have talked about—the hon. Lady has mentioned the need for data, and there has been mention of the £1.5 million fund—does she acknowledge the need for data and more analysis of where the gaps are, to determine where we can fill them and what we can do best?
Jess Phillips
Of course I do, and quite a lot of data has been gathered. It is funny, though, that we are asking for data on some things but not others. Women’s Aid holds at least as much data about no recourse to public funds as Southall Black Sisters, if not more, because they run the No Woman Turned Away programme. However, I noticed that at the evidence session, Lucy Hadley was not asked to provide data.
There is plenty of data out there, but it is also important to say that we cannot prove a negative and cannot rely on these organisations to do so, no matter how much funding we give them. I see these cases all the time, all over the country, and I would not necessarily refer the victims to schemes that are largely based in London. We are asking these organisations to tell us what does not exist. All Members present recognise that there are masses of data about domestic abuse that we will never know anything about, because people do not come forward.
We give people money to run a scheme and then say, “It has to be entirely based on evidence”, but the Government bought a contract for ferries from a company that did not have any boats—that is just one example I could give—so I find it hard to understand why more evidence is required from some people than from others. Of course evidence is needed, but pretty much every expert is saying that the extension of the DDVC is a very simple extension that would not cost loads of money. We are beginning with the thousands of women who are on those particular visas, then reducing that to the women who are more likely to come forward, and reducing it again to those who have been victims of domestic abuse—we are going down and down. It is just the right thing to do.
I have not been presented with loads of data about lie detectors, or about other things that are in this Bill; I just take it on trust. We have never before had a charge of economic abuse, but nobody is saying that because no one has been charged with that offence, we should not introduce it. I just think that it casts aspersions on the organisations that might be doing that work, as if to say that the evidence is not there when it clearly is. I know that that is not what the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford was trying to do. The Government have to find a reason why they are not doing this, because the reality of why they are not is not particularly palatable. Evidence is obviously the one they lean on.
Christine Jardine
The hon. Lady mentioned a whole list of organisations. It is fair to say that all of us in this place, and all those organisations, have been on a journey for the past three years since this Bill was originally placed before Parliament. It is important. We have come a long way in those three years, and the importance of the Bill cannot be overstated, especially with covid-19 —but we need to get it right. Can we sum it up as, “We cannot leave anyone behind”? We should not leave anyone to face domestic abuse alone, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, age or religion, or because there might be some dispute about their immigration status. That is where we are now, and the Government have to bear that in mind.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. We have a duty in this place to remove the most pernicious barriers that survivors face in escaping abuse. We can ensure that, in an emergency, every survivor of abuse is treated by the services in the same way at the point of need. We can make it so every victim faces what we in this room would face if we came forward.
I urge the Government to consider the amendments and to make the Bill truly transformative. Currently, the Bill discriminates. In the era of Black Lives Matter, how can we have a groundbreaking Bill that ignores victims based on where they were born?
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Diolch, Mr Bone. The protection and inclusion of migrant women in the Bill is vital. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. She said that this issue is not her hobby-horse, but it is fair to say that she has banged this drum so loudly that it would be impossible for any of us not to hear it—I thank her for all the incredible work she has done.
I also pay tribute to the fantastic charities and organisations up and down the country that have supported work on the Bill, in particular Women’s Aid. Last week, the Committee heard evidence from the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, just one organisation that is focused on and campaigning for the rights of migrant domestic victims. Anyone in the room today would struggle to undermine the power of the evidence that we heard. What really struck me is that the Bill needs to deliver full and equal protection for all domestic abuse victims.
The Istanbul convention is clear that victims of domestic abuse should be protected regardless of immigration status, yet the Bill contains no provision to tackle the multiple forms of discrimination and the often insurmountable barriers to support facing migrant women. Three key measures could be implemented to support those individuals. The first is safe reporting. Migrant women clearly face severe barriers to reporting domestic abuse and seeking help. We have already heard some of the key issues explained so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley.
We heard that perpetrators often use immigration status as a form of coercive control—threatening to inform the authorities, exploiting a survivor’s fear of deportation and destitution, or withholding information or documentation surrounding their status. The hostile environment of the Home Office and its immigration policies only compound the barriers that many migrant women face in leaving their abusive situation. I find it borderline unethical and hugely concerning that more than half the police forces in England and Wales have confirmed, in response to a freedom of information request, that they share victims’ details with the Home Office for immigration control purposes. Surely our duty is to protect victims, and immigration action should not be prioritised.
Hon. Members will be aware of Operation Nexus, the joint operation between the Home Office and some police forces, which aims to tackle offending by foreign nationals. It has led to increasing co-operation between immigration enforcement and forces, including placing immigration officers in police stations and carrying out immigration checks on victims and witnesses of crime. I am shocked and appalled that, at a time of emotional turmoil and often physical trauma, basic human rights seem to be undermined in the name of immigration control.
Indeed, in 2017 it was reported that a victim of kidnap and rape was arrested for immigration offences and referred by the police to immigration officials. It is no surprise that migrant women often justifiably fear the police and other statutory agencies that, in theory, exist to support and protect us all. It is vital that safe reporting mechanisms for survivors accessing vital public services exist. Migrant victims need to be able to safely report abuse to the police, social services, health professionals and others, with confidence that they will be treated as victims and without fear of negative repercussions related to their immigration status.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I have experience of Operation Nexus in Westminster, where we have seen an awful lot of trafficking and modern slavery. I would be grateful for the hon. Lady’s thoughts on whether sometimes the immigration officials need to get involved, because women want to go home, or they want to be safe. Rather than being persecuted by the police or being involved in criminal activity, they are victims. If the immigration service is involved, in my experience, they can be treated more safely and sent home.
Alex Davies-Jones
I appreciate the point the hon. Lady makes, and I am glad that she has had such a positive experience of Operation Nexus, but I believe that is an exception to the rule. I think, if we spoke to other hon. Members in this House, they would not have the same experience. Some women in that situation do want to go home, but I think the majority of them just want to be safe and protected from abuse, and that is not the case with anxiety and fear hanging over them from immigration officials sat in the room, especially if they do not speak the same language. It is very difficult.
Colleagues have also spoken about the lack of recourse to public funds that migrant victims of domestic abuse face. That lack of support is a huge barrier for women across the country. We have heard that without recourse to public funds, victims are not eligible for welfare benefits, which are required to cover the cost of stay within a refuge service. Very few refuge services do not face a funding crisis after 10 years of cuts, and they are unable to cover the cost of women’s stays without that funding. Indeed, only 5.8% of refuge vacancies in England in 2017-18 would even consider a woman with no recourse to public funds. That is not because they do not want to help them, but because they are physically unable to do so.
Some fantastic initiatives have been set up in response to the crisis, but, frankly, this legislation should be there to protect those women in the first place. The destitution domestic violence concession, the DDVC, is just one example of a vital lifeline run by and for BAME women. It provides survivors with welfare benefits for three months, so that they can stay in refuge while applying for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence rule.
However, the DDVC and the domestic violence rule are only available to those on spousal visas where their spouse or partner is a British citizen or has settled status in the UK. Many migrant survivors are therefore barred from accessing this protection. Advice can only be provided by an immigration solicitor or barrister or an accredited immigration adviser and, given the legal aid restrictions we have heard about, gaining access to that advice can also be a severe challenge and is pitted with so many problems and issues.
The DDVC provides access to public funds as long as a woman applies for leave to remain within three months, yet for women escaping their abuser and who are experiencing trauma, that timeframe is often too limited. Changes to appeal rights also mean that most women refused indefinite leave to remain under the DVR cannot appeal the Home Office’s decision—a decision that is made without ever even meeting the applicant. That means that women who cannot submit objective evidence for domestic abuse support in their application are at a severe disadvantage.
The experiences of survivors with no recourse to public funds, unable to access refuge, are shocking. Only 8.2% of the women with no recourse to public funds supported by the No Woman Turned Away project in 2017 were able to access refuge—just 8.2%. Many had to sleep rough, sofa surf or even return to the perpetrator while they waited for help. We have already discussed the pressures on the housing sector in England, but for a migrant survivor, the impact is even more severe. Urgent changes to the DDVC and the DVR are required to ensure that migrant women can access those basic protections.
The impacts are felt across the Union. It would be a shame for me not to use the opportunity to briefly mention the impact that the UK Government’s policies have had on migrant women in my constituency. I hope that hon. Members will indulge me as I briefly discuss a case that my office recently worked on involving a migrant domestic abuse victim.
I am sure that other new hon. Members will agree when I say that, since my election in December, I have been overwhelmed in every sense by the number of campaign groups that have been in touch to ask me to support their cause. It is often difficult to choose where to focus my efforts and I am still learning. For me, however, sharing local resources and information aimed at domestic abuse victims has been a priority, especially given the current coronavirus climate.
South Wales police is doing some excellent work with local organisations to encourage a multi-agency approach to processing reports of domestic abuse, and I wanted to do my bit too. I am sure other hon. Members will agree that any social media content that is produced in relation to domestic abuse is usually shared far and wide, and often outperforms any other content. That is an indication of the broad reach that domestic abuse support has.
After one specific Facebook post, in which I shared local helplines and encouraged victims to reach out for support if necessary, my office was contacted by a woman suffering domestic abuse in north Wales. Before hon. Members scold me for not following parliamentary protocol and raising cases only on behalf of my constituents, the woman had no fixed address and was initially afraid to share any specific details for fear of negative repercussions. Her story was one that I have since heard from many on a number of occasions of having no recourse to public funds. It is a story that persists.
There are some fantastic organisations in Wales that operate solely to help women such as that woman, who now lives in my constituency. Bawso is just one group that I know has helped many MPs and Members of the Senedd across Wales with similar cases. As an MP representing an area in Wales, it is often extremely difficult and challenging to marry up the broad help and housing policies that the Welsh Labour Government have implemented that are specific to domestic abuse victims with the often restrictive and hostile immigration policies of the UK Government. I sincerely hope that migrant women, like the ones living in my constituency, will finally have their voices heard and will ultimately receive parity in terms of access to welfare support in future.
Christine Jardine
I will not go over the case eloquently made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. She said that this is now her hobby horse, but a lot of us across the House are grateful for the fact that it has become one for her.
As I said earlier, we have all been on a journey to get here. I wonder if, when the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) originally tabled the Bill three years ago, she thought that we would be where we are as a country, apart from anything else, when it finally, hopefully, passed into law. It has been a long road. In some ways, the journey that we have travelled could be compared with that of the migrant women who we are talking about in the problems and the strife that we have faced.
What is important is that our situation now makes the Bill more needed than it was even three years ago. The lack of support has been brought into stark relief by covid-19 and the horrifying increase in the number of women—specifically women—who are suffering. We need to get it right and, as I said earlier, leave nobody behind.
I hope that I am not alone in having been inspired and moved by the evidence we heard from migrant women who are survivors of domestic abuse—by their bravery, their spirit and the way they faced it. One woman in particular moved me when she told us about moving to the UK from Brazil with her partner and two children. Eight months after she arrived, her partner turned violent and she fled from the house with her eldest child. The Home Office could not help her because her visa had run out, and she was told that she would have to wait. She had no financial support and, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned earlier, she ended up sleeping on the street. Her situation is still precarious: she lives from one short-term visa to the next and because of her immigration status, she cannot access public funds.
We have all said that that is wrong. We say it time and time again, but it does not matter how many times we say it, it is not enough. Saying it is wrong and recognising it is wrong does not magic up a solution. We have to take action, and we have to do that with this Bill. That is why I support this group of new clauses. We have created, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, a two-tier system that is inhuman and that is the nub of the argument. It is an argument about humanity.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a matter of how we look at our fellow human beings and what we prioritise? Do we see them as immigrants, foreigners, people who do not warrant our protection, first and foremost, or do we see them as victims in need of protection, calling out to us for support and who deserve that support?
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Lady. That is exactly the nub of the new clauses. We should not be regarding these women as migrants; we should be regarding them as women who deserve our support. No one who has been through domestic abuse and survived it should have to hear the two words, detention or deportation. That is inhuman.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech and those of other colleagues. I have no doubt that the new clauses are very well intended, but I am concerned that they could create a perverse incentive and actually perpetuate instances of domestic abuse. New clause 36(6)(g) could be so easily ignored that it facilitates abuse. We really must be alive to the unintended consequences of the new clauses.
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I hope she will forgive me, but I would accept any number of false claims in order to save one person who has been through domestic abuse. I do not think it is enough to say that people could abuse the system. We have to make sure that we have a good system that is not easily open to abuse, but its prime focus has to be on supporting victims of domestic abuse, whoever they are, wherever they come from, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or immigration status.
Jess Phillips
It would be perfectly reasonable for the Government to put in safeguards for evidence in any case, just like the evidential base that we currently have for legal aid in the system for victims of domestic violence, where tests can easily be met. Do you know what? I have spoken enough and I will get another chance.
Christine Jardine
Sorry, I am just getting over the shock of that!
It is incumbent on all of us to make sure that the Bill is good strong legislation and that its primary focus is on supporting victims of domestic abuse, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity or immigration status. We should remember, in all of this, that it could be, at any point, not just someone we do not know, but our sister, our friend or our colleague. It could be any one of us and we should put ourselves in that position and ask ourselves what we would want the Bill to do to defend us.
Victoria Atkins
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue in Committee, because very often, with the best will in the world, the very nature of parliamentary questions and oral questions and so on is that they are quick and the next question is heading up and so on. I am pleased that we can spend some time debating this issue today.
I say that because I wish it was as easy as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has painted—I really do. I think she has the measure of me by now; she could not accuse me of not being compassionate, of not understanding or of not wanting to do the very best that we can for victims of domestic abuse. Against that background, I must not be led by my heart alone, but must also use my head to deal with some of the points and suggestions that have been made.
Let us focus first on that about which we all agree: that victims of abuse should first and foremost be treated as victims. Where we differ perhaps is on how we achieve that, the nature of the support and how it is best provided. For the benefit of those who do not have copies of the new clauses in front of them, they do not deal with services, provision of refuge spaces and so on; they deal only with the provision of legal aid and changes to immigration status. I say that because I am painting the journey that we have taken over the last year on the pilot project. It is very important to bear in mind that, even though the new clauses are being debated, the Government have committed to the pilot project to get some data and evidence on which we can create specific and careful policy.
New clause 29 seeks to extend entitlement for legal aid to migrant victims in relation to their immigration and nationality status. The legal aid scheme is targeted at those who need it and the Government have always been clear that publicly funded immigration advice is available to some particularly vulnerable individuals. The destitution domestic violence concession is run by the Home Office and was created because we understood that there is a problem with victims of domestic abuse who came to this country on spousal visas with legitimate expectations about setting up their lives and those of their family here. We were alerted to and saw that there was a problem, and the DDVC was created.
Under the DDVC, victims are eligible for legal aid when applying for indefinite leave to remain or for residence cards, subject to the statutory means and merits tests—that three-month period can be extended. I have looked at the figures myself; indeed, I looked at the form this morning to refresh my memory. It is a simple form—certainly simpler than some of the forms that the Home Office produces—and it is, I would say, a light-touch form, precisely because we appreciate that it may be used by traumatised victims and we want to be sensitive to their states and circumstances. It is a light-touch form just to log them into the system, as it were, and from that, the benefits—legal aid and so on—can flow where they apply.
People who are not on a spousal visa and who are not therefore eligible for the DDVC may still be eligible for help with legal aid through the exceptional case funding scheme, so long as relevant criteria are met. That scheme is specifically designed for cases in which the failure to provide legal aid could risk a breach of an individual’s human rights. In those circumstances, provided that an applicant passes the means and merits test, legal aid must be granted. The Ministry of Justice is making changes to the scheme to ensure that it is easy to follow and accessible to all, including by simplifying the forms and guidance and working with the Legal Aid Agency to improve the timeliness of decisions.
In the situations that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned, such as leave to enter, leave to remain and citizenship, victims of domestic abuse can already apply for legal aid through the exceptional case funding scheme, if they are not already eligible under DDVC. One of the consequences of new clause 29 would be that domestic abuse victims would be eligible for legal aid for applications under the EU settlement scheme.
The scheme has been designed to be streamlined and user friendly, and the majority of applicants would be able to apply without the need for advice from a lawyer. Indeed, the latest figures, as of 30 April, show that 3,220,000 applications have been completed. Again, it is not an arduous process. We have deliberately tried to make it as streamlined as possible, while ensuring that the requirements are met in terms of years lived in the country, precisely because we want to help people—our friends, our family—stay in the country in January next year.
The Home Office has put in place measures to ensure that people who may have difficulty with the online scheme have help. We appreciate that age or different circumstances may mean that not everybody is as tech savvy as the younger generation, so we have put help in place. Even then, we have legal aid as a safeguard, if it is necessary. While we recognise the importance of providing support to domestic abuse victims, we consider that the current scope of legal aid and the availability of the exceptional case funding scheme already ensure that victims of domestic abuse can access legal aid when they need to.
New clauses 35 and 36 seek to provide at least six months of leave and access to public funds to all victims of domestic abuse who do not fall within the spousal visa DDVC scheme. This would mean that all migrant victims of domestic abuse would have a route to indefinite leave to remain and ensure that they could access publicly funded support.
If I understand the objective of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley correctly, she wants to extend the DDVC scheme and the domestic violence rule to cover all migrant victims of domestic abuse, to place the DDVC in the immigration rules, and to lift immigration restrictions for any migrant victim of domestic abuse. I will try to break down the figures and I will go into them further in a little while. I appreciate the help from the sector. The hon. Lady was a little unkind to me when she described the way in which we have used the sector. We appreciate the help that the sector has given us on this, but we want to consolidate it and build on it, which is why we are investing in a pilot project later this year.
Southall Black Sisters responded to the Home Office as part of our work over the last year. Again, I will go into that more in a moment. Of the people that they helped in 2019-20, 43% of the women had a spousal visa on arrival and/or upon their contact with services. In Southall Black Sisters’ assessment, the next most frequent category of immigration status among people they helped was right down at 8%. That gives us an idea about how many immigration statuses and routes there are, which is a factor that the Government must take into account.
The next most common category of women that they helped, after those on spousal visas, was those who were seeking asylum. Happily for people who are seeking asylum, there is a whole network of support for them. It goes without saying that not every person who applies for asylum is a victim of domestic abuse, but, again, we have listened to the sector. We have changed the system for people who are in the asylum system and are experiencing abuse, so that they get a few top-up payments to help them access the specialist support services they need, including safe accommodation.
After the category of asylum seekers, which was 8%, there are three categories with 5% in each. Those categories are EU dependants, people who had overstayed on their visitor visas and people who were described as overstayers on unspecified visas. I say that to give context to the variety of circumstances that victims may find themselves in, but I am afraid that treating them in a blanket way gives us cause for concern.
Jess Phillips
Personally, Minister, I do not care how people came into the country if they have been beaten up.
Anyway, with regard to asylum, when the Minister states here in front of the Committee that we give specialist support to victims in the asylum system, I would absolutely love to hear about some of that specialist support. For example, if someone was a victim of domestic abuse and they entered into National Asylum Support Service accommodation in my constituency, what is the specialist support they would get in that accommodation?
Victoria Atkins
Members will no doubt allow me just to flick through the timeline; for those who are not in the room, it is a thick document, so it may take me some time to find the—
Jess Phillips
If the Minister would like me to intervene again, and tell her what support is—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I just thought that I ought to make it clear that while I am in the Chair, I have no views on the matter before the Committee, although many of you will know that I did chair the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery, and I was not aware that that subject was going to come up for debate today. Please be assured that while I am in the Chair, I am neutral.
Have I spoken for enough time, Minister?
Victoria Atkins
May I record my thanks to the Chair, and also acknowledge the work that he has done on this topic, and the difficult questions that he asks me on occasion during Home Office oral questions? I am extremely grateful to him.
There is a Home Office policy entitled, “Domestic abuse: responding to reports of domestic abuse from asylum seekers”, which is dated 16 July 2019. I am told that the policy changes set out in that document provided a concession whereby victims of domestic abuse in asylum support accommodation can apply for top-up payments to cover the cost of transferring to a specialist domestic abuse refuge.
We are listening and we are very much trying to be led by the evidence. However, I will make the point that we need a firmer evidence base. That is not a criticism of the charities involved, but we need to understand this very diverse group of people, who are diverse in terms of their experiences; we need to understand the nature of the abuse and the ways in which they have come to be in our country. That is relevant because—[Interruption.] It is relevant, and I will go on to say why in a moment. We also need to understand the experiences that they may have at home with their family members, and so on. Understanding all of that is important to ensure that public money is spent in the best way possible under our policy.
The Joint Committee that scrutinised the Bill considered similar changes to the DDVC and domestic violence indefinite leave to remain, or DVILR. I have to say that its recommendations fell short of the proposals to incorporate the DDVC scheme within the immigration rules. I also have to say that we are not attracted to the approach being set out today either. The DDVC scheme is an administrative scheme and it has worked successfully on that basis since its introduction in 2012. As a concession operated outside the rules, it can be applied flexibly and can readily be amended as the need arises. Placing the scheme within the rules would remove this flexibility.
In response to the Joint Committee’s recommendation, we undertook a review into the overall response to migrant victims of domestic abuse, and we intend to publish the findings ahead of Report. Just to give an idea of the lengths we have gone to with this review, we examined 100 cases in which the claimant had applied for indefinite leave to remain on the grounds of domestic violence. We specifically looked at the length of time spent in the UK, and at whether the claimant had arrived on a partner visa or had formed their partnership after arrival in the UK. We also looked at the main providers of third-party evidence in these cases and whether or not they were being accommodated in a refuge with access to public funds. Gender and other characteristics were also recorded.
We gathered evidence from a range of stakeholders and held a number of workshops and discussion sessions, to obtain more detailed information and views about the difficulties that migrant victims face. Indeed, some of those meetings and the submissions from the organisations concerned are in the body of work from the past year.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned Women’s Aid. It was not excluded from the review or any of our work on the matter. Indeed, it was warmly invited and welcomed. Those Welsh colleagues who are concerned that Wales should not be under-represented will be pleased to know that dial-in details were sent to Welsh Women’s Aid as well. In those workshops, with all the organisations that we would expect, including Bawso, Amnesty, Southall Black Sisters and Step Up Migrant Women, we have had frank discussions about what they experience on the ground and what the women they look after face. The results of the review will be published before Report, but I want to set out that the Government have prepared, and continue to prepare, an intensive and detailed piece of work.
I fear that new clause 35 is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose and rationale for the DDVC and the domestic violence rule. They were and are intended to provide a route to settlement for migrant victims who hold spousal visas. They were designed in that way because the victims in question would, had the relationship not broken down as a result of domestic violence, have had a legitimate expectation of staying in the UK permanently. To compare that with the situation of someone on a visitor visa, such a person comes to the country without a legitimate expectation of staying in the country. I am afraid that the head has to rule the heart in this instance. We have immigration policies and, indeed, the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill is being debated in the Committee Room next to this. We have to try to ensure that immigration policy is maintained. None the less, we need to ensure that there is support for victims when they require it, to help them escape their dangerous relationship.
Neither the DDVC nor the domestic violence rule was designed to support those without the legitimate expectation of remaining in the country. We are concerned that expanding the scope of both provisions would undermine the specific purpose that gave rise to them and introduce a route to settlement that might lead to more exploitation of vulnerable migrants or, indeed, of our immigration system.
Jess Phillips
I do not expect the Minister—or even you, Mr Bone—to be able to filibuster long enough to answer this question, to be perfectly honest, but what evidence is there under the current system, in whatever form and in relation to whatever visa, of women lying about domestic violence to get immigration status? Can I have that evidence, compared with the evidence for those who are turned away? My experience recently—and I respect the point that people sometimes use domestic violence legislation to break the rules—is that sometimes they use it to drive to Barnard Castle. [Interruption.] It is the truth, then. I understand why she thinks people lie.
Victoria Atkins
No. I am sorry—can I just try to bring the tone down? Thus far, we have managed to discuss this incredibly emotive subject in a responsible and constructive way. I shall try to continue to do that. I do not for a moment say that people who apply are lying. I absolutely do not say that. What I am worried about, and what I see with modern slavery, for example, is that the people who manipulate, exploit and take advantage will use every way they can find to do it.
Victoria Atkins
I will give the hon. Lady an example, and then after I have developed this point I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, and then to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West.
I recently had one of my regular meetings on the topic of serious violence and county lines gangs. Predominantly young men and boys are targeted by county lines gangs in what we call exporting areas—big cities—to go out to the county to sell drugs.
Domestic Abuse Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Wednesday 17th June 2020
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 June 2020 - (17 Jun 2020)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
New clause 35—Victims of domestic abuse: leave to remain—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of this Act being passed, lay a statement of changes in rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (“the immigration rules”) to make provision for leave to remain to be granted to any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom.
(2) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules for the granting of indefinite leave to remain to any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom; and the statement must provide for those rules to be commenced no later than one month of the laying of the statement.
(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for granting limited leave to remain for a period of no less than 6 months to any person eligible to make an application under the immigration rules for the purposes of subsection (2); and such leave shall include no condition under section 3(1)(c)(i), (ia), (ii) or (v) of the Immigration Act 1971.
(4) The Secretary of State must make provision for extending limited leave to remain granted in accordance with subsection (3) to ensure that leave continues throughout the period during which an application made under the immigration rules for the purposes of subsection (2) remains pending.
(5) Where subsection (6) applies, notwithstanding any statutory or other provision, no services shall be withheld from a victim of domestic abuse solely by reason of that person not having leave to remain or having leave to remain subject to a condition under section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971.
(6) This subsection applies where a provider of services is satisfied that the victim of domestic abuse is eligible to make an application to which subsection (3) refers.
(7) The Secretary of State must, for the purposes of subsection (5), issue guidance to providers of services about the assessment of eligibility to make an application to which subsection (3) refers.
(8) In this section an application is pending during the period—
(a) beginning when it is made,
(b) ending when it is finally decided, withdrawn or abandoned, and an application is not finally decided while an application for review or appeal could be made within the period permitted for either or while any such review or appeal remains pending (meaning that review or appeal has not been finally decided, withdrawn or abandoned);
“person subject to immigration control” means a person in the United Kingdom who does not have the right of abode;
“provider of services” includes both public and private bodies;
“services” includes accommodation, education, employment, financial assistance, healthcare and any service provided exclusively or particularly to survivors of domestic abuse.”
This new clause would make provision in the immigration rules for the granting of indefinite leave to remain to migrant survivors of domestic abuse and limited leave to remain to a survivor who is eligible to make an application for indefinite leave to remain.
New clause 36—Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors—
“(1) The Immigration Acts are amended as follows.
(2) In section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 after subsection (10) insert—
“(11) This section does not apply to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom.”
(3) In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“(ca) to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom, or”
(4) In section 21 of the Immigration Act 2014 at the end of subsection (3) insert “or if P is a victim of domestic abuse”.
(5) In section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not make or maintain a condition under subsection (1)(c)(ii) on leave granted to a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom; and it is not a breach of the immigration laws or rules for such a victim to have recourse to public funds.”
(6) For the purposes of this section, evidence that domestic abuse has occurred may consist of one or more of the following—
(a) a relevant conviction, police caution or protection notice;
(b) a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders), including a non-molestation undertaking or order, occupation order, domestic abuse protection order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction;
(c) evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic abuse;
(d) evidence that a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference;
(e) a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic abuse;
(f) a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming injuries or a condition consistent with being a victim of domestic abuse;
(g) a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she is satisfied on the basis of an examination that a person had injuries or a condition consistent with those of a victim of domestic abuse;
(h) an undertaking given to a court by the alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse that he or she will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse;
(i) a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in providing services to a person in respect of allegations of domestic abuse;
(j) a letter of support or a report from a domestic abuse support organisation; or
(k) other evidence of domestic abuse, including from a counsellor, midwife, school, witness or the victim.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;
“victim” includes the dependent child of a person who is a victim of domestic abuse.”
This new clause seeks to ensure that certain provisions under the Immigration Acts – including exclusion from public funds, certain types of support and assistance and the right to rent – do not apply to survivors of domestic abuse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Before we adjourned for lunch, I was speaking about county lines gangs, to demonstrate how vulnerable people can continue to be manipulated and exploited for the aims and advantages of those who are doing the manipulation. When we talk about county lines gangs, most people think of boys and young men being recruited, but we are now getting stories about girls being recruited—not necessarily to do the drug running, although they can be used by the perpetrators to conceal weapons and drugs, but to launder the proceeds of crime.
The perpetrators, the gang leaders, are very deliberately recruiting young women because they want to use their bank accounts, and they do so on the basis that because someone is a girl or young woman, the authorities will not trace her, track her or be on the lookout for her as much as they would be—they say—for young men. They also tell the girls, as part of their manipulation, that even if they do get caught, the consequences, because they are girls, will not be so bad for them.
I say that because in the context of the argument about manipulation and how perpetrators can use and skew systems to their advantage, I am highly cynical when it comes to the ability of perpetrators to do that. That is one reason why, when we talk about how careful we have to be about how the system is constructed, so that it cannot be misused, I do so very much with those cynical perpetrators in mind.
I will return to the fundamental principle of providing support, on which we all agree. It is why, as part of our journey to discovering the scale and extent of the problem but also the most effective ways of helping migrant women or people with no recourse to public funds, we have allocated £1.5 million to a pilot project to support migrant victims to find safe accommodation and services. In addition to offering emergency support, the pilot will be designed to assess the gaps in existing provision and gather robust data that will help to inform future funding decisions. The review that we have been carrying out and are due to publish, or aim to publish, by Report stage, has highlighted that there are significant gaps in the evidence base for migrant victims who are not eligible for the destitution domestic violence concession.
Since 2017, we have provided more than £1 million from the tampon tax fund to support migrant victims with no recourse to public funds. That has helped to deliver much-needed support for a number of individuals, but regrettably the funding has not provided the necessary evidence base to enable us to take long-term decisions. The evidence is at best patchy as to the kinds of circumstance in which support is most needed, how long victims need support, what kind of support works best and how individuals can leave support to regain their independence. That demonstrates a need for further work to ensure that we have a strong evidence base from which we can make sound decisions, and that is what the pilot fund is for.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
May I ask the Minister to clarify her comments? Some people could interpret them to mean that the evidence not being there is a reason not to provide any service for some people, whereas some service might be provided for some people by the pilot. Can the Minister clarify that the Government will look at how they can give as much provision for as many people as possible until we are able to get the evidence to better target it going forward?
Victoria Atkins
I very much appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman raised that. We have systems in place at the moment. I hope that, particularly on the topic of legal aid, I have been able to provide examples of women who were not eligible for DDVC getting access to legal aid support. We accept that there is more to do. We are coming at the matter with an open mind and an open heart. We want to get the evidence, so that in due course we can put in place the systems that will provide the best support. That, as well as helping people in their immediate circumstances, is the intention behind the pilot project.
I turn now to the matter of immigration control. We believe that lifting immigration controls for all migrant victims of domestic abuse is the wrong response. Successive Governments have taken the view that access to publicly funded benefits and services should normally reflect the strength of a migrant’s connections to the UK and, in the main, become available to migrants only when they have settled here. Those restrictions are an important plank of immigration policy, operated, as I have said, by successive Governments and applicable to all migrants until they qualify for indefinite leave to remain. The policy is designed to assure the public that controlled immigration brings real benefits to the UK and does not lead to excessive demands on the UK’s finite resources, and that public funds are protected for permanent residents of the UK.
Exceptions to those restrictions are already in place for some groups of migrants, such as refugees or those here on the basis of their human rights, where they would otherwise be destitute. Those on human rights routes can also apply to have their no recourse to public funds condition lifted if their financial circumstances change. Equally, migrant victims on partner visas can already apply for the destitution domestic violence concession, to be granted limited leave with recourse to public funds.
However, lifting restrictions for all migrant victims would enable any migrant, including those here illegally, to secure leave to remain if they claim to be a victim of domestic abuse. For the reasons I have set out, we believe that the provisions in new clause 35 would be open to abuse and undermine the legitimate claims of other migrant victims and the public support on which our immigration system relies.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Will the Minister outline exactly why she thinks the new clause would give everyone indefinite leave to remain? That is certainly not the case, if I may speak so boldly. We are asking for limited leave to remain for a six-month period, with a view to making an application for indefinite leave to remain. Will the Minister just highlight that the Home Office, even in the case of spousal visas, still has every right to refuse indefinite leave to remain to anyone it likes?
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying. I am afraid that that is not the interpretation that lots and lots of officials who have pored over the new clauses have drawn. Perhaps that highlights the complexity of the area and the law. We have to be absolutely clear about our phrasing and intentions when we draft clauses that will have a huge impact on immigration policy, over and above the cases of the immediate victims whom we seek to help.
Jess Phillips
Does the current system of domestic violence destitution and the DV rule guarantee indefinite leave to remain for those on spousal visas? If it were extended to other groups, surely they would live under the same rules.
Victoria Atkins
I do not want to labour the point, but the purpose and remit of the DDVC and the domestic violence rule has been misunderstood. The DDVC and the rule were, and are, intended to provide a route to settlement for migrant victims who hold spousal visas, because they have a legitimate expectation of staying in the UK permanently. That is the nature of their status. That is why we say it is not, sadly, an easy transfer across for people on other types of visas, such as visitor visas—or, indeed, for people who have arrived here illegally. That is why it is a painstaking process to work out what we can do to help such victims with the immediate circumstances of their abuse, so that the immigration system plays its part and takes its course in the way that it would do for anyone on those different types of visas.
I appreciate the sensitivities of talking about illegal immigrants, but it is important to acknowledge that we have to balance the interests of people who apply properly for immigration routes, as well as the immigration interests of individual victims. That is why the Government keep coming back to the argument that the starting point for the process should not be people’s immigration status; it should be the care that they need to help them flee an abusive relationship, giving them the support they need to recover from that and to lead happier and healthier lives.
I talked about the human rights routes. People on human rights routes can also apply to have their no recourse to public funds condition lifted if their financial circumstances change. Equally, migrant victims on partner visas can already apply for the DDVC to be granted limitedly, with recourse to public funds. We are committed to the needs of victims, which is why we have introduced the pilot to help us understand the particular pressures and needs of these vulnerable people.
I started my speech by setting out the Government’s commitment to helping victims. I made the point that victims must be treated as victims and get the help they need. That is absolutely what we are focused on, which is why the next steps in our programme of work in this very difficult area are to publish the results of the review and then conduct the pilot, so that we can assess and implement the practical support that these vulnerable people need.
Jess Phillips
Let me explain to somebody who may never have filled in a domestic violence destitution fund form or have had to apply the DV rule in this or any of its forms. The reality is that even if someone has a spousal visa, it does not guarantee them indefinite leave to remain. They still have to apply through every single one of the same rules through which they would ordinarily apply—unless the Home Office is changing the policy and saying that anyone who applies will automatically be given leave to remain. That is absolutely not my experience.
There is a problem when I stand here representing my experience of years in the field, and with masses of experience of immigration cases in my constituency—more, I feel safe in saying, than any hon. Member present, except perhaps the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. It is very difficult when Ministers say that what I have experienced is not the case, or that all the victims who have given evidence—some of whom are our friends or family, and certainly our constituents—are wrong to say that the system does not work. There are lists of easements, but the reality on the ground is completely different. I understand what the Minister is saying and certainly what hon. Members want to see with regard to evidence gathering. Lord knows we live in a time when policy is made very quickly, and some people will prove that we needed better evidence for some of it. We live in interesting times. I have absolutely no doubt that that is what is required.
I do not see the point of a review if the evidence is not taken up by the Home Office. Even if all the evidence pointed the other way, I cannot see that the Home Office would come up with a different argument. The desire of all of us for the evidence is a sort of moot point. We are trying in this Bill to protect victims of domestic violence—it’s literally what it says on the tin.
Peter Kyle
Am I right in thinking that the argument my hon. Friend is trying to make is that this is the point in the Bill where evidence rubs up against raw politics. That is the problem. People who have submitted evidence, including verbal evidence, to this Committee and frontline practitioners have said one thing. The evidence is there. The Government say that they like to view and take into account evidence, but the politics is the barrier here.
Jess Phillips
I think it is. I do not get any uptick in sticking up for this group of people because migrant communities are not allowed to vote. People have seen a problem and they are trying to fix it. It is as simple as that. On the issue of leave to remain, I hear what—
Victoria Atkins
I rise to protect my officials more than anything else. New clause 35(2) states:
“The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules for the granting of indefinite leave to remain to any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom”.
That is the hon. Lady’s new clause, and that is how we have read it.
Jess Phillips
Okay. That is absolutely fine. I was about to say to the Minister that I hear what she says about the concern that we might let a few too many in the country. I will take the issue up on Third Reading and speak about it every day until we get to Report and I will ensure that people speak about it in the Lords.
The Minister has probably never taken a call in a refuge and had to tell someone that they could not come because they had no recourse. She can say that I speak with my heart and not my head, but I have had to use my head to turn women away. I have had to have women’s children removed from them.
I do not act as an emotional being; I am emotional about the right thing to do. We are here to protect victims of domestic violence. We do not expect to ask them which countries they have travelled from when they present. I will take away what the Minister says about possible confusion. The amendments that will be laid before the House will be clear that, just as for those on spousal visas, there is no guarantee whatever of indefinite leave to remain, as the Minister well knows, in the scheme.
In fact, not everybody gets indefinite leave to remain. The data collected centrally is widely available. All we ask is that for a period everybody will be able to access support and be given a fair chance to make an immigration application. It is as simple as that. I do not want to stand here and let it pass. The point still stands whether we want to call them illegal or whether we want to talk about which particular visa they might have. If anyone does not have asylum accommodation in their constituency, they are free to come to mine to see whether they would like to put victims of domestic violence in it. It’s really cracking.
There will be people exactly as I have outlined. It does not matter what sort of visa they are on. As I have said, there will be people who we come across every day to whom we are currently saying, “This Bill isn’t for you. This Bill doesn’t help you; I am sorry you got beaten up, but you are on your own.” That is the reality of this law, until it is changed. I will do everything I can to change it and I have a better chance of doing that in front of the whole House—either this one or the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Use of bail in domestic abuse cases
“(1) Section 34 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (limitations on police detention) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5)(a) for the word “applies” substitute “or subsection (5AB) applies”.
(3) In subsection (5)(b) for the word “applies” substitute “or subsection (5AB) applies”.
(4) In subsection (5A) insert after the words “applies if”, “subsection (5AB) does not apply and”.
(5) After subsection (5A) insert—
“(a) This subsection applies if—
(i) it appears to the custody officer that there is need for further investigation of any matter in connection with which the person was detained at any time during the period of the person‘s detention; and
(ii) the offence under investigation is an offence that amounts to domestic abuse as defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;
(b) save that the person shall be released without bail if the custody officer is satisfied that releasing the person on bail is not necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances (having regard, in particular, to any conditions of bail which would be imposed and to the importance of protecting the complainant);
(c) before making a determination to release without bail or a determination as to any conditions of bail to impose, the custody officer shall conduct an assessment of the risks posed by not releasing the person on bail (including, in particular, to the complainant);
(d) before making a determination of a kind referred to in paragraph (c) the custody officer must inform—
(i) the person or the person’s legal representative and consider any representations made by the person or the person‘s legal representative; and
(ii) the complainant or the complainant’s representative and consider any representations made by the complainant or the complainant’s representative; and
(e) an officer of the rank of inspector or above must authorise the release on bail (having considered any representations made by the person or the person’s legal representative and by the complainant or the complainant’s representative).””.—(Peter Kyle.)
This new clause reverses the presumption against use of bail in the 2017 Act for these categories of offences, and introduces a risk assessment with prior consultation with the parties.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 31—Initial bail period for domestic abuse cases—
“(1) Section 47ZB of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1)(a) insert—
“(ab) in a DA case, the period of 3 months beginning with the person‘s bail start date, or”
(3) After subsection (4)(c) insert—
“(2) A “DA case” is a case in which—
(a) the relevant offence in relation to the person falls within the definition of “domestic abuse” in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020, and
(b) a senior officer confirms that sub-paragraph (i) applies.””
This new clause provides for an extension that would maintain bail for the duration of the pre-charge period, and remove the need for extensions, in most cases. This will also reduce the demand on police forces caused by processing bail extensions.
Peter Kyle
Good afternoon, Mr Bone. These two new clauses concern how bail is used in domestic abuse cases as a result of the changes to the bail regime as enacted in the Policing and Crime Act 2017.
As reported in the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 restricted the length of pre-charge bail to 28 days in most circumstances and mandated that extensions could be authorised by police officers, but only if the officer authorising the extension had reasonable grounds for believing the investigation was being made “diligently and expeditiously.” That was a legislative response to cases such as that of broadcaster Paul Gambaccini who was repeatedly released on bail for more than a year while being investigated, but then subsequently cleared of all charges and not charged with anything at all.
We can contrast the scrutiny that that Bill received with that on this Bill, as it was reported to the Joint Committee that
“the consultation prior to the 2017 bail reforms did not hear from any women’s organisations, or victims’ groups, and that only policing bodies, organisations representing suspects and defence lawyers participated.”
Though well-meaning and made in response to a legitimate cause where pre-charge bail had been misused, the changes have had a devastating impact on victims of domestic abuse, as the police have drastically reduced the use of bail for perpetrators accused of rape and domestic violence, which has put survivors at an increased risk, as the alleged offender is being released without any conditions. That point was reinforced in the Joint Committee by Deputy Chief Constable Louisa Rolfe of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, who agreed that,
“the reduction in pre-charge bail in domestic abuse cases had been significant”
and, more worryingly, told the Committee,
“that it could be difficult to convince a judge of the need for bail when a case progressed to court or if he or she had not been on police bail.”
A 28-day initial grant of bail is simply not enough time for an already stretched police force to gather the plethora of evidence needed in most domestic abuse cases. In evidence to the Joint Committee, Deb Smith of the Police Superintendents Association said:
“To get a charge on a domestic abuse case, there clearly has to be a significant amount of evidence gathered. That is almost always going to be nigh-on impossible in the first 28 days, even if somebody is released on bail. Then obviously we go to the superintendent’s extension for the three months, and even that is a challenging timeframe in which to get all the evidence required to satisfy a charge—third-party material, mobile phone records and so on.”
Once again, I find myself quoting the safeguarding Minister, because she herself admitted that, in the case of pre-charge bail:
“It is almost as though the pendulum has swung the other way, and we need to get it back in the middle by ensuring that for cases where it is appropriate to go beyond 28 days, people are being released on pre-charge bail with conditions as necessary and proportionate.”
It is encouraging that the Government have admitted faults with the current regime and I acknowledge that change has been promised, with a preliminary consultation on proposals for reviewing pre-charge bail legislation having just closed on 29 May. However, considering the opportunity offered by the Domestic Abuse Bill—it is right here before us and we know what the problem is—I do not think survivors and people at risk should have to wait for a possible police protection and powers Bill for the changes to appear.
I hear the Government’s argument that there are risks associated with making piecemeal changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 through the Domestic Abuse Bill. However, the way in which the changes in the 2017 Act have affected domestic abuse victims must be restated. The Government’s own figures show that in the first three months of the new law, use of bail conditions in domestic abuse cases dropped by a staggering 65%.
New clause 30 would reverse the general presumption against bail and require a risk assessment by officers in cases where there are allegations of domestic abuse on the impact of imposing or not imposing bail. It strongly mirrors the Home Office’s proposals on pre-charge bail and would therefore not conflict with the eventual legislative outcome of the wider Home Office review.
New clause 31 is a simple amendment that would extend the initial bail period in domestic abuse cases from 28 days to three months. We know from the police’s testimony to the Joint Committee that the 28-day limit is particularly problematic in domestic abuse cases. Increasing it to three months would reduce the burden of bureaucracy created by bail extensions in domestic abuse cases and make bail a more workable tool for the police. It would avoid the situation that currently arises, where bail is lifted after 28 days and victims find it difficult to obtain a non-molestation order without a recent incident, leaving them without any protection at all. Three months on bail is very different from the indefinite bail that existed before the 2017 Act, so the new clause would address the legitimate concerns that led to that legislation being enacted.
I urge Ministers to consider both new clauses in the context of the immediate relief they could offer domestic abuse survivors. It is reassuring that the Minister committed to the inclusion of victims of domestic abuse in the statutory guidance, but I urge Members to take advantage of the opportunity we have before us. We know that we are heading into a period when both Houses of Parliament will be gridlocked with legislation. Despite the potential extension of the parliamentary terms and revocation of recesses, we are heading into a period when the House will be jam-packed with legislation. As we head towards 31 December and our leaving the European single market and customs union, it is certain that next year will be an even heavier legislative period than this one. We have a Bill in front of us, we know what the problem is and there is a simple solution—please, Minister, do not make us wait.
Victoria Atkins
I say at the outset that I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s position. We are conscious of the unintended consequence of the well-intentioned reforms to pre-charge bail in 2017. We are committed to ensuring that the police have the powers they need to protect the public, and that our criminal justice system has at its heart the welfare and best interests of victims.
Over the past few years, crime has become more complex, and the police are dealing with more digital evidence and new challenges. The Policing and Crime Act 2017 introduced a number of reforms to pre-charge bail to address legitimate concerns that suspects were spending too long under restrictive conditions, with no oversight. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman gave an example of that. The 2017 reforms allowed individuals to be released under investigation and introduced a presumption in favour of release without bail, unless its use was considered necessary and proportionate. They limited the initial imposition of pre-charge bail to 28 days. I must emphasise that the police can still use pre-charge bail when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and they have our full support in that.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has issued guidance highlighting that police should use pre-charge bail when there are risks to victims and witnesses, and the need to regularly review cases where such suspects are released under investigation.
Jess Phillips
On risk, the new clause seeks to amend the Bill to ensure that a proper risk assessment is done. Somebody in a case involving me was recently released under investigation, and no risk assessment of my safety was done.
Victoria Atkins
Obviously, I am concerned to hear that. I take the point about risk assessment and will raise it with the NPCC lead. The hon. Member for Hove referred to the forthcoming police powers and protections Bill, but in the interim I very much want that to be considered.
We have worked closely with policing partners and other partners across the criminal justice system to track its implementation and monitor its impact, and we know that the use of pre-charge bail has fallen significantly. We have listened carefully to these concerns, and in November, as the hon. Gentleman said, we announced a review of pre-charge bail to address concerns raised about the impact of current rules on the police, victims, those under investigation and the broader criminal justice system. We launched a public consultation in February, which closed on 29 May. We received more than 1,000 responses, which we are analysing before deciding how best to proceed.
However, I very much take the point about the needs before the police powers and protections Bill is introduced, but our concern is that we cannot deal with this in a piecemeal, offence-specific manner; we have to take a holistic approach to changing the pre-charge bail system. This Bill is not the correct vehicle for that but, as the hon. Gentleman said, the police powers and protections Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech may well be.
Peter Kyle
I need to put something on the record. It is always ideal to look at these matters in the round, in the holistic way that the Minister mentions. However, when we see an attack in public, outside, suddenly the Government find the ability to review things, such as early release programmes, and to introduce very specific pieces of piecemeal legislation, if I may describe them in those terms. The Bill is before us. We cannot wait any longer. We believe that every life matters, and we think the fact that victims out there feel threatened by this should be power enough to force a specific change here until we get that holistic report and legislation that she seeks.
Victoria Atkins
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the new powers in relation to terrorism offences, if I have understood correctly. That is a discrete part of the criminal justice system. Pre-charge bail has the potential to apply to pretty much every criminal offence, with the exception of the murder; it would clearly be very unusual for anyone facing a murder charge to be released on bail. Again, we have to look at the system in a holistic way, which is what we are planning. However, I will raise the point about risk with the NPCC so that in the intervening months, while the Bill is still going through Parliament—let us not forget that that does not finish when we finish here tonight; the Bill has some scrutiny ahead of it—we get the message through to the police chiefs, in addition to what we have already said, that this matter is of particular concern to the Committee.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
At the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony, I want to talk about some of my experience in court, touching on some things that we have just been speaking about, or that will be referred to later when the hon. Member for Hove speaks again about court.
My experience is that magistrates consistently deal with difficult cases. It is difficult to balance the rights of a victim and the rights of a defendant. I have not talked much about defendants, but it is true that we see a lot of defendants who have terrible stories to tell. In my maiden speech, I said that being a magistrate had changed my perspective on the world, because I had never seen the kinds of lives that were coming up in front of me, and not just of the victims but of the defendants.
I told the story of a boy who walked in on my first day, when I was still being mentored. He was 18 and it was his first appearance in an adult court. He looked about 10—he was tiny—and he was grey. I said to my mentor, “God, he can’t be in this court, surely,” and they said, “No, I know him from the family courts.” He was malnourished because his parents were drug addicts and he was never fed properly. He was grey because he was malnourished and he had been injected with heroin to keep him quiet as a child. But he had burgled an elderly couple’s house. There are lots of victims in a courtroom and it almost does not matter where they are sitting. It is a constant battle as a magistrate to weigh up the rights of the defendant and the rights of the victim.
That touches on bail, which is an unpopular thing to talk about in court, because in some ways everyone is a threat and everyone can go on to do nasty things to nice people, but magistrates have to weigh up the right of habeas corpus—the right of a defendant to have liberty until he has been convicted of a crime. That is really difficult to weigh up, because it involves thinking about the risks to the victim, the defendant’s right to liberty and the presumption of innocence.
That is why the holistic approach that the Minister is talking about is important, because it will touch on not just domestic abuse cases, but the precedents and the impact that has on the court system and the rights of defendants in the court system. The hon. Member for Hove mentioned the pendulum, which it is important to get right. I think the more holistic approach is genuinely the right way to go on that.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that contribution. She should never apologise for sharing the experience that she has gained outside this place and brings in here; it is an asset to our deliberations, not a hindrance.
I agree completely. In fact, I was quoting the Minister when I mentioned the now infamous pendulum. I think we all agree that the pendulum has swung the other way. We must always have consideration for the basic right of liberty, including for alleged perpetrators and defendants, which is why getting bail and bail conditions right is essential. What we are talking about here are conditions, not liberty—the conditions on which people are granted liberty.
The Minister’s main concern, if I interpret it correctly, is that new clause 31 could have unintended consequences on other parts of the bail system. Subsection (2) states:
“After subsection (1)(a) insert—
‘(ab) in a DA case, the period of 3 months beginning with the person’s bail start date, or’”.
Subsection (3) continues:
“After subsection (4)(c) insert—
‘(2) A “DA case” is a case in which—
(a) the relevant offence in relation to the person falls within the definition of “domestic abuse” in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020’”.
I fail to see how that could have an impact on other crimes. It is very specific. As I say, I understand why Government Ministers want to deal with the challenge that was caused by the Policing and Crime Act 2017 holistically, but we have a specific fix for a specific challenge in front of us now. I believe this would lead to a better piece of holistic legislation, because it would provide a workable template for it to be enacted down the line.
I will not push the new clause to a Division now but will keep this question open. The Minister intimated several times that she would welcome further scrutiny of the clause. I hope that this gives her the opportunity to reflect on this challenge and come up with her own fix for it, perhaps on Report or Third Reading. I do not believe that victims of domestic abuse should continue to suffer any longer from the uncertainty that would be created by this pernicious eventuality. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 32
Serving a court order on a person who has been subject to domestic abuse and is residing at a refuge
“(1) If a court order is to be served on a person [P] who has been subject to domestic abuse as defined in section 1 of this Act and who is residing at a refuge, the court order—
(a) must not be served on P at the residential address of the refuge, except if a court has ordered that it can be in the circumstances set out in subsection (3); but
(b) can be served on P at the refuge’s office address or by an alternative method or at an alternative place, in accordance with part 6 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.
(2) The address of the refuge in subsection (1) shall not be given to any individual or third party without the express permission of the court.
(3) Where attempts to serve the court order by the alternative means referred to in subsection (1)(b) have been unsuccessful, an application may be made to the court to serve the court order on P at the refuge’s residential address.
(4) An application under subsection (3) must state—
(a) the reason why an order can only be served at the refuge’s residential address;
(b) what alternative methods have been proposed and the consequences; and
(c) why the applicant believes that the order is likely to reach P if the order is served at the refuge’s residential address.”—(Jess Phillips.)
This amendment seeks to ensure that, where a victim of domestic abuse is residing in a refuge, the address of that refuge cannot be revealed as part of a service order or location order without express permission of the court.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Jess Phillips
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause arose out of cases that occurred a number of weeks ago, which highlighted something frightening. Specialist domestic violence refuges have supported hundreds of thousands of people over many years. They are life-saving, provide sanctuary, and are established specifically to meet the needs of women and children who need refuge. In most cases, the confidentiality of a refuge is crucial for the safety and wellbeing of those who stay there, and I cannot express to Members how seriously refuges take their confidentiality. Every single person who lives in a refuge signs a licence agreement that says that if they tell somebody, they have to leave, and enforcing that rule when it is broken is heartbreaking.
The Bill offers a golden opportunity to ensure that there is legal clarity about the nature of refuge provision, including the key elements that are necessary to preserve their integrity. At present, it is not explicitly clear that refuge residential addresses and the identity of those who work for a refuge must remain confidential, so that must change. Service of family court orders on families in refuges, particularly location orders, is often applied for by fathers when mothers and children have fled the family home to refuges following allegations of domestic abuse. The family courts use tipstaffs and the police to locate the mother and children in refuges, even though the address of those refuges is not publicly available.
Once they are located, the refuge is usually ordered to provide its address directly to the court to facilitate the service of court orders on mothers. Often the court order explicitly names the refuge and its manager, which is intimidating and could result in them becoming identified. Family courts usually order the police to attend the refuge’s residential address to serve the order on the mother. This causes upset, anxiety and distress to the mother who is served with a court order, and to the other women and children living in the refuge, who have reported feeling retraumatised by the process. Women who experience a number of intersectional inequalities, such as race, language barriers and insecure immigration status, have reported receiving a heavy-handed response from the police, being unable to understand what the police are saying, and feeling that they are being treated as criminals.
In at least one case that I have heard of in the past few weeks, a mother and child were located and stalked as a result of their refuge’s residential address being disclosed to the court. They had to move to two different refuge addresses, and then the father abducted the child and took them abroad. In another case, the police served a family court order on a vulnerable mother who does not speak English and sought safety with her two children. The mother found the experience degrading and humiliating. Concerns arose in that case that the father had discovered the family’s location, and as such the mother and children had to be moved on to another location.
It is acceptable that family court orders must be served on mothers, but the current family judicial practice is not acceptable, as it breaches women and children’s rights to a safe family life and a private life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The approach adopted by family courts is haphazard and inconsistent, with much depending on the judge’s approach to the case before them. Many judges have had no training on domestic abuse.
The situation I have outlined could easily be avoided by ensuring that refuge addresses are always confidential and that family court orders are served by alternative means, as per the family procedure rules 2010. A simple amendment to those rules would ensure that a consistent approach is adopted by all family judges. If such an amendment is not made, the same poor practice will continue.
It is imperative that this situation is addressed urgently, before irreparable harm is caused. I have therefore tabled this new clause, to prevent the service of family court orders at refuge residential addresses, and to ensure that refuge residential addresses and the identity of refuge workers remain confidential.
Victoria Atkins
I apologise to the Committee; I am stepping into the shoes of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, as he is about to appear on the Floor of the House, so please spare me particularly detailed questions and I will do my best.
We absolutely recognise the life-saving sanctuary that refuges provide for victims and their children, and we believe that existing legislation and court procedure rules state clearly that parties actively engaged in family proceedings are not required to disclose their address or that of their children, unless directed to do so by the court. Furthermore, parties may apply in any event to withhold such information from other parties.
When adequate information about the location of a child is not known to the court, the court can order any person who may have relevant information to disclose it to the court. In the first instance, details of the child’s address and who they are living with are disclosed only to the court and not to other parties. The court determines how this information should be used, based on the case details. Where there are allegations of domestic abuse, the court can and does treat this information as confidential, and holds it. We therefore believe that subsection (2) of the new clause is not required.
Subsection (1) would prevent the service of a court order at a refuge’s residential address, other than with the permission of the court following an application made under subsections (3) and (4). I fully appreciate that victims living in a refuge are fearful for their safety, and that their experiencing or witnessing the service of an order at a refuge would be very distressing. However, where courts are concerned about the welfare of a child, they must be able to take rapid and direct action to locate them. Direct service of an order at a refuge’s residential address may sometimes be necessary, for example when urgent concern about a child’s welfare demands it. Therefore, provisions to limit how documents may be served in specific places could have the unintended consequence of endangering a child.
I would like to reassure hon. Members that the courts may already direct completely bespoke service arrangements, based on the facts of a case. The family procedure rules 2010 provide clear powers for the courts to order service at alternative places, such as at an address other than a refuge’s residential address, and set out the procedure for making such applications.
In summary, we believe that the important outcomes sought by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley are already provided for in existing legislation and court rules. However, I want to reassure the Committee that we are committed to protecting vulnerable victims of domestic abuse who live in refuges. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham met the deputy president of the family court on Monday and raised these concerns, among others, and we will work with the deputy president to explore whether amendments to the family procedure rules 2010 could strengthen safeguards for victims and their children who live in refuges. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.
Jess Phillips
I will withdraw the new clause, and I am heartened by the fact that the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who is no longer in his place, has spoken to the divisional lead in the family court. This is one of those situations where there may very well be regulations in place to allow the outcomes we want, but something is still going wrong, and an assessment and a change in this area is needed.
I understand the deep concerns that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, has needing to think through the potential for harm to come to a child, although I would argue that, in refuge services, there would be somebody there in the vast majority of cases. There are quite strict and stringent safeguarding measures in place in refuges to ensure that children come to no harm. However, I am pleased to hear what she said and will speak to the other Minister about it another time, when he is not debating the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 33
Reasonable force in domestic abuse cases
‘(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection 76(5A) after “In a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”.
(3) In subsection 76(6) after “In a case other than a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”.
(4) After subsection 76(8F) insert—
“(8G) For the purposes of this section “a domestic abuse case” is a case where—
(a) the defence concerned is the common law defence of self-defence;
(b) D is, or has been, a victim of domestic abuse;
(c) the force concerned is force used by D against the person who has perpetrated the abusive behaviour referred to at subsection (8G)(b);
(d) subsection (8G)(b) will only be established if the behaviour concerned is, or is part of, conduct which constitutes domestic abuse as defined in sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020, including but not limited to conduct which constitutes the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.”
(5) In subsection 76(9) after “This section, except so far as making different provision for householder cases” insert “and domestic abuse cases”.’ —(Peter Kyle.)
This new clause seeks to clarify the degree of force which is reasonable under the common law of self-defence where the defendant is a survivor of domestic abuse.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Peter Kyle
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to provide domestic abuse survivors the same legal protection that householders have in cases of self-defence. Householders have a legal protection when they act in self-defence against an intruder, but no such protection is available to survivors acting in self-defence against their abuser. At its base, just think what that means: we are able in law to defend ourselves, to a defined threshold, against people who enter our homes and cause us harm, but we are unable to have the same defence against people who already live in the home and seek to cause the same harm. The new clause seeks to rectify that imbalance.
Common-law defences are outdated and ill fitting in the context of domestic abuse, leaving survivors with no effective defence. The Bill presents an opportunity to modernise the law by ensuring that the available legal defences reflect the improved public understanding of domestic abuse. This issue gained prominence with the case of Sally Challen last year, who had her murder charge for the hammer attack she inflicted on her husband downgraded to manslaughter in recognition of the effect of decades of coercive control that she had endured. That judgment reflects our new understanding of how domestic abuse can effect survivors and lead to offending behaviour, so it is only right that the Domestic Abuse Bill recognises this.
Evidence from the Prison Reform Trust shows that the common-law defence of self-defence is difficult to establish in cases of violent resistance by a survivor of domestic abuse against their abusive partner or former partner, as a jury may well conclude that the response was disproportionate without taking into account the long history of abuse. The self-defence proposal would make it easier for victims and survivors to establish that they were acting in self-defence, providing them with an equivalent protection to those using force against an intruder into their home. This is a really important distinction: all we are asking for is the same threshold to be allowed against people perpetrating violence from within the home as that allowed against people perpetrating violence who enter the home.
The definition is also now successfully established in statute. Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is the basis for the new clause. Subsection (5A) allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home. It provides that, where the case involves a householder,
“the degree of force used by”
the householder
“is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as”
the householder
“believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate”.
[Interruption.] I believe I am being heckled by Siri—I think I might have either turned someone’s lights on or off or ordered their shopping. A householder will therefore be able to use force that is disproportionate, but not grossly disproportionate. A CPS guideline states:
“The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproportionate force in every case they are confronted by an intruder. The new provision must be read in conjunction with the other elements of section 76 of the 2008 Act. The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be (section 76(3)).”
In deciding whether the force might be regarded as disproportionate or grossly disproportionate, the guideline states that the court
“will need to consider the individual facts of each case, including the personal circumstances of the householder and the threat (real or perceived) posed by the offender.”
The new clause would add the same provision and that same test of proportionality of force to cases of domestic abuse.
The Government have gone to great lengths to consider the different forms that domestic abuse can take, but there is not the same recognition of the criminal acts that can result from that abuse. We will go on to discuss the need for statutory defence further, but the new clause would go some way to addressing a difficulty survivors can have in court currently in self-defence cases.
The current Secretary of State was instrumental in providing the increased protection for householders when she was a Back Bencher. The coalition Government put forward their self-defence amendment for householders with the following comments by Lord McNally:
“All we are saying is that if householders act in fear for their safety or the safety of others and in the heat of the moment use force which is reasonable in the circumstances but seems disproportionate when viewed in the cold light of day, they should not be treated as criminals. Force which was completely over the top—grossly disproportionate, in other words— will still not be permitted.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 881.]
The new clause would see the Government apply the same sympathy and understanding to domestic abuse survivors that that Act provides in those situations.
Victoria Atkins
I am very pleased to reply in this debate. I understand that the new clause has been put forward by the Prison Reform Trust, and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, had the opportunity to speak in detail about this clause and other matters with representatives from the Prison Reform Trust, the designate domestic abuse commissioner, the Victims Commissioner and others a couple of weeks ago, so this has had his personal attention, as well as mine now.
The new clause aims to give a victim of domestic abuse the same level of protection as those acting in response to an intruder in their home. It has been suggested that that would address a current gap in the law and improve recognition of the links between victimisation and offending. It would, in effect, extend the provisions of section three of the Criminal Law Act 1967 so that a victim could be judged on the facts as he or she believed them to be.
We do, of course, recognise the harm suffered by victims of domestic abuse, and indeed there are several defences potentially available in law to those who commit offences in circumstances connected with their involvement in an abusive relationship. That includes the full defence of self-defence. In addition, the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill should assist with clarifying the wide-ranging and pernicious nature of domestic abuse and alerting all those involved in the criminal justice system to it. It does not seem to us that there is a gap in the law, nor does it seem to us that the situation of a householder reacting, perhaps instinctively, to an intruder in their home is directly comparable to the situation of a person who has been the victim of a pattern of violent and abusive behaviour, including behaviour that would constitute an offence under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.
The section 76 provisions in the 2008 Act largely cover a very specific circumstance where an intruder, who will in most cases be unknown to the defendant, puts the householder in a position where they are reacting on instinct or in circumstances that subject them to intense stress. By comparison, in domestic abuse cases the response may well not be sudden and instinctive, but one that follows years of physical and/or emotional and mental abuse, where the current law on self-defence and loss of control will allow that to be taken into account. Accordingly, it remains appropriate that the law on self-defence or loss of control be applied, rather than extend this provision to a wider set of circumstances.
Peter Kyle
This may well be probing the bounds of my knowledge of legal expertise, but am I right in saying that, should the protection be defined in law, the Crown Prosecution Service, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies would take that into account before getting to court? Putting this on the face of the Bill could well save survivors of abuse from the process of going to court in the first place.
Victoria Atkins
It is in law. It is good, settled law. The law of self-defence is very much in law. We, in this place, understandably concentrate on statute law, but case law and common law have power in influencing the criminal courts, alongside statutes.
As for the CPS taking account of it, it is obliged to apply the code for Crown prosecutors when considering whether to charge. It is a two-stage process. First, there is an evidential test of whether there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction and, secondly, there is a public interest test. Any prosecutor looking at that test properly who has been alerted to the defence of self-defence, either by way of interview, from conversations with defence solicitors or from police officers at the scene of the crime, should be aware of that. They are obliged to take those factors into consideration when making the decision about whether the evidential and the public interest tests are met. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s concern.
We understand that it is said that there are difficulties with establishing the common law defence of self-defence in cases of reactive violence by a survivor of domestic abuse against their abusive partner or former partner. We understand the rationale of the new clause as being that a jury may well conclude that the response was disproportionate, without taking account of the long history of abuse. The joy of the jury system, as we have already discussed, is that each case is tried on the facts by 12 members of the public, who sit on a jury. I would be loth to try to replace their decision-making process and their responsibilities in statute.
We understand the concerns, but we believe that the existing defence is well settled in law and can help victims in the situations that the hon. Gentleman has described, so I invite him to withdraw this clause.
Peter Kyle
I will withdraw the motion because I believe that other people will want to interrogate this matter in greater detail at other stages of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause 34
Proceedings under the Children Act 1989
“Proceedings under the Children Act 1989
‘(1) Part I of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (the welfare of the child) after subsection (2B) insert—
“(2C) Subsection (2A) shall not apply in relation to a parent where there has been domestic abuse which has affected the child or other parent.
(2D) Evidence of domestic abuse may be provided in one or more of the forms set out in regulation 33(2) of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012.”
(3) Part II of the Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(4) In section 9 (restrictions on making section 8 orders) after subsection (7) insert—
“(8) No court shall make a section 8 order for a child to spend unsupervised time with or have unsupervised contact with a parent who is—
(a) awaiting trial, or on bail for, a domestic abuse offence, or
(b) involved in ongoing criminal proceedings for a domestic abuse offence.
(9) In subsection (8)—
“unsupervised” means where a court approved third party is not present at all times during contact with the parent to ensure the physical safety and emotional wellbeing of a child;
“domestic abuse offence” means an offence which the Crown Prosecution Service alleges to have involved domestic abuse.’”—(Peter Kyle.)
This new clause seeks to change the presumption that parental involvement furthers the child’s welfare when there has been domestic abuse. It also prohibits unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial or on bail for domestic abuse offences, or where there are ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Peter Kyle
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
One of the people we have not mentioned in Committee so far is Sir James Munby. In his time as president of the family division of the High Court, he was a robust defender of it and a vocal proponent of reform. In engagement with and in the processes of Parliament, Sir James was fulsome in his advice and in answering questions. When I was campaigning for reform of cross-examination in the family courts, I had a meeting with Sir James in the High Court. I have said already in Committee that I have no legal training, and that is something I have never apologised for—in fact, at times like this and at that meeting, I found it a benefit. It gave me the opportunity to ask some pretty basic questions of one of the most pre-eminent lawyers in the land.
One thing that I wanted to ask back then was simple. Coming fresh, as I was at the time, to the challenges and the need for reform in the family courts, one thing that struck me, and that I could never ever understand, was the fact that someone who had committed the most horrendous crimes against their partner—battery, rape, serial abuse or coercion, stretching back sometimes years—had parental rights, to the point where they can be exercised time after time, sometimes even from prison, where they have been jailed for inflicting the abuse on the very family over whom they are exerting their rights. I simply could not understand that, and I had the privilege of putting it to Sir James.
We now come to the point in the Bill where we can talk about one particular aspect of that, because this new clause relates directly to the presumption that parental involvement furthers a child’s welfare when there has been domestic abuse. It would also prohibit the unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial, on bail for abuses offences, or involved in ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse.
The use of force that is disproportionate but not—forgive me, my notes seem to be out of order.
Jess Phillips
Perhaps the Chair could help me with this inquiry. My hon. Friend is moving the new clause, but I have a specific case that I might want to share with the Committee. Is that permitted, for both of us on the Front Bench to speak? I will not do it now, while he is in the middle of his speech, but I thought I could give him a minute.
Jess Phillips
On a point of order, Mr Bone. Will it be all right that I share something after the shadow Minister has spoken on the new clause?
The Chair
Interestingly—this is for new Members—in Committee, one advantage is that you can come back again. You are not restricted to one speech. It would be possible for the shadow Minister, Mr Kyle, to speak and to speak again. We can go on all night like this. That is fine.
Peter Kyle
Perhaps the way forward, Mr Bone, is for me to resume my speech. I have now learned the lesson of putting page numbers on my speeches in future.
I draw the Committee’s attention to section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, which provides that the presumption that involvement from both parents is in the best interests of the child. That is the nub of the challenge we face.
We have come a long way in our understanding of the relationships within families and in abusive situations since that time. Section 1 of the Children Act states that the court must consider the welfare of the child, and practice direction 12J of the family procedure rules state that the court must consider domestic violence. However, an inconsistent understanding of practice direction 12J and the pro-contract approach taken by the family justice system have seemingly overtaken the need for any contact orders to put the child’s best interests first.
The Victims Commissioner has been persistent and outspoken on this issue. In her written submission to the Committee, she said that one of her major concerns was that the Bill does not
“Create a presumption of no contact or parental responsibility where there has been a conviction, restraining order, findings by the Family Court. This could be rebutted & overturned in exceptional circumstances, but a risk assessment must be conducted first”.
She felt so strongly about this that she wrote to the Home Secretary in October, saying in the strongest possible terms that she saw the need to prohibit unsupervised contact between a parent who is on bail for domestic abuse-related offences for which criminal proceedings are ongoing. In our evidence session just a few weeks ago, she told us that she was
“very troubled by the presumption of shared parenting that seems to trump practically everything else in the family court.”––[Official Report, Domestic Abuse Public Bill Committee, 4 June 2020; c. 63, Q154.]
We created the position of Victims Commissioner and we are in the process of creating the position of a domestic abuse commissioner. We must listen to them when they speak with such clarity and expertise, and when they are so singular in their advice. It would go profoundly against the position that we have given the commissioner to disregard such singular advice.
In one study conducted by Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, two-thirds of the 216 children contact cases in the sample involved allegations of domestic abuse, yet in 23% of the cases, unsupervised contact was ordered at the first hearing. I simply cannot see how we can find a way of contextualising that statistic in a way that makes it acceptable—I simply do not understand. The results of that can be tragic: analysis by the “Victoria Derbyshire” show and Women’s Aid showed that between 2006 and 2019, at least 21 children were killed during contact with fathers who were perpetrators of domestic abuse.
The introduction of the presumption of parental involvement has confused the position in cases involving domestic abuse. The new clause would introduce an explicit statutory framework to make it clear that, when there has been an allegation, admission or finding of domestic abuse towards the child or the other parents, the presumption that the involvement of a parent will further a child’s welfare does not apply.
A mandatory restriction for those on bail for domestic abuse offences is necessary, as research conducted by Women’s Aid and Queen Mary University of London found examples in which perpetrators of domestic abuse who were on bail for violent offences against non-abusive parents were allowed into the family courts to argue for contact with their children. In at least one case, unsupervised contact was awarded by the court to the perpetrator, who was on bail at that time.
We have discussed at length the impact that domestic abuse has on children, and the new clause can further that discussion. Child contact is an incredibly sensitive issue. I know that the Government have sought to address it in Committee by extending the flexibility of domestic abuse protection orders and the way in which they can be used by the courts. I ask the Government to reconsider the presumption that parental involvement is beneficial to the child’s welfare, especially in the light of the discussions that we have had on the effects of domestic abuse on children. With this new clause, we are explicitly not saying that no parent, in any circumstance, can have access to their children; all we are doing is removing the presumption that access is good. All we are saying—what we will achieve with the new clause—is that it has to be debated and assessed by the court in neutral terms. Is it good or detrimental to their welfare? That is a debate that should be had in neutral terms in every single circumstance.
As it stands, the presumption is pernicious. It leads to too many children being made vulnerable and too many survivors of domestic abuse being made to feel insecure and threatened. I deeply hope that the Minister can reassure us that change is on the way. I know that we debate and have this to and fro—some arguments have fuller merit than others at times like this—but I deeply hope that he has considered this issue and that he will show flexibility, either now or in the next stages of our consideration of the Bill.
Jess Phillips
The case that I am about to read out has been sent to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I feel for him, because we can all get him to agree to things while he is not here. It is a bit like when you do not turn up to a Labour party branch meeting, and you end up being given every single position—you end up being chair and secretary.
The case is one of the most stark examples I have ever heard of where the presumption is going wrong. People like me are often accused—or things are spray-painted across the front of my office—of trying to stop parents being able to see their children. In fact, this is very much rooted in the welfare of the child. That is all we are seeking: that the assessment of the welfare of the child should be the most fundamental thing.
In this case study a service user made a call to Solace, a women’s aid organisation advice line, during the week commencing 8 June 2020—only last week. She is going through a child contact hearing but there is also a separate criminal investigation of child sexual abuse by the child’s father. In December 2019, in a hearing at which both parties were unrepresented, allegations were made that the father had sexually abused his seven-year-old daughter.
Jess Phillips
Definitely not, Mr Bone; I checked with all those involved in the case, and it is done—worry not. I have just been sending wild WhatsApp messages to that very effect. Also, I shall not mention anybody’s names or those of the courts.
The allegations were that the father had exposure his genitals to his daughter and that he had been sucking her toes and fingers while she was asleep. The judge said that if the father stopped doing this he could continue to have unsupervised contact with his daughter. The judge commented that when he was a barrister he had successfully ensured that a convicted paedophile could have unsupervised access to his children. The mother tried to tell the judge that the father has a history of domestic abuse, but the judge replied that she did not look like a victim of domestic abuse. He said that the father’s behaviour sounded more like a man losing his temper, rather than domestic violence. The judge dismissed the request for supervised contact between father and daughter.
In January 2020, allegations were made about the father’s sexual assault on his daughter. A criminal investigation into child sexual exploitation is ongoing but unsupervised contact is still ordered. This woman has no legal representation. She is not eligible for legal aid due to the means test. She has joint property ownership but no financial means to instruct a solicitor. Solace has described the severe impact this has had on the survivor: a complete distrust of the justice system—she felt like she was the one on trial even though she was there as the survivor and a mother trying to protect her daughter from her predatory father. She was met with disdain and not believed, whereas the father was met with sympathy.
I am almost certain that the Minister will refer to—the hon. Member for Cheltenham would have referred to it—practice direction 12J, which is meant to deal with this so that it does not happen in courts. It is routinely ignored in many cases. In this example, where presumption overrules even the child’s best interests, it is clear that there is a serious problem in our current system.
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Members for Hove and for Birmingham, Yardley have set out fully the legal frameworks that exist, and I will not repeat them. I will bring to the Committee’s attention the fact that the current legislation places absolute primacy on the welfare of the child and does not seek to fetter judicial discretion regarding the factors they can take into account when making an order under the legislation.
I appreciate that this is a sensitive and complex issue. That is why the Ministry of Justice last year established an expert panel on how the family courts deal with allegations of risk of harm in private law children proceedings. The panel has considered the issue of parental contact, informed by the over 1,200 submissions of evidence it received. Its recommendations will be published in the coming weeks.
I have no doubt that the hon. Members for Hove and for Birmingham, Yardley, and other members of the Committee, will want to return to this matter once they have had the opportunity to consider the expert panel’s report. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Hove to withdraw the new clause.
Peter Kyle
As the Minister expects, I will withdraw the new clause, because we do want to assess that. We want to ensure that this issue gets as much debate between us as possible before the next stage, as well as at the next stage and beyond. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Victims of domestic abuse: data-sharing for immigration purposes
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data of a victim of a domestic abuse in the United Kingdom that is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to domestic abuse is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.
(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that the personal data of a witness to domestic abuse in the United Kingdom that is processed for the purpose of that person giving information or evidence to assist the investigation or prosecution of that abuse, or to assist the victim of that abuse in any legal proceedings, is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.
(3) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 shall not apply to the personal data to which subsection (1) or (2) applies.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to—
(a) persons from whom support or assistance may be requested or received by a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom;
(b) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality; and
(c) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“consent” means a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the victim or witness, by an express statement of that person signifying agreement to the processing of the personal data for the relevant purpose;
“immigration control purpose” means any purpose of the functions to which subsection (4)(ii) and (iii) refers; “support or assistance” includes the provision of accommodation, banking services, education, employment, financial or social assistance, healthcare and policing services; and any function of a court or prosecuting authority;
“victim” includes any dependent of a person, at whom the domestic abuse is directed, where that dependent is affected by that abuse.”—(Jess Phillips.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that the personal data of migrant survivors of domestic abuse that is given or used for the purpose of their seeking or receiving support and assistance is not used for immigration control purposes.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Jess Phillips
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I want to begin by telling the story of my constituent Marian, who is a lovely woman. She was able to access the domestic violence destitution fund that we have been talking about today. She was in the middle of the process—thus proving that one does not get automatic, indefinite leave to remain from that scheme—of accessing potential indefinite leave to remain. She is now on a two-and-a-half-year roll of immigration cases.
Funnily enough, I received the death threat to Marian, because it was sent to my office. It was a death threat to her and some members of her family, both here and in Pakistan. I handed it over to her and then spoke to the police. She then called the police, because she was concerned about the threat to her life. She has been a victim of domestic abuse for a while.
The police turned up at her house. Marian’s English is not particularly good. The next time I heard of her, her neighbour was calling me to tell me that she had been taken away. I said, “What do you mean she’s been taken away?” They said, “She’s been taken to Bradford.” Bradford is another site where there is quite a lot of refugee accommodation. It is not uncommon for people in the immigration system to be moved from Birmingham to Bradford, so I thought, “Something must have gone wrong here.”
Then Marian called my office and said that she was in Yardley, which was again confusing. Eventually, I got to the bottom of it: she was in Yarl’s Wood in Bedford. She had been taken to detention, because the police, while they were at her property, had seen her Home Office immigration papers on the side. Instead of taking her, with the death threats against her, to a place of safety, they detained her in a detention centre, when she had every right to be in this country. She followed to the letter all the exact rules laid out by the Minister today. Funnily enough, she is still here.
That case of my constituent is not an isolated one, as I found out when I started to look into it. It is not uncommon for such action to be taken when people come forward, whether they are victims of rape or of crimes that are not related to violence against women and girls. A number of cases were raised during the Windrush scandal about victims coming forward and being told that they were going to be taken to detention. Some were wrongly deported. This is not a new issue.
The absence of a safe reporting mechanism enables perpetrators to continue their abuse against victims, as they are afraid to report them to the police for fear that their immigration status will be used against them. The Home Office has now recognised in its statutory guidance framework on controlling and coercive behaviour in an intimate and family relationship that perpetrators routinely use immigration status as a tactic of coercive control towards migrant women.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Is not that the point about data being shared between the police and immigration services? The very fact that immigration status is sometimes used by the abuser to exercise coercive control over the victim means it is good that sometimes information is shared between the two authorities.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. I would say it is very uncommon, when someone whose immigration status is either in process or unstable has come to see me for help about domestic abuse, for me not to get in touch, eventually, with the Home Office. That is absolutely the case. It is totally bread and butter that I would say, “I am going to take your case, and here are the things that you might need for this part of your life—and also we need to settle your immigration status. We need to sort this out so that it cannot be held over you.” The hon. Gentleman is right.
In those circumstances I seek the consent of the person to that, and that is all I am asking for in the new clause. I do not know when the rule was brought in that we now have to get people to sign something to say we are going to get in touch with the Department for Work and Pensions, for example. We all do it quite routinely in casework. We seek consent. If I am getting in touch with the Home Office, the likelihood of the constituent being carted off to detention will be almost zero. They do not make that mistake too many times the wrong way. However, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is absolutely right. I recognise the argument that we need a system through which the police can help with immigration. All I would seek in that circumstance is consent.
The issue goes back to what would happen if I walked into a police station and said that someone had hurt me or was threatening to kill me—in fact, I have to do that quite regularly. No one has ever asked me my immigration status—not once. They dealt with me primarily as a victim in front of them. Fair enough, because I am a quite well known Member of Parliament, and I presume that they assume. However, I know very few white British people who would ever be asked their immigration status. All I seek through any of my new clauses or amendments is equitable treatment from the beginning. The fact that that is not given, and the fact that such cases happen, has unfortunately given perpetrators another tool and enabled them to say, “They’ll throw you in detention.”
The Minister focused earlier on the need for legislators always to be aware of how systems can facilitate abuse, and how unintentional and collateral damage can be used, giving perpetrators tools to inflict suffering. She set it out clearly, with lots of cases. Perpetrators can use the current situation against victims. That is how the way we process victims when they come forward is currently being used. The Minister made a compelling case about the issues with county lines, and this bit of law is currently being used by perpetrators.
Victoria Atkins
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has explained, new clause 37 seeks to prevent personal information about victims of domestic abuse from being shared for the purpose of immigration control in cases where the individual has not given their consent. The new clause seeks to ensure that migrant victims are not deterred from reporting domestic abuse or seeking support for fear that immigration enforcement action will be taken against them.
The Government share that objective, and it was shared by the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill, which made a related recommendation in its report. Before I turn to the issue of consent, the hon. Lady may recall our response to the Joint Committee last year. The Government were clear that all victims of domestic abuse should be treated first and foremost as victims. That is set out in relevant guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
Although we were unable to hear from Deputy Chief Constable Louisa Rolfe, the national policing lead on domestic abuse, during the Committee’s oral evidence session, she did give evidence on the previous iteration of the Bill. She was clear that there would be circumstances in which information sharing between the police and immigration authorities is in the interests of safeguarding victims of abuse. It can help resolve a victim’s uncertainty about their immigration status.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine made a point about removing the perpetrator’s ability to coerce, control and manipulate. It can also help prevent victims from facing enforcement action if they are identified by immigration enforcement in an unrelated system. On the particular constituency point that the hon. Lady raised, I ask her to speak to me afterwards as I would like to investigate further.
To ensure the victim’s needs are put first, the National Police Chiefs’ Council strengthened its guidance in 2018, setting out a clear position on exchanging information about victims of crime with immigration enforcement to encourage a consistent approach across the country. That gives us confidence that data sharing will operate in the interests of the victim.
Turning to the points on consent, alongside our duties to protect victims of crime, the Government are equally duty bound to maintain an effective immigration system, not only to protect public services but to safeguard the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status. The public expects that individuals in this country should be subject to our laws, and it is right that when individuals with an irregular immigration status are identified they should be supported to come under our immigration system and, where possible, to regularise their stay.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I take on board what the Minister is saying, but I keep coming back to the fact that a crime has taken place: it is domestic abuse; it is violence against women. We are making it difficult for the authorities to act in a lot of cases by making the victim afraid of coming forward and we are not identifying people who are a danger, and not just to those women but to others.
Victoria Atkins
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. It is the balancing act that the Government must employ, and not just on this subject matter. Where there are competing interests, we have to try to find that balance and we take that very seriously. We listen very carefully to concerns that are raised—I am very happy to discuss individual cases outside the glare of the Committee—but we have to abide by our duty to ensure that there is an effective immigration system. We have to balance that against our duties towards the victims.
The data exchanged between the police and law enforcement are processed on the basis of it being in the public interest, as laid out in articles 6 and 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.
The problem with consent is that it can be withdrawn at any time—that is the point of consent. As such, it cannot be the basis on which public bodies, such as the Home Office, discharge their duties in the interests of all of the public. To require consent would, we fear, undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control.
I emphasise that we must, of course, keep the NPCC guidance under review, and we work with it to do just that. There are other ways of scrutinising the conduct of the police and, indeed, the Government. We know that there are two forms of legal action on this subject at the moment. Clearly, we will reflect on the findings of those cases when they are delivered.
I very much understand the motivations of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley in tabling the new clause, but I must balance the interests of victims with the need to ensure that our immigration system works as effectively as possible.
Jess Phillips
I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity in wanting to ensure that this matter is sorted out. She invoked the public, and she is right that the public would expect people to live within the rules. However, I think if we asked the general public, “Would you rather a rapist was not reported or that somebody got to stay in the country a bit longer?”, they would be on the side of ensuring that crimes are properly investigated and that people come forward to help deal with those crimes.
All I am trying to do is send a clarion call to victims: “You will be safe and you will be supported if you come forward.” All we are ever trying to do in the field of domestic abuse is to increase the number of people who come forward. That is why we would never ever criticise when domestic abuse figures go up, although it would be easy to use it as a blunt tool and do that; in fact, we all celebrate the idea that more people are coming forward. That is all I seek to do with the new clause. I do not doubt that the Minister agrees and wishes to ensure that that is always the case.
What I would ask, as the situation is reviewed and as we work with the NPCC, is for some sort of evidence—once again, we are calling for an evidence base—that when these matters are passed on to immigration control, it is less about enforcement and more about safeguarding. I am sure that, over a period of time, that data could be collected.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 42
Joint tenancies: removal of a tenant
“(1) This section applies where there are two or more joint tenants under a secure or assured tenancy and the landlord is a local housing authority or a private registered provider of social housing.
(2) If one joint tenant (“A”) has experienced domestic abuse from another joint tenant (“B”) then A may apply to the county court for an order B is removed as a joint tenant.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) it sufficient that the domestic abuse was directed at A or to anyone who might reasonably be expected to reside with A.
(4) On such an application, the court must take the following approach—
(a) the court must be satisfied that the tenancy is affordable for A, or will be so within a reasonable period of time;
(b) if the court is so satisfied, then—
(i) if B has been convicted of an offence related to domestic abuse as against A or anyone who might reasonably be expected to reside with A, the court must make an order under this section;
(ii) if B has been given a domestic abuse protection notice under section 19, or a domestic abuse protection order has been made against B under section 25, or B is currently subject to an injunction or restraining order in relation to A, or a person who might be reasonably expected to reside with A, the court may make an order under this section.
(c) for the purposes of subsection 4(b)(ii), the court must adopt the following approach—
(i) if B does not oppose the making of such an order, then the court must make it.
(ii) if B does oppose the making of such an order then it is for B to satisfy the court that – as at the date of the hearing - there are exceptional circumstances which mean that the only way to do justice between A and B is for the order to be refused.
(d) if the application does not fall within subsection (b), then the court may make such an order if it thinks it fit to do so.
(5) Where A has made such an application to the court, any notice to quit served by B shall be of no effect until determination of A’s application or any subsequent appeal.
(6) Notwithstanding any rule of common law to the contrary, the effect of an order under this section is that the tenancy continues for all purposes as if B had never been a joint tenant.
(7) For the purposes of this section, an “offence related to domestic abuse” means an offence that amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of this Act.
(8) In section 88(2) Housing Act 1985, after “section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.)” insert “, or section [Joint tenancies: removal of a tenant]Domestic Abuse Act 2020,”.
(9) In section 91(3)(b) Housing Act 1985, after subsection (iv), add “(v) section [Joint tenancies: removal of a tenant] Domestic Abuse Act 2020.
(10) In section 99B(2) of the Housing Act 1985 (persons qualifying for compensation for improvements) paragraph (e), after subsection (iii) add “(iv) section [Joint tenancies: removal of a tenant] Domestic Abuse Act 2020.””—(Jess Phillips.)
This new clause would facilitate occupiers of social housing removing one joint tenant from the tenancy agreement where there has been domestic violence. The tenancy would then continue (so preserving existing rights). The court must be satisfied that the applicant can or will be able to afford the tenancy.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 43—Housing Act 1996: Removal of local connection—
“(1) The Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 199 (local connection), insert—
“(12) A person who is or is likely to become a victim of domestic abuse, is not required to have any local connection to any authority within the meaning of section 199(1) of this Act for the purposes of his or her application.
(13) For the purposes of subsection 12, a person must provide evidence of domestic abuse or the risk of domestic abuse in one of more of the forms set out in regulation 33(2) of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012.””
This new clause would remove the need for a local connection for victims of domestic abuse when applying for social housing to a particular local authority.
New clause 44—Allocation of Housing to domestic abuse victims—
“(1) Section 160ZA of the Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) The Secretary of State must within two months of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 being passed make regulations under subsection (8) to prescribe the criterion set out in subsection (8B) as a criterion that may not be used by a local housing authority in England in deciding what classes of persons are not qualifying persons.
(8B) The criterion is that a relevant person must have a local connection to the district of a local housing authority.
(8C) For the purposes of subsection (8B), a “relevant person” is a person who—
(a) is or has been a victim of domestic abuse within two years of the date of their application for an allocation of housing under Part 6 of the 1996 Act, and
(b) has recently ceased, or will cease, to reside in accommodation provided by a local authority in an area in which they have been subjected to domestic abuse and where—
(i) the person has fled or will flee their local area; and
(ii) the purpose of fleeing was or is to escape domestic abuse.
(8D) The regulations made under subsection (8A) must specify that a local housing authority may not consider the location or whereabouts of the perpetrator of the domestic abuse.””
This new clause would remove the need for a local connection for victims of domestic abuse when applying for social housing to a particular local authority.
Jess Phillips
It is weird at the end stages, because we are now jumping around. We are now going to talk about joint tenancies, which is nothing like any of the stuff we have been talking about for the past few hours. I will speak to new clause 42 on joint tenancies and new clauses 43 and 44, which relate to local connection restrictions on survivors escaping domestic abuse.
The impact of joint tenancies on survivors of domestic abuse is not an issue that has been widely discussed in Parliament in recent years, but it should be. There has been a lot of stuff about tenancies, to be fair, but it has not necessarily been about joint tenancies. The current tenancy law leaves survivors particularly vulnerable to homelessness and further abuse. Where there is a joint tenancy between the abuser and the victim, either can give notice to end the tenancy and it then takes effect for all joint tenants.
I am sure I do not need to spell out what impact that has in abusive, coercive and controlling relationships. The current law means that abusers can unilaterally terminate the joint tenancy, ending the victim’s right to remain in the property, and putting her at significant risk of homelessness and harm. Currently, the only option in the short term is for the victim to seek an injunction preventing the abuser from serving notice on the tenancy. That is usually a time-limited and temporary remedy.
Jess Phillips
If you are going to ask me a detailed question about tenancy law, I have prepared myself for that.
Peter Gibson
It is not a tenancy-related question. While well-intentioned, the proposed new clause serves effectively to sever a joint tenancy agreement and put the tenancy agreement into the abuse survivor’s sole name. The clause fails to make any provision in respect of the tenancy’s joint and several liability and therefore may create unintended consequences, such as leaving the victim—whom the Bill seeks to protect—liable for damage to the property that may have been caused by the perpetrator. That could additionally lead to residual liability for any outstanding rent arrears that may have accrued. Does she agree with me that leaving the victim with further liabilities can actually make things worse?
Jess Phillips
It absolutely cannot do that, and we must consider the politics of priorities in these circumstances. I do not pick these amendments out of the air, much as I love to pore over tenancy law. They are usually brought to me by people who have been in these specific circumstances. It is an incredibly pernicious thing, and it can be seen when people are left with problems, less so with damage to the property. I do not believe anybody ever gets their deposit back; that is a mythical thing that never actually occurs in real life. I have certainly never got any deposit back. The rent arrears issue is terrible and pernicious; there is no doubt about that. Victims are telling us that they face the problem of the risk of homelessness. Somebody can end their tenancy just like that. Our constant objective in these clauses is to remove the perpetrator from the situation and leave the victim safer at home.
There are all sorts of things that I would offer if somebody came to me and said, “Well, I’ve got rent arrears based on that.” Birmingham City Council has not had a good write-up in this Committee, but one brilliant thing it does is have discretionary housing payments specifically for local allowances for issues such as rent arrears built up in domestic abuse cases. I would seek to access that sort of support in those circumstances. In fact, with regard to tenancies, lots of local councils have different rules about the kind of things that they can do as landlords—obviously, they are the largest landlords in the country—in cases of domestic violence. Currently, however, the law does not allow for the thing that victims are telling me would help them.
To go back to complicated tenancy law, for those who are unmarried but have children—the law is very detailed in the gradients that are covered—the Children Act 1989 provides an opportunity for the tenancy to be transferred for the benefit of children, but again that necessitates bringing expensive and contentious court proceedings that polarise parties who might have been able to reach agreement over many aspects of their children’s care without the emotional impact of a litigation process. When we talk about the family courts, especially some of the harrowing cases, it is important to remember that 90% of people breaking up from each other, including a high proportion of people even in domestic abuse situations, sever their lives and those of their children amicably without the need for the courts. I want to try to avoid needless litigation, especially for victims.
The transfer in such cases is further complicated by the fact that it is only for the benefit of the children, so if the children are about to turn 18, the remedy may not help. It may be possible to sever the tenancy, but if the child is crashing towards a certain age, people may be cut off.
Married or unmarried victims with or without children can apply under the Family Law Act 1996, but for married couples, the court will insist on divorce proceedings having been commenced and will often divert them down the route of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Where the parties are unmarried, the route of the 1996 Act will still necessitate lengthy court proceedings, often with two or three hearings at a cost in court time in excess of £10,000 and in legal aid of a similar amount for either party represented.
In contrast to those complex and uncertain processes, the new clause provides a straightforward mechanism for the victim of abuse, where they have a joint tenancy from a social landlord, to seek the transfer of the tenancy from joint names to their sole name and to prevent the abuser from ending the tenancy in the meantime. It sets out that where there has been a conviction for a domestic abuse-related offence, the court must make an order to transfer the joint tenancy to the victim’s sole name.
Understandably, there have been quite a few conversations about unintended consequences, which happen with pretty much all laws. No matter which rosette hon. Members wear, no law that has ever been passed has helped everybody universally and has been perfect for everybody. That is the reality, which is perhaps not expressed very well by the Punch and Judy politics of this place.
In the new clauses that we have tabled, we have sought to be clear that the level of the evidence base, such as conviction, needed to take something away from somebody must be high. In the issue of presumption that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove was talking about earlier, that was based on orders and convictions. When we are talking about taking something away, such as a tenancy, I recognise that that is a big liberty, even if someone is a perpetrator, because they might have had a terrible life—lots of them will have had a terrible life.
A domestic abuse protection notice or a conviction seems like a reasonable threshold, rather than just an allegation, for doing something such as taking someone’s tenancy away. Where a domestic abuse protection notice or a protection order has been served, there is a presumption that the court will make an order transferring the tenancy to the victim’s sole name, which the other joint tenant can seek to oppose by showing exceptional circumstances. In both cases, this is subject to the court being satisfied that the tenancy is affordable for the applicant. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Darlington, in this instance the court would assess the affordability of the tenancy rather than the burden of that tenancy, because we do not want to burden people needlessly.
Peter Gibson
The clause deals with affordability going forward, but does it specifically address any latent problems?
Jess Phillips
That is a reasonable point. This definitely happens, so I am more than happy for those issues to be dealt with as we go through this process. One thing about this Bill going through to the Lords is that it has some really keen experts who know an awful lot about housing law; I have been a licensed landlord through running refuges and other things, so I know a little bit about the law in this area, but it definitely bamboozles me. Some Lords know an awful lot about the criminal justice system and housing tenancies, so I feel keenly that we ought to make some assessment of the point the hon. Gentleman has made. I suppose the victim could give their consent by self-declaring—by saying, “I am willing to pay £3 a month until my arrears are paid back”, or “He has kicked out the fireplace; I am happy to get it replaced.” Any Member who has large numbers of council tenancies in their constituency will know that tenants would often much rather pay to have things replaced than wait for the council to replace them. It is not uncommon to hear, “I’ve had my whole kitchen done, because I’ve been waiting four years.”
In the new clause, any notice to quit served by the abuser is of no effect if an application has been made, therefore removing the need for an injunction or to protect the tenancy until the application is decided. The amendment also protects succession rights and right-to-buy rights on the transfer of the tenancy to a sole tenant—another classic casework thing I have to deal with all the time. This is a simplification of the current complex, potentially expensive and risky processes by which a victim of abuse can seek the transfer of a joint tenancy to their sole name. It gives greater certainty about the circumstances in which the court will transfer the tenancy to the victim, and it helps the victim of abuse obtain security in their home, free from the fear of the abuser ending their tenancy.
I will briefly touch on new clauses 43 and 44. Domestic abuse does not end when a relationship ends, and leaving an abuser is statistically a highly dangerous time. A survivor faces ongoing and severe threats to their safety. Anyone who has read domestic homicide reviews will know that very few things consistently crop up—the people involved can be of all races, backgrounds and classes—but the common thread running through them is that people often get murdered when they first escape. It is a very risky time, and therefore many survivors escaping abuse need to leave their local authority area in order to be safe. Women and children escaping to a refuge, in particular, will often need to cross local authority boundaries.
The very existence of refuges depends on those services’ availability, as this Committee has largely covered. The Government homelessness guidance for local authorities makes it clear that the local connection rules should not apply in cases of domestic abuse. It states that all local authorities must exempt from their residency requirements those who are living in a refuge or other form of safe temporary accommodation in their district, having escaped domestic abuse in another local authority area. However, this is not a requirement and does not apply to women who have not escaped into a refuge—or into another form of temporary accommodation, which I am afraid to say is the most likely place for them to end up nowadays.
In addition, local authorities often use blanket residency tests in allocation schemes without accounting for exceptional circumstances, such as a woman fleeing domestic abuse. This has already been found unlawful. In the case of R (on the application of HA) v. Ealing London Borough Council, the full homelessness duty under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 was owed to a mother and her five children fleeing domestic violence, but she was disqualified from the housing register because she failed to meet the residency requirements. There was an exceptional circumstance clause in the local authority’s allocation scheme, but this was not used. The High Court found that Ealing had acted unlawfully in failing to apply the exceptionality provision, or to even consider applying it.
Despite that case and the Government guidance, there remain clear inconsistencies between local authorities across England. I am sorry; I do not mean to exclude Wales, but I have no idea—I presume there are inconsistencies there.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I am slightly confused about what the hon. Member seeks to improve with new clause 43. I am happy to be corrected, but I understand that local authorities, as the hon. Member said, already have the ability to prioritise domestic abuse cases for rehousing. I believe that, on Second Reading a couple of weeks ago, the Minister quoted the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who said that he was making this a priority. The statutory guidance also states that local authorities should find a local connection, and that it is okay if it is in another district or local authority, so long as there is no threat to the family or the woman. I am just trying to understand what the new clause would do that is not already in the statutory guidance or the Bill.
Jess Phillips
I am more than happy to answer that. I am quite fond of the particular bit of statutory guidance she refers to, because it did not actually exist until a woman who lived in the refuge where I worked took a case against Sandwell Borough Council regarding her local connections. Currently, the statutory guidance is explicit about refuge accommodation. This woman was living in a refuge, many years ago now, and Sandwell Borough Council said she did not have the local need that meant it had to pay her—what we call—housing benefit-plus, so it contested her application on the basis of local need. With the help of the Child Poverty Action Group, that was challenged in the courts in two cases specifically around refuge accommodation. All the new clause really seeks to do is extend that beyond being only about refuge to being about other forms of temporary accommodation.
Councils imposing local connection restrictions on their refuge funding contracts—exactly what I was just talking about—such as capping the number of non-local women able to access the refuge or requiring a specific proportion of the women in a refuge to be from the local authority area, has been one fall-out of that particular incident, because a refuge just cannot be run like that. We cannot know who will turn up. By and large, refuges will have people in who are from the local area, but it is not like a school, where someone has to live within a certain radius and has their needs assessed based on other things. People deal with the situation as it arises.
Homelessness teams are refusing to support women escaping abuse because they are not from the local area. Nearly a fifth of women supported by Women’s Aid’s No Woman Turned Away project in 2016 and 2017 were prevented from making a valid homelessness application on the grounds of domestic abuse—outside of refuge; just rocking up to the homelessness services—for reasons including that they had no local connection and that local housing teams were deprioritising survivors who did not have a local connection within their housing allocation policy.
As Members may know, the Government already require local authorities to make exemptions for certain groups from these local connection requirements or residency tests, including members of the armed forces and for those seeking to move for work. Nobody would argue with that. We just wish to add domestic abuse victims to that roster. Therefore, to tackle continuing inconsistent and unacceptable practices, a statutory bar on local authorities imposing local connection restrictions on refuges or any temporary or permanent accommodation should be included in the Bill, and needs to sit alongside the proposed statutory duty on local authorities to fund support in refuges and other forms of safe accommodation. The Government are essentially going to be paying for some of this from central funds. We look forward with bated breath to that big cheque, Minister; we should have a big-cheque moment.
Nickie Aiken
I want to get to the bottom of this. Is the hon. Lady saying that there is a lack or a vacuum in the Bill or in statutory guidance full stop, or are local authorities not complying or doing what they should under existing legislation or statutory guidance? If they are not doing what they should be doing—if Sandwell, which is a Labour council, or Ealing, which is a Labour-led council are not doing what they should be doing—surely it is possible to go to the ombudsman? Surely there is a way to hold local authorities to account if they are not carrying out their statutory duty?
Jess Phillips
No, they absolutely are carrying out their statutory duty, but the statutory duty is only about refuge—unlike the statutory guidance regarding servicemen and women, which is that they are allowed to move without local connection, recognising that base life does not necessarily mean that they are based in a place, so they might not have a local connection, as well as tipping the hat to people who deserve a break when they are presenting to homelessness services. It is essentially the same thing—recognition that people living in certain circumstances might need extra help. I am sure the hon. Lady does not wish to be political about this, but I could list lots of Tory councils that turn away victims of domestic abuse, and many that have no current provision for refuge, but send their victims to a neighbouring local authority; that is not uncommon. The way some councils choose to fund this is to fund it elsewhere, which I think is problematic and will certainly be furthered by the new statutory duty.
The Government will pay for this statutory duty, which may lead to people having to present to homelessness teams in different areas when they do not have a connection to the local area. That is the problem I am trying to overcome. Together, the new clauses will help to ensure that all women and children fleeing domestic abuse can access safe housing where and when they need to. I urge colleagues to support new clauses 43 and 44 to bar local authorities from imposing dangerous local connections restrictions on survivors of domestic abuse.
Victoria Atkins
I apologise at the start because, just as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley went into the fine detail of housing law, so, sadly, will I. I will try to cut it down.
We understand the motivation behind new clause 42. Abusers seek to control their victims in many different ways, and threatening to make their victims homeless or actually making them homeless by ending a tenancy is a particularly pernicious form of control. However, we have concerns about the drafting of the new clause, as it would apply only to local authority and housing association periodic tenancies, whereas most social tenants have periodic tenancies that are often known as lifetime tenancies, which generally mean that they can stay in their home for the rest of their life, provided they comply with the terms of the tenancy. A social tenancy with lifetime security of tenure is a valuable asset, which is why the Bill includes provisions designed to protect the security of tenure of victims of domestic abuse when granted a new tenancy by a local authority.
Notwithstanding the general position on security of tenure, current law provides that if any joint tenant of a period tenancy serves a notice to quit, it brings the whole tenancy to an end and the landlord can seek possession. The rule is of long standing; it has been established in many cases over the years and was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. It aims to balance the interests of each joint tenant and the landlord. For example, it would allow a victim of domestic abuse who has had to flee her home to ensure that she is no longer bound by the full obligations of the tenancy, which she is no longer able to enjoy. We recognise that the rule may be problematic in some cases of domestic abuse where the perpetrator can use it to exert control. I appreciate that the aim of the new clause is to find a way around that, to enable victims of abuse to remain in their current home, without fear that the abuser may seek to terminate the tenancy.
We are concerned about a number of areas of the new clause. It would allow the victim to apply to the court to remove the perpetrator from the tenancy, which is intended to effectively transfer the tenancy into the victim’s name. Where there are other joint tenants, it would have the effect of transferring the tenancy into the names of the victim and of those other joint tenants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington pointed out so eloquently—perhaps he should have declared an interest as a long-standing solicitor, as he was bringing his expertise into this—it means that victims may face the prospect of unresolved or remaining debts and costs because of any damage that the perpetrator may have caused to the property. The perpetrator will not be liable, as they will have been removed from the tenancy.
The new clause also fails to provide for how the interests of third parties may be taken into account by the court, including those of the landlord, any other joint tenant or any children in the relationship. A decision to grant a tenancy lies with a landlord. Where a landlord has decided to grant a tenancy to two or more individuals jointly, this new clause means that the number of tenants may be changed without reference to the landlord as the property owner.
It is important to bear in mind that landlords may have other reasons, outside of affordability, for deciding to grant a joint tenancy. In addition, this could amount to an interference with a housing association landlord’s own rights under the human rights legislation. Since this engages other parties’ human rights, we need to consider carefully what is the right approach in order to balance those rights, and ensure that any interference is proportionate and justified.
I understand that officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are engaging with the domestic abuse sector and other relevant stakeholders on these issues, regarding the termination of joint tenancies. I am happy to give a commitment that we will continue to consider the issues with the sector, with a view to arriving at a workable solution.
Turning to new clause 43, this seeks to amend section 199 of the Housing Act 1996, which defines local connection. Local connection relates to how local housing authorities establish and carry out their statutory homelessness duties under part VII of the Act. If an applicant does not have a local connection, as defined by section 199, a housing authority can refer that applicant to another housing authority where they do have a local connection and can access this support. However, under that legislation, the authority must ensure that the conditions for referral are met. This means that a housing authority cannot refer an applicant to another authority if they, or anyone who might reasonably be expected to reside with them, would be at risk of violence.
The homelessness code of guidance makes clear that a housing authority is under a positive duty to enquire whether the applicant would be at such a risk, and stipulates that authorities should not impose a high standard of proof of actual violence in the past when making its decision. The changes the Government propose to make in this Bill, in order to ensure that domestic abuse victims are considered to be in priority need for homelessness assistance, will be strengthened further by amending section 198 of the Housing Act 1996, so that a local authority cannot refer an applicant if there is a risk of not only violence but domestic abuse, as defined in the Bill.
Local connection is also a factor in how many local authorities determine priority for social housing. The allocation of social housing is governed by part VI of the Housing Act 1996. Local authorities must give reasonable preference for social housing to certain groups of people, including those who are homeless or who need to move for medical or welfare reasons. To help them determine the relative priority of applicants who fall into these groups, they may, but are not obliged to, use local connection as defined in section 199. Existing statutory guidance, to which authorities must have regard, makes it clear that they should consider giving additional preference within their allocation schemes to people who are homeless and require urgent rehousing as a result of domestic abuse. Existing legislation and guidance should therefore ensure that the intended purpose of new clause 43 is already in effect. It is not correct to say that a victim of domestic abuse needs to have a local connection for the purposes of a homelessness application, and lack of local connection should not prevent victims of domestic abuse from getting priority for social housing.
Jess Phillips
It is pleasing to hear that the issue of joint tenancies is being looked into. As I said to the hon. Member for Darlington, these issues will undoubtedly come up in the Lords, where some very eminent people will wish to look over them, so I will withdraw the motion and look forward to progress being made.
On local connection, if we do not do something in regulations, the issue will continue to be tested in the courts because it is currently not working. I very much hope that the Bill in its wider sense and the new duties will provide further strength, but I guess we will have to wait and see. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Defences for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence
“(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence;
(b) the person does that act because the person is compelled to do it;.
(c) the compulsion is attributable to their being a victim of domestic abuse; and
(d) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics might do that act.
(2) A person may be compelled to do something by another person or by the person’s circumstances.
(3) Compulsion is attributable to domestic abuse only if—
(a) it is, or is part of, conduct which constitutes domestic abuse as defined in sections 1 and 2 of this Act, including but not limited to conduct which constitutes the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015; or
(b) it is a direct consequence of a person being, or having been, a victim of such abuse.
(4) A person is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person is under the age of 18 when the person does the act which constitutes the offence;
(b) the person does that act as a direct consequence of the person being, or having been, a victim of domestic abuse as defined at subsection (3)(a) above; and
(c) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics might do that act.
(5) For the purposes of this section ‘relevant characteristics’ means age, sex, any physical or mental illness or disability and any experience of domestic abuse.
(6) In this section references to an act include an omission.
(7) Subsections (1) and (4) do not apply to an offence listed in Schedule [Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply].
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule [Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply].
(9) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for monitoring of the types of offence for which victims of domestic abuse are prosecuted and use this evidence to inform an annual review of the offences listed in Schedule [Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply] and any amendment to that Schedule.”—(Jess Phillips.)
This new clause would provide a statutory defence for survivors of domestic abuse, in some circumstances, who commit an offence.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 1—Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply—
“Common Law Offences
1 False imprisonment.
2 Kidnapping.
3 Manslaughter.
4 Murder.
5 Perverting the course of justice.
6 Piracy.
Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100)
7 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—
(a) section 4 (soliciting murder)
(b) section 16 (threats to kill)
(c) section 18 (wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm)
(d) section 20 (malicious wounding)
(e) section 21 (attempting to choke, suffocate or strangle in order to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence)
(f) section 22 (using drugs etc to commit or assist in the committing of an indictable offence)
(g) section 23 (maliciously administering poison etc so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm)
(h) section 27 (abandoning children)
(i) section 28 (causing bodily injury by explosives)
(j) section 29 (using explosives with intent to do grievous bodily harm)
(k) section 30 (placing explosives with intent to do bodily injury)
(l) section 31 (setting spring guns etc with intent to do grievous bodily harm)
(m) section 32 (endangering safety of railway passengers)
(n) section 35 (injuring persons by furious driving)
(o) section 37 (assaulting officer preserving wreck)
(p) section 38 (assault with intent to resist arrest).
Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3)
8 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Explosive Substances Act 1883—
(a) section 2 (causing explosion likely to endanger life or property)
(b) section 3 (attempt to cause explosion, or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property)
(c) section 4 (making or possession of explosives under suspicious circumstances).
Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (c. 34)
9 An offence under section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (child destruction).
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)
10 An offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (cruelty to children).
Public Order Act 1936 (1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6 c. 6)
11 An offence under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1936 (control etc of quasi-military organisation).
Infanticide Act 1938 (c. 36)
12 An offence under section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938 (infanticide).
Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27)
13 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Firearms Act 1968—
(a) section 5 (possession of prohibited firearms)
(b) section 16 (possession of firearm with intent to endanger life)
(c) section 16A (possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence)
(d) section 17(1) (use of firearm to resist arrest)
(e) section 17(2) (possession of firearm at time of committing or being arrested for specified offence)
(f) section 18 (carrying firearm with criminal intent).
Theft Act 1968 (c. 60)
14 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Theft Act 1968—
(a) section 8 (robbery or assault with intent to rob)
(b) section 9 (burglary), where the offence is committed with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm on a person, or to do unlawful damage to a building or anything in it
(c) section 10 (aggravated burglary)
(d) section 12A (aggravated vehicle-taking), where the offence involves an accident which causes the death of any person
(e) section 21 (blackmail).
Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c. 48)
15 The following offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971—
(a) an offence of arson under section 1
(b) an offence under section 1(2) (destroying or damaging property) other than an offence of arson.
Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)
16 An offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 (assisting unlawful immigration to member state).
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2)
17 An offence under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc) in relation to goods prohibited to be imported under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 (indecent or obscene articles).
Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (c. 28)
18 An offence under section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (hostage-taking).
Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36)
19 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Aviation Security Act 1982—
(a) section 1 (hijacking)
(b) section 2 (destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft)
(c) section 3 (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft)
(d) section 4 (offences in relation to certain dangerous articles).
Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)
20 An offence under section 127 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (ill-treatment of patients).
Child Abduction Act 1984 (c. 37)
21 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Child Abduction Act 1984—
(a) section 1 (abduction of child by parent etc)
(b) section 2 (abduction of child by other persons).
Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64)
22 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Public Order Act 1986—
(a) section 1 (riot)
(b) section 2 (violent disorder).
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)
23 An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture).
Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
24 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988—
(a) section 1 (causing death by dangerous driving)
(b) section 3A (causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs).
Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31)
25 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990—
(a) section 1 (endangering safety at aerodromes)
(b) section 9 (hijacking of ships)
(c) section 10 (seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms)
(d) section 11 (destroying fixed platforms or endangering their safety)
(e) section 12 (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safe navigation)
(f) section 13 (offences involving threats).
Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/570)
26 An offence under Part 2 of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (SI 1994/570) (offences relating to Channel Tunnel trains and the tunnel system).
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40)
27 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997—
(a) section 4 (putting people in fear of violence)
(b) section 4A (stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress).
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)
28 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—
(a) section 29 (racially or religiously aggravated assaults)
(b) section 31(1)(a) or (b) (racially or religiously aggravated offences under section 4 or 4A of the Public Order Act 1986).
Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11)
29 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000—
(a) section 54 (weapons training)
(b) section 56 (directing terrorist organisation)
(c) section 57 (possession of article for terrorist purposes)
(d) section 59 (inciting terrorism overseas).
International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17)
30 An offence under any of the following provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2001—
(a) section 51 (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes)
(b) section 52 (ancillary conduct).
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24)
31 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—
(a) section 47 (use of nuclear weapons)
(b) section 50 (assisting or inducing certain weapons-related acts overseas)
(c) section 113 (use of noxious substance or thing to cause harm or intimidate).
Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (c. 31)
32 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—
(a) section 1 (female genital mutilation)
(b) section 2 (assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia)
(c) section 3 (assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl’s genitalia).
Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)
33 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—
(a) section 1 (rape)
(b) section 2 (assault by penetration)
(c) section 3 (sexual assault)
(d) section 4 (causing person to engage in sexual activity without consent)
(e) section 5 (rape of child under 13)
(f) section 6 (assault of child under 13 by penetration)
(g) section 7 (sexual assault of child under 13)
(h) section 8 (causing or inciting child under 13 to engage in sexual activity)
(i) section 9 (sexual activity with a child)
(j) section 10 (causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity)
(k) section 13 (child sex offences committed by children or young persons)
(l) section 14 (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence)
(m) section 15 (meeting a child following sexual grooming)
(n) section 16 (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child)
(o) section 17 (abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity)
(p) section 18 (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in presence of child)
(q) section 19 (abuse of position of trust: causing a child to watch a sexual act)
(r) section 25 (sexual activity with a child family member)
(s) section 26 (inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity)
(t) section 30 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice)
(u) section 31 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity)
(v) section 32 (engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice)
(w) section 33 (causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act)
(x) section 34 (inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder)
(y) section 35 (causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in or agree to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception)
(z) section 36 (engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder)
(aa) section 37 (causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception)
(ab) section 38 (care workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder)
(ac) section 39 (care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity)
(ad) section 40 (care workers: sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder)
(ae) section 41 (care workers: causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act)
(af) section 47 (paying for sexual services of a child)
(ag) section 48 (causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography)
(ah) section 49 (controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography)
(ai) section 50 (arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography)
(aj) section 61 (administering a substance with intent)
(ak) section 62 (committing offence with intent to commit sexual offence)
(al) section 63 (trespass with intent to commit sexual offence)
(am) section 64 (sex with an adult relative: penetration)
(an) section 65 (sex with an adult relative: consenting to penetration)
(ao) section 66 (exposure)
(ap) section 67 (voyeurism)
(aq) section 70 (sexual penetration of a corpse).
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28)
34 An offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm).
Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11)
35 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Terrorism Act 2006—
(a) section 5 (preparation of terrorist acts)
(b) section 6 (training for terrorism)
(c) section 9 (making or possession of radioactive device or material)
(d) section 10 (use of radioactive device or material for terrorist purposes)
(e) section 11 (terrorist threats relating to radioactive devices etc).
Modern Slavery Act 2015
36 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015—
(a) section 1 (slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour)
(b) section 2 (human trafficking).
Ancillary offences
37 (1) An offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence listed in this Schedule.
(2) An offence committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an offence listed in this Schedule.
(3) An offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting) where the offence (or one of the offences) which the person in question intends or believes would be committed is an offence listed in this Schedule.”
This Schedule is consequential on NC46.
Andrew Bowie
On a point of order, Mr Bone. I apologise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. Perhaps you can instruct me, Mr Bone, on how best to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who has been in touch to express her gratitude to all Members and officials on the Committee for taking this Bill through. It is three years since she introduced it and she very much looks forward to seeing it on Report. Will you advise me as to how best to place her gratitude on the record?
The Chair
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but that is clearly not a point of order. However, he has put it on the record.
Jess Phillips
I thought the hon. Gentleman was intervening on me before I had even spoken, which would have been a bold move. I did not know where we were going with that, but I echo the hon. Gentleman’s words. I do not think anyone would ever question the dedication of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead to domestic abuse services. I knew her in my former life. When she was the Home Secretary, she would regularly visit services that I ran, whether they were for victims of human trafficking, female offenders, victims of domestic abuse or victims of sexual violence. On more than one occasion towards the end of my career there, when I was a parliamentary candidate, I was sent home on the days that she would come. I am certain that we would not have fallen out, but I was glad to work from home on those days. I think it got to the point where I was the more difficult of the two of us, so I was sent home.
When the right hon. Lady returned to the Back Benches, I thought, “What a brilliant ally she might be to me on certain things,” and I was delighted that, at every opportunity during the Bill’s progression, she has spoken up, including on some of the more difficult things to say. She has talked about issues of domestic abuse within the police force itself. It is bold and courageous to do so, and we will continue to rely on her input.
When speaking to new clause 33, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove discussed some of the arguments related to new clause 46, so I will not reinvent the wheel. Everyone will also be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause for the Committee to debate. New clause 46 and new schedule 1 would introduce a statutory defence for survivors of domestic abuse that is closely modelled on section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, giving them the same legal protection as that given to victims of trafficking who are compelled to offend, with the same excluded offences.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I want to ask for clarification. Hon. Members know that some of us are very new to this, so it is possibly my mistake. The new clause really does not make sense to me, because subsection (1) states:
“A person is not guilty of an offence if the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence”.
That strikes me as a typo, because it should say “under”, not “over”.
Jess Phillips
I cannot speak for the typo, but the new clause is almost exactly, word for word, based on what the Modern Slavery Act says about modern slavery. It may well be a typo, although, having said that, I cannot absolutely vouch for it not being one. However, as somebody who has had some success with my ability to write, I do find that the law is sometimes difficult to read. It could be a mistake or it could be completely right, but I am sure that we can come back to the hon. Lady and let her know.
New clause 46 is directly modelled on section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act, giving the same legal protections as those granted to victims of trafficking who are compelled to offend. Victims of trafficking rightly have a statutory defence where they have been compelled to offend as part of, or as a direct result of, their exploitation, yet there is no equivalent defence for people whose offending results from their experiences of domestic abuse. New clause 46 would address this significant gap in the law and reflect improved public understanding of domestic abuse. It should be accompanied by a policy framework, including special measures for vulnerable defendants, drawing on policies that are in place to support section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act. That would encourage earlier disclosure of abuse and access to support, to help break the cycle of victimisation and offending.
Research by the Prison Reform Trust has shown that types of offending driven by domestic abuse vary widely. They include shoplifting to supplement an inadequate allowance from an abusive partner; being coerced into benefit fraud; holding a weapon or drugs for the abuser, as the Minister quite rightly pointed out earlier; and defending themselves against their abuser. The law needs modernising to take account of the context of domestic abuse that is so often behind women’s offending in particular. Although usually minor, such offences can still leave victims behind bars and often separated from their children. Nearly half of prison sentences imposed on women are for theft offences, predominantly shoplifting.
We now understand how coercive and controlling behaviour can erode a victim’s sense of self and undermine their agency. As we heard this morning, however, there remains an inconsistent approach by the police and prosecutors where an individual’s offending may be attributable to domestic abuse and a lack of effective defences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove argued earlier, having effective defences on the statute book would direct everyone concerned in the criminal justice process to consider the domestic abuse context at an early stage. It would deter inappropriate prosecutions and, crucially, encourage earlier disclosure of abuse. A specific statutory defence is already provided for victims of trafficking in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the policy framework that goes with it. This requires proactive early case management and means that all involved become more adept at recognising circumstances that indicate there is no public interest in prosecuting an individual or where the statutory defence should apply. It does not work in all cases—there are victims of human trafficking who end up behind bars—but I would like to think that it has heightened the awareness of people having to deal with them. Magistrates, judges and lawyers increasingly understand how exploitation in this context can lead to offending and are taking this into account to ensure that victims are not further punished.
The question asked earlier of Minister Chalk—or it might have been the new Minister Chalk—was whether this stops that process getting to the court room. In cases of modern slavery, the answer is yes. For example, if you were to find somebody in a cannabis farm or running drugs, the process stops before that point; is not like it gets to court. If somebody was sent shoplifting because of human trafficking, no one says, “This is going all the way to court”. The charges are simply not made. That is my experience. The same legislation and policy frameworks should be in place to protect defendants whose offending is attributable to their experience of domestic abuse.
I will now explain why the existing common law defence of duress does not work for individuals who are compelled to offend due to their experience of domestic abuse and how new clause 46 and schedule 1—sorry, new schedule 1; we are not going back to schedule 1, having come this far—would help fix the problem. Duress is a common law defence that can be applied to offences other than murder where the defendant was acting under the threat of imminent death or serious injury, and where there was no alternative course of action for a reasonable person with relevant characteristics. However, the legal test for duress is rarely used in the context of domestic abuse for three main reasons: the complexities of domestic abuse are ignored; as the emphasis is on death or threat of serious injury, the defence does not recognise psychological, sexual or financial abuse; and for the defence of duress to suceed, the threat of physical harm must be imminent. That fails to recognise the nature of domestic abuse behaviour, including coercive control, as it is typically entrenched, unpredictable and random. To a woman whose self-esteem has been demolished by past violence, the fear of violence may be ever-present and overpowering.
In a modern slavery case, someone would say, “You’ve got to go and do this.” Unfortunately, in the cases I handled, it was, “You’ve got to sleep with 30 men today.” Nobody is suggesting that those women should be criminalised, thank goodness. However, in the cases of domestic abuse that I have seen where a pattern of offending behaviour occurs—for almost all the women I saw in my female offenders service, there had been a pattern of domestic abuse—there is the suggestion that things had to be got: “Why haven’t I got this?” or “You’ve spent all your money and you haven’t bought this.” A woman would be faced with a situation where she had not got the things from the shop that he wanted, or did not have the money to buy something for the kids. That would often, I am afraid to say, lead to acquisitive crime offending.
It is also terrible when—I hope this has improved; I need to check—women are charged and sent to prison because their kids have not gone to school as part of their domestic abuse, as the children have attachment issues because of domestic abuse. I suppose they are free and easy at the moment because nobody is at school. On a number of occasions, I saw women criminalised because their children would not go to school, and domestic abuse was not taken into account.
The duress defence applies where a reasonable person with relevant characteristics has no alternative but to do what he or she did. For that to succeed, those experiencing abuse must show they were suffering from battered woman syndrome—it has been a long time since we called it that—or learned helplessness. Those are outdated concepts that pathologise women rather than offering an effective defence suitable for the circumstances. They require the production of medical evidence, which is not practicable in many cases involving low-level offending that are tried in a magistrates court. It would be complicated to try to get that. My favourite ever case of going to the GP about domestic violence—this shows why we may need to improve our health response to it—was when a woman I was working with tried to tell her GP that her husband was strangling her and she could not breathe. She left his office with inhalers.
Victoria Atkins
May I take a moment to thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine for his non-point of order? It is right that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) be mentioned in Committee. Ministers are always encouraged by the Whips to engage with Back Benchers. It is an important part of the job to listen, consider views and try, where possible, to accommodate them. At the best of times that can be, depending on the Back Bencher, an interesting exercise, but Members can imagine what it is like to try to do Back-Bench engagement with a former Prime Minister who introduced the Bill that is the subject of that engagement: it is on a whole new level. I am delighted that she was mentioned again in the scrutiny of the Bill.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley for raising the point covered by the new clause. As she said, it stems from a campaign by the Prison Reform Trust. I note that my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State for Justice met trust representatives, the designate domestic abuse commissioner and the Victims Commissioner recently, to discuss the issue, among others. It has very much had his attention, as it now has mine.
We of course recognise the harm that is suffered by victims of domestic abuse. That is why the aim of the Bill is specifically to target it and raise awareness and understanding of its impact. It seeks to raise the profile of domestic abuse in all its forms, particularly given its pernicious nature, and to improve the effectiveness of the justice system in providing protection for victims and bringing perpetrators to justice. It also seeks to strengthen the support for victims and survivors provided by statutory agencies. The definition should help further in clarifying the wide-ranging nature of domestic abuse for all those involved in the criminal justice system, at every level.
There are several defences that are potentially available under the law. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley raised some cases in her speech. I have to deal with the fact that we have these defences. The hon. Lady herself acknowledged that there will be occasions where those involved in the system do not apply the law in the manner that Parliament intended. None the less, we still have to respect the independence of the judiciary, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police in ensuring that our criminal justice system works. She mentioned the defences of duress and self-defence, which are full defences. In homicide cases we have the partial defences of loss of control and diminished responsibility.
I recognise that legal representatives and the CPS should be made aware, as soon as possible, of domestic abuse histories and their impact, in the course of making charging decisions and when considering guilty pleas. That needs to be balanced alongside the recognition of the harm done by the perpetrator of a crime and the impact on the victim, in order to ensure, wherever possible, that people do not revert to criminal behaviour. That is reflected in the law, which continues to evolve and aims to strike the right balance between these factors.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley relies on the model set out in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We have concerns that that model would create anomalies with other offences. For example, there is a range of offences, mainly serious sexual or violent offences, to which the section 45 defence does not apply, in order to avoid creating a legal loophole for serious criminals to escape justice. The offences that are excluded are set out in schedule 4 to the 2015 Act, which schedule 1 seeks to replicate. Identifying the trigger point resulting in the behaviour that caused the offence remains problematic. If that defence is to be raised, the issue would become at what point in time and in relation to which type of level of domestic abuse the defence became available. Establishing such a threshold would be incredibly difficult. To clarify the circumstances in which the defence would be permissible would likely reduce the applicability or effect of the new defence to the parameters already set out in existing defences. Additionally, a full defence for a defendant subject to domestic abuse would create anomalies with defendants subject to other forms of harm, such as sexual harassment from strangers. Those are anomalies I am sure that none of us would want to see.
Let me deal with the point about the Modern Slavery Act. In earlier debates I talked about the evolving methodology of gang leaders and their efforts to ensnare young people into their gangs. We have in mind that we hear from law enforcement partners that the statutory defence for victims of modern slavery is being misused, primarily by the gang leaders, to persuade the young people they are manipulating and exploiting that it does not matter if they are caught, because they will get off anyway. That will not be the case, particularly for the sorts of serious offences that are not set out in the schedule. This comes back to the point about the ability of perpetrators and those who would exploit and manipulate other human beings, and their never-ending capacity to find new ways to do so—we are concerned about that aspect as well. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned a female victim of a gang being instructed to have sex with members of that gang—sadly, that is a factor that we know happens in gangs. Gang leaders find many ways to exploit vulnerable people in all walks of life, but particularly in those very hard-edged crimes. We are working with criminal justice partners to assess how the modern slavery defence is used in practice and the repercussions of that.
Existing full and partial defences cover circumstances in which a defendant is also the victim of domestic abuse. Indeed, full defences, including duress and self-defence, are defences to any crime, which, if pleaded successfully, result in acquittal. I refer to the debate that I had with the hon. Member for Hove about the decision-making process that the CPS must go through before the decision to charge is taken. At every stage of the criminal justice process, there are checks and balances. For example, at half-time, when the prosecution has closed its case, if the prosecution has failed to establish a case such that a judge feels confident to leave it to the jury, the judge will stop that case there and then. The jury will not be asked to deliver a verdict because the judge has ruled that, at the half-time submission, the evidence is insufficient and the prosecution has not done their job.
We have those checks and balances all the way through to the closing speeches. When I used to prosecute cases, I would always say to the jury, “If you find yourself using the words, ‘Possibly,’ ‘Likely,’ or ‘Probably,’ I have not done my job proving the case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.” Those are the sorts of checks and balances that have been worked out over time to ensure that the guilty are convicted and the innocent are acquitted.
Partial defences, such as diminished responsibility and loss of control, reduce a charge for murder to manslaughter. Very recently, the incredibly moving case of Sally Challen not only demonstrated that partial defences can be employed, but showed the improvement in our understanding over a matter of years. Ms Challen was convicted in 2010 and a matter of years later, we have a better understanding of domestic abuse, and her appeal was successful.
Those checks and balances are important to ensure that, wherever possible, victims make their background and circumstances known. I very much hope that the Bill’s success in raising awareness about the sorts of things that the Committee has debated in such depth and degree will ensure that the justice system is as effective as it can be in providing victims and survivors with as much protection as possible—I am sure that I will work on that with colleagues from across the House. On that note, I will conclude.
Jess Phillips
It seems almost unfair on the Minister that I get the last word on a Bill that she introduced, but that is the system. I welcome what she said, and I will take up that issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and with the Prison Reform Trust.
I am very interested in—but unsurprised about—the idea that, in the Modern Slavery Bill, there is potential to say, “You are going to get away with it,” without recognising that what we are talking about here is mostly minor crimes—nothing that causes harm to others, no sexual abuse and no domestic abuse. However, it is very much the case that in patterns of abuse, people end up abusing other people. That is a complex area and we want fairness both for those who are accused and for those who are suffering. I will withdraw the new clause, and everybody can finally be done with the millions of amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Victoria Atkins
On a point of order, this is the moment at which it is customary to say a few words to mark the end of our deliberations in Committee and to reflect on the intensive scrutiny that the Bill has received, but also to thank certain people for their help in assisting the Committee with our scrutiny. These thanks come very much from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham as well as from me. He is busy elsewhere in the Palace, but he is very keen to thank people as well.
First, I thank you, Mr Bone, and Ms Buck. You have both managed to keep us in order at an appropriate distance, which is a skill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham; it has been a genuine pleasure to work on this stage of the Bill with him. He has shown just what an expert he is as a Justice Minister, having been in the job for only a very short period. He is a real joy to work with and has really made his mark already.
They are not often thanked, but I also thank my Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, who has been excellent in ensuring that, on most days—every day, in fact—we finish on time. She has also been very generous with the hand sanitiser. I genuinely thank the Opposition Front Benchers. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has brought all her experience outside this place into the Committee room, and I sincerely thank her for that. I thank the hon. Member for Hove for his very pertinent but charmingly articulated points, which can often be deadlier than shouting and creating a fuss. I also thank the hon. Member for Blaydon, the Opposition Whip—our Whips play an incredibly important part in ensuring that the Committee works properly and works to a timetable.
Of course, I thank the Clerks, who have had to, with other colleagues in the House, really test what the Palace—and this room—can accommodate in these very difficult circumstances. Thanks, of course, go to Hansard. It seems like a lifetime ago that we were in Portcullis House and being instructed that Members sat at the back of the Public Gallery would have to shout for Hansard—what extraordinary times, but we managed it. I would normally thank the Doorkeepers; we have not had any Doorkeepers, but I thank them anyway.
I thank the officials and lawyers from the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Work and Pensions, the Department for Education, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Health and Social Care—seven Government Departments have been involved in the Bill thus far. Special mention must go to a certain Charles Goldie, the Bill manager. This is, I believe, the 20th Bill—[Interruption]—the 21st Bill that Charles has manoeuvred through Parliament in expert fashion. To put that in context, last night, when we were dealing with one of today’s new clauses—the reasonable force clause—I discovered that the 2008 Act on which the hon. Member for Hove was relying was managed by a certain Charles Goldie.
I do not want anyone to feel left out, so I must thank Kate in my private office, who has been doing amazing work alongside Robert, who is the MOJ private secretary. They have really tried to get around the awful fact that we cannot have box notes, so Kate has been tapping away furiously. I thank her very much for everything that she does.
I thank the other members of the Committee for what has been really interesting, thoughtful and thought-provoking scrutiny. I hope that they feel that they have both contributed to and gained from that. I look forward to their contributions at the next stage.
Finally, I thank all the witnesses who contributed, both in person and in written form. Particular thank go to the organisations that work on the frontline with domestic abuse victims and survivors, and to the victims, who were very brave and came to give live evidence before the Committee to tell us their lived experiences. Thanks to them all—that is why we are trying to pass this piece of legislation.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister, for that totally bogus point of order. It was one of the longest points of order that I have ever had, but perhaps one of the best.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Written Statements
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingencies Fund Advance
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Cabinet Office has sought a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund of £270,100,000.
The requirement has arisen due to increased costs relating to urgent expenditure, including that relating to the covid-19 response.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £107,100,000 and £163,000,000 of capital has been sought in a main estimate for the Cabinet Office. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £270,100,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS298]
Trade Negotiations with Australia and New Zealand
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Today, the Government publish their approach to trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand, as well as providing an update on their approach to accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
New Zealand and Australia rank among our closest friends. We share a language, head of state and a system of common law, and we have a proud shared history. We also have a common set of values. Like the UK, both nations have always stood up for what is right and maintained a fierce belief in the merits of trade openness, the rule of law, international co-operation, and democratic Government.
But what we have never had with either is a free trade agreement. That can change now the UK has left the EU. Our future success as a country depends partly on using our new-found status as an independent trading nation to strengthen ties with old allies beyond Europe. Ambitious, wide-ranging free trade agreements with old friends like Australia and New Zealand are a powerful way for us to do that and make good on the promise of Brexit.
From a purely economic perspective, deals with both countries can help deliver the things that our people care about—better jobs, higher wages, greater choice, and lower prices.
UK businesses traded £21 billion worth of goods and services with Australia and New Zealand combined in 2019. Trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand could increase UK exports to Australia and New Zealand by around £1 billion—with beverages firms, the automotive industry and professional services among those expected to benefit. Opportunities for these agreements include additional access for UK services and investment, removing tariffs and other barriers to trade in goods and the chance to shape the future of digital trade.
An ambitious UK-Australia trade agreement could increase UK GDP by up to £500 million and UK workers’ wages by up to £400 million. It can enable small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to export more goods and services to Australia, building on the 13,400 UK SMEs that already exported goods there in 2018.
A cutting-edge agreement with New Zealand could increase UK workers’ wages by up to £200 million. New Zealand and the UK also share a particular ambition to work together to promote clean growth through trade—a key contribution to a low-carbon economic recovery.
But perhaps more importantly than the pure economics, both these countries are vital to the UK’s future place in the world and our future sovereign capability.
The pandemic has given oxygen to the politics of protectionism across the globe, and to those who advocate closed, statist economies. Trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand are important in helping our country and the world move beyond coronavirus.
Strengthening ties between nations who believe in free trade is a powerful way to defend the principles of open markets and international co-operation, and in doing show that free trade is still the best way forward for the world after coronavirus.
Strategically, our aim is to place the UK at the centre of a network of modern free trade agreements, turning our country into a global hub for businesses and investors who want to trade in dynamic areas of the world—especially in the Asia-Pacific.
Pivoting towards the Asia-Pacific will help diversify our trade, make our supply chains more resilient and make the UK less vulnerable to political and economic shocks in certain parts of the world. This economic security is important at a time of increased turbulence and uncertainty in the world.
It will also help us forge a leadership position among a network of countries committed to free trade—and strengthen the club of like-minded democracies who share our commitment to advance trade liberalisation, fight protectionism and defend international rules.
Australia and New Zealand are both big players in the Asia-Pacific and share our commitment to free trade. They are also prominent members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—a club of eleven countries representing 13% of global GDP.
The UK had more than £110 billion-worth of trade in 2019 with the 11 countries in the group and we are determined to increase our trade through membership. CPTPP will help us diversify our trade and join a strong, modern trade agreement between countries committed to free and fair trade in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. Both Australia and New Zealand support our membership, and free trade agreements with both countries would be an important step towards our eventual accession.
Today, the Department for International Trade is publishing three documents:
UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement: the UK’s strategic approach
UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement: the UK’s strategic approach
An update on the UK’s position on accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive
Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
We will be placing copies in the Libraries of both Houses. For Australia and New Zealand, these documents include:
The Government’s negotiating objectives for each trade agreement.
A scoping assessment providing a preliminary assessment of the potential long-term economic impacts for each agreement.
The Government’s response to the public consultations on each agreement, setting out how these have informed our policy development.
As with our whole trade agreement programme, these agreements need to work for the UK. We have been clear that future agreements with Australia and New Zealand must work for UK consumers, producers and companies. We remain committed to upholding our high environmental, labour, food safety and animal welfare standards in our trade agreements with these countries. The Government have been clear that when we are negotiating trade agreements, we will protect the national health service. Our objectives reinforce this.
We are engaging with the devolved Administrations, Crown dependencies and overseas territories to ensure that we develop agreements that works for the whole of the UK. The Government are committed to transparency and we will continue to ensure that parliamentarians, businesses, and the range of civil society stakeholders have access to information on our trade negotiations.
Negotiations with Australia and New Zealand will be carried out by video conference, ensuring that talks can progress during the coronavirus pandemic. We will continue to conduct talks remotely until it is safe to conduct talks in person.
[HCWS297]