Grand Committee
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2020.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, these instruments were laid between July 2019 and December 2020 under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act. As noble Lords will be aware, the sanctions Act provides the legal framework within which the UK may impose, update and lift sanctions, whether autonomously or in line with our UN obligations, now that we have left the EU. It is the foundation for an independent sanctions policy in support of our foreign policy and national security interests.
To establish individual sanctions regimes within that framework, we are required to lay statutory instruments. Of the nine instruments we are considering today, seven transition existing EU regimes into UK law. As set out in my letter to parliamentary colleagues of 25 January, the new UK regimes and the measures they contain are intended to have substantially the same effect as those they replace. The two remaining instruments amend the other statutory instruments that establish sanctions regimes.
The amendments in the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 are designed to ensure that our entire suite of sanctions legislation is as consistent and clear in its provisions as possible. Many regimes contain the same sanctions measures and we strive for consistency in language to promote consistency in interpretation, application and enforcement. British businesses often export goods or provide services to more than one country subject to sanctions, and any inconsistency in the wording of the legislation can cause confusion and increase their compliance costs.
The amendments in Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 ensure that UK persons in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are not unduly affected by the extraterritorial application of UK law. They create an exception to the extraterritorial prohibition so that a licence from the authorities in that jurisdiction is sufficient to authorise UK persons’ conduct there. Those persons do not then need also to obtain the licence from the UK authorities to avoid committing an offence under UK law.
I would now like to elaborate further on the purposes of the seven regimes which these instruments establish. First, the Bosnia and Herzegovina sanctions regulations are aimed at promoting peace, stability and security in Bosnia and respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity. They are also intended to encourage compliance with and the implementation of the general framework agreement for peace, which established Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single sovereign state. The regulations permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions.
The Burundi sanctions regulations aim to encourage the Government of Burundi to respect democratic principles and institutions, and the rule of law and good governance in Burundi; to participate in negotiations with their political opponents in good faith to bring about a peaceful solution to the political situation; to refrain from policies or activities that repress civil society; and to comply with international human rights law and respect human rights. They permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions.
The cyber sanctions regulations are aimed at preventing certain types of cyberactivity that undermine the integrity, prosperity or security of the UK or any other country. They are also intended to prevent certain types of cyberactivity that cause the economic loss or prejudice of commercial interests, undermine the independence or effective functioning of an international organisation, or otherwise affect a significant number of people in an indiscriminate manner. The regulations permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions. We have imposed sanctions on the same 12 individuals and entities as were sanctioned in 2020 by the EU. These include actors from Russia, China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The Guinea sanctions regulations aim to encourage the Government of Guinea to properly investigate the violent repression that took place on 28 September 2009 and its aftermath, as well as to hold those responsible to account. The regulations permit the imposition of targeted financial and immigration sanctions.
The misappropriation sanctions regulations are aimed at deterring and providing accountability for the misappropriation of state funds from a country outside the UK. They permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions. Rather than establish geographical regimes, as existed under EU legislation, this instrument creates a single thematic regime under which designations can be made in respect of misappropriation of state funds taking place anywhere outside the UK, allowing for greater agility and flexibility.
The Nicaragua sanctions regulations are aimed at encouraging the Government of Nicaragua to respect democratic principles and institutions, the separation of powers and the rule of law, to refrain from the repression of civil society and to respect human rights. The regulations permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions.
The Unauthorised Drilling Activities in the Eastern Mediterranean (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 aim to discourage any unauthorised hydrocarbon exploration or production activities in the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Cyprus or on its continental shelf. They permit the imposition of financial and immigration sanctions.
In conclusion, sanctions are a key part of many of the UK’s political and diplomatic strategies. They also contribute to our efforts to uphold and defend the rules-based international order. The United Kingdom has long been a global leader in this field and this will not change now that we have left the European Union. Our independent sanctions policy allows us to use sanctions to achieve maximum impact by working in a way that is agile, expertise-driven and in support of our values, and enables collaboration with both new and established partners. International co-operation is at the heart of our policy. As I have said a number of times, sanctions are most effective when implemented and enforced collectively. We will continue to co-ordinate closely with our European and other international partners on sanctions, using the excellent relationships and networks we have already established.
These regulations are a crucial part of the legal basis that underpins our sanctions policy and of which the sanctions Act is the keystone. With them in place, we can promote and protect security, stability and prosperity at home and overseas, call for accountability and justice, and deter human rights violations and abuses. In short, they will help us to project the United Kingdom as a force for good in the world. I beg to move.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for his introductory comments. Allow me first to declare my interest as a partner in the advisory board of Transparency International UK. Under the guidance of its offices, I presented a Private Member’s Bill to curb corruption. The then Labour Government did not support it and it fell in the Lords. A remarkably similar government Bill subsequently appeared and sailed through on to the statute book. Be that as it may, there have been remarkably few prosecutions under the Act in the years that followed; perhaps these SIs will help jog the institutional memory—perhaps through the updates that the Minister alluded to.
My remarks focus on Burundi and Guinea, primarily because they are two countries of which I have personal knowledge and experience, and thus like to think I can speak on with a degree of authority. I shall deal with Burundi first—this small, poor country in central Africa, overshadowed by its larger, more powerful neighbour, Rwanda. Like Rwanda, Burundi is threatened by ethnic turbulence, with a population of some 10 million split between 14% Tutsi and 85% Hutu. A visit to the genocide museum over the border in Rwanda is a telling reminder of where this can lead.
The Minister mentioned the importance of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in relation to the coming sanctions. It is questionable whether that is accepted in the country itself. Since independence from Belgium in 1962, Burundi has been governed as a presidential democratic republic. Its first elected President was assassinated in 1993. Since then, some 200,000 Burundians have perished in ethnic violence and hundreds of thousands more have become internally displaced or refugees. Human rights abuses abound. President Ndayishimiye, in office since mid-2020, claims to have made policy changes to provide the opposition with political space and to mend relations with the international community. This assertion is challenged by the leader of the opposition, Mr Rwasa, who says that there have been no changes, with opposition meetings banned and the President himself stating that there is no room for opposition. Democracy, the rule of law and human rights seem to be way down the agenda.
I recall speaking at a conference on aid effectiveness in Maputo, Mozambique, and being heckled from the audience. It turned out to be two Burundian MPs. They were complaining loudly that the UK had withdrawn all financial aid from Burundi, which was then about $20 million a year, and replaced it with technical assistance in its Treasury. In fact, a Burundian Vice-President told me later that it was the best thing we ever did. He said the taxes collected through the revenue officials the UK trained were four times greater than the cancelled aid. In his reply, can the Minister say what, if any, changes have been made to the sanctions regime in recognition of the change of leadership in Burundi? What is the current situation regarding aid for Burundi?
Similarly, in Guinea, what impact have the changes in the leadership had on the sanctions regime? With the collapse of France’s Fourth Republic, Guinea was the only colony in France’s African empire to take the harsh option of immediate independence without transitional support, rather than joining the French community of nations created by de Gaulle. In 1958, France abruptly left Guinea, taking with it everything it could move. The incoming President, Ahmed Sékou Touré, swept to power and introduced a centralised Marxist socialist regime. A third of the population fled the country. Those who remained suffered the privations of a failing state—hyperinflation, food shortages, starvation and riots. Sékou Touré called for help, first from the Russians and then the Chinese.
Guinea is potentially an incredibly wealthy country in terms of natural and mineral resources. It has up to one half of the world’s bauxite reserves and a large deposit of high-grade iron ore. In parallel with failed economic policies and state-sponsored drug smuggling, a series of brutal dictatorships have enforced control through murder, human rights abuses and imprisonment. My client at the time, the Minister of Public Works, was imprisoned by the President and starved, eventually to death. The 2009 violent outbreak was just one of many such incidents. In January this year, the French-Israeli mining tycoon, Beny Steinmetz, was sentenced in a Swiss court to five years in jail, guilty of corruption by bribing the late President Conté’s fourth wife, Mamadie, with $10 million to persuade the President to transfer the Simandou iron ore concession to Steinmetz for $170 million. Steinmetz later sold on a 51% share for $250 billion. Is the Minister confident that the sanctions delivered under these SIs are sufficient to tackle this level of extreme corruption?
Lord Northbrook (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will confine my remarks to the unauthorised drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean regulations. I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—the TRNC.
By way of background to this statutory instrument, since 2006 Europe has increasingly viewed eastern Mediterranean gas as a resource with huge potential to provide economic growth, mitigate climate change and reduce dependence on Russian gas supplies. European companies have been involved in gas exploration while the European Union has largely supported the idea of a new pipeline that connects Israeli and Egyptian fields with Cyprus and mainland Europe. However, things might be changing. As there is an oversupply of non-Russian liquefied natural gas—LNG—the importance of Mediterranean gas is waning for Europe. Eastern Mediterranean gas is also providing a massive headache, with rival claims by Turkey, Greece and Cyprus on exclusive economic zones—EEZs—and exploration rights. In this short contribution I want to focus on Cyprus. Gas production would be a veritable boon for the cash-poor island.
EEZs are not easy. Greece is one of the signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS. This designates a country’s EEZ as extending 200 miles from its shores. Yet regional powers, Turkey, Israel and Syria, have not signed UNCLOS and do not accept its rulings on EEZs. Lebanon disputes its maritime border with Israel, which it claims was compromised by Israel’s bilateral agreement with the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey argues that Cyprus is entitled to only a 12-mile EEZ until it reaches a resolution on the island’s status, and claims that the TRNC has the right to explore in Greek Cypriot waters. The TRNC believes that the gas resources belong to the whole island and that the north should have its share—a view that I do not feel is unreasonable.
Turkey, as an ally of the TRNC, has deployed exploration and drilling ships to Greek Cypriot waters and sent naval vessels there as well. As a result, the development of gas in these disputed waters has been frozen. Indeed, the tensions between Greece and Turkey over the issue became extremely high last year. Conflict was only narrowly averted and cannot be ruled out in the future. As a guarantor power in Cyprus, I would have hoped that the UK might take a more circumspect view on the gas issue. Now that we have left the EU, this seems a good opportunity to think more outside the box. Instead, we seem to be blindly copying EU regulations, without instead trying to fold the issue into revived Cyprus peace talks.
The failure of these peace talks at Crans-Montana in 2017, despite a major effort by former TRNC President Akıncı, was a great disappointment, especially as the TRNC went out of its way to make concessions, some of which alarmed mainland Turkey to such an extent that it did not want him to have another term. As these bi-zonal, bi-federal talks have failed, the new TRNC President Tatar—rightly, in my view—believes that a two-state solution is the only answer. According to the island-neutral Cyprus Mail, it is reported that, in private, President Anastasiades of the Republic of Cyprus is keen on the idea. The Cyprus Mail’s recent article stated that a section of the population of the Republic of Cyprus believed that he
“had calculatingly spurned the opportunity of a reasonable settlement at Crans-Montana”
because he really believes in a two-state solution.
With regard to the UK’s relationship with the TRNC, I welcome the recent meeting between our Foreign Secretary and President Tatar. Can the Minister say what came out of these talks? After Brexit there are good trade opportunities. As an interim measure, could the UK copy our Taiwan policy, whereby we have a trade office in Taipei, which is very successful, even though we do not have diplomatic relations?
A recent press release from the TRNC President sums up the opportunities well. He said the Turkish Cypriot side desires a win-win situation on Cyprus and believes that solving the decades-long Cyprus problem would help reinstate stability in the eastern Mediterranean. He also said that we should see what ideas and proposals the British diplomats bring to the table. He pointed out that he had also raised the issue of strengthening bilateral relations and commercial ties with the UK now that it had left the EU. Tatar also expressed concerns regarding the opening of certain parts of the British bases for non-military development. Can the Minister write to me on this?
I also ask the Minister, who is so well regarded in this House and has such expertise on FCO issues, when the UN Secretary-General’s 5+1 informal talks convene, will the FCO look at reality and the long-standing deadlock to realise that a two-state solution is the only answer and that the gas situation should be part of these talks, rather than just reinstating this unhelpful statutory instrument?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these statutory instruments. I support sanctions as long as they are compliant with human rights legislation. Exiting the EU means that the UK is now responsible for the legal framework within which the UK may impose, update and lift sanctions, whether autonomously or in line with United Nations obligations. Therefore, I ask the Minister: what is the relationship now with the EU in relation to the sanctions regime? Will there be continued co-operation in an effort to address those areas globally which are flagrant abusers of human rights and are involved in money racketeering, paramilitary activity and corruption—often involving death?
I believe it is a desired objective of your Lordships’ House to address issues to deal with money laundering on an international scale and how it can be accompanied on many occasions by those human rights abuses. We definitely need a sound global sanctions scheme whereby the rule of law, democratic accountability and the proper and ethical use of state funds are the very kernels of our foreign policy.
Those who abuse human rights, attack civilians—whether in Nicaragua, Burundi or Guinea—threaten democracy, the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of civil society, or use corruption, torture and murder to further their own ends have no safe haven for themselves or their dirty money here in the UK, the overseas territories or, in fact, in any part of the world.
I note that the regulations date from 1 January 2021. Since these regulations were debated only last week in the other place and today in your Lordships’ House, what actual legislation covered the last five weeks? Could the Minister provide assurances that the UK Government were covered in terms of sanctions against these countries, where, in some instances, there have been significant abuses of regulations and human rights issues over the last number of years?
I would like to concentrate on two areas. I noticed in doing some research for this debate that there were regulations on Burma—or Myanmar—but they are not mentioned. The other area missing from this list which I believe needs to be covered is that of the Uighurs and China.
In relation to Burma, in particular, the coup d’état that took place last week and the—shall we say—unlawful imprisonment of the leadership there, could the Minister outline what consideration the Government have given to introducing sanctions on members of the Burmese military linked to human rights abuses and the recent coup d’état in Myanmar? What assessment have they made of the coup d’état which took place on 2 February and its potential impact on the rights of the country’s religious and ethnic minorities and the process of democratisation in Myanmar?
In relation to China, what further sanctions will the Government take against the human rights abuses and acts of genocide against the Uighur community? Will there be separate legislation on this matter? I believe that what has happened there is also a violation of human rights, and sanctions should be in place.
Therefore, what actions will the UK Government take at the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council against human rights violations in those countries and to ensure adherence to democratic standards? What representations will they make to the International Court of Justice regarding such violations of human rights?
I hope that the Government will work with the EU, NATO and the UN, along with the new political dispensation in the USA, against human rights abuses and to ensure that democratic standards are upheld. While supporting the sanctions that will be in place as per the statutory instruments—as long as they comply with human rights legislation—I ask that further consideration is given to Burma, and to China and the Uighurs.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I first raise a couple of procedural points. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, just said, we are considering regulations weeks after they came into force on 1 January. This makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny, and I hope that the Government will look into this so that it does not continue to happen as it has so frequently. Secondly, I raise the way in which this hybrid Grand Committee unfortunately makes it impossible to properly question and challenge the Minister. If we were in the Moses Room, we could intervene on the Minister, ask questions and seek assurances, particularly during the reply, but we are unable to do so properly today. I blame no one for this, least of all the Minister, but it illustrates how important it is that we get back to our normal procedures as soon as it is safe to do so.
Turning to the SIs, I want to deal in particular with the No. 4 regulations, which grant an exception for activities carried out under a licence granted by the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. This causes me great concern and I seek assurances from the Minister on this. But I first point out that these sanctions apply to financial measures, including asset freezes, as well as to trade sanctions and travel bans for key people in the regime. As the Minister explained, among the countries included are Russia, Belarus and Myanmar—formerly Burma. These are currently of the greatest concern and where sanctions are vital to show our concern at the unlawful imprisonment of Alexei Navalny in Russia—as we did previously with the annexation of Crimea and the poisoning of Skripal—and at the unlawful imprisonment of so many people in Belarus, which I am particularly concerned about. We want also to protest and have sanctions in relation to the military coup in Myanmar, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others have said.
While I have some reservations about the determination of the UK Government to take really powerful and effective sanctions, at least we have the capabilities to do so and an effective Opposition to keep up the pressure—whereas I have serious doubts about both the willingness and the capability of some of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to do so.
Many years ago, when I was an opposition spokesman on foreign affairs in the Commons, I agreed with the then Minister that we should suspend the constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands because of financial irregularities there. Incidentally, this was done again some years later. We also know that the TCI, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Channel Islands are used regularly by people, including some from the countries listed, to set up bogus companies and to carry out and cover up illicit activities. The Governments in some of these territories do not have the financial or legal infrastructure to enforce sanctions, and they often turn a blind eye to, or are even tempted to encourage, the avoidance of sanctions.
We need clear assurances from the Minister, and I hope he will give them to us. First, what assurances have been sought, and received, that each territory will rigorously enforce sanctions—at the very least in the same way as we do it here in the United Kingdom? Is he satisfied with these assurances? Secondly, what confidence does he have that each territory has the infrastructure in financial supervision, legal checks and procedures for prosecution necessary for enforcement, and what help has been offered to those territories which are not properly equipped?
We will have to trust the Minister to answer all these questions in his reply, since we will not be able to properly or effectively intervene if he fails to do so, notwithstanding the opportunities that we do have. But if he does not provide satisfactory assurances, we will need to find other ways to ensure that they are answered and to pursue the matter further. I otherwise support the regulations.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clear way in which he outlined the purpose of these pieces of delegated legislation. From 1 January this year, the United Kingdom is responsible for its own sanctions policy, which is given statutory force by the 2018 Act, under which these regulations are made. I trust that these new-found freedoms will give the United Kingdom the flexibility and authority to respond using sanctions quickly and effectively where required. It certainly means that, in future, sanctions can be decided independently by the United Kingdom without having to await an EU-wide response. Sanctions clearly work best when they are implemented in tandem with other countries and it is important that we maintain a shared co-ordination with our partners as much as possible. In all circumstances, the legislation and these statutory instruments provide an opportunity for the Government to take effective, swift action against corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations and hostile or aggressive actions aimed at undermining our national security.
I have no issue with the list before the Committee this afternoon of regulations dealing with individual countries. There are good reasons for each them. I particularly welcome the cyber sanctions regulations, dealing with the prevention of cyber activity that undermines our national security or that of other places across the world. This is a growing area of concern. These attacks are becoming more intense and sophisticated; our own Parliament has been subjected to such an attack in recent times. It is important that effective sanctions are in place to counter the threat of such attacks and that we demonstrate that there will be real-world consequences for countries or individuals who engage in this kind of pernicious activity.
I also welcome the misappropriation sanctions regulations, which are about corruption and the misappropriation of state funds. While the regulations today refer mainly to Tunisia, Egypt and Korea, this new thematic approach is the right one. It provides a great deal of flexibility in responding to this challenge. The cost of corruption worldwide is estimated to be more than 2% of global GDP—a staggering figure. Anything that can deter the mass thieving, often but not exclusively from the world’s poorest countries, is to be welcomed.
On sanctions more widely, I would like to press the Government on a number of areas. What more can be done to combat the Putin regime in Russia? Under him, the Russian state has, sadly, become more and more lawless, both domestically and in its aggression abroad. We have seen the outrageous treatment of Alexei Navalny, which is symptomatic of the way in which any dissent is dealt with under this authoritarian regime, with its gross violations of human rights. The UK has been the subject of attack by Russia and is now in a position to take more effective action against the Russian regime and those with close links to it. How will that become evident?
Recent events in Hong Kong have seen China try blatantly to stamp out the flickering light of freedom of speech and democracy in all its forms. The treatment of the Uighur minority has been utterly appalling. These are but two examples—many more could be related. Can the Government indicate what more can be done to ensure that China is held to account?
Recent events in Myanmar have also been mentioned. The actions of the military there represent a massive backward step for democracy in that country. While all was not well under the previous democratically elected regime, the setting aside of the election results in such a draconian way surely demands the most robust response.
Then there is Libya, where the Government have frozen assets from the previous Gaddafi regime. The Government will be well aware of the campaign to call Libya to account for its support for IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland and its supply of illicit weaponry, including deadly Semtex, which resulted in the murder of, and injury to, thousands of innocent people. Will the Government elaborate further on the action that they will take to ensure that the assets that are currently frozen in this country can be used to provide compensation to the innocent victims of Libya-sponsored IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom? This Government, and previous ones, have looked at this issue, but action seems to be in short supply. There are over £12 billion of Gaddafi assets frozen here. Last year, £17 million was raised in tax from these assets. Surely some of this could be used to pay the victims of Libya-sponsored terrorism. Will the Government commit to publishing the Shawcross report into this whole area? The Government had it last May, but various reasons have been rolled out for non-publication. Will the Government now move to publish it? Victims have had enough of procrastination and prevarication. I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this and to other issues raised by noble Lords.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests, as published in the register, particularly as president of Remembering Srebenica. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn; I agree very much with his points about the importance of cybersecurity. I thank my noble friend for setting out the background to this suite of regulations. I support what has been said in general about the need for these effective sanctions regimes. I emphasise in particular the importance of the Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. I welcome what the Minister said about stability and continuity. I note that he also committed to the regimes being substantially the same going forward. Will he enlarge on that point? In what way will the regulations in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina differ—if at all—from the previous ones? The substantial point seems to indicate that they will differ in some way.
It is timely that these regulations are launched this week. At the end of last week there was, with ministerial support, a cross-party launch of the Remembering Srebenica memorial week theme for this year, “Rebuilding Lives”. This is a reflection of the importance of memorial week in July. This year we commemorate 26 years since the dreadful genocide perpetrated on Bosnian Muslims at Srebenica and widely throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I trust that my noble friend will feel able to reiterate the United Kingdom’s commitment to the Dayton peace accords which followed the war and which the late Lord Ashdown did so much to cement. The Minister referred to them in his introduction, but this bears reiterating. I ask my noble friend to restate the commitment to the settlement and territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Some 25 years after the dreadful genocide, the scars on that beautiful country are still very present and tensions are inevitably heightened by the spurious appeal made by Ratko Mladić in August last year against his conviction for genocide at The Hague. The outcome is expected in May this year. That provocative appeal slows the process of reconciliation and makes it more difficult.
The United Kingdom has many close ties with Bosnia-Herzegovina, helped by two excellent ambassadors—the Bosnia-Herzegovina ambassador here, Vanya Filipović, and the UK ambassador to Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo, Matt Field—as well as strong parliamentary activity, with all-party groups for Bosnia-Herzegovina, for remembering Srebenica and against genocide, all helping to build a better future by supporting that country.
Can my noble friend tell us when the guidance on prohibitions and requirements previewed by the Explanatory Memorandum will be published? It is important for people to be aware of how it will operate. Will he please also say, as called for by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, what joint action on sanctions we will be taking alongside the EU? Will we be working with our EU partners, continuing to co-operate on sanctions regimes, or do we intend to do something different and strike out on our own? I am not quite clear on the long-term position. Clearly, in the short term, there will not be a massive difference. I appreciate that it allows us some freedom for manoeuvre, but how will that operate within working with our allies? That will also apply to other like-minded states. I think, in the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, of the United States, which has a particular significance given the Dayton peace accords and their role in bringing the war in Bosnia to a conclusion.
With those comments, I lend my support to the regulations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that it is undesirable that we are looking at them in the rear-view mirror. It would be far better if we did not have to do that and could consider them in a more timely way. I appreciate that, on some matters Covid-related, that is not always possible, but I cannot see that that excuse—that reason, perhaps I should say—operates here.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Zimbabwe and, in doing so, I thank the Minister for Africa, James Duddridge for his courtesy in briefing me ahead of last week’s statement on the imposition of specific measures against four Zimbabwe security sector chiefs.
On the detail of the No. 4 regulations, I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the effect of the power to disapply the relevant prohibitions of the UK sanctions regime in Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories, if conduct that would otherwise be prohibited is authorised by a licence issued under the law of those jurisdictions. The Explanatory Memorandum sets out that those provisions are necessary to ensure that prohibitions relating to UK persons do not create a double licensing burden on a UK person in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Can the Minister assure us, however, that the power to authorise conduct that would otherwise be a contravention of the sanctions regime is operable only where an equivalent prohibition applies under other law—that is, that this is to be used only to prevent double licensing and that it cannot be used by the Crown dependencies or overseas territories to circumvent the application of sanctions?
As we discuss these SIs, it is timely to consider the effectiveness of the sanctions regime that we have operated over the past few decades and how we will take it forward now that we have left the European Union. I see this principally through the lens of the targeted measures we have applied against Zimbabwean politicians, officials and military over the past two decades. In themselves, they are hard to argue with. Who would want gross violators of human rights to be able to travel freely or to make use of UK financial institutions to launder the money that they loot from their people?
There is no doubt that sanctions can be an effective tool as part of wider political, economic and diplomatic approaches, but too often, it seems, they are deployed not as part of a wider strategy but instead of one. Nowhere could that be clearer than in Zimbabwe. In the 32 years since I first went to teach in Zimbabwe and the 22 years since I spent a couple of years working in the first post-apartheid South African Parliament, I have watched with dismay as the UK has squandered its influence in the region and as other players—most notably China, of course, but also some of our European allies—have taken a much more strategic approach.
In his statement accompanying the most recent travel restrictions and financial measures against Zimbabwe security sector chiefs, the Foreign Secretary stated that the Zimbabwe sanctions regime
“seeks to encourage the Government of Zimbabwe to respect democratic principles and institutions; refrain from the repression of civil society; and to comply with international human rights law and to respect human rights.”
If that has been the objective of the sanctions regime over the past two years, who can claim that it has been anything but an abject failure? The political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe is as great as it has ever been, the economy has been looted to a state of collapse, corruption is rampant, the rule of law is practically non-existent and gross human rights abuses are routine.
Today, journalists such as Hopewell Chin’ono, who expose corruption, are constantly harassed and regularly imprisoned, while the Ministers they expose walk free. Trade unionists, opposition MPs and activists are abducted, beaten, tortured and then jailed for daring to speak out. As we speak, MDC youth leaders Joana Mamombe and Cecilia Chimbiri languish in the notorious Chikurubi maximum security jail on trumped-up charges, simply for speaking out for a better life for the people of Zimbabwe. The courage and integrity of these individuals cannot be overstated and is testimony to the country that Zimbabwe can become again.
Fundamentally, change in Zimbabwe will come about as a result of the actions of the Zimbabwean people, but we could play a much more constructive role in supporting the rule of law, the restoration of constitutional government and a return to economic prosperity if, instead of signing the latest sanctions regulations and then complacently turning to other matters, we committed to a joined-up economic and political strategy that could give succour to the valiant Zimbabwe people that when they achieve change, their friends in the international community will be there to help them with a comprehensive support package, so that everybody in the region and around the world can see the dividends that democratic government and the rule of law bring.
By all means, let us have sanctions against individuals who brutalise their fellow citizens and loot their country, but let us not pretend that they can deliver a return to democratic norms in the absence of a long-term and creative strategy for democratic renewal in the region. We could start by putting together an internationally agreed Marshall plan, ready to be implemented as soon as constitutional government returns to Zimbabwe. That would offer hope to the people of Zimbabwe as they continue their heroic struggle for freedom.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I ask my noble friend what assessment is undertaken of our sanctions policy in each specific case. We have a list before us today, but of course it is not complete. As referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, a point can come when we become blasé—we apply sanctions and then sit back, feeling that we have done our duty. It is their outworking and the effectiveness of that policy that is critical. I also ask my noble friend: what is the mechanism for co-ordination with the European Union? Lots of our sanctions are done in tandem with it and, indeed, under specific EU laws. Therefore, I would like to know what the mechanism is. Is it haphazard and case by case, or is there something more formally established?
The Minister alluded to the United Kingdom being held in worldwide regard because of our adherence to sanctions and willingness to implement them. However, he may have heard a recent interview with the new chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the United States, Senator Menendez. According to him, London was awash with Russian money, which Russians were able to dispose of through the purchase of assets, damaging our international credibility and reputation. Does the Minister consider that our policy there needs to be looked at? If, on the one hand, we are saying that we have an international reputation but, on the other, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, at the start of a new presidential term, believes that about our actions with regard to Russian money coming into this country, it is not a very good starting point. I should like the Minister to address that matter.
The other issue I want to raise, Libya, will come as no surprise to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised it and the Minister’s attention was drawn to it earlier today in an Oral Question, to which, I suspect, many of us wished to contribute but did not get the opportunity. My noble friend will be aware that, on two separate occasions, I brought a Private Member’s Bill on asset freezing to your Lordships’ House. It was passed on both occasions, but one ran out of time and the other was blocked in the other place, so it did not become law. However, its purpose was to draw attention to the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised earlier.
It is almost the 25th anniversary of the Canary Wharf bombing. That attack was possible only because of the provision of Libyan-supplied Semtex to the IRA. I am a member of the parliamentary support group for the victims of Libyan terrorism. We had a meeting with the North Africa Minister, James Cleverly, on 5 November. We have been anxiously awaiting news, particularly on the Shawcross report, but also as to whether the Government are really prepared to do anything about this. A recent reply the other day merely stated that the Government were looking at it and consulting on a cross-departmental basis. Of course, that is a necessary part of government, but this is going well into its third decade. People are ageing, some have died and some are still suffering. I appeal to my noble friend to pass that point on to his colleague.
Key to the principles behind our policy is whether it is being successful. Are our sanctions working? Do we have examples of where they have brought about an improvement in the policy and in those individuals and countries subject to them? If not, we will be doing something simply for the sake of it. Is any real substance being achieved? If not, will it be achieved by some other mechanism? In broad terms I support what we have before us, but it is only part of the picture. In some respects, the matters I have raised are missing from this because it is part of an overall government policy. I would appreciate a response in the Minister’s reply.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I should make it clear that I hold office in the TRNC All-Party Group and have been a fairly regular visitor to north Cyprus over a long period. It is always nice to give the Government a pat on the back, but people have grumbled about the length of time before these regulations were debated. I have raised this and I am satisfied with the reply that the Government made the regulations on 7 December, brought them partially into force from 14 December, and fully into force from the end of the transition period on 31 December. They then had 60 sitting days for the regulations to come before both Houses under the affirmative procedure. The Government are fully within their rights in what they are doing. They are not always, but on this occasion they are.
When I look at these regulations I wonder: what are they actually worth? What will they achieve? The noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned that it is 30 years since the Libya atrocities. It is 46 years since the breakdown in Cyprus. Indeed, it goes back almost 60 years to the foundation of the state. I am not sure whether this will bring us any further forward. We say that the regulations are to
“discourage … hydrocarbon exploration, production or extraction activities which have not been authorised by the Republic of Cyprus in its territorial sea or in its exclusive economic zone”,
but that is exactly what the dispute is about: the economic zone and whether the Republic of Cyprus, in the eyes of the Government of the TRNC, can allocate drilling rights across what the Northern Cyprus Administration feel is an important part of its area.
In other words, until we get the Cyprus problem sorted out, this will be just a minor sideshow. It is one of many, but the fact is that the previous President, President Akıncı, put in a huge amount of work. If anyone was ever to get a solution, it was him. He was the mayor of Nicosia, or Lefkoşa as the Turkish call it. He was the one politician from the north who had good relations with people in the south. He went a huge amount of the way to get a UN agreement and he failed. The Turks thought that he went too far and effectively campaigned against him in the recent election.
Now we have President Tatar, who has something in common with the UK. Nobody really wanted what he was offering a few years ago: a completely new start in Cyprus. He said that the whole basis of UN negotiations was false and that they would not work. He has now put forward the two-state solution, which has always been on the back boiler in Northern Cyprus. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to take a very close look at it. We cannot carry on as one of the guarantor powers, pretending that we have nothing to do with it and that all we have to do is say, “Naughty north Cyprus, you don’t exist”. I quote a Written Answer that came out only last week:
“The United Kingdom does not recognise the self-declared ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’.”
Hard luck: I am afraid it is there and not doing too badly, actually. It could do much better if we get an agreement, but it is there and it exists.
I want to ask the Minister this: what is the purpose of the sanctions? Will they ever be applied to anyone at all? Can he tell me any individuals or entities they apply to, or that the Government are looking to apply them to? Who at present is, and what sort of people are, being fingered for these sanctions, or will they be a dead letter? The explanatory statement says:
“Sanctions can be used to change behaviour”,
but they have not done very well over the past 46 years. I wonder whether they are changing or reinforcing behaviour, because every time I go to Cyprus I notice a little more hardening of actions and views, a little more intransigence, and a few more people who do not remember a united island and who think that the status quo is quite acceptable if they can negotiate a few more changes at the margin to make it slightly easier to live with.
Will Her Majesty’s Government take a more proactive role than just sitting around, as they have done throughout our membership of the EU, saying, “We hope something turns up. We really want it to, but we don’t know what to do”? I am afraid that is what it has seemed like up to now.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will raise the sanctions on unauthorised drilling in the eastern Mediterranean, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Balfe, and then comment on the UK’s broader sanctions policy.
Turkey’s unauthorised drilling in Greek and Cypriot waters is a cause for concern and it is right that Her Majesty’s Government should align themselves with the EU’s position to give Ankara pause for thought. The EU agreed back in December to condemn Turkey’s aggressiveness and unilateral actions in the eastern Mediterranean, giving Turkey a three-month grace period for further diplomacy. It agreed to add new names of individuals and companies connected with unauthorised and provocative drilling off Cyprus to a sanctions list involving travel bans and asset freezes.
This is a dangerous, complicated and underreported crisis, not least because both Greece and Turkey are members of NATO, there are two strategically important British sovereign bases on Cyprus, the position of Cyprus and Greece as EU members, and Turkey’s status as a candidate for European Union membership. Ankara also has a pivotal role in restricting the flow of migrants, primarily from Libya and Syria, into the EU.
Turkey’s President Erdoğan unhelpfully reignited tensions with Cyprus last November, calling for a two-state solution for the island, divided since 1974, rather than the federalist solution supported by both the EU and UN. However, I am glad that the EU rejected Athens’ proposal last August at the Berlin foreign affairs meeting for sectoral sanctions targeting aspects of the Turkish economy such as the energy and banking sectors.
Here, I want to turn to the general principle of sanctions. While targeted sanctions against individuals or companies can have the desired effect in support of human rights or to correct serious misbehaviour or provocation, sectoral or country-wide sanctions are often counterproductive or have unintended consequences. President Erdoğan’s purchase of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft systems is at least in part because of his belief in the West’s complicity in the 2016 coup attempt against him. While the West and the US were silent, Moscow was effusive in its support. The proposed new US sanctions against Ankara for buying the S-400s will merely throw Erdoğan further into Russia’s embrace.
I commend to the Minister the work of the highly-respected US Brookings Institution on the impact and effectiveness of sanctions. In one of its reports, it said that
“all too often sanctions turn out to be little more than expressions of U.S. preferences … without changing the target’s behavior for the better.”
It points to sanctions’ patchy results, which, as I mentioned, can lead to unintended consequences. The report further outlined:
“More generally, sanctions can have the perverse effect of bolstering authoritarian, statist societies.”
Making the population at large suffer can lead just to the propping up of a regime and a bunker mentality. On the other hand, targeted sanctions against individuals, companies or types of equipment or technology can have a real impact. Finally, the Brookings Institution states:
“Sanctions should not be used to hold major or complex bilateral relationships hostage to a single issue or set of concerns.”
Will the Minister admit that this is why HMG have imposed sanctions on Guinea for the indefensible death of 150 people in 2009 but have held back on sanctions against China for the alleged enslavement and internment of hundreds of thousands of Uighurs, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds?
We have just had a brief discussion about the effectiveness of sanctions, as raised by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Balfe, but can HMG have consistency in its sanctions policy? None of the 40 countries sanctioned is a friend. We have sanctioned Nicaragua for human rights abuses but not Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador or Panama, which are arguably as bad if not worse. Having read through the 555-page UK sanctions list, I could not identify a single individual from the Middle East outside Syria, Iraq or Iran condemned for any human rights abuses. James Cleverly, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, said in the other place on 3 February:
“Our sanctions regime is the foundation for an independent sanctions policy in support of our foreign policy and national security interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/21; col. 976.]
Yet sanctions should be the last resort of diplomacy, not the first resort that they have often become; nor should we end up using sanctions to impose our British world view rather than to uphold universal values such as human rights and the right to life itself.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I thank the Minister for laying these sanctions provisions before us. From these Benches, we support them—as far as they go. As he said, most come straight out of the EU regimes.
He rightly pointed out that the United Kingdom played a large part in shaping the EU’s approach. He will know therefore that we regret having left the EU, because sanctions are most effective when applied jointly and because we took a leading role in the EU and have withdrawn that influence. I note, for example, that the EU seems more reluctant than when we were integral to its thinking to place sanctions against Russian individuals in the light of the poisoning of Alexei Navalny and now his imprisonment.
I welcome the sanctions in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have just marked Holocaust Memorial Day, when we remember not only the Nazi Holocaust but later genocides such as that in Bosnia, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, referred—I thank him for his reference to my noble friend Lord Ashdown. It is encouraging that some programme of reform may be brought to the Balkans as they seek to join the EU recognising its enormous benefits—something which, ironically, we are encouraging.
The pressure of sanctions on Burundi, Guinea and Nicaragua, to encourage respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights, is important given the ongoing challenges to those, but my noble friend Lord Chidgey challenged us on whether those sanctions were adequate; for example, in Guinea. My noble friend Lord Oates did the same in relation to the effectiveness of sanctions in Zimbabwe. He was surely right that they can be but one tool and that far more extensive engagement is required.
We are becoming acutely aware of how cyberactivities can undermine democratic and economic systems. I am sure the integrated review will address this threat to our country. When is that now expected?
The sanctions relating to the misappropriation of state funds from a country outside the United Kingdom establish a single thematic regime rather than geographic regimes, as the EU specified. As the Minister said, corruption undermines development. Can he update us on how a corruption sanctions regime can now be added, which the Government have said they wish to do? Is he sure that a thematic, rather than geographic, spread will be as effective?
On the sanctions relating unauthorised drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean, the Minister did not say so in his introduction, but it is very clear from the Explanatory Notes that these relate to the troubling involvement of Turkey in this matter. This area of the world has enough tensions and instability without this becoming a further one. As the Minister said, Cyprus’ oil and gas should be used for the benefit of Cypriots. The involvement here of Turkey is very risky. However, I have some sympathy with the view of the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Balfe, that it would have been far better to have achieved a settlement of the Cyprus dispute before it joined the EU. It is therefore vital that all Cypriots, from north or south, should potentially benefit. Our leaving the EU risks making it even more difficult to secure a long-term resolution in Cyprus.
On the miscellaneous amendments regulations, the Minister needs to assure us that we are not deviating from what was agreed when we were in the EU. I am rather sceptical about avoiding an apparent double effect with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. I do not see any concern about their being covered twice by the same provisions. What is the possible down side of that? Can he assure us that they are indeed fully covered by these regulations? The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Oates, expressed their own strong concerns. Funds have often directed through some of those territories. There is a sense of the regulations addressing long-standing problems, but it is clear that they need to be updated.
In terms of updating, we still see no sanctions in relation to the Uighurs. We welcomed the global human rights, or Magnitsky, sanctions. The legal opinion announced this morning that acts being carried out in Xinjiang amount to crimes against humanity and genocide bears this out. The Minister will not say whether the Government are considering such sanctions, but we are all watching.
What about going further in Myanmar in the light of the military coup there? The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others asked about that. What of Ethiopia and Tigray now? I ask the Minister, as I have before: can there be some independent assessment of what sanctions need to be applied, and where? A number of noble Lords have questioned their direction and effectiveness.
In the previous session that we had on arrangements carried over from the EU it turned out that on some conflict minerals, for example, the UK had failed to put in place all that was required in Northern Ireland, as it sat within the EU single market and customs union. Has that now been rectified and have we adequately addressed the different position of Northern Ireland here? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome these instruments, intended primarily to roll over the EU sanctions regimes into UK legislation. Last Wednesday in the other place, my honourable friend Stephen Doughty covered the Opposition’s position on each of the individual country sanctions in some detail. Due to the limited time, I do not intend to repeat that exercise. However, there were points that the Minister, James Cleverly, did not cover in his response to my honourable friend.
First, as the Minister has repeatedly stated in the Chamber, the strength of sanctions depends on a unified framework across multiple jurisdictions—a point highlighted by noble Lords today. The EU and the US work together co-operatively to secure the applicability of measures, and the UK must be part of that process. In his introduction, the Minister said that the UK would be using existing networks. Just how will this work? How will we ensure that, along with the EU, we have a unified approach? Like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I would like to know exactly what mechanisms will be used.
The second set of miscellaneous regulations deal with issues relating to the overseas territories. Here, I strongly amplify the point made by my noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who were absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will explain the mechanisms for overseas territories and the sanctions regimes. Whether it is done by Order in Council or another mechanism, it would be good for that to be set out. In the other place James Cleverly made the point, which we have heard this afternoon, that we do not want to see double prohibition through these regulations and therefore a double licensing burden on individuals. However, it is crucial that we ensure that individuals cannot exploit any administrative gaps. James Cleverly failed to answer Stephen Doughty on what support is being provided to the overseas territories to ensure that they can apply the sanctions regimes, and that we have one unified approach across all territories. I hope the Minister will be able to give us much more detail than James Cleverly did in the other place.
Noble Lords have highlighted the discussion on China when these SIs were debated in the other place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, press reports today have highlighted a strong legal opinion confirming the overwhelming evidence of systematic human rights abuses, amounting to genocide against the Muslim Uighur people. We have also seen other minorities in China targeted, along with the attacks on the democracy and freedom of the people of Hong Kong. The United States Government have already barred members of the Communist Party of China from the US and introduced Magnitsky-style sanctions, but we have seen no further designations from the UK. We have been pressing for this for some months, so I hope the Minister can assure us that such sanctions are under consideration and say what discussions we are having with our allies, particularly the US, on how we have a unified approach.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Northover, stated that some of these regulations relate to previous sanctions on Myanmar. Many noble Lords will have watched over the weekend the brave demonstrations against the military coup in Myanmar. Last week, I asked the Minister to seek the toughest kind of sanctions by the international community, including on the enterprises owned by the generals and their families. I hope he can update us on what discussions we have had with our allies to ensure we are stepping up sanctions on those responsible for such a brazen attack on the democratic rights of the people of Myanmar.
I also hope the Government will look again at how the UK’s CDC has been investing in telecommunications companies in Myanmar that have been complying with that country’s government-ordered repression and blockages of internet sites. These not only have potentially covered up atrocities against the Rohingya people but are being used now in the military coup. I hope he will look again at that investment and whether it is really appropriate in the current circumstances.
The Government need to do more with the powers they have through the Magnitsky sanctions regime. Expanding their scope and usage is vital. I hope the Minister will be able to give us an update on the timetable to extend the scope of this regime to include corruption. Finally, as I said in my opening, we support these sanctions regulations and agree that they should continue.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their very valuable contributions and the broad level of support that we saw during this debate. I also recognise the important role of, and the various points made on, the process and procedure. I thank my noble friend Lord Balfe for articulating in a succinct manner—as it saved me having to answer the question—what the current procedures are. However, I never shy away from any challenge in the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, always poses most courteously. I look forward to debates on this issue and others with him.
Having thanked all noble Lords for their participation, I will get to the specific questions raised. Following the normal courtesy, if there are questions that I am unable to answer in the time allocated, I will certainly write to noble Lords and review Hansard to pick up on some of those specifics.
Along with his original questions, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, raised the importance of his expertise and insights in parts of the world. He raised specific issues about certain individuals in Guinea not being rolled over in the original sanctions tabled by the EU. This will in part also answer the question raised by various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and my noble friend Lord Balfe, about the effectiveness of sanctions. When these original sanctions were approved it was partly to ensure that there would be a change in behaviour, while recognising any steps taken by new Governments and individuals within them.
I also reassure noble Lords that when applying the sanctions, through the sanctions Act itself and the subsequent global human rights sanctions regime, we are relatively new to this area in terms of specific sanctions on individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, recounted specific sanctions on individuals and countries, and mentioned the Middle East. I am sure he will recall that, when it came to the global human rights sanctions, a number of individuals from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were covered in the original sanctions designations.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, my noble friends Lord Balfe and Lord Northbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, raised Cyprus and the sanctions as they apply there. I agree with the noble Baroness on the wider context of the discussions in Cyprus. As noble Lords will recognise, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary visited Cyprus on 3 and 4 February. He met the President of Cyprus and the leader of the Turkish Cypriots. The primary focus in the areas covered was on not just the issues in the sanctions—as put forward by many noble Lords, with whom I agree—but bilateral and regional issues ahead of the UN-convened talks, which I believe take place next month. The context of the peace talks was very much part and parcel of the discussions that my right honourable friend had in country. I therefore hope my noble friend is reassured that we are looking at all elements and talking to all sides when it comes to not just the areas covered in the sanctions regime, but the wider issues of settlement. We recognise the important role the UK can play in this regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others talked about the importance of our EU partnerships. It did not surprise me when the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, did so in her opening remarks. As I have said, we will of course continue to work very closely with our EU partners and others in this respect. I have said to noble Lords that I regularly have discussions with the lead human rights official in the European Commission, Eamon Gilmore. Indeed, we were in deep discussions prior to the introduction of the EU global human rights regime.
My noble friend Lord Empey raised the formality of structures. I assure him that the strength of our relationships with the European Union and key partners in it is shown in various statements we have made beyond sanctions—particularly on the situation of the Uighur Muslims—which demonstrate the open communication that we retain and, equally, how we work with other key partners on sanctions, such as the United States, Canada and other allies. We will continue to do just that. The primary basis of any sanctions regime is that it is co-ordinated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, rightly talked of Myanmar, as did other noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, specifically mentioned the leadership we showed during our membership of the European Union against 16 individuals. As noble Lords will recognise, of the military leadership that has taken control in the coup in Myanmar, the leader and his deputy are currently sanctioned. Whether in Myanmar or in China, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised, specifically on the Uighurs, we keep the situation in review.
I cannot get into specifics. Noble Lords rightly raise timelines and when particular designations happen around the world, but I cannot speculate in that respect. However, I assure noble Lords, as I have sought to do as FCDO Minister and Minister for Human Rights, that I will take on board the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, acknowledged of talking through specific situations as and when we can, and as early as possible, as well as sharing information with noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked about the process, which I have already covered specifically. He also talked about the importance of working with our overseas territories. I assure all noble Lords that the Orders in Council for each designation, with the exception of Bermuda and Gibraltar, are initiated by the United Kingdom. They will reflect exactly the same provisions that apply in UK jurisdictions to allow for a co-ordinated approach. I can also assure the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, as a Minister who worked directly with the overseas territories during the passage of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, that our co-ordination is for territories that do not have capacity for technical support. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised this, and it arose in the other place. We are lending technical support to the overseas territories. I am sure noble Lords recognise that many do not have the infrastructure for financial services, for example, and need support. We are working directly with the OTs in this respect.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that prior to the introduction of, for example, the requirement for public registers, we also operated with key overseas territories on the exchange of notes, which allowed tax and legal agencies to access all the required information. If any specific concerns arise for noble Lords on the application of these issues in the overseas territories, they should raise them with me. I will seek to address them directly.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for his support. He rightly raised cyberactivity. As he recognised, we saw an increase in such challenges in our own Parliament a few years back. Indeed, I recall that we had a cyberattack on the same day as the tragic terror attack on Parliament. It shows the vulnerabilities, and the increased activity required, in this area. It also underlines the importance we attach to this area of our sanctions work.
The noble Lord rightly raised the Putin regime and issues around Navalny, China and Myanmar. As I am sure he recognises, we have sought to lead and provide direction on sanctions in Myanmar and in the case of Mr Navalny. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Empey raised the situation in Libya and the Shawcross report. We discussed this in your Lordships’ House. I have taken note of the concerns that have again been expressed. If there is any more detail on the questions my noble friend Lord Empey raised I shall seek to raise it.
I am being told by my noble friend who is whipping the debate that I am running out of time. In my last few seconds, I acknowledge the valuable work done by Remembering Srebrenica and the points made by my noble friend Lord Bourne. I assure him that we look fully at guaranteeing the sovereign and territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina. He talked about guidance. I believe that it has already been published.
On the specific area of continuing to work at and ensuring the refreshing of our strategy, I say to all noble Lords who raised the effectiveness of the various regimes that provisions in the sanctions Act require reporting back on the effectiveness of each regime. The Act also allows opportunities for individuals to review sanctions applied to them so that they can have a process for appeal. I will continue to update your Lordships’ House on the operation of the sanctions regimes. Indeed, I look forward to further discussions on specific designations in this important area.
I once again thank all noble Lords for their participation. This work is evolving. I noted again with great care various noble Lords’ specific questions and practical suggestions on strengthening work in this area. I look forward to further debate and constructive discussions in this regard.
Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.
Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Guinea (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Guinea (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Cyber (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Cyber (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Nicaragua (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Nicaragua (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Misappropriation (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Misappropriation (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Unauthorised Drilling Activities in the Eastern Mediterranean (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Unauthorised Drilling Activities in the Eastern Mediterranean (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.05 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one and a half hours.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 43rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, at the outset, I thank the massive cross-government and civic movement that has mobilised to fight the disease. It is not possible to name-check everyone, but I single out for thanks all those in the NHS, social care, volunteers, returned healthcare staff and the Army involved in the deployment of the vaccine. I thank scientists at universities and pharmaceutical companies and those running clinical trials for developing new vaccines, antivirals and all manner of therapies to combat the threat of mutant viruses. I thank all those in the Border Force, test and trace, the hospitality industry, Project Eagle and local authorities who have worked so hard in the last week to stand up new mechanisms for protecting the vaccine from variants of concern. Lastly, of course, I thank the general public for continuing to follow the lockdown rules. The attitude of the public remains resolute. I know there are exceptions, and I appreciate that there are huge sacrifices everywhere, but the actions everyone is taking now are doing a huge amount to protect your family and loved ones as well as the family and loved ones of others.
Our focus remains on the rollout of the vaccine, the development of a sure-fire system to battle any mutations, and an exit strategy from this awful pandemic. In the meantime, social restrictions are necessary while this occurs, so it is important that we bring forward this SI.
This SI makes a number of minor technical amendments to the all tiers regulations, which is necessary for legal coherency. It removes the provision for a linked Christmas household—the “Christmas bubble”—to prevent any scope for misinterpretation. It adds the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to the list of Acts governing permitted marriages, civil partnerships and conversions, so that we treat everyone equally under these restrictions no matter their sexual orientation. It allows cafés and canteens in all post-16 education and training settings to remain open. It inserts an exemption from the closure of sports facilities in tier 3 to allow for elite sports competition, which essentially ensures that elite sports competitions such as the Premier League are permitted. It clarifies that the exception to leave home to collect goods from businesses operating click and collect also applies to libraries. We know that libraries have been a lifeline for many during the pandemic, providing educational and IT support to those who need it, and this amendment will ensure that this keeps happening.
These regulations came into force on 20 January 2021, and we regret that we are only now debating them. However, they were simply technical amendments to existing law. They do not change policy which noble Lords have previously approved.
I thought it would be helpful to provide a short update of the situation we are currently in and our understanding of its impact. The general public recognise the importance of following social distancing rules to control the virus and protect the NHS, which is why the vast majority of people continue to follow the rules. An example of this is limiting social contact. The most recent ONS survey shows that only one in seven respondents reported meeting with someone that they do not live with or are not in a support bubble with outdoors. Some of these people will have met one other person for the purpose of exercise, which is allowed by the regulations. For those people who do not comply, we have a strategy. Police officers will engage, explain and encourage, and for those people who simply refuse to comply, we do enforce. We continue to review the tools available to police to take action and have introduced a new penalty for attending a gathering of more than 15 people in a private dwelling or educational premises, or as a rave.
I am cautiously delighted to be able to inform noble Lords that, as a result of the restrictions put in place and the efforts of the nation to follow the rules, we are now seeing the first signs of improvement. There has been a positive impact in reducing transmission of the virus, and as the Chief Medical Officer stated last week, we have passed the peak of the second wave. I said I was only cautiously delighted because, despite this being a very positive development, we still have more to do. The virus is still prevalent, with approximately 21,000 people testing positive for Covid across the UK each day last week and significant pressure still placed on the NHS.
We also still have approximately 29,000 Covid patients in UK hospitals as of 4 February. That number has been decreasing since the peak on 18 January 2021, when there were more than 39,000 Covid patients in hospitals. That said, the number is still far too high, much higher than the previous peak of just under 22,000, and this sustained pressure is coinciding with the period of greatest seasonal pressure on the NHS. As we know, any new measures take some time to take effect on our hospital numbers, so it is right that we remain cautious and continue, for now, with the restrictions.
This is clearly a challenging and worrying time for everyone. However, there is more good news. There is early evidence that the number of people testing positive has started to fall across England. As reported in the minutes from the SAGE meeting on 14 January 2021, we have indications that new infections are declining in those areas which have been in tier 4 for the longest. This indicates that it is likely that R can be brought down significantly during the lockdown, even with the presence of the new variant. It shows that our approach is working and that we are taking the necessary action to keep us all safe.
We intend to publish our plan for taking the country out of lockdown on 22 February. That plan will, of course, depend on the continued success of our vaccination programme and on deaths falling at the pace we would expect, as more people are inoculated. Our aim will be to set out a gradual and phased approach, easing restrictions in a sustainable way and beginning with the most important principle of all: that reopening schools must be our national priority. If we continue to make the progress that we want to see, and believe we can see, we hope to be able to begin to return to face-to-face education on 8 March. We will set out more detail in due course and will ensure that we give at least two weeks’ notice to allow students, staff and parents to prepare.
I again pay tribute to the wonderful staff of our NHS and social care sector, who are working tirelessly to protect the vulnerable and save lives. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
First, perhaps I may apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. On Thursday 4 February, I asked about antiviral drugs: Synairgen’s compound SNG001, an inhaled interferon beta drug, and the controlled trial which had been published in the Lancet and which showed considerable success. I also mentioned ACTIV-2, research established by the National Institutes of Health in the US. With the limits on time to reply to the Statement, I muddled Synairgen’s seemingly effective trial with ACTIV-2, giving the impression that it was a different drug. This made it impossible for the noble Lord to answer my question effectively and I apologise for that.
As many noble Lords have repeatedly affirmed from across the House, we must work together, particularly at times of national emergency. While I speak from these Benches, it is good to celebrate the spirit of proper collaboration of which your Lordships’ House is proud. This is a time of global emergency. Of course, we want to be vaccinated as soon as possible. With vaccines still not plentiful, it is natural to be anxious about ourselves and our families, but we must recognise those elsewhere globally, and particularly in poor nations. It makes economic sense, just as it does with climate change. It may be costly, but it is morally right, and the global fight is essential, not least because of our self-interest.
We should learn from history. Yersinia pestis, the Black Death, caused at least three major pandemics: the plague of Justinian in 1541, the Black Death in 1347 and the Black Death in China in the 1850s. There were repeated, devastating waves in between for many decades. These were spread mostly by travel, by mixing of populations and by people in poverty with poor hygiene and inadequate public health. In 1665, when over 100,000 people in London—probably one-third or more of the population—died in the Great Plague, the greatest proportion were poor and disadvantaged. Lockdown then was rigidly imposed. People were even bolted in their houses, which were painted with a red cross.
The science community has repeatedly warned that we shall almost certainly need to live with Covid for a long time to come. This is likely for Covid-19 but is equally likely to be true of other deadly viruses in due course. So, in addition to global issues, we need everything we can muster: vaccines, better diagnostics, culture facilities, better public health—especially globally—and drugs which kill the virus. We also clearly need isolation, and that will reoccur from time to time. It is important that we do not breathe a huge sigh of collective relief at the blessing of new and better vaccines. There are still many important questions that we will need to consider. Randomised controlled trials must continue. One NIH trial, for example, done in the rhesus monkey, showed that they got protection with different vaccines, but these did not necessarily reduce the replication of the virus in nasal tissues, while some others did. Those are the sorts of reasons why we still do not know how problematic contact between people will be.
Whatever the effectiveness of different vaccines, apart from new mutations, there will be pockets of this virus in the population. If we are to reduce the presence of the virus in our communities, at what stage do we consider vaccinating children? If we eventually do, shall we ignore the serious anti-vaccination protests associated with measles, a far less clinically risky virus? We are relatively safe now from yersinia pestis, not because of vaccines but because of antibiotics. For example, a portable, easily distributed antiviral would be a real asset. Unfortunately, monoclonal antibodies, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, in last Thursday’s debate, may not be quite as useful as a portable, easily distributed and administered antiviral, which could give safety, with fewer side-effects, at the early stages of infection. This might kill the virus before it starts to replicate rapidly. That would be useful during lockdown. An antiviral which gets access to the mucus membranes of the throat, pharynx, larynx and respiratory system, taken by mouth or as an aerosol, could be particularly beneficial because that is the route that the Covid virus generally takes. That would be another strategy to avoid the risk of mutations. This may be important, because we must remember how coronavirus is likely to have infected several animal species before moving into man. It is consequently more dangerous. In many parts of this crowded world, humans now perhaps live more closely to animals than at any time in our history.
Of course, we shall continue to jog the Government, but let us do so in the spirit of constructive collaboration that is important at this time of national emergency.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that the time limit for Back-Bench contributions is four minutes.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, it is important to stress that, for political leaders at this time, there is one overriding job to be done: to ensure that the relief sensed by everybody that the vaccines are coming is not misplaced into a false sense of security. We need to understand that over the next year or so we must continue the important social distancing measures that we have become used to. I believe the Government have one priority at the moment: to enable the country to emerge from lockdown to a situation which is sustainable in terms of social and economic health and well-being.
Key to that will be the opening of schools of colleges. I say that, but schools and colleges are open and people are working; they are just not physically present. It is important that as many schools as possible open as soon as possible. I urge the Government to move away from central fiats announced at short notice towards a culture of working more co-operatively with teachers and local authorities to work out what resources are needed in different areas to enable schools to open safely.
I draw to the Minister’s attention one issue that requires urgent attention. He will know that to open legally any children’s service has to have staff with up-to-date first aid qualifications. He will also know that first aid training cannot be completed online. Last March, the Health and Safety Executive announced an extension in the grace period for renewal of a certificate from one month to six. The HSE’s current advice is that all training will have to be renewed by 31 March and there will be no extension. That means that staff—and, incidentally, staff of training providers—are being told on the one hand that to get their training certificates renewed they have to go out to a training course, but on the other that they have to observe lockdown. Does the Minister realise that this potentially is a very big problem for schools, colleges and preschools? Does he also realise that this kind of mixed messaging is the last thing that professionals working at a local level to try and give some hope to their communities need?
I understand that it is being reported that test and trace is getting rid of staff. I and many others have been deeply critical of the poor performance of the test and trace operation, particularly the lack of support for isolation. Can the Minister say whether, as we go into this current phase, resources will be diverted to local authorities and local resilience forums so that we can continue to make sure that people are given supported, practical help to isolate? We can then have much more localised efforts to reverse trace so that we can find out where different variants have come from and how they have been transmitted among the population.
I have two final points. First, it is evident that mental health is becoming the big issue of this pandemic for schools and colleges. Are the Government now starting to plan to have emergency first aid mental health services for schools and colleges, exhausted public health staff such as doctors and nurses, and self-employed people who have not been eligible for any government support? Finally, on care homes, nursing homes and domiciliary care workers, when will the Government stop reporting the number of vaccinations that have been offered and start reporting the number that have been completed?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, from the cheap seats at the far end, I pay a warm tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for his masterful handling of the vaccination drive. As the NHS called me a critically endangered species, I had my jab last Thursday night and I am in no doubt that it was months ahead of where it would have been were it not for the brilliant handling of vaccination by the Government.
It has been a textbook operation. The Prime Minister gave Kate Bingham the order: “Stop people dying”. She formed a task force that rapidly decided the best vaccines to back and funded their production, bypassing NHS bureaucracy. It was based on scientific judgment, not just buying up everything in sight. The Secretary of State for Health told Oxford University to dump Merck and go with AstraZeneca. That was inspired. It was a masterstroke for which he deserves the highest praise. Then the logistics were fine-tuned, with Professor Van-Tam apparently demanding freezers way back last June. Then contracts for vaccine supply were signed three months ahead of other countries.
I also thank the Prime Minister for getting us out of the slow-moving EU oil tanker. What a perfect description of the EU—a lumbering monster, unable to move quickly and full of last century’s concept of power. If we had stayed in then there is no way we would have approved the emergency use of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Theoretically, of course, we could have, but a vote to remain would have made us a very tame, subservient puppet, afraid to do anything on our own. We would also have been trapped into the corrupt EU purchasing racket, paying for French Sanofi vaccines that have not yet been invented. Little did we know four years ago that leaving the EU could save thousands of British lives or we would probably have put that on the side of the bus as well.
While the NHS staff, the military, the volunteers and others are doing a fantastic job of sticking needles in people’s arms, there would be nothing much to inject if it were not for the leadership, judgment and far-sightedness of the Prime Minister, Ministers and all in the Government. Thank you, Prime Minister, personally—the Boris haters will have to gnash their teeth a while longer.
I have a couple of ethical and moral questions to pose to my noble friend, but I do not want answers today. It seems that we will have tens of thousands of vaccine refuseniks. I defend their absolute right not to be vaccinated, so long as they respect my right to get hospital treatment ahead of them if they catch Covid. Hundreds of thousands of people with all other life-threatening illnesses—cancer, heart conditions and so on—have had their treatment postponed to give priority to Covid cases. That may have been the right thing to do when there was no cure for Covid, but now that there is a vaccine it will be intolerable if honest patients who have been vaccinated cannot get into hospital because refuseniks are blocking beds. My message is simple: if you refuse vaccination and catch Covid, then tough luck. You have absolutely no right to displace from a hospital bed a decent patient who has been vaccinated. No matter your colour, ethnicity or age, if you refuse vaccination you forfeit the right to jump the hospital queue.
Related to that, I assume that if, for example, care home or medical staff wandered round the wards, smoking 40 cigarettes a day they would be dismissed on the spot. Therefore, if medical or care home staff refuse vaccinations and wander round wards, belching out Covid all day, which is 100 times more lethal than passive smoking, should they not be considered to be sacked on the spot as well? I simply leave that for consideration.
Finally, we are repeatedly told that we must not call it the Chinese virus, but the variants are called the South African, Brazilian, Kent and UK variants. It simply identifies where they came from or were discovered. China is directly responsible for more than 2 million dead in the world. Since China let this virus escape from its Wuhan lab, covered it up and lies about it every single day, is it not about time that we called it by its true name—the China virus?
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister described the purpose of the regulations very clearly, so I will not repeat that. I thank the House of Lords Library for its additional information and the secretariat of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its comments. Thanks are also due, of course, to the statutory instruments committee.
I am also delighted at the success in developing and rolling out the vaccines. It has been efficiently and thoroughly launched, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, thanks to many people, including those appointed to oversee it by the Prime Minister. I am aware that the regulations have had many stages and many consultations, and that the Government have used the affirmative procedure so that, according to the Explanatory Memorandum,
“public health measures can be taken in response to the severe and imminent threat to public health.”
Apart from the amendments under discussion, there are pressing concerns that should be aired and resolved by the Government to avoid a preposterous assertion of slowness and confusion. I will briefly refer to some of those issues.
Problems remain with the amendment to the power to use and disclose information in relation to the police. Can the Minister say whether the Department of Heath will reverse plans to allow police access to NHS Test and Trace data to reassure the public of medical confidentiality? I remember discussing the concerns about confidentiality when test and trace was brought in—a long time ago now. Those concerns now seem to be disregarded.
I still have concerns about levels of Covid among disabled people and about the situation in care homes. I do not see the legislative clarity needed for relatives, residents and those running care homes. I realise that this is a wider concern than these regulations, but it is urgent and worth discussing.
Last week, I asked the Minister a question about the situation in care homes. I should have given him that question in advance, and I apologise for not doing so, as he was not able to answer it adequately, and I hope that today he will be able to, because I gave him prior notice of what I shall raise. Briefly, I seek clarification on whether, for a relative to be able to visit a loved one in a care home, it will be necessary for all the residents and all staff of the care home to have been vaccinated. If so, is it to be once or twice, and what priority can they expect? Many families have been unable to have other than distant contact with relatives in care homes for a very long time.
This issue is relevant to the human right to family life, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern. Have discussions taken place in the Department of Health with this in mind? I ask the Minister to clarify that as residents in care homes and their relatives are confused and distressed and, of course, longing to get back together again. It is a public health issue; it is also a human rights issue. I hope the Minister will give me a good response.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support these regulations, which, as the Minister stated, include a reference to an exemption for elite athletes who train or enter competitions, and it is to that subject I wish to direct my remarks.
A recent review launched by the Home Secretary and still under consideration in Government concerns the current status of elite sports remaining exempt when travel quarantine rules are introduced. This needs to be seen in the context of the likelihood of the Olympic and Paralympic Games going ahead—despite the armchair critics who say otherwise. Given that there are only 23 Mondays before the opening ceremony, the detailed, careful and safe approach being taken by the International Olympic Committee and the Tokyo organising committee is first rate and, barring another spike in Covid-19 in Japan, it should be the showcase televised sporting event across the globe in 2021.
The proposal that athletes should be limited to the athletes’ village and competition venues on arrival, and that regular testing will be a feature of the Games, is commendable. All participants will be expected to undergo a period of quarantine before travelling to Tokyo. In this context, I encourage the Government to open early discussions with the British Olympic and Paralympic associations to plan arrangements, should it not be possible to organise training camps close to Japan.
On arrival, the athletes will be subject to frequent testing, including at the airport and the village. All sensible moves are clearly being taken to ensure the athletes’ village will be the safest place in Japan. The price of not going downtown during the Games is a wise price to pay to prioritise their health, with athletes arriving only five days prior to their competition and departing a maximum of two days afterwards.
In passing, and should there be no crowds, I look forward to the first scientific study which demonstrates that athletic performance should be even better in the absence of the body heat generated by tens of thousands of spectators. The IOC is wise to wait until March or April before making a decision on the presence or otherwise of spectators. For—and this is the key point—the interests of the athletes, not the administrators or sponsors, should always come first.
Those athletes who have failed to observe the exceptional restrictions here in the UK have been rightly named, shamed and penalised. The vast majority who have followed the rules—not least in the Premier League—have provided much needed respite for the television-watching British population in lockdown. With such exceptional and comprehensive measures in place, I congratulate my noble friend on continuing with the current status of exemption of elite sports from these regulations and, I hope, from future travel quarantine rules. Should that not be the case, it would result in increased losses for national governing bodies, many of which are on the threshold of administration. It would remove opportunities for training and competition—including the rest of the Six Nations, which is already successfully under way—and cause further problems for all sports men and women if the quarantine requirement for athletes to stay in airport hotels for 10 days after arrival was introduced for this currently exempt group.
The scientists are publicly on record as recognising that, with the exceptional measures already in place, this is a very low-risk group. I thank my noble friend for taking representations on this and know that, from his diligence and concern for the athletes, the steps being taken by sport and the close co-operation between the sector and government have delivered sensible, safe and appropriate measures.
In the context of the advantages to international training and pre-Olympic competition schedules, I hope the athletes will be able to secure vaccination immediately after—and only after—the completion of vaccination among all vulnerable groups in society. This will considerably help those Olympic and Paralympic athletes seeking selection and, with them, their immediate entourage of coaches and support staff. This is all the more important as the momentum for international vaccine passports increases.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, another day, another statutory instrument on coronavirus. As the Hansard Society notes:
“The government has laid 364 Coronavirus-related Statutory Instruments … before the UK Parliament. The first two Coronavirus-related SIs were laid on 28 January and 10 February 2020, respectively. The rest have been laid since 6 March 2020, at an average rate since then of seven per completed week.”
No wonder people and businesses get confused. This makes a mockery of both Parliament and the tired excuse that Ministers keep trotting out:
“Owing to the speed with which the Government must take this emergency action to control the virus and save lives it is not possible for a debate to be held before these regulations come into force.”
The speed the Government said they needed for the 364 coronavirus-related SIs has not been effective, as we can see from the number of deaths. Some of the SIs have been superseded within days of coming into force, have caused confusion and have not achieved the goal of reducing the spread of transmission of the virus, thereby helping to keep people alive. The 364 SIs are indicative of a Government who have been far too reactive, rather than proactive, to the public health crisis we face. No other democratic Government across the world have introduced so much emergency legislation to deal with the coronavirus.
What is needed is a clear governmental strategy. It is sadly missing in the UK. That is what is required urgently, not more and more knee-jerk emergency legislation. The country is now at a crossroads in dealing with the virus. We have some hope on the horizon with the vaccination programme, but it is not the end. The world will be living with the coronavirus, new variants of it and all the health and economic risk this brings for years to come. It is time to reflect on what is needed for the next phase, what has been learned and what needs to change for the future. Part of this has to be less emergency legislation and more detailed and well thought-out laws and rules to genuinely save lives and get the country on a firmer footing to be able to deal with the next stage of the pandemic. This Parliament needs to stop just nodding through coronavirus emergency legislation. It needs to force the Government to come forward with a clear strategy for living with this pandemic and help set laws within that strategic framework.
As the past year has shown, 364 pieces of emergency legislation have not been the most effective way of keeping as many people alive as we would have hoped or proactively slowing down the virus. It is time for Parliament to do its proper job. For this House, that means having time to review and revise laws needed to deal with the public health crisis we face. This will help to ensure that the rules that people and businesses are required to obey are much more effective in reducing the spread of the virus and saving lives.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, my wife and I tested positive at the beginning of January. We isolated. Half way through the isolation, my wife was taken seriously ill and taken into Bedford Hospital. Thankfully, she is now at home. I pay a major tribute to the efficiency of the testing at Bedford town car park, and particularly to the care and attention in Bedford Hospital.
On Saturday, I had my coronavirus jab. The whole thing took 10 minutes. It was brilliantly organised. I spent some time talking to the volunteers, and we owe a huge tribute to them. In that context, I hope that some plans are being made for the Prime Minister to write a letter to all the volunteers who have come forward and taken part.
I have three pleas to my noble friend on the Front Bench. One comes from me as a marketing man. The tiers have worked, but one thing you learn about marketing is that you need to refine down areas, particularly if you are test-marketing new products. We are not test-marketing new products; we are test-marketing something which we cannot totally get a grip on. I wonder whether it would not be more sensible, instead of thinking about district council areas, to hone down to major towns and have a close look at them. That way, we would begin to really get a grip on it.
Secondly, on timing, any organisation—whether it be a business, a school, or whatever—needs time to plan ahead. I hope that when the Statement is made on 22 February, the Government will be planning for approximately three weeks’ notice of any substantial change.
Thirdly, I again make a plea for sport. I declare an interest as president of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club. There was virtually no cricket at all last year. The new season starts, if my noble friend would like to note it, on 8 April with county games across the country. All the 18 major counties have Covid-secure grounds. A huge amount of energy, money and resources have been put into those 18 grounds. The staff are well briefed and organised; the players are the same. Can we please try really hard to start off this season—perhaps confining it to one member and one guest at the grounds? I hope that when the Twenty20 comes round, which will not be until the beginning of June, we will be in a position to open up to the public.
Finally, I make a plea for Wimbledon and declare an interest as a member. Wimbledon’s championship is the leading tennis championship in the world. A great deal of work has gone into ensuring that we can, if at all possible, hold a championship this year in the first two weeks of July. There would be no finer advertisement for UK Ltd, and for the great British public, than to see Wimbledon happening with spectators in those weeks. I wish my noble friend all success in the way he is handling these things, and to the teams working for him, I say: thank you—you have done a superb job.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for all the work he has done in fighting this terrible pandemic. I wish him well with all his efforts in future, but perhaps I can be a little critical of details today, because underpinning this SI are the basic nuts and bolts which make the system work—and they are creaking in places.
We sometimes do not realise that there is a difference between guidelines, which are what Ministers would like us to do but do not have the force of law, and regulations, which do have that force. As we have gone through the tiers created by the Government over the past year, some of the issues have been about guidelines and some about regulations. Let me give a couple of simple examples.
Colleagues will recollect that at the beginning of the year, two women were handed fixed penalty notices by Derbyshire police for reportedly travelling five miles for exercise. The police force subsequently stated that it was reviewing the action based on new national guidelines, but the issuance of the notice was still supported by the Health Secretary, although it did not have the force of law. Then of course we had a similar case—I am not making this as a political point—when the Prime Minister was cycling 18 kilometres to ride around a park in London. I have no trouble at all with that, but the issue is that it causes problems on a wider scale, and with tragic results.
I live in a national park. As I look out of the window, the snow is falling—the hills are covered in snow. Although people have guidelines that the Government’s wish is that they should not drive to the Lake District, but they do. Every weekend, they are still driving regularly from Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Kent and London. That is not illegal, but they are not allowed to spend the night. How do you trap people who are sometimes spending the night?
We had a tragic incident this last weekend involving the mountain rescue, which has been called out several times, when two young men went camping on the mountains above Kirkstone Pass. One of them got chest pains and called the mountain rescue in the middle of the night—it was two in the morning. One member of the mountain rescue slipped and fell; he has very serious injuries.
However, the police cannot stop people driving in to camp. Once they have camped, they can be issued with penalty notices because that is in a regulation: you cannot stay overnight in an area such as this. I am arguing that there needs to be some consistency in the regulations and guidelines so that we know where we stand, and that the police also know what they can and cannot do.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. Could the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, please mute himself?
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the work of my noble friend and Lords Ministers generally. They have had to deal with an unrelenting schedule in incredibly difficult times. Given the plethora of primary and secondary legislation, and the briefings that have kept my noble friend at the House and the Dispatch Box while many of us shield, self-isolate and keep safe at home, I am sure his work is valued by us all, whatever our political colours.
In the few minutes I have today, I want to focus on the wedding hospitality sector. It is an issue I have raised on previous occasions, and one which I have remained engaged with throughout this pandemic. The sector has been devastated by the pandemic, particularly the Asian wedding sector where large premises with high overheads have now lain empty for some 12 months. Many have had to return, quite rightly, hundreds of thousands of pounds in deposits to those who have had to postpone weddings. They feel that they have had little national engagement to plan for their futures, even where local councils have worked closely with them to ensure they are Covid-compliant.
This SI specifically starts to address this process, of course, but I want to ask three specific questions. If my noble friend cannot answer them today, I should be grateful if he could write to me. First, what specific engagement has taken place with those in the Asian wedding sector? Secondly, what consideration has been given to the size of venues-to-people ratio when determining the numbers allowed to attend wedding receptions, or do the Government intend, once things starts to ease, to deal with the matter as they did previously? I would argue that that was clunky and ill informed, and that the one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Thirdly, what are the Government’s plans and timetable for easing the restrictions for weddings and civil partnerships?
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to ask about the route out of lockdown. I fear the Government are relying far too much on the vaccine programme to get us out of trouble and may be planning to ignore the need to reduce the prevalence of the virus in the community before easing restrictions. I hope that the Minister will reply to my noble friend Lady Barker’s question about a lot of test and trace being laid off. Surely this is the time to continue the effort to find out where the virus is and stop it in its tracks by supported isolation strategies? Can the Minister justify this reduction in testing staff? If he tells me that resources are being switched from the eye-wateringly expensive centralised system to locally based—and more cost-effective—test, trace and isolate services, I will be very pleased to hear it. However, the Government were so slow to make use of local expertise in favour of their expensive national system that I somehow doubt it.
Unless we bear down on incidence in the community, mutations will continue to occur and variants will result, with a possible consequence for the effectiveness of current vaccines. What lessons have been learned from what happened last autumn, when cases rose again after the summer easing of restrictions and we had a second wave worse than the first? What lessons have been learned from abroad, specifically Portugal, where there is now an even worse crisis for which it is having to get help from Germany and other EU countries because they had a free-for-all over Christmas?
Are the Government watching what is happening in Israel, where the level of vaccination is higher than here but levels of illness are not reducing as fast as expected? As Israeli epidemiologist Dr Ran Balicer has commented:
“Vaccines work, but the picture is more complex than that. Other steps are needed as well.”
Experts there believe that the lower level of adherence to lockdown in Israel is part of the problem, which should be a clear lesson for us here in the UK.
Can other noble Lords mute, please?
All this indicates the need for timely parliamentary scrutiny of any proposals for loosening restrictions, so that Members of both Houses will have at least as much notice as schools. Members need the opportunity to counter the pressure that the Government are clearly feeling from the so-called Covid Recovery Group, which does not agree with restrictions and seems to believe, mistakenly, that herd immunity can come from widespread natural infections. It does not seem to care about the deaths and long-term illness that would ensue from such a strategy.
Looking to the future, can the Minister say, first, what studies are being set up to monitor the ongoing level of immunity of those who have been vaccinated, testing against not only current variants but others that may arise? This will be essential if scientists are to advise on the nature and frequency of future booster vaccines. Secondly, do we have sufficient capacity in genome sequencing adequately to track new variants, which will inevitably come into the country until the whole world is vaccinated? We are world leaders in genome sequencing but capacity is different from expertise. Do we not need to scale up this work and perhaps do what they are doing in Denmark: sequence the relevant part of the genome of every positive case in order to detect new variants early? I am afraid that when I heard a little while ago that we have two cases of the South African variant I cynically suspected that we actually had many more but did not know about it. We can know this only if we increase our genome sequencing capacity.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
Before calling the next speaker, I remind noble Lords to remain on mute when not speaking. I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to comment only briefly and positively to support the application of the click and collect exception to libraries, as set out in the amended Schedule 3A. I know that reading books gives pleasure to so many people, particularly during lockdown. For many families, a trip to the library is usually a highly-anticipated weekly outing and it is important for a child’s development to help them pick out books to read and to expand their thirst for knowledge.
I have heard of families running out of books to read during lockdown having relied for reading books on libraries and schools, which are shut, and how limiting this is for a child’s development. Oxfam reported that after the first lockdown customers were desperate for books; it saw a massive rise in second-hand book sales. At a time when children in particular are spending so long in front of a screen, a book can be a magical place to escape. I welcome this provision to allow people to keep borrowing physical books from their local libraries. I urge local councils to ensure that this provision, albeit late in the day, is seized on and that local libraries expand their offerings from online to click and collect, and publicise that widely to help families and, particularly, children.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I greatly welcome the speed at which the vaccine programme is rolling out and the boost to morale that it has provided. However, news over the weekend regarding the South African variant makes it clear that we need to be constantly vigilant and prepared to adapt our response. The vaccine is no silver bullet.
I want to focus on the impact of lockdown on the mental health and well-being of both young and old, particularly those living alone who may be socially isolated and for whom lockdown has been especially tough. We have, quite rightly, thought a lot about the impact on families, but, in my view, not thought enough about the impact on those living alone. For many, their mental health has suffered, not least due to anxiety that if they catch the virus they will have no one to look after them and check they are okay. Local community groups, charities and local authorities have played a valuable role, but they are unable to meet all demand.
Reports in the press over the weekend talked of post men and women taking on the role of checking up on the elderly, something that has been trialled in the Channel Islands. I would welcome such a trial on the mainland but was very concerned to hear that people might have to pay for this service. Surely the Government should step in to fund any such scheme, particularly for the less well-off and those living in deprived communities. What plans do the Government have in this area?
Last week, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, a question about recent scientific findings from Cambridge University showing that one dose of the Pfizer vaccine may not produce sufficient antibodies to kill off the virus, particularly for the over-80s. The scientists involved suggested that rapid antibody tests could be used to identify older people who had responded less well to their initial jab and prioritise them for a speedier second jab. What plans do the Government have to carry out such tests on older people and residents of care homes, who are currently having to wait 12 weeks for their second jab?
Like other noble Lords, I continue to be concerned about reports of care home staff not taking up the offer of a vaccine. While I understand that no one can be compelled to be vaccinated and that education and reassurance are the key, equally care homes have a duty of care towards their residents, including their well-being. I recently heard a union representative say that one reason some care home staff were refusing the vaccine was that they were fearful of having a reaction which would mean they had to take time off work. Surely the Government should be able to underwrite the pay of any care worker in this situation to encourage take-up. Unless action is taken, residents and relatives who have had a vaccination and had time to develop their immunity may still find that they are unable to visit their loved ones, which feels so unfair—a point made powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey.
The pandemic has put a huge strain on many young people who were already struggling with their mental health due to bereavement, social isolation, a loss of routine because of school closures or a breakdown in support. What plans do the Government have to provide additional funding for the rest of this academic year and the school year beginning in September to allow schools to invest in mental health and well-being support, including school counsellors, but, crucially, without having to divert resources away from academic catch-up funding which the Government have already announced?
This lockdown must be the last. The public would never forgive this Government if, by coming out of lockdown too soon or without a comprehensive strategy to defeat the virus, we once again found ourselves in a full national lockdown.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests with dispensing doctors as in the register. I add my congratulations to the Minister, the Government and all those involved with such a successful vaccination programme in which we can all take great pride.
I draw my noble friend’s attention to one aspect of the South African variation which is causing deep concern across the medical community: the fact that the mutation, or the variation, that we are now identifying as coming from South Africa actually arose during South Africa’s summer, but nevertheless spread quite widely and rapidly throughout the community. Does my noble friend share my concern that this shows that this particular variation—and perhaps others to come—is not a seasonal variation but could actually spread throughout the warmer months? Have the Government done any specific research on this, and do they have any plans for how to tackle this particular dimension of this variation?
Looking ahead to the fact that there will be, in all probability, a need for a booster vaccination this autumn and in years to come, what plans have my noble friend and the department made to ensure an equally smooth rollout of booster vaccinations in addition to the annual flu vaccination for the elderly and, as was the case this winter, the over-50s? Will my noble friend give a commitment today that the department will rely specifically on rural GP practices to ensure a smooth rollout of both the flu vaccination, as in previous years, and a booster vaccination this autumn and in successive years? Will he ensure that GPs, being closest to their patients in very outlying areas, will be asked to deliver these as effectively as they have this year? Can he update us about the inclement weather and what delays the department is expecting to occur—albeit in the short term—to the vaccination timetable which has been rolled out?
Through my noble friend, can we pay a heartfelt thanks to all those involved on the front line, particularly in hospitals? As my noble friend mentioned, this has been a very long winter, and those staff in hospitals, ambulance services and paramedics have been stretched to the utmost. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for all the work they are doing and will continue to do for the foreseeable future. It is important that we pay tribute to the department and all on the front line at this time.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
We are a stoic lot in this country, but I cannot go swimming. I cannot watch rugby. My team has been promoted to the Premier League for the first time in 16 years, and none of us can go to watch and cheer them on. I cannot accept the kind offer from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, to be his guest at Northamptonshire cricket club. I cannot have any weekends away. I cannot go to the theatre with my wife, which is what she loves doing. I cannot climb mountains. In fact, I cannot do anything I want to do. I have no interest in Ocado, Amazon or Netflix—none. And I am in a better position than most people. A teacher on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning said three out of 25 kids in her school were in class today—22 were not there. People are struggling to cope.
The Government are making a fundamental error in what they are saying at the moment. It is the first big error, in my view. Of course, you can criticise various things from the past—whether they were done by the Government, NHS England or Public Health England—and say that they could have been done better with hindsight that we did not have before. But this is an error of the future, and it is a political error. I have heard Ministers in the past day or two say that we are not having a vaccine passport because we are not forcing people to have the vaccine, and that we are not a country that will legislate to force people to have the vaccine. But that entirely misses the point of a vaccine passport.
I can tell the Minister that no one will be allowed in the miners’ welfare clubs if they have not had the vaccination, because we are damned if we have been through everything we have gone through to have some Herbert turn up thinking they are better than the rest of us, choosing not to be vaccinated and causing problems. We are not having it.
A week ago, my tiny grandchildren, who I have not seen for eight months, packed their rucksacks in Budapest in Hungary—we are talking about under-sixes—and announced they were going to get a plane to come to visit us, but they cannot. I am damned if, when I am eventually allowed to go to Hungary, I have to ask my GP for a note and waste their increasingly valuable time to say that I have had the vaccine I need to get into Hungary. That is what will be required. The last time I went there, I had to prove that I had had the tests. I had to wait 24 hours—there was a big red cross on the door until those tests came through. They will require a vaccine card. You cannot get into Tanzania or other parts of Africa without a yellow fever card. That is sensible.
The vaccine card is not about saying you have to do it; it is absolutely about, “Here’s the injections you’ve had.” Idiots like me need it on one piece of card so we can remember what we have had—particularly if we will need to have boosters—just like you do if you go to places such as Africa, to remember that you are up to date. That is what it is about.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said. He usually speaks a lot of sense. I am with him in spirit, although not necessarily in the detail, on care homes. We have 308 Peers over the age of 75. I would expect Peers to demonstrate to the staff here that they have had their vaccines. Therefore, the vaccine card would be peer-group pressure to get people vaccinated. It is essential. The Government need to get this right.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, these regulations once again are being hurried because of their expiry date, before the Prime Minister addresses Parliament and the country on 22 February with his route map out of lockdown. I ask the Minister: what evaluation have the Government done of the tiered system and the total lockdown? Do they think that the slow decline to around 15,000 cases per day and just under 9,000 deaths per week means that it is safe to consider easing lockdown next month?
We note that the regulations make minor changes to the tiers legislation, including on elite sports competitions, the exemption to leave home to collect goods ordered via click and collect and from libraries, cafes and canteens in post-16 education centres being open, and marriages and conversions under marriage being permitted. I do not believe that these are contentious. But, as my noble friend Lord Scriven said, it is the bigger, more strategic approach to what needs to happen to unlock the “stay at home” orders that must be considered.
As my noble friend Lady Walmsley outlined, too many people still think that vaccines alone are the answer, but in the light of the spread and strength of the new variants, can the Minister say how the surge testing in the postcodes announced last week is proceeding? Are there effective results in further isolating both the South African and UK variants? Are there any indications yet about the spread of these variants that might affect the easing of lockdown?
For 11 months, we from these Benches have urged the Government to run an effective test, trace and isolate system. The need for that will be even more important as part of the route map out of lockdown, so I echo my noble friend Lady Barker’s concerns that the Secretary of State is reducing or curtailing some contracts with tracing firms, which have summarily sacked their staff. On Friday, Sitel—one of the contractors—said:
“At this point in time as a business we need to reduce the number of agents because we have done our jobs.”
But while there is some reduction in case numbers, the daily level, at around 15,000, is substantially higher than the 1,000 a day when the first lockdown was lifted last year. As the Minister said, the numbers in hospital and number of deaths remain too high.
Does this mean that the Minister no longer believes that test and trace is an essential tool? Perhaps it means that, at long last, local test and trace teams, which have always had a much better success rate at contacting people and persuading them to isolate, will be increased. Can the Minister please explain what is going on?
Last week, in a reply to my noble friend Lord Scriven, the Minister said that 86% of contacts were now being traced, appearing to show a substantial improvement. However, “More or Less”, the Radio 4 programme, reported last week that if a tracer tells one person in a house of five that they must all isolate, that apparently now counts as five separate successes. Is this correct, and does it explain the rapid increase in tracing rates for call-centre companies such as Sitel? What arrangements are in place to give confidence that everyone in any household is self-isolating after they have been asked? Can the Minister say whether this higher level of success is connected to the new way that tracing data is assembled?
From these Benches, we have repeatedly listed the key steps needed for successful test, trace and isolation, especially the latter. Those self-isolating need to be paid their proper wages, as they are performing a civic duty. The Government’s sick pay levels are pathetic, with a theoretical, one-off £500 grant that hardly anyone can access because, local government tells us, the rules are too hard and complicated. Those with dependants, such as unpaid carers looking after disabled or elderly family members who are not allowed to be in the same room for their self-isolation as those they care for, may also need particular support.
As my noble friend Lady Tyler commented, there should be state-funded places in pandemic hotels for those who cannot effectively self-isolate at home, especially when there are many other family members living in a confined space. There should also be a proper care package of support for those isolating, as in Germany and Taiwan, with regular calls to check on mental health, and to ensure that food and pharmacy supplies are getting through. Most importantly, there should be consistent, strong, clear messaging to the public every day. That would provide confidence for those who currently have to choose between feeding their families or self-isolating.
Finally, as we approach 31 March, when the emergency pandemic legislation expires, I echo the comments of my colleagues on the broader issues relating to these almost daily Covid SIs. The Government took to themselves extraordinary Henry VIII powers on the understanding that SIs were to be brought to Parliament in a timely fashion for debate. They are not. Far too often they are enacted weeks ahead of when the Commons debates them, and we have to wait a number of days before they then come to the Lords. The Government must start consultation on the renewal of these powers with both Parliament and the wider public as soon as possible. When will this happen?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I start by placing on record, from these Benches, thanks and great admiration for the way that the NHS, in its widest capacity, is coping under the combined demands of so many Covid patients and, indeed, other patients. A dear friend of my family is about to go into one of our trust hospitals to have a baby any time now. The support for her and her partner has been exemplary, as has the tremendous drive for the vaccine, with the whole public sector and volunteers stepping up to deliver millions of jabs—the hope for the future.
I have some sympathy with the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about vaccine passports. My husband, who is also a great supporter of Leeds United Football Club, travelled the world—pre-Covid—on internet safety issues for children, so has had a vaccine passport. Of course he has, because he has to show many different countries that he has had the right vaccines. I cannot understand why the Government are finding this such a challenge.
It is a few weeks since we last discussed regulations that were already in effect. These make minor amendments and corrections to the all-tier regulations, and offer an opportunity to scrutinise the detail and effectiveness of the lockdown at this stage. It seems that the public have taken a few weeks to come to terms with an effective lockdown and I think the Government need to recognise the strain that this is putting on families and communities across the UK. This was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Clark.
February is always a difficult month for illness and depression because it is dark and cold and miserable. I get the impression that people are struggling with this, so the light at the end of this tunnel is even more important. That is not only the vaccine, but cracking the test and trace system so that everyone who needs to self-isolate can do so, and protecting our borders from mutations of Covid by effective quarantine. Neither of these have been working effectively and both need to do so as we move forward. I so agree with my noble friend Lord Winston about the effort that needs to go into research and co-operation across the world.
I have three detailed questions. These regulations clarify that marriages and conversions under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 are permitted. Can the Minister advise the Committee whether the need for this clarification was identified as part of an administrative exercise or stems from difficulties that have arisen from conducting a same-sex marriage during the third lockdown? I sincerely hope he can assure us that it is not the latter, given that, under the regulations, weddings and civil partnership ceremonies are permitted only if there are exceptional circumstances, such as where one of those getting married is seriously ill and does not expect to recover, or due to undergo debilitating treatment or life-changing surgery.
The regulations also clarify the exemption to leave home to collect goods from businesses operating click and collect, and that this also applies to libraries. Everybody will welcome that fact as access to libraries is very important indeed. However, the Minister will be aware of concerns that non-essential retail click-and-collect services are a significant source of transmission and are undermining the lockdown due to people who are gathering to collect their items not wearing masks and failing to observe social distancing while queuing. Indeed, John Lewis suspended its click-and-collect services after a change in tone from the Government over the virus. Yet despite continuing to urge people to leave home only for essential purposes and government adverts asking us whether we really need go out, neither the guidance nor the regulations permitting takeaways and retail shops to operate click and collect in England and Wales have changed. Does the Minister recognise that this could be an anomaly and risks confusing the “stay at home” message?
The guidance clarifies that elite sports competitions are permitted. The Minister will undoubtedly be aware that despite strict protocols established during the summer, many athletes and players have been involved in various coronavirus rule breaches while the rest of society is locked down. This has ranged from scenes of crowded dressing room celebrations to players attending gatherings and parties in private homes. While the Government have been keen to stress personal responsibility, what discussions have they had with the sports’ governing bodies? Can the Minister confirm whether any of the athletes involved has been fined under the regulations or whether the consequences have been purely at the discretion of the club or body they represent? Does the Minister agree that this is inherently unfair, especially when allowances and different rules already apply to athletes than to ordinary members of the public?
Finally, my noble friend Lady Massey and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised care homes. Can the Minister confirm how many people in care homes have been vaccinated rather than just been offered a vaccination which, of course, is important? What do the Government propose to do about staff in care homes who refuse vaccinations?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a massive thank you to all noble Lords for their questions and, in particular, for the extremely kind and generous comments about the NHS, healthcare workers and all those who have contributed to our pandemic response. It is very rewarding to hear those remarks and I am sure that everyone involved is extremely grateful.
I will try to answer as many questions as I can. If I cannot answer now, I will endeavour to write to noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, was right at the beginning of this debate to point out that pandemics last for a long time. We are profoundly conscious of that from the Black Death, Justinian’s plague, the Chinese plague and 1665. We are in it for the long haul and we hope that the remedies and protections we are putting in place today will help protect society for years to come. The noble Lord is entirely right that those worst affected disproportionately come from areas of deprivation, the elderly and the poor. That is very much on our mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, asked about children. The green book is very clear about what vaccines are appropriate for children. We have endorsed the provision of vaccines for CEV children and are doing tests and clinical trials to see if the vaccine can be extended to children because, while not likely to be hospitalised, they are a source of transmission. He rightly raised antivirals. He and I have had correspondence on that subject. He also alluded to a key challenge in the administration of antivirals, which is portability. Access is a profound challenge in primary care for the delivery of antivirals, and that is one of the issues we have to resolve.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about first aid training. If first aiders are unable to access annual refresher training face to face during coronavirus, HSE supports the use of online refresher training to keep skills up to date. If the noble Baroness has more questions about this important issue, I will be glad to answer them by correspondence. I reassure her, though, that when we publish the vaccination figures they are not vaccinations offered; they are vaccinations delivered. Some 549,078 were delivered on Saturday.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly raised the massive liberal dilemma of refuseniks. He alluded to the massive public health truism that my health affects not only me but the people I meet. I confirm that surgeons currently have validation for their vaccinations. A surgeon cannot perform surgery if he or she does not have, for instance, a hepatitis vaccination. That is, indeed, food for thought.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, asked about police data. We are looking forward to debating that issue on 1 March. On the very challenging question of social care, she asked quite reasonably about when we will be able to change the extremely distressing current regime for meeting those in social care. At the moment, meetings do happen outdoors and with protective measures, such as screens, but close contact is not allowed. This is not just to protect those involved but also to prevent the virus entering care homes, where it runs rife. We are seeking data on asymptomatic infection, transmission and the other relevant details from post-vaccination clinical trials. We will publish updated guidance after this period of national lockdown. More than anyone, I hope that this uncomfortable and challenging regime can be changed.
I completely hear the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on sport. She asked some very specific questions and I will be glad to write to her. In reply to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I pay tribute to those in elite sports for raising our spirits. The Six Nations this weekend was great entertainment, even if the result was rather disappointing for England supporters. We are engaged with elite sport on the border issues, as he knows. We completely hear his arguments and we are trying our hardest to meet the hopes of elite sport. However, I say to him that we are in the hands of the variant and these matters are not completely in our control.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that Parliament has a voice and that these debates on regulations do have an impact on the way that they are delivered. We are working within the framework of the laws we have and are doing our best to respect the influence of Parliament. He makes important points about the use of emergency legislation and I suggest that he addresses these comments to the Constitution Committee, which is doing a report on emergency legislation at the moment and would, I am sure, take his comments into account.
To my noble friend Lord Naseby, I am very glad, as I am sure we all are, to hear to hear of both his recovery and, in particular, that of Lady Naseby. I share his tribute to the NHS staff who have been delivering the vaccine. However, I well remember my noble friend’s comments. On six occasions last year, he made comments about cricket. I also remember, on 3 September, his profound scepticism about my comments that a second wave was on its way, so I gently and kindly remind him that we are not through this pandemic yet and I just cannot give him the reassurances on the reopening of cricket that I know he is looking for.
I completely share the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and I agree wholeheartedly with his appeal for consistency. The bottom line is that the current guidance is that there should be no travel beyond the most local area—full stop. I completely understand his frustration about those travelling to his area.
My noble friend Lady Warsi’s comments are best directed to MHCLG, which provides guidance on wedding issues. The PM has made it clear that he will be issuing new guidance on 22 February, and the matters she asked about will be addressed in that. Although I hear the concerns of the wedding venue industry, I cannot make any promises on this today. The close proximity that weddings inevitably create does not suit pandemic management.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is entirely right on Israel. Vaccinations are not a panacea. Social distancing remains essential, transmissibility after the vaccine is not clear cut, and therefore our message to the British public is to be patient and maintain the face, space and distance rules. She also asked about new genome sequencing. I reassure her that we are increasing our capacity for turnaround times and the amount of analysis that we provide. She is entirely right that about 5% of the positive PCR tests done today are genomically sequenced, so if a couple of cases of the South African variant are found today, you can expect there to be more tomorrow. But she is not right that central testing is more expensive than local testing; it is in fact much, much cheaper. Nor are we standing down resources: 783,851 tests were done yesterday—a phenomenal number. We continue to invest in local outbreak management: £925 million has been put in the contained outbreak management fund, supporting local testing.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that the CMO’s very strong view is that 12 weeks is a safe interval for the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and that an antibody test is therefore not needed.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who echoed his remarks, very much for his sincere comments on certification, which he made extremely persuasively. I reassure him that we are at a very early stage of the vaccine rollout at the moment. There are questions of fairness and justice when only a small proportion of the population have had access to the vaccine at all, but I take his points very much on board and will take them back to the department.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the Project Eagle detective work and fire-blanket scheme is proceeding extremely well. It is too early to be able to give her categoric evidence of success, but the implementation is promising so far. She mentioned messaging and payment, and we have addressed those matters before. We have published an assessment of the tiering system, and I would be glad to email her a link to it. On her comments on test and trace, it would be generous and warm-hearted to say at least one word of praise to the management and the tens of thousands of people who work in test and trace for their phenomenal achievement over the past few months, turning around a massive enterprise that is having a huge impact on the virus.
In conclusion, I reiterate the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the NHS. She is entirely right that this shows the NHS at its very best. The vaccination programme has been a phenomenal achievement, and I look forward very much to its successful deployment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Caine) (Con)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5.40 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for debate on the following statutory instruments is one hour.
Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2021.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, these regulations set the national insurance contributions limits and thresholds, as well as the rates of a number of national insurance contributions, for the 2021-22 tax year and make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the National Insurance Fund if required. National insurance contributions, or NICs, allow people to make contributions when they are in work in order to receive additional contributory benefits when they are not working; for example, when they are retired or if they become unemployed. NICs receipts go towards funding these contributory benefits, as well as the NHS. As announced in November, the Government are using the September consumer prices index—CPI—figure of 0.5% as the basis for setting all national insurance limits and thresholds, and the rates of class 2 and class 3 national insurance contributions, for 2021-22.
I will first outline the specific changes to the class 1 primary threshold and class 4 lower profits limit. The primary threshold and lower profits limit indicate the points at which employees and the self-employed start paying class 1 and class 4 NICs, respectively. These thresholds will rise from £9,500 to £9,568 per year. The rates of class 1 and class 4 NICs are unchanged by these regulations. Increases to the primary threshold and lower profits limit do not impact on state pension eligibility. This is determined by the lower earnings limit for employees, which will remain at £6,240 in 2021-22, and payment of class 2 NICs for the self-employed, which I will come to shortly.
The upper earnings limit, the point at which the main rate of employee NICs drops to 2%, is aligned with the higher rate threshold for income tax. The upper earnings limit will increase from £50,000 to £50,270 per year. Similarly, the upper profits limit is the point at which the main rate of class 4 NICs drops to 2%. This will also increase from £50,000 to £50,270 per year. As well as class 4 NICs, the self-employed also pay class 2 NICs. The rate of class 2 NICs will remain at the weekly rate of £3.05, due to the rounding rules which require the calculation of the CPI increase to be rounded to the nearest 5p. The small profits threshold is the point above which the self-employed must pay class 2 NICs. This will increase from £6,475 to £6,515 per year. Class 3 NICs allow people to voluntarily top up their national insurance record. The rate for class 3 will increase in line with inflation, from £15.30 a week to £15.40.
The secondary threshold determines the point at which employers start paying employer NICs on an employee’s salary. This threshold will increase from £8,788 to £8,840 per year. The threshold at which employers of people under 21, and of apprentices under 25, start to pay employer NICs on these employees’ salaries will increase from £50,000 to £50,270 per year. The rate of employer NICs is unchanged by these regulations.
The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant of up to 17% of forecasted annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the National Insurance Fund, if needed, during 2021-22. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund. The Government Actuary’s Department report laid alongside the re-rating regulations forecast that a Treasury grant will not be required in 2021-22, but in view of the economic challenges created by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government consider it prudent to make the maximum provision at this stage.
These regulations will also ensure that tax credits, child benefit and the guardian’s allowance increase in line with the consumer prices index, which had inflation at 0.5% in the year to September 2020. As noted in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, the increases provided for in these regulations result from the statutory annual review of benefits and credits rates and, as such, are separate from the temporary measure announced by the Chancellor in March 2020 and enacted in the Coronavirus Act 2020. The powers in the Act increased the basic element of working tax credit by an extra £1,045 for the tax year 2020-21 and ensured that the temporary increase was not to be considered for the purpose of the annual review.
In summary, this proposed legislation makes changes to the rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions and provision for a Treasury grant. It also increases the rates of tax credits and guardian’s allowance in line with prices. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who so often in the time she has been on the Front Bench has impressed with her clarity and detail. In fact, I did not really need to have read the Explanatory Notes because she has covered the situation extremely well. However, I thought I would join this Grand Committee discussion on these statutory instruments both to support my noble friend on the Front Bench and to make one or two points which I think should be made in the light of the changes.
The first relates to the national insurance uprating. I have no objection to these regulations except in thinking that there needs to be much wider debate about the regressive nature of the national insurance system. There needs to be a challenge—it is as much a challenge for my own party as it is for the present Government—to the nonsense that the more you earn, the less you pay in national insurance, given the new cut-off of £50,270 at the upper rate and the 2% contribution. There is also the silly situation where those who are over statutory retirement age and continue to earn do not pay national insurance. At a time when we need every penny we can get, this seems an area for future exploration. We just need to be honest with people who are doing very well while over the age of retirement. There are now very many of them—well over 1 million—who could make a small contribution. Associated with that is the reconsideration of the 2% contribution. I think this would be seen to be fair and would avoid having to top up the national insurance scheme by £200 million. I just lay that on the table.
I also wanted to contribute in relation to working tax credits and their associated uplift. As the Minister has already indicated, under Schedule 77 to the Act there was a temporary uplift of £1,045, or £20 a week, for working tax credits and associated credits, but also, of course, for universal credit. While there has been great public attention on universal credit, people have not necessarily understood that—if there is no change of heart by the Government—the £1,045-a-year uplift will be withdrawn.
I cannot read the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s mind for 3 March, but I can read the minds of those around me and those I used to represent. A reduction of £20 a week for people in the situation we are describing —including those we are dealing with tonight—is a substantial sum of money, even if it is not for those making the decisions.
I think the Minister has good contacts; she certainly ought to have, given how competent she has displayed herself to be over recent months. I appeal to her to get the message across to Treasury colleagues that it would be seen as grossly unfair at this time if people were to have withdrawn from them what is for them a very large sum of money, but is in greater government spending—in terms of the level of borrowing we have at the moment—a very small contribution to ensuring that people can survive. While I am in no way against the changes that have been described, they overlay a much more difficult and controversial situation that I felt it necessary to put on record this evening.
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will address the NIC contribution matters in these regulations. I would have addressed the working tax credit point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but rather than repeating the point I will simply say “and I” and add amplification to it.
The standard uprating by CPI has been applied and, as this was only 0.5% last September, it has made only a minor difference on the current overall architecture of the NIC regime. There are bigger and wider issues concerning the NIC regime, but I will address and raise some issues relating to Covid, Brexit and international agreements with the Minister. Of course, these regulations concern social security matters.
The pandemic has produced many headaches for the administration of small companies in particular. Apart from their struggles to simply survive, the administrative burden of reporting and making payments to HMRC for their employee liabilities has continued. For many this has always been a challenge in terms of time and administration, but for small companies the administrative complication of furloughing employees is now added to that. Can the Minister update the Committee on how these extra administrative matters relating to submissions to HMRC have been managed? Has any extra help been provided to these small companies where the structure of their staffing has been so dramatically and sometimes irregularly affected?
I wish to explore a wider issue of the consequences of Brexit. Many UK citizens living and working in the European Union have seen their status changed. However, Article 30 of the EU withdrawal agreement gives social security rights where UK citizens were resident in the EU on 31 December 2020. The regulations on these rights are complicated and complex, but essentially, where an individual falls within the scope of the regulations established as a result of the EU withdrawal agreement, is in receipt of a UK state pension and resides in an EU member state, their state pension will be uprated in line with those in the United Kingdom. It is not clear to me, so perhaps the Minister could confirm either in writing or at the end of the debate, whether continuing NIC payments will also contribute to an uprated pension once it becomes payable when an individual UK citizen chose to live in an EU member state after 31 December 2020.
Regardless of this situation, I think the Minister would agree that a UK citizen living in an EU member state will, under most conditions, see their UK state pension uprated. This is an important principle: in most circumstances, as a result of a negotiated reciprocal agreement, the UK state pension will be uprated as if that person living in an EU member state was receiving their pension in the UK. The NIC eligibility for a state pension, using the individual’s contribution record and the criteria in these regulations, will mean a regular uprated pension, regardless of whether they are in the EU or the UK. The decision to follow this very sensible path was a result of a reciprocal agreement negotiated and agreed by the UK with the EU.
I am sure that the Minister will be well aware of the problem for overseas British pensioners, many of whom have not seen their state pension values uprated since their arrival in another country and all of whom fulfilled the NIC contribution record necessary for accruing a UK state pension. One such example is Anne Puckridge, whom I have met. Anne served the UK in all three Armed Forces, but despite a full contributions record she now lives on a pension of less than half of what it would be if it had been uprated as if she were living in the UK. Anne moved to Canada to be near her daughter.
The Government of Canada have now written formally to the UK Government with a request for a reciprocal social security agreement that will cover the uprating of pensions. The UK’s policy is dishonourable and long standing. With the chance to negotiate a reciprocal deal, will the UK now take up the Canadian Government’s offer? There are too many like Anne Puckridge in Canada, and the UK has let them down. This offer from the Canadian Government is a chance to put things right. I hope that the Minister will take this matter back to the Government to press for a reciprocal arrangement, just as they have done with the EU. Every time the matter has been raised in this House it has been referred back to the Treasury, which says that it is too expensive. Now there is a chance, with a Government in another country with whom we have a good and friendly relationship, to start to put this matter right for people such as Anne Puckridge. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that this issue will be considered.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, there is little to comment on concerning the routine uprating of amounts following the CPI indexation, but that does not mean that there is nothing to say more generally about national insurance or tax credits. I identify with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and endorsed by my noble friend Lord German about the £20 top-up for working tax credit and universal credit, which I hope the Government will see the need for.
The Explanatory Memorandum on the SI relating to NI contributions brings two things to light. The first is that the higher-rate tax threshold and upper band of NI have previously been aligned and stay in step, but the bad news about that, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out, is that one goes up and the other goes down, so the marginal increase is not what people think it is. The second point is that there is a calculator that can be used by small businesses to help with the complexity of determining what national insurance should be paid. That complexity is evident from looking at the list of different parts to upgrade. Many have wrestled with how to modernise national insurance, and I am sure that it is one of those things where “I wouldn’t start from here” applies—I will return to that.
From the employers’ side, NI has often been called a tax on employment, and that has led to changes being made to stimulate employment among those aged under 21 and for some apprentices aged under 25. Both of those had good reasons. Given the effect that Covid is having on younger workers, the obvious question is whether anything more can be done on both a long-term and short-term basis, although I accept that is more of a Budget question.
The issue of self-employed national insurance contributions was also brought into the spotlight by the Chancellor when he indicated that providing Covid help to the self-employed should carry with it some presumption that, in due course, more social security contributions should be paid by that sector. A similar connection between benefits and NI payments was also picked up in the Finance Bill Sub-Committee report, where it was suggested—I paraphrase, but as I was a member of the committee, I well remember the discussions—that changes in national insurance payments need to be accompanied by commensurate changes in, or access to, benefits. Concerns were highlighted around IR35 and the fact that contractors would be asked to pay for benefits that they did not get, such as sick leave and paid holidays—and, of course, many of them did not get much out of the various Covid provisions.
That leads me on to the fact that work is much more complicated and variable than it used to be. That point was made by the Office of Tax Simplification in November 2016 in its follow-up report on NI simplification, which states that
“we live in a changing business environment, with diverse ways of working, and there are a growing number of people who combine self-employment, multi jobs and freelancing”,
and that
“the current system was built for yesterday … let alone for tomorrow.”
Nearly five years on, that is even more true. Once we emerge from Covid, the change to work patterns that it is already bringing will, I suspect, accelerate further.
The Office of Tax Simplification also said that,
“from a policy perspective any change will be challenging for government.”
This has not changed. I am tempted to look a little on the bright side and suggest that adjusting to post-Covid work patterns and needs may create an opportunity to bring about more simplification. I ask the Minister whether that is under consideration.
Various measures have been proposed, and one that seems reasonable to explore first is to make employees’ national insurance contributions work in the same way that PAYE does for income tax, so that it is related to annual income. That was favoured by the OTS, and although it reckoned it would impact 40% of the working population, gainers would generally be part-time employees, women and those aged under 35, and there would be loss mitigation from the social security system where there were losses in lower income households. There would also be positive benefits in better qualification for state pension entitlements. Overall, it would mainly eradicate unfairness that has been going on for a long time. It is also clear that such a change would benefit seasonal workers, such as those in the tourist industry, and young people—again, helping many of those most hit by Covid. As a next steps simplification, does that have any attraction for the Government? It would also seem to fit better with Making Tax Digital.
On the draft tax credits regulations, again, I have no dispute with the computation of upratings, but there are underlying issues relating to child poverty that I cannot let pass by. As has already been mentioned, the temporary working tax credit uplift, which is due to expire in April, has not been extended. In a recent debate in the Commons, the Government claimed that they could not see what the landscape would look like in April. I hope that means that it will be extended in due course, because to me it is clear that matters are already worse in terms of job losses. As the “weaning off” furlough happens, it will be worsened further.
My final point is, I regret to say, a perpetual one: as with other benefits, the Government have restricted tax claims to two children regarding any children born after April 2017. As we know, this is part of the Government’s deliberate impoverishment strategy for those on benefits with more than two children. I repeat: this is the Government’s deliberate and despicable policy for child hunger. That speaks for itself, and I have no more to say.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these uprating measures and to the small band of other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Minister will be familiar with my standard line about the Opposition not voting down statutory instruments in this House. With our recess only a few short days away, I certainly have no appetite for creating a constitutional crisis. Nevertheless, even if I were feeling mischievous, we would not oppose these measures. As we all know, there is no mechanism for amending SIs, and without passing the instruments before us there would be no uprating of the various charges and entitlements.
As has been outlined, the first instrument gives effect to the annual re-rating of various national insurance contribution rates, limits and thresholds. As the acronym-heavy Explanatory Memorandum outlines, most of these increases are tied to the annual rate of CPI inflation, which was 0.5% in the year to September 2020. The instrument relating to tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance enacts the increases previously announced in a Written Ministerial Statement of November 2020. Again, those increases are generally linked to the CPI figure of half a percentage point. Paragraph 6.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes the position with regard to the Coronavirus Act 2020. This increased the basic rate of working tax credit in the 2020-21 financial year, from £1,995 to £3,040. This has been disregarded for the purposes of calculating the usual uplift.
That Act was passed some time ago. We had expected public health restrictions to have fallen away by now and the economy to be growing. Given that we find ourselves in less than ideal circumstances today, is the Treasury considering a review of its approach to the tax credit uplift, perhaps as part of the upcoming Budget? I also say to the Minister that while cases and deaths now appear to be falling, which we clearly welcome, we remain some way off the conditions required for the economy to fully reopen and for the withdrawal of wider Treasury support for workers, claimants of universal credit, and so on. I hope we will hear soon from the Chancellor, who has been uncharacteristically quiet in recent weeks, rather than people being left facing a financial cliff edge, as has been the case previously.
I will finish with a broader question, relating to the data in the report from the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs to the Treasury on the number of tax credit awards and offences. Is the Minister able to opine on the reasons for significant decreases in the number of penalties and prosecutions in 2019-20, when compared to the previous year? Are there cases outstanding which are therefore not included in these figures? Is it a result of better guidance for claimants? Alternatively, is there a link with the Covid-19 uplift?
We very much welcome the decreases. While, sadly, there are cases of fraud in the benefits system, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that these new figures demonstrate that the numbers are very small as a percentage of overall claims. We are all familiar with past comments from some members of the Government, which have exaggerated the situation and created stigma around claiming additional help. With the events of the past year having highlighted the importance of our social security safety net, I hope we can start to discuss these matters in a more productive manner.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short but interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, touched on the wider debate about the nature of national insurance contributions, particularly the fact that people over state pension age do not continue to pay national insurance contributions if they are still in work. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, touched on the complexity of the national insurance system overall and asked about any plans for simplification. The noble Lord, Lord German, made similar points about the burden that the complexity can place on businesses. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his constructive tone and, indeed, all noble Lords for their constructive tone in posing some of these questions.
I am familiar with many of these issues on national insurance. It is a complex area and many of these questions go beyond the scope of our debate today. I also express a small amount of caution because I have scars on my back from tentative proposals for reform of national insurance under a previous Government. I am well aware that proposals for changes in these areas may need to be looked at carefully and cautiously.
I will have to disappoint noble Lords in my response to today’s debate and remind the Committee that national insurance contributions are different from income tax and other contributions: they are social security contributions. The rationale for not paying contributions after state pension age is that there is no opportunity for an individual to increase their entitlement to the state pension. However, employer national insurance contributions are paid for those workers.
I think that all noble Lords touched on the question of extending the £20-a-week uplift to the basic element of working tax credit and the universal credit standard allowance. As was acknowledged, that is not a subject for this debate. However, as they have done throughout this crisis, the Government will continue to consider how best to support people as the economic and health situation develops. The recent development of the Covid-19 vaccine demonstrates how quickly the situation is evolving. It is important that we make the right decision at the right time and remain flexible.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said that the costs of the uplift were small. As an illustration, I remind noble Lords that extending the £20 increase by a further 12 months would cost over £6 billion. That is equivalent to adding 1p to the basic rate of income tax, plus a 3p increase in fuel duty. The £20-a-week increase forms just one part of a wide-ranging package of support that the Government have provided to protect people’s jobs and incomes, including income support schemes, mortgage holidays, support for renters, the £500 million local authority hardship fund and the £500 payments for people on low incomes required to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace. There is also a temporary suspension of the universal credit minimum income floor for self-employed claimants and an increase to the local housing allowance rates for housing benefit and universal credit, which is being retained at the same cash value into 2021-22. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that I faithfully report back to Her Majesty’s Treasury the debates that we have in this House and noble Lords’ views on these matters. I will continue to do that, including on this topic.
The noble Lord, Lord German, touched on the administrative burden that small businesses are facing, particularly during the pandemic. The Government have provided an unprecedented package of support to help businesses through the pandemic. The noble Lord asked about the furlough scheme: that is a huge support in paying employees’ wages and encouraging employee retention. I would happily write to him on the administration of that scheme, but I understand that it has been made as straightforward as possible for businesses to administer. In addition, the Government increased the employment allowance in national insurance to £4,000 from April 2020. This includes over 650,000 businesses that have been taken out of paying national insurance contributions altogether since the introduction of the allowance in 2014.
The noble Lord, Lord German, also asked about the uprating of the state pension to those who live within the EU now that we have left the end of the transition period, and touched more closely on the payments to those in receipt of the state pension who live outside the EU. I say to the noble Lord that the policy on those receiving their state pension who live outside the EU is a long-standing policy of successive Governments. It has been in place for around 70 years and there are no plans to change it. We continue to uprate the state pension where there is a legal requirement to do so, for example in those countries with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement. The Government understand that people move abroad for many reasons, and the decision remains a personal choice. For a number of years, advice has been provided to the public that the UK state pension is not uprated overseas, except where there is a legal requirement to do so. As I said to noble Lords on the issue of tax credits, I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that I will happily take this issue and the offer he raised from the Canadian Government back to Her Majesty’s Treasury.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, posed a question on some of the changing statistics on the number of inquiries conducted under Section 19 and the number of penalties and prosecutions on tax credits changing. The number of penalties and prosecutions in the 2019-20 tax year decreased due to multiple factors that affect volumes of penalties and prosecutions, and the cumulative effects of those different factors are significant. For example, universal credit has led to a reduced customer base, which would already naturally lead to a reduction in penalties.
As around 80% of the problems with tax credit claims stem from customer error, we have also embedded a further upstream approach to compliance whereby we look to educate customers to avoid errors and to identify those most likely to make an error or where we would have expected a change to be reported. This is paying dividends through reductions in error and fraud, which reduces the propensity for penalties to arise. The number of inquiries conducted under Section 19 increased from 13,752 in 2018-19 to over 15,000 in 2019-20. Section 19 allows HMRC to carry out inquiries into awards after the end of the tax year, once they have been finalised. The increase in the number of Section 19 inquiries is because our digital services, particularly around income, highlight where the customer has likely made a mistake when finalising their awards, giving us the basis to inquire about the information provided at finalisation. This process will help us to support claimants in getting their tax credit award on the right footing going forward, reducing the risk of claimants accruing further debt—which would occur if the issue was not corrected—receiving penalties or potentially being prosecuted.
I hope I have answered most points made by noble Lords in response to this debate. If there are any specific questions I have not managed to address, I will happily write to noble Lords. I therefore beg to move.
Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee today. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. I ask those asking supplementary questions to keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Shawcross Report: Compensation for Victims
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hay of Ballyore
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish the report by William Shawcross on compensation for victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism; and what steps they are taking in response to the findings of that report.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I am sure I speak for the whole House in expressing our deepest sympathies to the victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism, and indeed to all the victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. This is an important issue and we recognise that Parliament takes a close interest in it. Ministers across government are carefully considering the internal scoping report that Mr Shawcross has produced in order to do justice to the important and sensitive issues that it covers, giving due respect to the victims.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP) [V]
My Lords, the finding of the Shawcross report was submitted to the Government last May, and I have to say that it is deeply regrettable that the report has not been released. Sadly, as in so many other cases, many victims of republican terrorism continue to feel abandoned by the process, and some rightly ask why they must continue to wait for justice. The Minister will be aware that there has been a long campaign for the frozen assets of Colonel Gaddafi to be used to compensate the victims of Colonel-Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism, in line with that previously paid out to French, German and American victims of Colonel-Gaddafi-sponsored terrorist attacks. Does the Minister agree that every effort must be made by the Government to support the victims in their long struggle for justice? The delay in the release of the report has left them feeling abandoned, hurt and betrayed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said. On the delay, the challenges of the pandemic have meant that we wanted to give the report appropriate discussion across Westminster. I assure the noble Lord that we put victims at the heart of our approach. He mentioned victims from other countries, and he will of course note that where there are direct victims—in the case of the United Kingdom, those around Lockerbie—appropriate compensation has been paid out.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
Oh, come on, my Lords: the Government have sat on this report for almost a year. The first excuse, which the Minister has repeated, was Covid. Then, in response to an FOI request, the excuse was that it would affect unspecified British interests abroad; next, that it would somehow prejudice relations with the Northern Ireland Executive; and, lastly, that it contains private and confidential information, which presumably could be redacted. So what is the real reason? US victims of Gaddafi-backed terrorism have been compensated. There are £12 billion-worth of frozen Libyan assets in the UK. Last year, the Government promised that they were committed to supporting the victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, so why have they been dragging their feet?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I believe I have already answered the noble Lord in part. I do not agree with him that we have been dragging our feet. As I said, the report is wide-ranging, and we are giving it careful consideration. On the asset freeze that he specifically mentioned, he will know that UK regulations prohibit any dealings with assets owned, held or controlled by designated persons, as specified in law. I note what the noble Lord has said, but I assure him that we are looking at this across government.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
As others have said, it is now over nine months since William Shawcross submitted his report to the Government and over a year since new wider commitments to legacy issues were set out in New Decade, New Approach, yet victims are still waiting for action. Even given the complications caused by Covid, does the Minister not accept that this is an unacceptably long wait for the victims, who have already waited for so long?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of repeating myself, as I have said, yes, I accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question about the delays caused by Covid, but equally the report needs a measured response. I assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that we are looking at it very carefully.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next question, which I myself was due to ask, in strong support of the noble Lord, Lord Hay, is withdrawn because of unexpected Woolsack duties. I call the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, very often, when Governments—I put it in the plural because it is not just this Government—sit on reports, that has a disproportionate effect on the febrile imagination of people looking on, because they assume that something is being hidden? Even more important in this case are the victims. We have heard of their pain and suffering, and it is quite possible that some of those victims will die before they get compensation. Is that an aspect of the speed of this that worries the Minister, and how is he going to address it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as ever, I note the concerns that noble Lords are expressing on this important and sensitive matter. Again, I assure the noble Lord that we are looking at this with the victims fully in mind and at the heart and centre of our approach.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in 2019 it was reported that the UK Government had collected £17 million in tax on the £12 billion of frozen Libyan assets. All the while, victims have received no compensation. How can that be right?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, in accordance with international law, when assets are frozen they continue to belong to the sanctioned individual or entity—in this case, the Libyan state. Any revenue raised specifically from frozen assets would have gone into the Government’s Consolidated Fund. I assure the noble Lord that the victims of such actions, and terrorism, are very much at the front of the Government’s mind and we will seek to continue to support victims across the piece when it comes to issues of terrorism.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I served on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for Great Britain until 1992. There was then a concurrent scheme for Northern Ireland, which was subject to a strict one-year limitation period for claiming, without any discretion to extend, save for children. Would it not be desirable now—particularly if the Government are in receipt of income from frozen Libyan assets in the way of tax—to open up a window of, say, six months, for claiming on an ex gratia basis for those who were too terrified or intimidated to claim as victims of terrorist acts at the time?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said but, as he will appreciate, I cannot respond to the specific terms of his proposals. He will be aware that in January 2020, in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive, the UK Government did legislate to establish a victims’ payment scheme. The Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for delivering the scheme, which will be open for applications from March 2021.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister really understand how the victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism feel genuinely abandoned by this Government? Other countries’ Governments all negotiated substantial payments for their victims—victims of the Docklands bombing of 25 years ago tomorrow, of the Harrods bombing and of the Enniskillen bombing, all got compensation. Why will the Government not even commit definitely to publish the Shawcross report? Have they got something to hide, or are they perhaps trying to protect the republican movement and aspects of people in the IRA? Will the noble Lord the Minister now commit that Her Majesty’s Government will veto any attempt by the United Nations Security Council to release the millions of pounds of assets held in London banks unless there is a deal with the United Kingdom on compensation for the victims?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly raises the issue of the US, French and German Governments’ claims for atrocities. She will also note that these were direct atrocities—including, from a UK perspective, the killing of WPC Fletcher, as well as the victims of Lockerbie—and they have been compensated. By contrast, Libya was defined as a third party in IRA terrorism. I understand what the noble Baroness says, including about the importance of a UN review of the regime within the context of UN Security Council resolutions, but I assure her, as I have other noble Lords, that we are continuing to look at victims. An important and sensitive report has been produced internally and we are looking at all matters before responding appropriately. I cannot give the noble Baroness more detail than that at this time.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
I understand why the victims finally deserve an answer, but can I ask the Minister to encourage the publication of William Shawcross’s conclusions and recommendations, rather than publishing the whole—obviously sensitive—report?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I have said before, I note what my noble friend said; it is a practical suggestion and I will certainly take that back.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
HS2: Phase 2B
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ravensdale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on (1) the East Midlands, and (2) Yorkshire, of not delivering the eastern leg of HS2 Phase 2B in full.
Lord Ravensdale (CB) [V]
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests as co-chair of the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that the Midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east realise the benefits of high-speed services. The integrated rail plan will set out the best way of delivering the eastern leg of HS2 phase 2b and will consider how to sequence its delivery to ensure that benefits are realised sooner and that it is integrated with other major schemes such as Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midlands Engine Rail.
Lord Ravensdale (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for her reply. Only the full HS2 eastern leg and Midlands Engine Rail—including the developments from regeneration around the HS2 East Midlands hub at Toton—would deliver the connectivity and ambition needed to revive the Midlands economy post Covid. Does the Minister agree that the HS2 East Midlands hub should remain at Toton? The scale of development at Toton, creating 84,000 jobs and adding £4.8 billion to the value of the regional economy, will be key to levelling up the Midlands region after years of underinvestment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, we have been very impressed by the scale of the regeneration plans for the proposed HS2 station at Toton. In the IRP it is very important that we consider regeneration and economic impacts on local areas, as well as how to create the right kind of rail network.
Lord McLoughlin (Con) [V]
The Government were right, following the review by Doug Oakervee, to continue with HS2, which is now happening and taking place to Birmingham and Manchester. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential that the eastern leg of the project, which takes in the cities of Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds, also gets the benefits from what is a major engineering project for this country?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend might have seen a letter published today by Connecting Britain, which is made up of 120 leaders from the places that he mentions and beyond. It says:
“The Integrated Rail Plan is your chance to move on from Covid to what the future of the UK should look like. Levelling up parts of the country that have seen traditional and considerable underinvestment, and that would benefit from a plan for growth.”
That is exactly what we intend to do.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, the UK has underinvested in rail and road infrastructure under all Governments for over 50 years. As a consequence, we have the worst transport infrastructure of any major country. Does the Minister agree that the payback to the economy of major infrastructure investment—think of the M1, for instance—comes not only over decades but, more likely, over the best part of a century?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this Government completely agree with the noble Lord, and that is why transport infrastructure and building back better is our priority for Britain over the coming years.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join the general trend of support and welcome for the Government’s continued commitment to the entire HS2 project. Could the Minister take the opportunity to reinforce the point that this is not a zero-sum game, with one part of the country gaining at the expense of another? We all gain from the introduction of the project, not least those of us who live in London; we gain because the north gains. Would the Minister confirm that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is completely right—this project is about connectivity and capacity, and the connectivity strand is about connectivity throughout the country. HS2 provides a wonderful opportunity to create a high-speed rail spine down the centre of the country which will benefit both the cities it connects and the local communities beyond them.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, this Government made manifesto promises on levelling up the north-east and produced a prospectus called HS2: Getting the Best out of Yorkshire. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s words today; can she tell us the timescale for legislation to allow the HS2 eastern leg to go forward? Can she unequivocally confirm that that will be happening?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness has been in this House long enough to know that I cannot possibly confirm that, because of course to have legislation, particularly a very complicated hybrid Bill, there are a number of steps that we have go through beforehand. One of those steps will be the publication of the integrated rail plan. It will be published in early 2021—so, very shortly—and in it we will set out exactly what we will do for the eastern leg and how we will integrate it with plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midlands Engine Rail.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The National Infrastructure Commission’s report is clearly a further blow to the east Midlands and Yorkshire economies, the Government having already pulled back on the full electrification of the east Midlands main line. Reference has already been made to the 120 business leaders from across the north and the Midlands who wrote to the Prime Minister calling for the full delivery of the eastern leg of HS2. Is the Minister giving us a commitment that the Prime Minister will be restating his commitment to the eastern leg of HS2 in the integrated rail plan, within the existing timescale for the completion of that eastern leg?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not sure precisely what commitment the noble Lord would like me to give, but the Prime Minister recently spoke about
“the power of great infrastructure projects to deliver jobs, which is why we are getting on with both the eastern leg of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/21; col. 839.]
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, on 31 January 2017, I tabled an amendment to the HS2 Bill which would have stopped this ridiculous vanity project in its tracks. I lost, but 26 Members of your Lordships’ House who really understood HS2 supported me. A petition demanding a Commons debate on its continuation has so far received approximately 150,000 signatures and will have to be granted. Rather than tinkering with the existing scheme, I urge the Minister to scrap it, and to urgently and carefully look at all the available proposals to spend money on worthwhile railway schemes across every region in the country. This would be of great benefit to passengers and commuters nationwide, do less harm to the environment and people’s lives, utilise all the expertise acquired by HS2, and, in the light of the effect of the Covid pandemic, which has changed working practices forever, allow us to extricate ourselves from a doomed project which cannot possibly succeed.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the Government will not be scrapping HS2.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, why did the Government press ahead with London to Birmingham and allow costs to rise so that the much more useful eastern leg looks as though it will now become unaffordable?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
A couple of things are conflated in that question. Regarding the pressing ahead, the London to Birmingham section was far more developed than any other section, and therefore it could be taken forward more quickly. Regarding allowing costs to rise, the Government have a laser-like focus on the cost of HS2. I am sure that my honourable friend in the other place, Minister Stephenson, will continue to ensure that they are as low as possible.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the recent delays, is it not now the case that the north-east—Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear—will not now benefit from HS2 until after 2040? If the Government want to level up, are there not other schemes in the north-east far worthier of immediate support, such as the full reopening of the Leamside line, which MPs, local authorities of all parties and business leaders are very keen to support?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, it is not an either/or when it comes to railways in the north or anywhere else. That is why we have the Restoring Your Railway Fund, which is looking at reopening certain lines. I assure the House that the integrated rail plan is about not only ensuring that all these projects are integrated but delivering them as quickly as we can.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
Do the Government still agree with the economic justification for HS2, which shows that in Sheffield, Leeds, Chesterfield, Nottingham and the east Midlands, HS2 will create over 136,000 new jobs, including many highly skilled positions, and that the full multibillion pound increase in GVA will come to fruition only if the eastern leg goes ahead all the way to Leeds?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We are in frequent discussions with stakeholders across the north and the Midlands to fully understand the economic benefits of HS2 to their areas. It is absolutely clear to us that the benefits are very significant. We will set out the exact way forward in the integrated rail plan.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time for this Question has now elapsed.
Tigray
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the impact of the conflict in Tigray upon the stability of the Horn of Africa region, and (2) the implications of that conflict for their Overseas Development Assistance policy.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are concerned about the impact of the conflict in Tigray on the humanitarian situation and wider regional stability. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary urged all parties to bring an end to fighting, prioritise the protection of civilians, allow unfettered humanitarian access and preserve regional stability when he met Prime Minister Abiy on 22 January. As a result of the conflict, the UK is considering its safe delivery model in Ethiopia. Our priority remains to support Ethiopians in need, which we will do by supporting the most vulnerable in the country.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome last week’s agreement allowing the UN access to Tigray, whereas some refugees are reduced to eating tree bark as a result of the Ethiopian Government blocking humanitarian access. What specific action will the UK take during its presidency of the UN Security Council to resolve the crisis in a country which is the fourth-highest recipient in the world of UK aid?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very pertinent point. The situation on humanitarian access remains dire in country, as was emphasised by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary during his visit. Regarding the UN Security Council point, on 3 February, UN Security Council members under the UK presidency discussed the humanitarian situation. At that time, we also heard from Sir Mark Lowcock, who heads up humanitarian affairs at the UN. The situation remains very challenging, but we will continue to implore all sides to allow unfettered humanitarian access.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, although in receipt of budgetary support, the federal Government can find resources to carry on this war, and allegedly are using starvation as a weapon of war. In 2019, we gave Ethiopia £300 million in bilateral aid, which was then the second-highest amount, after Pakistan. Does this give us any leverage at all in this conflict, and will we and the international community be expected to pick up the vast bill for the reconstruction of Tigray?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise bilateral support. Ethiopia remains one of the largest recipients of UK support, although, as I said in my original Answer, we are reviewing, particularly with an eye on Tigray, whether that support is getting through. The noble Lord also raises a valid point about the leverage that this provides. I assure him that we are talking directly to the Ethiopian Government about the support that we give to the most vulnerable, to ensure that it reaches those most in need.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in January 2021, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees learned of additional military incursions consistent with open-source satellite imagery showing fires and other signs of destruction at two Eritrean refugee camps in Tigray. Have Her Majesty’s Government made any representations on an independent investigation into human rights violations in those camps?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to raise those camps. We have raised concerns directly. Our ambassador on the ground has also raised concerns with the Eritrean authorities. I assure the noble Baroness that the issues of violence in this conflict, particularly gender-based violence and sexual violence, are at the forefront of our approach and challenges, and once the situation settles, we must ensure that perpetrators are held fully to account.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UN interagency response plan for this crisis is less than 60% funded, and the UK has an important role to play here, but nearly three months on from the announcement that the Government will cut £4 billion from our overseas development budget, we have yet to see any details of how these cuts will be made. Will they come from UN agencies, which are doing such vital work in Tigray, or from bilateral programmes such as our important nutrition work in Ethiopia? Can my noble friend the Minister tell us when any information on these cuts will be made available to Parliament?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are focused very much on ensuring that the most vulnerable are supported in this conflict, particularly those in Tigray, and our funding—whether through multilateral or bilateral support—is focused on that. On the specifics of future funding, we are currently reviewing our ODA budget for this year, and I will, of course, share that with my noble friend as soon as that decision is made.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the BBC reports that an immense tragedy is unfolding in Tigray. Has anyone from the British embassy, other members of the diplomatic community or one of the four African Union special envoys been able to visit Tigray to make an independent assessment of the situation? Do the UK Government have firm evidence of the involvement of Eritrean forces in Tigray?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s final point, we need to ensure that all the facts are fully available before any assessment is made, but undoubtedly the Eritrean forces have been present. We continue to call for full cessation and the allowing of humanitarian access. That is why we have continued to emphasise that some NGOs are operational, specifically in Tigray. When the Foreign Secretary visited Ethiopia, he called for unfettered access into the region. I will continue to update the noble Baroness as further details unfold.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, in order to ensure that our aid to the Horn of Africa reaches the right people, is it still Government policy to give aid to charities that are reliable and transparent, such as the Tropical Health and Education Trust, CAFOD and others in the same league that are free from somewhat dubious political activities?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that that very much remains our focus and approach.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, apart from the humanitarian crisis in Tigray, what actions are being taken to protect the key strategic trade routes to the Horn of Africa? In the knowledge that the region is highly vulnerable to climate change and water security issues, and with Ethiopia controlling the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, what measures are being taken to address tensions relating to trans-boundary water relations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises extremely important points, particularly in respect of strategic locations. This is why we have taken a very strong approach through a direct intervention by the Foreign Secretary in country. The matters he raised in terms of both the situation in Tigray and the wider implications were very much part of his discussion with Prime Minister Abiy when he was in country.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, on the impact of some of the cuts in our bilateral programmes, but also in our multilateral programmes. As food security is obviously a critical issue in the Horn of Africa, will the Minister tell us whether we will make food security a priority at the G7 summit, which will take place later on this year?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, there are many elements in the G7 discussions, but the noble Lord is right to raise the issue of food security. In any conflict zone, that becomes an immediate personal priority and I support his view. We have managed in Ethiopia, over many years, to support efforts on sanitation, school education and avoiding famine. However, the situation in Tigray in particular remains extremely worrying, not just with regard to the refugees in nearby Sudan but also with regard to the internally displaced refugees, whose numbers at the moment are very fluid.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, what discussions have the UK Government, as president of the Security Council, had with the African Union on efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict and to secure urgent humanitarian access to Tigray?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that there are important discussions to be had. I have already alluded to the UN Security Council meeting. In addition to this, we are talking to key players within Africa, most notably leaders in Sudan and South Africa, among others. We emphasise the important role of the UN and other agencies, as well as the African Union, in finding a resolution to this conflict.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, with more than 6 million sick and starving refugees from the conflict, does the Minister agree that the first priority must be the cessation of violence and the setting up of a round-table meeting with both sides and UN officials to establish safe conditions for the supply and distribution of urgently needed humanitarian aid?
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the Government are aware that the World Food Programme has already commenced distributing food in the Tigray region to the tune of 20,000 tonnes to support around 1.3 million people. As nearly 3 million need help, will the Government support the UN in its efforts to provide extra aid to extend that supply to the other 1.7 million people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to raise the issue of the UN World Food Programme, which has provided food assistance for 2.9 million people. He will be pleased to hear that, thanks to this being a priority issue for us, we now have an envoy, Nick Dyer, who covers humanitarian issues, conflict and famine, and who has visited Ethiopia to determine what the current priorities are. As I said to noble Lords in answer to previous questions, the situation in Tigray itself remains very fluid. A lot of the details are unknown, which is why we will continue to press, as the first priority, for unfettered humanitarian access to the region.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and answered and we will now move on to the next Question.
Genetically Modified Food
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential (1) health, and (2) environmental, risks associated with approving genetically modified food production in the United Kingdom.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]
My Lords, our legislation includes rigorous requirements for assessing health and environmental risks associated with GM food production. Approved GM crops and GM food products must pass a robust, case-by-case safety assessment reflecting independent scientific advice.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
I thank the Minister for his reply. Although I have some questions about gene editing, I recognise the potential it has to revolutionise the agricultural sector. My concern is for farmers and any potential barriers to trade with the EU that this might introduce. Although the Commission has indicated its intent to review the current rules, this has been countered by the European Parliament, which signalled its objection. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the impact of gene editing on our ability to export agricultural products to EU markets?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, the purpose of our consultation is principally to consider the issue of gene editing, which we think has a very strong future in assisting us in many respects in food production and the natural environment. Obviously, we shall consider the response to that consultation, and the right reverend Prelate’s remarks about the rest of the world, certainly including the European Union countries, are relevant. I know that the French Agriculture Minister has expressed concern about the European court’s view on gene editing.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, the Minister may recall that in the early days of devolution, Wales’s National Assembly passed, as was in its devolved powers so to do, orders prohibiting on precautionary principles the growth of certain genetically modified crops in Wales. That caused some cross-border dispute on the Wales-Cheshire border. If the Government are considering any new initiatives in England, will he undertake to discuss at an early stage with the Welsh and Scottish Governments whether their plans might cause any difficulties, and endeavour to find a mechanism to resolve them this time round, prior to them becoming issues of heated controversy?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have engaged very strongly with the devolved Administrations on the consultation, for instance in advance of its publication. As the noble Lord said, GMOs are a devolved matter and decisions on marketing are a matter for the relevant devolved Administration. We will continue to keep up a very strong dialogue.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has already referred to the fact that the French Agriculture Minister has disagreed with the EU’s stance on genetic editing. I also note that the US has approved some genetically modified seeds for use, as of last year. Studies suggest that genetic editing has the potential to improve yields while using significantly fewer resources, improving soil quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and could be worth in the region of $200 billion to $300 billion per year. Have these international developments informed Defra’s thinking at all? Does the Minister agree that this science offers promising opportunities for the UK?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, many countries have been considering their approach to GMO governance and regulation in the light of technological advances. Indeed, these international dimensions have helped to inform our approach to the consultation. We recognise that innovations through technology such as gene editing can help to create new markets, support a sustainable economy, help UK businesses globally and improve agricultural productivity in a way that enhances the natural environment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded on the register. Does the Minister accept that gene editing and genetic modification are different technologies and that the Government will be considering them separately in terms of policy? Have the Government conducted any consumer research recently into the acceptability of these technologies?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the distinction. Indeed, gene editing should not be confused with gene modification. Gene-edited organisms generally do not contain DNA from different species. They contain changes that could be made more slowly using traditional breeding methods. We think there is merit in that, which is why we have consulted. Indeed, we want responses to the consultation, which closes on 17 March, and we are very keen to hear from interested parties and members of the public.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the reality is that no one knows which gene-edited or genetically modified crop might have an adverse impact on the environment. For example, pest-resistant crops can pose threats to important insect populations. The Government’s consultation is totally silent on what environmental regulatory regime would replace the current one. Can the Minister tell the House whether there will be a new regulatory system requiring a case-by-case environmental impact assessment before release? Will Natural England be given adequate resources to oversee effect EIA or are the Government simply intending to deregulate irrespective of the biodiversity risks?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
Let me be clear: our endeavours in this matter are for better regulation, not deregulation. We think that gene editing has considerable benefits for the natural environment but clearly on a precautionary basis we will be working to ensure that, case-by-case, there is an environmental assessment. We look forward to the responses in the consultation.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, organic farming has risen by 13% in the past year, but organic farms are at extreme risk of cross-contamination from genetically modified crops putting their own crops at risk. How does the Minister propose to protect organic farms from GM contamination?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, organic farmers undertake a very important role in producing great products. There are regulations about these matters and the way in which GM crops are engaged in the environment, and they will continue.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, in making assessments of health and environmental risks, which have a huge impact on conservation, biodiversity and land management, the risks and consequences of both action and inaction will be considered equally?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, GMO legislation is based on a precautionary principle that states that GMO environmental assessments must be risk-based. Evidence gathered during the consultation will inform risks on both action and inaction.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest in Rothamsted Research as recorded in the register. We welcome the Government’s consultation on gene editing and the distinction drawn between genetic modification and gene editing. Can the Minister assure us that any changes in the regulation of gene editing will be balanced alongside policies to minimise the use of artificial pesticides and artificial fertilisers so that there will be a net gain for the protection of public health and the environment from any changes?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, what the noble Baroness has said is why we believe there could well be environmental benefits from gene editing, whether they are reduced use of neutron additions, reduced use of chemical pesticides, increased crop yields or crops that are more resilient to climate change. These are the areas that, in an honest endeavour, we should be looking into and why the consultation is so important as part of the first phase before any change may occur.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, about three-quarters of the world’s soya and nearly one-third of the world’s maize and oilseed rape is GM. Europe, including the UK, is one of the world’s largest importers of GM soya. Does the Minister agree that no human health risks have been identified as a result of consuming these GM foods? Is he aware that the chair of the Food and Drink Federation organic committee recently said that the tide of opinion on genetic editing has changed and that the organic sector could end up isolated if it did not welcome this technology?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the whole thrust of what the noble Lord said. We think that science and our knowledge of gene editing have advanced since the GM framework nearly 30 years ago, and therefore we think that there are advantages to the environment. That is why we want to proceed.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as set out in the register. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that soil structure and quality have been diminishing for many years. He will also be aware of the excellent work being done by the GWTC and Harper Adams University into minimal till regimes, which are proving to have a beneficial effect, certainly on soil structure and the wider environment. Does he agree that, in tandem with emerging best practice based on the science, GM crops are an important component in enhancing yields and reducing the use of fertilisers and pesticides and therefore in protecting and feeding the consumer?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend has made a very important point: we have to feed the world’s increasing population. We think that, particularly in the area of gene editing crops, there are potentially very strong advantages in sustaining and improving the natural environment while improving the hugely important ingredient of soil health with reduced nutrient additions and chemical pesticides.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Support for University Students: Covid-19
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, last week a survey from the Office for National Statistics found that 63% of students have reported worsening mental health and well-being since the start of the 2020-21 academic year, compared with 57% last November. The Covid-19 pandemic has intensified the student mental health crisis, with many isolated at home, without support, unfairly paying for accommodation that they are forbidden to use, and feeling a sense of hopelessness about their futures. With placements cancelled, jobs disappearing and whole industries at risk of collapse, the only certainty is that they are faced with significant student debt. The pandemic has undoubtedly been especially hard for students with disabilities, who face additional challenges and might need more support to continue their studies and find a worthwhile job once they have left. Will the Government commit to providing further funding to support the substantial increase in demand that university well-being and support services are experiencing, as well as direct support for students with disabilities?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point to the mental health and well-being challenges that the pandemic places on students. The Government are very alive to these. We wrote to vice-chancellors in October, outlining that student welfare must remain a priority during the pandemic. My honourable friend the Universities Minister convened a working group of representatives from the higher education and healthcare sectors to look into what we can do. We have been working with the Office for Students to provide Student Space, which has been funded by up to £3 million to bridge any gaps in support that exist for students and their mental health needs, although I am pleased to say that universities themselves have been doing great work directly with students. Of course, as the noble Lord knows, last week we announced an additional £50 million of funding, on top of the £20 million that we provided in December, to assist students who face hardship at this difficult time.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, everyone will be pleased that the Government are making this additional financial support available for students to help with their well-being and mental health. University students will, naturally, be worried and anxious about their academic work and assessments. What is the Minister’s view of essay mills and contract-cheating companies that prey on students’ vulnerability and isolation? Will the Government finally bring in legislation to act against those companies?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, those who prey on the vulnerability of students, particularly at this time, deserve our condemnation. We were concerned about online provision from these companies even before the pandemic, and of course we will continue to monitor that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the additional help that has been given to students at this time but, given that we are still charging students an interest rate of 5.6% on student loans while they are studying, when the Government can borrow money at 0.3%, might this not be a good time to implement the Economic Affairs Committee recommendation that we cut the interest rate on student loans?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has long taken an interest in this matter through his work on your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee. The Government have already announced that the maximum fees will remain at £9,250 for a standard full-time course, and we intend to freeze the maximum tuition fee caps for 2022 and 2023—the fifth year in succession that maximum fees have been frozen—to make sure that university education is available to, and affordable for, those who want it.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the additional funding announced last week, but what action are the Government planning to take on the QAA’s guidance, which says that thousands of students might have to repeat a year because of the professional nature of their qualifications and the lack of practical teaching? To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will those students have to pay an additional year’s tuition if they have to repeat a year, and, again on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will the Government at least contemplate for existing students a payment freeze on interest—if nothing else, a sort of holiday on the interest rate payments or a reduction of those payments? In piling on debt for those students, the amount charged is ridiculous.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have been prioritising a return to face-to-face teaching for courses which, as the noble Baroness says, have to be delivered in person. They include courses for students studying medical, clinical and healthcare-related subjects, including nursing, social work, dentistry and veterinary studies. Universities have been working very hard to ensure that the quality of tuition they provide is maintained at a high standard, and we have been very clear that it should be. We want to see minimum disruption to people’s study, even during the challenging circumstances of the pandemic.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester [V]
My Lords, while the short-term support offered by the Government to students facing financial difficulties is most welcome, the pandemic has also generated uncertainty about graduate employment in the short, medium and long term. What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have for supporting students and graduates who are or will be seeking skilled graduate employment?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right; this has been a challenge. From taking A-levels, to being at university, to graduating: as he says, these are difficult times. The Government are providing support to people going into employment as well as to students currently completing their studies. We want to make sure that we look after people at every stage of that journey.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
Additional funding is welcome, but the University of Greenwich, of which I happen to be chancellor, is experiencing what many other universities are experiencing in London: the removal of the London-weighting element of the teaching grant funding allocation. This is having a very adverse effect on our financial viability, costing us some £2.5 million per year. We put disadvantaged children and children and young people from minority ethnic backgrounds at the very forefront of our concerns in the first part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. We are finding it very difficult to do this in the face of this cut in our funding allocation. Will the Government reconsider their decisions in that regard to enable us to do that much more for these needy students?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right to point to the impact the pandemic has had on institutions as well as the students studying at them; I commend the work that they do. The Government have already provided significant support for the higher education sector, bringing forward £2 billion of tuition fee payments, providing £280 million of grant funding for research and establishing a loan scheme to cover up to 80% of a university’s income losses from international students. That, of course, is on top of the generous package of support that my right honourable friend the Chancellor provided for businesses, so we certainly are providing the assistance that institutions need.
Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]
Have the Government given any consideration to the plight of overseas students, who are paying higher fees than home students and have the added problem of living in a land not their own?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am pleased to reassure my noble friend that the hardship funding, including the additional £50 million announced last week, can be distributed to a wide population of students, including international students studying here in the UK. We want to make sure we support people in hardship, wherever they come from.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, one or two Edinburgh students I know personally have suffered considerably. Many were shut in their rooms for a fortnight when one of them contracted the virus. Should students who can prove limited access to education at various times have to pay a full rent? Should remote learning without proper tutorials not be compensated during a pandemic? I am assuming the virus is not a devolved matter.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Many universities and accommodation providers have already offered rent refunds for students who have been asked to stay away from their term-time accommodation. We welcome that and strongly encourage others to do the same. We have been asking all providers of student accommodation to make sure that they have the students’ best interests at heart.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
Following on from the question of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, does the Minister agree that student accommodation providers that are still charging students rent when they are having to work from home are completely wrong? There is no point in just encouraging them to take action. What action are the Government taking to stop this exploitation?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Government do not run the accommodation for students, but we do applaud those universities and institutions that have taken action and encourage others to do the same. For commercial tenancies the Government have, as the noble Lord will know, made a package of financial support available to tenants, but where they can continue to pay the rent they should do so. We encourage all landlords to take a pragmatic and compassionate approach during this pandemic.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that there was not time to take her question.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it is not possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A participant who might wish to press to a Division an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group must give notice, either in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Monday 8th February 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-VI(Rev) Revised sixth marshalled list for Committee - (8 Feb 2021)
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames tabled this amendment and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, added his name, as did I.
I will not speak for long—just a few minutes—but I would like to give this amendment some context. Just over a year ago, my noble friend was approached by a concerned mother about the “treatment” of her adult daughter by a person who described themself as a psychotherapist. This treatment would not have been recognised by any professional body and did a disservice to the regulated profession of psychotherapy. Such an individual is able to walk into a stranger’s home after being contacted on the strength of an advertisement in a shop window, local newspaper, magazine or online. Counterfeit certificates, business cards and brass plaques are easily obtained to give undeserved credibility.
The phoney therapist broke no law, but the treatment was unrecognised by any regulating body and did great harm to the young woman. She was turned against her family by coercive behaviour and a catalogue of lies. She was turned inside out emotionally and her family were left distraught. I was somewhat taken aback to receive letters from other families whose adult children had been in receipt of similar coercive treatment, leaving them a shadow of their former selves.
This amendment sets out to right these wrongs and ensure that the therapist would not be able to practise in future. I thank my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who spoke in that debate, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. The amendment sets out clearly what is an offence in this context, and how to determine that the perpetrator’s behaviour had a serious effect. It also sets out what would count as a defence for the person purporting to be the therapist, and, if found guilty, what the maximum terms of imprisonment would be.
Having listened to my noble friend Lord Paddick last week at the beginning of the debate, I think it worth mentioning that, although the original case concerned a young woman, there is no reason why it should not apply to a vulnerable young man. The amendment is gender neutral and goes a long way to right the wrongs in the case that brought me to this Bill in the first place. I am delighted to support it. I say to the Minister that the coercion was carried out in the victim’s home. It was abuse in a domestic setting and should have been a crime. This amendment will stop others being controlled or coerced by bogus therapists and, if they are sentenced, the punishment will fit the crime.
I wonder whether, before Report, the Minister would be willing to meet some of those who have spoken in this debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the opportunity to talk about the role of psychotherapists. As I will be discussing regulatory issues, I declare my membership of the GMC.
I have no doubt about the value of psychotherapists and the beneficial impact of their work for so many people. But there are potential risks, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to eloquently when we last debated the amendment. Also, in a Lords debate on 2 March last year, he said:
“We have heard harrowing accounts of victims, often young, brainwashed by unscrupulous and controlling individuals. These charlatans play on their clients’ suffering, deluding them into a false belief in their treatment, often conjuring up in them fake memories about their early years and inducing unhealthy long-term dependence on the therapist and rejection of families and friends.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 477.]
That was reinforced by the case the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, just referred to.
Patients and clients can be vulnerable, and an insensitive, critical or sexually exploitative therapist could increase the risk of the patient having a poor—and potentially damaging—outcome from their therapy. The big problem is that the terms “psychotherapist” and “counsellor” are not protected. Any one of us could call ourselves one of those titles and advertise our services to unsuspecting and sometimes vulnerable people. I have long had worries about this, going back to when I was a Health Minister, some 20 years ago.
In 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, introduced a Private Member’s Bill to provide for the regulation of psychotherapists and make provisions to enable the registration of the profession. Since then, we have established workstreams to look into regulation, but, unfortunately, the profession found it difficult to reach a common cause, principally because there were so many different, and sometimes conflicting, schools of thought.
That, I am afraid, was the start of a long and unhappy journey. In 2007, the then Government published a White Paper which included plans to introduce statutory regulation for psychotherapists and counsellors. But, unfortunately, by 2010, this did not import into statute, even though, by then, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, had done a sterling job in pulling the different psychotherapy schools together and getting agreement on the way forward. We then had the coalition Government in 2010, which announced a new approach to regulation and a belief that centralised statutory regulation was not always the most effective or efficient way of ensuring high-quality care. That, essentially, is where it stayed.
The debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, last March, induced the following response from the Health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell:
“The Government are committed to a proportionate system of safeguards for the professionals who work in the health and care system … Where practitioners pose a direct risk of harm to the health and well-being of patients, legal avenues will and must be explored … However, more rules are not always the answer to every problem. While statutory regulation is sometimes necessary where significant risks to users of services cannot be mitigated … it is not always the most proportionate or effective means of assuring the safe and effective care of service users.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 480.]
He also referred to the more than 50,000 talking service professionals on the registers accredited by the Professional Standards Authority. That is welcome, but it is not statutory regulation, nor is it protection of title, which means any of us could, if we wanted to, continue to call ourselves a psychotherapist or counsellor.
The big problem here is that the Government are basing this on a risk assessment for which there is little evidence. There is a real lack of hard research in this area. I am grateful to the Library for unearthing a 2019 article, published in Frontiers in Psychology, which provided a potential explanation of why there may currently be a lack of quantitative research. It said:
“Although the broad topic of negative outcomes has been extensively discussed, empirical research on patient safety, directly examining the causes and prevention of harm, is not well established. Because harm … is relatively rare, and not amenable to experimental manipulation, such research is difficult.”
In 2017, the Brighton Therapy Partnership, a continued professional development and training organisation for counsellors and psychotherapists, said:
“There is very little research into the harm that properly executed therapy can cause. This is an unusual anomaly for a medical field, as in every other area research is abundant into both efficacy and failure of all treatment options.”
When the Government say, as I have no doubt the Minister will today, that it is not proportionate to regulate psychotherapists, there is an absence of evidence to base that on. In the meantime, in the absence of statutory regulation, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is essential. I hope he is prepared to support this all the way in the Bill. There is a dangerous gap, and some action needs to be taken.
Baroness Finn (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the other noble Lords who have signed it. It seeks to create a new offence of
“Controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services”.
First, I commend the apposite wording—in particular, “persons providing … services,” since these abusive individuals are rarely actually psychotherapists, counsellors or registered practitioners of any kind, but individuals purporting to offer such services. That these charlatans are able to operate beyond the law and act on vulnerable people should be revisited, even if it is not the specific subject of this Bill.
The Domestic Abuse Bill will update our laws to recognise the breadth, and, unfortunately, the subtlety, of the crime. It will now include, among other things, the offence of coercive control. However, while the Bill recognises that such insidious behaviour is punishable within a household, it clearly exists outside the household too. This amendment seeks to address that omission, but it also speaks to the notion of what constitutes “domestic,” namely, the definition of the “connected” person. If one reads the language of the Bill and hears the heartbreaking stories of this abusive practice, there is surely no doubt that this proposed new clause belongs in the Bill.
We are talking about situations where bogus therapists attempt to alienate their subjects from their families and breed dependence on them, the so-called counsellors. False memories are concocted and sown, with happy childhoods replaced with nightmares of abuse that never happened. The symptoms follow a familiar pattern: the self-styled development coach preys on their vulnerable clients and tears them away from their families, to the extent that they break off all contact and become estranged. There are countless such cases. The goal of such therapy is coercion and control, to debilitate and disable—abuse, if ever there was.
The Bill currently defines “connected” persons using the language of intimate personal relationships, among other things. This captures the nature of what occurs in these bogus sessions. Families, friends and loved ones are wilfully alienated by the abuser, who then offers him or herself as a replacement. A dependence is created, and contact and communication of any kind with family and friends are discouraged. This is intimate, yet clearly abusive—exactly the subject of this Bill and exactly why I hope the Government will accept this amendment.
I began by lamenting the lack of legal protection and redress for those who might be duped by unqualified counsellors and psychotherapists, and I believe that this is definitely worthy of more debate and attention from the Government. But what we are talking about now is including such controlling and coercive behaviour by those who cruelly abuse their professional trust. The consequences for the individuals concerned and their families are profound and long-lasting. What goes on in these cases is intuitively and evidentially abuse. It is clearly coercive and controlling, and it is clearly done in the context of the intimate relationships captured by “connected” persons. For all these reasons, I would argue that the new offence belongs in this Bill. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, during the Committee discussions last week, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, commented on how helpful the debate on presumed parental consent was, and I agree. I felt that I was back on “Moral Maze”; I was moving around the issue and considering it from all sides. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made concrete for us that day, lots of issues thrown up by this proposed legislation are complex and nuanced moral dilemmas. It shows what a difficult task we have here in applying public law in what is usually the terrain of private and intimate relationships.
In some ways, though, that discussion on presumed parental consent focused our minds on the domestic core at the heart of this legislation. My concern is that this amendment shifts our focus away from that domestic core—although the previous noble Baroness tried to suggest that we should now broaden our understanding of “domestic”. It shifts our focus, broadens it too widely and potentially dilutes it. Do not get me wrong; when, at the end of the last Committee day, the noble Lord, Lords Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, spoke passionately and movingly—and we have heard similar testimony since—on the devastating impact of those reaping the bitter winds of recovered memory syndrome, which has been a dogma, sadly, I was cheering them on. I have been following the bitter memory wars since the 1990s, and consequences such as the satanic ritual abuse panics and various other panics. When that was a fashionable theory among trauma therapists, sections of social work professionals and some feminist academics, I argued against it. Now that form of therapy has largely been discredited by modern memory science, and is widely ridiculed, as it has been in this discussion, as pseudoscientific quackery.
I share noble Lords’ frustrations that the practice continues unlicensed and unregulated. I have no doubt that unethically encouraging vulnerable people to interpret their present woes through the prism of abuse, and then unethically planting false memories, is coercive. But my worry is that this amendment stretches the definition of coercive control, in the context of domestic abuse, too far. There is a danger, to quote a noble Baroness from an earlier Committee day, that this legislation will be seen as a Christmas tree on which everyone can hang a different preoccupation or grievance. That makes the definition so elastic that it can be a catch-all, and unintentionally relativises our gaze from the specific and discrete brutality of domestic abuse. I am already worried that this Bill has defined abuse far too promiscuously, and that it might well backfire and not help those it is intended to.
It is not just our focus—our gaze as legislators—that it will shift. How will it affect the police and criminal justice system if we label too many incidents as domestic abuse? Part of the popular frustration with the status quo is that serious incidents, threats or credible risks are not taken seriously, sometimes with tragic consequences. People go to the police and they are sent away. Surely what we do not want is for the authorities and the police to be swamped with endless numbers of complainants citing this Bill and a loose basis of the definition of coercive control, starting to make complaints.
I am all for dealing with, and exposing, the charlatans who call themselves counsellors, who play on the therapeutic culture and wo are only too willing to use the issue of abuse to push their own agendas with the consequence of destroying families. Let them be dealt with. I hope the Minister will look at how to deal with psychotherapists exploiting those who turn to them for help, but this is not the legislation to pursue that. So I will not be supporting the amendment, even though I cheer on those who wish to expose the charlatans.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on Wednesday, both the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, put the detailed legal arguments for this amendment, and I have added my name to it as well. I shall not try to repeat what they said, but instead will say something that has, perhaps, been said by all bar the last speaker in this debate, which is that I strongly support this amendment.
As a nation we have been very slow to recognise the way in which the human mind can be coerced and controlled by unscrupulous people without the use of violence. I am not sure that until “The Archers” featured Rob Titchener in its storyline about marital coercive control, and gripped the nation with it, many of us would have been able to describe or recognise it on our own doorsteps. We have been even slower as a nation to recognise and enact legislation to protect those who are its victims in another category, namely those whose vulnerability, whether it is emotional or psychological, renders them a target for the bogus counsellors, the amateur psychotherapists and the self-styled life coaches, usually bent on profit, who may appear to be well intentioned but still often inflict real harm and damage on their so-called patients and their families.
This is not a new phenomenon. Unhappy people often search for explanations and cures, and the unscrupulous offer false promises of help and future happiness. They frequently obtain substantial amounts of money from them and very often, using transference, seek to replace contact with parents and families, sometimes by implanting false memories, which in turn often sever domestic relationships for life. As a pupil barrister in 1970s, I remember cases involving the Scientologists. I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, remembers cases involving the Moonies. Domestic alienation was a common feature then, 50 years ago, as it is today with some of the quasi-healers operating in this country right now with impunity.
I personally am aware of one family whose adult daughter fell into the hands of just such people in London. They were paid substantial sums of money by her. Their methods involved repeated “counselling” sessions lasting six or seven hours at a stretch during which, exhausted, she was persuaded to sever all contact with her parents and her family. It took some years for them even to find her, and eventually get her back. She was one of the lucky ones. These people are untrained, unqualified, unregulated and damaging to the vulnerable on whom they prey. Yet our present law currently provides no adequate protection from their activities.
Our understanding and recognition of mental illness is, thankfully, advancing rapidly today. Yet we are only beginning to understand more about how the power of words, whether they are spoken directly or via the internet, can convince an otherwise intelligent adult to become a jihadi or embrace a coronavirus conspiracy theory and, in so doing, often damage and even destroy their closest domestic relationships. On this form of abuse, we have looked the other way for far too long. We have given protection, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, to other vulnerable categories by law—whether they are children, the mentally ill or the elderly—and it is now surely time to add those who are at the mercy of these bogus healers.
The Government argument is often, “Yes, but it’s not right in this Bill”—but I do not see a better Bill on the horizon to deal with this particular lacuna in the law. I totally understand that members of a Bill team that has produced an excellent Bill, as this team has, will always be reluctant to look at a new amendment that may, they fear, perhaps alter the architecture of the Bill on which they have worked so painstakingly. However, I do not see any other way, in the near future, of tackling something that I believe has not only been overlooked for far too long but I suspect is likely to grow, particularly in these times when so many young people are searching for an explanation of why their lives have changed so drastically from their expectations.
I hope that the Minister will agree to take this amendment away, have a look at it with his Bill team and, hopefully, come back with a solution. If he did so, I believe that he would have support across the whole House.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, this important amendment seeks to include controlling and coercive behaviour by a psychotherapist or counsellor in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, clearly laid out the reality of very unscrupulous practices. When working as they should, psychotherapists are generally trained to work over a long period of time with more complicated mental health issues, whereas counsellors are generally trained to work in the shorter term with life issues such as bereavement and relationships—although in practice there is huge overlap.
A problem arises for the person whose world is in tatters, who feels at sea and is desperate for some help. How do they have any idea whether the person they have been referred to or had suggested to them to see is a charismatic charlatan or an excellent counsellor who will help them to restabilise their life? In this process, they are even more vulnerable than prior to the consultation—a vulnerability that is exploited by the unscrupulous and by sects, as we have heard. They go to speak to a stranger, often paying for the privilege, and as they tell their story, they reveal their vulnerabilities and are often retraumatised by remembering the abuse as they relate events. This is psychological intimacy, and the person is certainly profoundly psychologically connected to their victim.
As we have heard, only the titles “clinical psychologist” and “counselling psychologist” are professionally restricted and must be registered with the Health and Care Professions Council. By contrast, the terms “therapist”, “psychotherapist” and “counsellor” are not protected; courses in these subjects are unregulated and vary very widely, which leaves unregistered and poorly trained people wide open to engaging in controlling and coercive behaviours.
Reputable employers providing counselling services, such as Women’s Aid, will expect an employee to have undertaken professional training. Often membership of a relevant professional body, such as the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the UK Council for Psychotherapy or the National Counselling Society, is required to ensure continuing professional development and ongoing supervision to enhance practice. All these bodies stipulate certain standards and ethical codes.
Proposed new subsections (1) and (2) set out what constitutes an offence and emphasise that controlling and coercive behaviour can be both physical and psychological. However, given the lack of regulation, I wonder whether this important amendment sets too high a bar, even for registered and well-trained professionals.
Proposed new subsection (4) raises a concern for me, but I am sure that it can be sorted out. It states that it is a defence to show that, when engaging in the behaviour in question, the psychotherapist or counsellor was acting in the person’s best interests. Here I declare my interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. As your Lordships know only too well, the term “best interests” is laid out in the Mental Capacity Act.
If a person has capacity to consent freely to whatever is proposed, there seems no rationale to make a best interests decision for them, and no form of controlling or coercive behaviour would be in their best interests. The person must have had the capacity to be able to consent to the counselling session. If the person lacks capacity to consent to a particular decision at a particular time, that decision should be deferred until they regain capacity for that decision. If restrictions of any sort have to be put in place in a person’s best interests because they cannot consent to the proposal, a formal best interests decision-making process, as laid out in statute, must be undertaken. A deprivation of liberty safeguard procedure or safeguarding may be required. I am worried that this defence, as written in the amendment, actually lessens the safeguards of a vulnerable person. I am sure that that is not what it aims to do.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 141, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, raises the important issue of controlling or coercive behaviour.
This proposed offence is modelled on the existing offence of coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, as set out in the Serious Crime Act 2015. I support the intent behind the amendment, but this appears to be an offence committed by a person who has a relationship with a family member; this is not about families, it is a professional client/patient relationship, so it is slightly different.
My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath set out the timeline of discussions over the last 20 years. It made quite sorry listening—such a long period has elapsed and so little has been achieved. That in itself should be concerning to all noble Lords.
As we have heard in this debate, it is worrying that potentially dangerous individuals can set themselves up with little or no control or regulation—no standards appear to be adhered to—and seek to offer professional services to people who are vulnerable or have issues. Quite clearly, they are only going to make the situation much worse. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu talked about what she referred to as “quasi-healers” and gave an example of the suffering and damage that these people can cause.
I support the intent behind the amendment and its aim. However, I am not sure that this is the right Bill for it, although I accept the point made by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu that we cannot see a Bill on the horizon that it could obviously slot into, which is itself a problem for us all. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, will set out what the Government propose to do to address this issue and say not just that it does not belong in this Bill but what we are going to do about it, because, as we have heard today, there are clearly some serious problems that deserve to be addressed by Parliament and the Government. I would particularly like to hear what he intends to do between now and Report; I have no doubt at all we will discuss the issue again on Report after the Recess.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate today and on Wednesday evening, when we began it. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for setting out the case for this amendment, which, as he explained, seeks to extend the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour to psychotherapists and counsellors providing services to clients.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was right; we have perhaps as a country been slow to appreciate the scale of coercive behaviour. I am very proud that it was my right honourable friend Theresa May who provided for the offence of “controlling or coercive behaviour” in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. That offence applies only to those who are “personally connected”, as defined in the section. It applies to intimate partners, regardless of whether they live together, to ex-partners who live together and to family members who live together. Amendment 141 would extend the offence beyond those who are personally connected, as defined by Section 76, so that it would apply to psychotherapists and counsellors. Most noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have pointed to evidence and indeed to specific harrowing cases suggesting that fraudulent psychotherapists and counsellors—or, as they understandably refer to them in many cases, charlatans—take advantage of their position to supplant friends and families in the minds and affections of their clients for the purpose of turning them against those friends and families. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested that this abuse should be caught by the controlling or coercive behaviour offence because therapists are abusing their position of trust and the dependence of their clients.
We have already had a number of debates in Committee on earlier amendments where my noble friends and I have stressed the importance of preserving the meaning of “personally connected” for the purposes of the definition of domestic abuse and, by extension, for the purposes of the Section 76 offence. The controlling or coercive behaviour offence was created in 2015 to fill a particular gap in the criminal law in relation to a pattern of abusive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. We are not persuaded that what looks like the beguilingly simple act of taking the concept of controlling or coercive behaviour in a domestic abuse setting and applying it to abuses of power by psychotherapists or counsellors should be undertaken without careful and detailed analysis. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has said, the professional/client relationship is a different one.
We have had a thoughtful but not conclusive debate on the definitions of what constitutes a domestic setting and an intimate relationship. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, these things may take place in the home, but often they will not. My noble friend Lady Finn explored what constitutes a domestic setting, but it is the personal connection that matters. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that we want to maintain a careful focus on the definition of domestic abuse as it is widely understood, and as we want the Bill to draw further attention to. That matters not only for the architecture of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, but in making sure that the police and other agencies are tightly focused on tackling the scourge of domestic abuse, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. We think, therefore, that without proper study it would not be right to transplant the concept of controlling or coercive behaviour into what is quite a separate power dynamic.
That is not, of course, to downplay the seriousness of this issue or the harrowing examples raised by noble Lords. The Government believe that we should look to other remedies, and it might be helpful to set out some of those that exist through the action that has been taken. A system of accredited voluntary registration with the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care already exists. The authority has a process for quality assuring voluntary registers of health and care professionals in the UK who are not subject to statutory regulation. It currently accredits 10 voluntary registers relating to counselling and psychotherapy, providing assurance to the public on approximately 50,000 talking therapy professionals. The registers can be used by service users to choose a practitioner to meet their needs and to be assured that those practitioners are safe, trustworthy and competent to practise.
To gain accreditation with the Professional Standards Authority, organisations have to meet 11 standards for accredited registers. These standards require organisations to have a focus on public protection, to have processes in place for handling complaints against practitioners, to set appropriate levels of education and training for entry to the register, to require registrants to undertake continuing professional development and to understand and monitor the risks associated with the practices of registrants. Any registrant who is removed from an accredited register for conduct reasons cannot join another accredited register. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said that these registers are voluntary. We would urge anyone looking to engage the services of a psychotherapist or counsellor to ensure that they are accredited by the Professional Standards Authority.
Noble Lords have raised issues which I know have been the subject of separate and indeed long-standing debates in your Lordships’ House. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, both referred to their experiences and insights from their time as Ministers and set out some of the actions which have been taken since. While there may be a need to legislate on this matter in the future, that is a question for the Department of Health and Social Care. I cannot commit the department one way or the other today, but for reasons of focus on the particular offence of domestic abuse, we do not feel that this Bill is the right place to do that. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I will call them in that order.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one salutary and useful aspect of this amendment is that it has focused our minds on false memories and false allegations. It is therefore a reminder that we must challenge what we believe to be the victim mindset that can lead to grave injustices. The amendment should remind the Government that abuse is so emotive that it becomes quite hard to challenge if it has been alleged. The reason why false memories have been so damaging over the years is that once the victims say that they have been abused while under the care, guidance, manipulation or coercive control of said “quack” counsellor, no one can challenge that because it is an accusation of abuse. This legislation bends the stick in the direction of victims far too much, in my opinion, and I urge the Minister to take great care and perhaps investigate some of the harrowing stories of false memory syndrome in order to learn lessons and not make the same mistakes here.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to say that this area needs continued and careful thought, a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who referred to the complexity of the issues and the matters which have to be considered. We will indeed do that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful response. He said that this issue goes wider than his own department, and I agree. In the period between Committee and Report, would it therefore be possible for him to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to discuss it? It is clearly a serious issue that demands a cross-government response and that would not necessarily be met only by an amendment to a particular Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
That is a sensible suggestion from the noble Lord and I am happy to commit to speaking to my noble friend about it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I was going to make the same suggestion as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who made the point that this is an important issue that runs across departments. As he said, I am not sure that this is the right Bill in which to address it, but equally, I am concerned that there may not be a right vehicle at the moment. We have to find some way of dealing with this issue, which has been raised across the House. We have potentially dangerous people treating very vulnerable people and thus only making the situation worse. We should not allow that to happen and we must find a way of dealing with it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken in this important and fascinating debate about some terrible behaviour. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, explained, the principle of this amendment has a long history of parliamentary support. It would rightly criminalise quack counsellors, who, as all have said, suborn vulnerable young people and exploit their weaknesses, in a way that amounts to a classic demonstration of how clearly abusive coercive and controlling behaviour is.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 142. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Schedule 2: Amendments relating to offences committed outside the UK
Amendment 142
Baroness Bertin
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft domestic abuse Bill, I know that the extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions of the Bill are intended to fulfil the UK’s obligations under Article 44 of the Istanbul convention. I welcome the fact that these provisions will bring the UK closer to ratifying a convention that we signed in 2012 and which will protect women and girls from violence and abuse.
My amendments concern a very specific issue—marital rape—where I believe the Bill as presently drafted may leave a potential loophole. I recognise that the drafting of the amendments may itself be imperfect, and my noble friend the Minister will no doubt speak to that, but I would like to explore whether the Bill could be strengthened so that people from this country cannot exploit laxer laws elsewhere.
In this country, the common-law presumption of a marital exemption from the offence of rape was overturned by your Lordships’ House in the case of R v R in 1991. Some countries similarly do not have any exemption for marital rape, and in others marital rape is explicitly criminalised, but there is a small minority of countries in which marital rape is not illegal. As drafted, the Bill appears to require that a prosecution for rape and other sexual offences committed against adult victims outside the UK may be brought in the UK only when the offending behaviour is also an offence in the country where it happens, but that requirement could prevent us prosecuting someone for marital rape committed outside the UK, if such behaviour is not included in or is exempt from the equivalent offence in the other jurisdiction.
This may be a small gap. I certainly hope that there would not be many, if any, cases of marital rape perpetrated by a UK person in a country that does not consider such behaviour to be a crime, but I believe that, if there is potential for this to occur, we should act to prevent it. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence, in England and Wales, for a UK national or resident to commit sexual offences against children outside the UK, in an effort to clamp down on so-called sex tourism. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Bill makes it an offence, in England and Wales, for a UK national or resident to commit sexual offences, under Sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, against people aged 18 or over at the time of the offence, extending extraterritoriality to serious sexual offences against adults as well as children.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has explained, the idea is to ensure that the Government comply with the Istanbul convention but, as she pointed out, for somebody to commit an offence, it has to be an offence not only in this country but in the country where the offence took place; in some of those countries, marital rape may not be criminalised. Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has identified a potential loophole. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for tabling these amendments and spotting this loophole in the Bill. It is good to have this debate today. As she has said, marital rape can happen in a country where it is not illegal locally, and we would then not be able to prosecute the offence here in the UK. Nobody in this Committee wants that situation. I hope the Government will confirm that they either accept her amendments, or accept that she has identified a very serious loophole and bring in their own amendments on Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bertin has, as she has explained, tabled an amendment which seeks to ensure that UK citizens who commit marital rape in countries where such behaviour is not criminal may be prosecuted in the UK. Such countries are thankfully in the minority. We of course want to prevent any exploitation of more lax laws on marital rape elsewhere.
I hope that the Committee will allow me a moment to put these amendments into context so that we can understand the legal architecture that we are talking about. Schedule 2 contains amendments to various enactments to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain offences under the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Together with provisions in the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill currently before the Northern Ireland Assembly—it gives extraterritorial effect to the new domestic abuse offence in Northern Ireland—and Clauses 66 and 67, it ensures that the UK complies with the jurisdiction requirements of Article 44 of the Istanbul convention. That article requires the UK to be able to prosecute criminal conduct set out in the convention when that conduct is committed outside the UK by one of our nationals or by a person who is habitually resident here. Part 1 of the schedule covers England and Wales and deals with cases under Sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, where the victim of the offence is aged 18 or over. Parts 2 and 3 cover Scotland and Northern Ireland on a corresponding basis.
In keeping with the normal principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction, there is a requirement that a prosecution for one of the relevant sexual offences—which includes rape—may be brought in the UK only where the offending behaviour is also an offence in the country where it happens. That is called dual criminality, which respects the notion that generally it is inappropriate for the criminal law of state A to be applied to conduct that occurs in state B where that conduct does not offend the law of state B. In most circumstances, the dual criminality requirement is not a barrier to prosecution because serious sexual offences against adults are likely to be criminal in most other countries. However, it could mean that, in some circumstances, UK authorities would not be able to prosecute someone for a marital rape committed outside the UK if such behaviour is not included in or exempt from the equivalent offence in the other jurisdiction. As it stands, the Bill applies a dual criminality requirement for the relevant sexual offences committed outside the UK by UK nationals and UK residents. My noble friend’s amendment would remove the dual criminality requirement for UK nationals, but not for UK residents. As explained by my noble friend, and by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the effect of this would be that the UK could prosecute UK nationals who commit marital rape against adult victims in countries where such behaviour is not criminal, but could prosecute UK residents who commit marital rape of adult victims abroad only if the behaviour is also criminal in the country where it is committed.
In principle, that is the right approach, as the link to the UK is stronger where the offending behaviour is perpetrated outside the UK by a UK national, rather than by a non-UK national ordinarily resident in the UK. Existing law already makes that distinction with regard to extraterritorial sexual offences where the victim is under 18. The amendments extend only to England and Wales and, as my noble friend identified, one would need to alter the drafting if they were to go further. However, I do not want to focus on the drafting issue. I am grateful to her for raising this important issue and possible lacuna in the Bill. Marital rape is abhorrent behaviour, and I agree that we should consider carefully the case for amending the Bill to cater for it. But—it is an important but—as the extraterritoriality jurisdiction provisions are UK-wide, we need first to consult the devolved Administrations to ensure a consistent approach across the UK. To that end, I respectfully invite my noble friend to withdraw her amendment on the clear understanding that we will give this matter serious and sympathetic consideration ahead of Report.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, for their very thoughtful remarks, and for their support on this amendment. It is a very small gap, but I think it worth plugging none the less. I thank the Minister for his thorough and illuminating remarks, from which I learned quite a bit. I am pleased that they were very warm words as well, and I thank him for his consideration of this amendment. I look forward to further conversations and some progress, I hope. It has been a refreshingly short debate, and I will keep it so. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with the question that Clause 69 stand part of the Bill. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or the amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 69: Polygraph conditions for offenders released on licence
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, opposition to clauses standing part of a Bill usually arises out of outright opposition, and in my case I said at Second Reading that I shared the view of my noble friend Lady Burt that polygraph testing on the present state of the technology has no place in our criminal justice system. The basic response of most lawyers to polygraph testing is to oppose its use in a criminal context precisely because there is no firm evidence of its reliability. We tend to the view, which I am sure the Minister understands, that a system of evaluating evidence whose reliability is not assured and produces essentially binary results—true or false—is inherently inimical to the approach of common-law lawyers used to a carefully balanced system of gathering, testing, and evaluating evidence.
However, my perception of polygraph testing has now become somewhat more nuanced. A major contributor to a shift in my view was an excellent teach-in organised by the Ministry of Justice last Thursday, very well presented by Heather Sutton, senior policy adviser on polygraphs and sexual offending, and Professor Don Grubin, emeritus professor of forensic psychiatry at Newcastle University. They gave a number of noble Lords a comprehensive outline of the way in which polygraph testing is used in the management of offenders subject to recall from licence under existing legislation. For my part, I have no experience of the use of polygraph testing, and no expertise on the subject. Opposition to its use as part of this Bill was canvassed in another place by my honourable friend Daisy Cooper MP. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Alex Chalk MP, provided a detailed and helpful response to a number of questions which she raised. As a result of his answers and what we were told on Thursday, I accept that there may be some force—subject to a number of questions—to the argument that there is a legitimate place for the use of polygraph testing in necessary cases, where its purpose is to avoid serious harm.
I add one particular proviso, among others, that evidence of polygraph testing must never be relied on as part of the evidence in a criminal case until its reliability is far more conclusively established than it is now. However, as I understood it, we were assured last Thursday—I would be grateful for confirmation of this from the Dispatch Box—that no decisions on recalls from licence can be taken as a result of a test indicating deception. If the result of a test implies that an offender is lying about a breach of a licence condition or about further offences, for example, investigators will ask the police to look further to see what the truth is before taking any positive action. There is therefore no recall, as I understand it, on the basis of a failed test, which will lead only to recall if the police find other evidence establishing that a breach has occurred.
However, I have some concerns about cases where an offender makes a disclosure in a polygraph test confessing to behaviour that is a dangerous breach and might therefore be recalled. It is important in such cases that the veracity or genuineness of the disclosure and its voluntariness can be thoroughly tested before any recall can take place. Our understanding was that such a disclosure would be followed generally by a hearing before a recall was confirmed, but again I seek confirmation of that.
This is genuinely a probing amendment. It is for that reason that our stand part opposition is coupled with Amendment 191, through which I advocate regulations to prevent Clause 69 being brought into force before such a scheme is piloted. I note that the Government propose to pilot these provisions before rolling them out. However, we ask that regulations bringing Clause 69 into force are not made permanent before Parliament has had an opportunity to consider a report from the Government on that pilot and has agreed to regulations being made permanent under that clause.
I appreciate that polygraph testing is used already in the case of high-risk sexual offenders to manage compliance with licence conditions and that it is included in the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill for monitoring terrorist offenders released on licence. As I understand Clause 69 of this Bill, testing will be imposed on adult high-risk offenders who are convicted of serious offences involving domestic abuse, including coercive or controlling behaviour in the domestic context, breaches of restraining orders and of a domestic abuse protection order, who have been sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment. I understand that its application will be limited to offenders released on licence and to monitoring their compliance with licence conditions. However, I understand that it is also proposed to include on a discretionary basis offenders for whom concerns about the risk of reoffending would justify mandatory testing to manage risks posed by the offender to the community.
I pose a number of questions to the Minister in connection with that and other issues. Is there a cast-iron guarantee that the results of polygraph testing carried out under the clause could not be used to secure convictions for a criminal offence? To what extent could an offender be recalled from licence on the basis of a polygraph test in which he made disclosure of a breach of condition of his licence? What would be the procedure for such a recall? What is the effect of a breach of polygraph licensing conditions to be? Could evidence of such a breach be itself based on a failed polygraph test? What are the Government’s proposals for piloting in respect of polygraph tests in connection with monitoring compliance with licensing conditions in domestic abuse cases? Will there be a report of any such pilots back to Parliament? Will Parliament have an opportunity to consider the question of polygraph testing before the regulations make it permanent?
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is not the only Bill currently in your Lordships’ House that seeks to extend the use of polygraphs. I am not surprised that lawyers and what I have learned in another Bill to call operational partners have different starting points in their attitudes and expectations of polygraphs. My position is similar to that of my noble friend.
Given that we have more than one Bill proposing to introduce polygraph conditions, is this indicative of a policy change on the part of the Government, with wider use of polygraphs—perhaps wider than just these two Bills? If so, what consultation and evaluation has there been? I appreciate that it is intended that there will be a pilot of the use under this Bill, which my noble friend seeks to be absolutely sure about in Amendment 191.
Last week, during Committee on the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, I asked about consultation with the probation service with regard to the balance between periods of custody and licence—a different point. I have now received a letter from the Advocate-General for Scotland, for which I am grateful, which, inter alia, said:
“The Probation Service is not normally consulted in respect of the creation of new custodial sentences or their licence periods.”
It is, of course, the licence period in which I am interested.
I have a similar question about consultation on the use of polygraphs during the licence period. The provisions preclude evidential use. As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—their purpose is to discourage reoffending. I have said before that I would prefer to put effort into training probation officers in spotting small signs of what is the truth, what is editing the facts and what are porkies.
The Home Office fact sheet published in conjunction with the Bill refers to eligibility criteria as if there are criteria beyond what is in the Offender Management Act and the Bill. Another question is whether there are additional criteria. It also refers to high-risk perpetrators. Does that mean more than the custodial sentence, as provided by the Act? Does it mean more than repeat offences? Can the Minister say something about the assessment tools in arriving at the conclusion that someone is high risk?
The Home Office factsheet refers to risk as a test. The briefing last week to which my noble friend referred was very interesting and informative, and clearly those involved with the current use of polygraphs on sex offenders are enthusiastic—one would have expected that. But we were told that, in the US, historically there has been some inappropriate or, one could say, dodgy use. I was interested that the accreditation was to standards set by the American Polygraph Association. Given that our legal systems are not identical, has the Minister any comment on that?
I had understood that it was not possible actually to fail a test, because the examinations are used to point probation officers to an offender’s possible actions and behaviours, but that term is also used in the fact sheet, where it refers to “sanctions for failing”. One step available is the imposition of additional licence conditions. My noble friend mentioned DAPOs, or domestic abuse prevention orders. Can a polygraph test be used to prompt an investigation as to whether a DAPO or, indeed, a domestic abuse prevention notice, has been complied with before custody? Can a court dealing with a DAPO require a polygraph?
I suppose that one could summarise our attitude to Clause 69 as positive but remaining to be completely convinced—so possibly somewhere between yes and no.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. We do not seem to have him, so we will go on to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the opposition to Clause 69 standing part, and Amendment 191, both in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, have enabled us to debate the whole issue of mandatory polygraph tests, and the fact that such tests could be made a licence condition for domestic abuse offenders.
I certainly want to see effective action taken against offenders, and effective punishments given to them. I have some concerns about the use of the polygraph test. If we rely on it further and further, it should be piloted in the way set out in Amendment 191, and we must be convinced of its reliability. As the noble Lord set out in his amendment, a report evaluating the trials must then be laid before Parliament and debated and a positive resolution passed by both Houses. I have had no involvement in this technology and I have no understanding of it—apart from what I have seen on television—so I believe that we must be very careful to get this right.
I was concerned by the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which seemed to suggest that we would not have our own standards but would import them from another country—America. I would much rather that as a country we had our own standards, in which we had confidence, than import them from elsewhere. But polygraph testing is not widely used in this country and before we go much further, we need to be confident that it is reliable, and an effective and useful tool in the management of offenders.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, shall we see if we have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, on the call? I do not think we do, sadly, in which case I call the Minister.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, seeks to strike out—alone among the clauses in the Bill—Clause 69. I will endeavour to persuade him, and the rest of the Committee, that this clause, like others, can play an important part in protecting victims of domestic abuse. Right at the start, however, I join the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking those at the MoJ who provided the presentation made to them. This was a very good example of how that sort of interaction—what one might call a learning session—can help everyone when we debate these matters in Committee.
Clause 69 allows the Secretary of State for Justice to introduce mandatory polygraph examinations as a licence condition for offenders convicted of a relevant domestic abuse-related offence. The relevant offences have included, until now: murder, specified violent offences, and the controlling or coercive behaviour offences set out in the Serious Crime Act 2015.
Polygraph examinations are already successfully used in the management of sexual offenders supervised by the National Probation Service. The clause extends the use of testing to include—in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—high-risk domestic abuse perpetrators: those who have been released from custody having served a sentence of 12 months or more and are on licence.
The polygraph testing is used to monitor an offender’s compliance with other licence conditions, such as those restricting contact with their victim, requiring the offender to notify the probation officer when they form new relationships, or prohibiting entry into an exclusion zone; for example, around their victim’s home. It is also used to monitor dynamic risk factors such as alcohol or substance misuse.
I will try to respond to a number of questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but if I miss any out, I undertake to write to him after reviewing the Official Report.
The policy underpinning these provisions does not allow offenders to be recalled to custody for failing a test. I use the word “fail” being cognisant of the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we are not talking here about failing in the normal sense of the word. Indeed, I think the noble Baroness explained her approach to polygraphs as being somewhere between a yes and a no; that might be applicable to the polygraph itself. The clause does, however, enable offenders to be recalled for making disclosures during testing which, when considered with other evidence, suggest that the risk can no longer be managed in the community.
The offender can also be recalled to custody if he or she refuses to take the test or tries to trick it in some way; for example, by controlling their breathing. However, in response to the questions put to me, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that disclosures made voluntarily by the offender during the polygraph examination may reveal that they can no longer be safely managed in the community. Those circumstances would also lead to a return to custody. The important point to bear in mind in that regard is that that is no different from a situation in which an offender makes such disclosures without the polygraph licence condition.
Polygraph testing can be required as part of the licence conditions imposed on an offender following their release from custody. It can be imposed only where it is deemed necessary and proportionate to the risk posed. Importantly, in its report on the draft Bill the Joint Committee did not object in principle to extending polygraph testing to domestic abuse offenders; it sought assurance on two issues.
First, it sought an absolute assurance that no statement or data derived from a polygraph test would be used in criminal proceedings. The Joint Committee acknowledged that this appeared to be the effect of the draft Bill. In that regard, the provision in Clause 69 must be viewed alongside the existing provisions relating to polygraph testing in the Offender Management Act 2007. Section 30 of that Act provides unequivocally that any statement or any physiological reaction made by an offender during the polygraph session may not be used in criminal proceedings in which that person is a defendant.
To be clear, however, this does not preclude information derived from a polygraph examination being shared with the police, who may decide to use the information to conduct further inquiries. If, as a result of those inquiries, the police obtain other evidence that suggests that an offence has been committed, charges may be brought against the offender.
The second concern raised by the Joint Committee was that polygraph testing should not become a substitute for careful risk analysis—a point that, I think, was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I assure the Committee that the use of polygraph examinations will not replace any other risk assessment tools or measures, such as the multiagency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—but will provide an additional source of information that would not otherwise be available.
The evaluation of the pilot mandatory polygraph testing for sexual offenders concluded that offender managers found polygraph testing very helpful. To date, 5,000 tests of that type have been carried out on 2,249 offenders, and 1,449 tests have resulted in the offenders making significant disclosures that led to either a refined risk management plan or recall to custody.
With regard to the qualifications of those carrying out the examinations, I assure the Committee that they are carried out by qualified and experienced probation officers who have completed three months’ residential training to become accredited polygraph examiners, and all polygraph examinations are quality assured by an independent external provider.
However, while the use of polygraph examinations is tried and tested, as I have said, in the context of the management of sex offenders, the Government accept that domestic abuse perpetrators represent a different cohort of offender. That is why we are committed to piloting the provisions in Clause 69. I draw the Committee’s attention to the commencement provisions in Clause 79, which expressly provides for such piloting; we will begin this as soon as is practicable after Royal Assent.
We intend to run a three-year pilot in the north of England, involving about 600 offenders. Half will be subject to testing and half—the control or comparison group—will not. The Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing, in collaboration with the University of Cambridge, will conduct an independent evaluation of the pilot, and only if the results were positive would we roll out testing across England and Wales. In response to the specific question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in conjunction with his Amendment 191, I am happy to commit that the Government will lay a copy of the evaluation report before both Houses prior to any decision on wider rollout, enabling noble Lords to consider the findings in full. I hope that that is helpful in response to his question.
Given the benefits that we have seen with the use of polygraph testing to help us to manage the risk posed by convicted sex offenders, I apprehend that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, now sees the merit, at least in principle, of analysing the question of whether we can use the same procedure with regard to serious domestic abuse perpetrators. Indeed, last week, we heard calls for the more efficient and effective use of technology to protect victims of domestic abuse—Clause 69 does just that.
With the repetition of the point that I will go through the Official Report, because there may be one or two questions that I have not directly answered but which deserve and will get a written answer from me, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his challenge to Clause 69, which I commend to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid that we have had no luck getting in contact with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the Minister for his careful response. I echo both his thanks to those in his department who organised the learning session last week and his view that it sets a good example; it would be very good to hear more often from experts in the department—particularly about the use of technology, where Members of this House perhaps have less expertise than they do in other legal areas.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked a number of questions, some of which were answered by the Minister. I am not sure that he addressed the question of what is meant by, and what the criteria are for, “high-risk” perpetrators. She also wanted to know what exactly is meant by “failing” a test; I understand, as did the Minister, the concept of evaluating a test, but there is a problem with our general understanding of results of polygraph tests as binary and with the use of the term “failed test”, which frequently figures in discussions around this issue. Given his echo of the description of answers as “somewhere between yes and no”, as expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the Minister clearly appreciated that these tests cannot provide definitive answers. Will he and others give consideration to how far they should be treated as more indicative than binary?
I am less concerned about the use of information, as described by the Minister, that is derived from polygraph testing and used to submit information to the police for further investigation, which would then come up with real evidence. I am, however, a little concerned about recall based on disclosures. I understand the point that there is some similarity between disclosures that arise as a result not of polygraph testing but of, for instance, discussions with probation officers; however, I still think that there need to be safeguards. The Minister may like to consider those and put out some guidance as to how they are to be dealt with.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I regret to say that I have had a late request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I apologise: there is often a delay when the clerk sends a message to the Woolsack. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
Thank you. I apologise for throwing the proceedings. I have just received an email saying that I am about to be called.
My question concerns how the Minister dealt with the fact that information—I hesitate to use the term “evidence”—obtained during a test cannot be used as evidence in legal proceedings. It has only just occurred to me that, of course, family proceedings in particular—as well as civil proceedings—are very important in respect of domestic abuse. I am unclear as to the status of what is learned during a polygraph test for family proceedings. If the Minister cannot answer that now, could he add it to the questions that he will reply to after today?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it might be most efficient for me to do just that. I will add it to the list of questions and respond in writing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 146. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and that anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 70: Guidance about the disclosure of information by police forces
Amendment 146
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“(2A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance under this section which takes account of evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and offences involving hostility based on sex.(2B) In preparing guidance under subsection (2A) the Secretary of State must require the chief officer of police of any police force to provide information relating to—(a) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force; and(b) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force which, in the opinion of the chief officer of police, have also involved domestic abuse.(2C) In this section—“relevant crime” means a reported crime in which—(a) the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of or immediately before or after the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on sex, or(b) the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex;“sex” has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010 (sex).”
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 146 in my name, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I will explore this relatively fully because it is, I think, the first time that misogyny, per se, has reared its ugly head in this Bill, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I go into detail to explain why I think it is important to consider it.
What, then, is the issue? What is this about and why on earth would anyone want to open what some might consider the Pandora’s box of recognising the link between misogyny and domestic abuse? Indeed, is this the “woke police” on the march, or is there actually a reason behind it?
Violence against women does not occur in a vacuum. Hostility towards them generates a culture in which violence and abuse are being tolerated, excused and repeated. Changing that means challenging not only individual acts of abuse but the very roots of the culture that enables it. Gathering the evidence about the extent, nature and prevalence of hostility towards women, and how these interplay with the experience of domestic abuse, is crucial to recognising these connections.
At Second Reading I mentioned the dreadful case of Kellie Sutton, a mother of three children under 15 who killed herself in 2017 after suffering five months of psychological and physical abuse from her partner, who was subsequently jailed for four years and three months and, in addition, given a 10-year criminal behaviour order requiring him to tell the police of any sexual relationship lasting more than 14 days that he enters into. Why is this case relevant to the amendment? It is because the perpetrator had already been reported to the police in previous years by three different partners. In his regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, the senior coroner for Hertfordshire highlighted the fact that police records failed to flag up that this was a repeat domestic abuse perpetrator. The previous three complaints had been filed away as non-crime reports, which meant that the police would have found a link to the perpetrator only if they had searched for the victims, since no reports at all had been filed against the abuser. The coroner concluded in his report:
“This sort of information is clearly of value to inform officers’ decision making, when dealing with a report of potential domestic abuse and clearly of value when seeking to safeguard more widely the vulnerable parties in abusive relationships.”
The amendment seeks to do that by learning from the experience of the police forces around the country which have started to record misogyny as a hate crime. By requiring all police forces to do that and to assess how it influences incidents of domestic abuse, the amendment seeks to add to our understanding of the nature of violence against women and so the work on how to end it.
We are all aware that police forces are very stretched in their manpower resources, and that they approach domestic abuse incidents with great caution. Given the pressures that the police are under, why have some forces voluntarily taken on what some might regard as just more form-filling or box-ticking? The evidence of where misogyny has been identified as a hate crime to date by police forces in their recording of crime has been that it helps increase the understanding of the causes and consequences of violence against women. It is critical that every case of domestic abuse should be taken seriously and each individual given access to the support they need.
Both men and women may experience incidents of interpersonal violence and abuse but women are considerably more likely to experience repeated and severe forms of abuse, including sexual violence. They are also more likely to have experienced sustained physical, psychological or emotional abuse, or violence that results in injury or death. There are important differences between male violence against women and female violence against men; namely, the amount, severity and impact. Women experience much higher rates of repeated victimisation and are much more likely to be seriously hurt or killed than male victims of domestic abuse.
In one study of 96 cases of domestic abuse recorded by the police, it was found that men are significantly more likely than women to be repeat perpetrators and to use physical violence, threats and harassment. Over a six-year tracking period, the majority—83%—of recorded male perpetrators had at least two incidents of recorded abuse, with many having a lot more and one man having no fewer than 52 repeat incidents, whereas in cases where women were recorded as the perpetrator, the majority, 62%, had only one incident of abuse recorded, and the highest number of repeat incidents for any female perpetrator was eight, compared with 52.
In 2016 Nottinghamshire Police became the first police force in the country to enable women and girls to report cases of abuse and harassment as misogyny under their misogyny hate crime policy. Misogynistic hate crimes recorded by the police since Nottinghamshire adopted that policy include stalking, groping, indecent assault and kidnapping. While they initially did not include domestic abuse in that reporting as it was already being recorded as a form of crime, those involved in the scheme now say:
“Our experience of delivering training to the police tells us that, even though domestic abuse is not included within the hate crime policy, officers are often able to recognise that misogyny is likely to be at the root of this too. Similarly, we are aware that misogyny hate crime can act as a bridge to women talking about (and recognising) other forms of violence against women. Where women may feel that domestic abuse is something that happens to other women and is not linked to inequality, they are more readily able to recognise this with misogyny hate crime.”
Following Nottinghamshire’s example, the police forces in North Yorkshire, Avon and Somerset, and Northamptonshire have also made misogyny a hate crime, and are therefore already recording these figures to enable such an approach. The amendment would require other police forces to follow suit. Women’s Aid reports that police forces that are recording misogyny have not seen an influx of reporting of wolf-whistling but instead have received a growing number of reports of serious sexual harassment and assault. Making misogyny a hate crime would mean simply that police forces logged and monitored such incidents and thereby enabled to create a fuller picture of the problem, support victims and make them aware of where incidents were recurring. Indeed, women and girls need to feel that their concerns are being taken seriously by the police and that misogyny is not normalised. Categorising and calling out misogyny wherever it occurs would send a clear message that such behaviour was not acceptable, and should prevent more serious offences in the long term.
As we all know, domestic abuse cases have risen dramatically during the pandemic crisis, with cases of domestic homicides doubling in the UK. The Bill states that the Secretary of State must give guidance on the kinds of behaviour that amount to domestic abuse. The amendment states that the guidance should further take account of
“evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and offences involving hostility based on sex.”
While there is no legal definition of “hostility”, the Crown Prosecution Service uses the everyday understanding of the word, which includes ill will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike. The amendment seeks to build on that concept. It would ensure that all police forces in England and Wales recorded any crimes where the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated by this hostility or perceived the perpetrator to have demonstrated hostility in committing the crime. The police would then also be required to assess how that interacted with domestic abuse by making an assessment of how many of those crimes met the definition as set out in this legislation.
Proposals to recognise misogyny as a category of hate crime would therefore not make anything illegal if it was not illegal already. Instead, the amendment would help build our understanding of the forms of violence and abuse that women experience by ensuring that all were recorded. Those working in areas where this approach is being taken have reported the transformative effect that it has had on safety. As Helen Voce, CEO of the Nottingham Women’s Centre, pointed out:
“Misogyny is the soil in which violence against women grows.”
That is why we need to tackle it.
Following an amendment to the upskirting Bill, Her Majesty’s Government instructed the Law Commission to carry out a review of all hate crime and to consider incorporating misogyny as a new category of hate crime. The commission notes that there were 67,000 incidents of hate crime based on gender in 2018, 57,000 of which were targeted at women. Without recognising the role of misogyny in the experiences of women, our legal and criminal justice system masks the true extent of hostility based on gender.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, my normal reaction to an invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, to sign an amendment on social reform is to reach for my pen, but on this occasion I confess I hesitated—not of course having heard the compelling and moving speech he has just made. This is because, while a member of the other place, I spent 30 days with the Hampshire Constabulary, and a constant complaint was about the number of forms they had to fill in, regarding it as an unwelcome diversion from the prevention and detection of crime.
Amendment 146 would require the chief officer to provide information, presumably on a form, about domestic abuse crimes where the offender demonstrated hostility or prejudice based on sex. A strong case needs to be made for this, to which I will come in a moment. In addition to the requirement to fill in a form, the amendment raises the question as to how a chief officer might judge whether a crime involving domestic abuse might have been motivated by hostility or prejudice based on sex—given that there are varying motives for domestic abuse, as we have heard during earlier debates on the Bill, and often no witnesses.
To get a better understanding of the complex issues behind domestic abuse and hate crime, I went to the Law Commission document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, called Hate Crime Laws: A Consultation Paper. This is not light reading, weighing in at 544 pages, with a glossary and a foreword but no executive summary. But it did look, as the noble Lord has just said, at broadening the range of hate crimes to other categories, of which sex was one.
The relevant chapter for this debate is chapter 12, which looks at extending existing protected characteristics to gender or sex. It is 48 pages of closely argued and sympathetic analysis, which ends with a provisional recommendation, followed by a question:
“We provisionally propose that gender and sex should be a protected characteristic for the purposes of hate crime law. Do consultees agree? We invite consultees’ views on whether gender-specific carve-outs for sexual offences, forced marriage, FGM and crimes committed in the domestic abuse context are needed, if gender or sex is protected for the purposes of hate crime law.”
I appreciate that, as the noble Lord has just said, the amendment does not propose extending hate crime to gender or sex. However, the issues raised by the amendment are similar to those in the Law Commission’s document and, as I shall argue, the amendment offers the opportunity to shed light on the provisional conclusions of the Law Commission, and indeed helps to answer their questions.
To summarise the document, the commission identified three relevant criteria before extending hate crime. The first is demonstrable need—evidence that targeting based on prejudice or hostility towards a group is prevalent. The second is additional harm—evidence that that targeting causes additional harm to the victim, members of the targeted group and society more widely. The third is suitability—whether protection of this group fits within the framework of criminal law, is workable in practice, and is an efficient use of resources.
Again, to summarise, the first two boxes were ticked. On demonstrable need, the commission concluded that there is
“overwhelming evidence that women and girls are targeted for certain crimes”
because of hostility to their gender. On additional harm, it concluded that hostility causes
“harm to the social value of equality and can prevent women’s equal participation in society”
and so causes wider harm to that society.
On suitability, the commission is frankly more cautious. It points to the risk of dividing offences into misogynistic and non-misogynistic, and creating a hierarchy of offences. It also mentions the difficulty of proof. Proof is often difficult enough in domestic abuse cases, but having to prove that the offence was aggravated by prejudice against women could provide an additional hurdle.
The commission also touched on issues relating to resources. Hate crime resources are limited, prosecutions and convictions are down and, as we have heard in earlier debates, support services are under strain. I quote from the Law Commission report:
“In this light, one argument might be that resources for tackling violence against women and girls would be more efficiently spent on increasing access to all survivors, particularly survivors who encounter additional barriers to access such as BAME survivors or migrant survivors.”
This then led the commission to discuss the possibility, if hate crimes were to be extended to gender or sex, of carving out domestic abuse and sexual crimes from gender-based aggravation, as already happens in certain states in America. It conceded that this would lead to a certain incoherence in the law and stated:
“This raises much wider questions as to whether hate crime is the right framework for the criminal justice system to deal with gender-based crimes.”
On balance, the commission proposes that gender should be a protected characteristic, but qualifies this by making it provisional and subject to consultees’ agreement.
Why is this relevant to the amendment, which I support? Because I believe that not going outright to make gender-based crime a hate crime, but suggesting this interim step, helps to answer the questions posed by the commission and provides key information on practicality and suitability. As the noble Lord has just said, the amendment would secure the evidence about the extent, nature and prevalence of hostility towards women and girls, how these interplay with the experience of domestic abuse and the practicality of this proposed extension.
A better understanding of these issues is crucial. As we have heard, 11 out of the 43 police constabularies in England and Wales have made misogyny a hate crime, trialled the policy or are actively considering implementing it and voluntarily filling in the necessary forms—dealing with my initial reservation. The amendment would broaden the base by requiring all police forces to do this and so it would add to our understanding of the nature of violence against women and so how work to end it might be accelerated. If we go down this path, I hope the Minister will do this sensitively and cautiously, taking on board the points in the Law Commission reports. If carried, the amendment would be an important addition to this progressive piece of legislation.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this amendment, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his comprehensive introduction. It may be hard for some people to fully comprehend the role that misogyny and sexism play in the lives of women and the extent to which it permeates our every day: from offhand pejorative language that belittles feminine characteristics and female achievements, through lazy gender-based assumptions about preferences, capability and behaviours, to uniquely gendered insults and slurs.
At one end of the spectrum are behaviours and attitudes that might be considered by their perpetrators to be gallant or even protective of the “fairer sex”—what some researchers characterise as “benevolent sexism”. At the other end is the hostile sexism of overtly negative stereotypes and antagonism towards women; the kind of sexism that sees gender equality as attack on masculinity and the kind of sexism that is known to represent a significant danger to women.
We worry, with good reason, about social media platforms creating environments for this kind of misogyny. Indeed, research from the University of Pennsylvania on just one social media platform located more than 2.9 million tweets in one week containing instances of gendered insults. That averages 419,000 sexist slurs per day. That data is from 2019; we can only imagine that today’s figures might dwarf that number.
But perhaps we should worry more about the fact that this online aggression simply mirrors traditional stereotypes and attitudes towards women—a hostility based on sex that women experience everywhere: at school, at work, on public transport, in taxis, on the street and of course at home.
Research from Brazil and Turkey into the connection between sexism and domestic abuse shows a positive correlation between sexism and attitudes that legitimise abuse in intimate relationships. Put simply, men who hold sexist beliefs are more likely to translate them into actions through the use of coercion and force. The researchers make the point that, although benevolent sexism might be thought to promise some kind of protection for women as the perceived weaker sex, in fact this promise rings hollow. It found that benevolent and hostile sexism acted in a carrot-and-stick combination, with protective affection a reward for compliance, and abuse and violence the stick employed should the woman fail to fall into line.
Of course, the impact of sexism and misogyny within the home is doubly worrying. Not only does it have a grave impact on the abused partner; it is also likely to be witnessed and internalised by children, influencing their behaviours and expectations in their adult lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, talked about the lack of knowledge about the experience of victims—the wisdom from their perspectives. This lack of focus is evident in the literature. There is a significant gap in our knowledge about how women experience misogynistic hate crimes. A Swedish study from September 2020 aimed to fill that gap, drawing from a sample of 1,767 female students. It showed that women with experiences of misogynistic hate crimes are more likely to be subjected to sexual harassment and repeat victimisation. They consistently report higher levels of a fear of crime and higher rates of anxiety, depression and stress.
The research supports the thesis that misogynistic hate crime is what is often called a “message crime”. Its negative effect extends far beyond the direct victim, because the offences spread fear and insecurity within entire minority communities and contribute to the marginalisation of particularly vulnerable groups.
As we have heard, this amendment would lead to the gathering of more data about the extent, nature and prevalence of sex-based hostility towards women and girls, and this would improve our understanding of how this intersects with domestic abuse. The very act of collecting this data would likely have benefits in itself.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said and as we have heard, 11 out of 43 police constabularies in England and Wales already identify misogyny as a hate crime or are considering doing so. The increased rate of reporting in those areas suggests overall improvements in the ability of officers to identify these crimes but also increased confidence levels among women to come forward and report them. Requiring all police forces to follow their example would allow the capture of data on a national scale, supporting the gathering and analysis of evidence, revealing the patterns and extent of women’s experiences, and, ultimately, enabling the development of strategies that would protect women and girls from being targets of crime on the basis of their sex.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his very clear introduction and explanation, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for her description of misogyny.
As we have heard, the amendment would require guidance to take account of the role that hostility against a particular sex plays in domestic abuse cases. It would also require the police to collect data on the number of relevant hate crimes based on sex and on how many of them are misogyny or misandry related. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, the picture is patchy to say the least.
The problem is that currently all but four police forces do not record crimes based on misogyny or misandry, although I totally accept the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, about how the picture needs to be built up. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, another seven forces are thinking about recording such crimes, but there are 43 police forces in total, so we can hardly get a picture of what is happening and of the contribution that these crimes make to domestic abuse in particular. In order to be able to measure and interpret trends in hate crimes, we must have the information; otherwise, how can we know what we are dealing with and how can we build that picture?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to be a signatory to this long overdue amendment, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the other co-signatories for bringing forward. It relates to a policy that I have advocated for years—that we should make misogyny a hate crime.
Part of the problem is that misogyny and sexism are deeply embedded in our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about a protective kindness from men towards women. Quite honestly, we do not need that. Misogyny and sexism can be covered up by teasing and even flattery, but it is totally inappropriate and it is time that men learned that. We have enshrined our condemnation of racism and homophobia in law, but we are not treating sexism as the same kind of priority and it is time that we did.
According to statistics, 90% of British women experienced street harassment before the age of 17. Street harassment is being shouted at. We are not talking about wolf-whistling; we are talking about men shouting at women, making them embarrassed and perhaps making them feel less free to walk down a street. Eighty-five per cent of women aged 17 to 24 have been subjected to unwanted sexual advances. Can your Lordships imagine that—that 85% of women have been groped by people whom they do not want to be groped by? Therefore, it is time to make misogyny a hate crime.
The amendment is long overdue and I hope that the Minister will say that she accepts it completely. Several noble Lords have talked about Nottinghamshire Police being trailblazers on this. It has seen a 25% increase in the reporting of misogynistic crime and a very high level of satisfaction among the people—mainly women—who have reported those crimes, because finally they have been taken seriously. As noble Lords have also said, only 11 out of 43 police forces in England and Wales have made misogyny a hate crime, have trialled it or are actively considering implementing this.
Part of the problem is that, just as the police are representative of society, there will be police officers who are sexist and misogynistic. This means that they need training. I have in the past mentioned the sort of domestic abuse training that some police forces are already getting. It makes the officers aware of exactly what happens and creates more empathy for the people who are being abused. For me, domestic abuse training is part of what will help to solve this problem that we have of misogyny. I hope that standing up and talking about it here will also help.
It would be a real shame for this amendment not to be accepted on to the statute book, but will the Minister at least promise to open a debate on this issue among police forces? It is in her power to do that. I would be very pleased if she accepted this amendment but, if not, could she take it forward in any way that she can?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We cannot hear you.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
It will be immensely helpful to have a process of gathering information ahead of the Law Commission report on whether extension of hate crimes to embrace misogyny will work, and how. At present, we do not have good information. This is a really difficult area; I do not think that any of us has trouble with the concept of hate crimes, but the Scottish Parliament is currently undergoing extreme difficulty with the concept of hate speech. Many police forces in the UK are doing some very strange things with “hate incidents”, where these can be recorded just on the say-so of one person and then appear in another person’s DBS check. There are some difficult things happening around hate crimes and hate incidents generally; having good data must, surely, be at the core of reaching good conclusions.
Here, we have a difficulty in that the police have changed their recording of crimes and reports so that they record only the reported gender of a person and not their natal sex, as is the protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Recently, we have seen extraordinary rises in the reported level of sexual abuse by women. Is this real? Is there something happening to women in our country that we really ought to understand, or is this a fiction of the change in the police reporting method? Not having accurate data disables us in understanding what to do.
I very much hope that, if something comes of this—I hope it will—the police will not only record the natal sex but will record the gender of all the people concerned so that we can understand exactly what is happening. It really does not help trans people that the hate they are subject to is subsumed under misogyny if they are trans women. We need to know whether this is happening to them because they are trans. We are trying to gather data and understanding; the better the data we have, the better our response.
I support, but would like to see extended, the definition at the end of this. It is really important that we have clarity and completeness. Let us record sex as per the Equality Act definition because that is, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has confirmed to me on previous occasions, the basis on which the Government are working. Let us also record self-identified gender or whatever other formulation works best—we could perhaps adopt the one from the forthcoming census—so that we have a complete picture of misogyny and trans misogyny and can, when the time comes, craft effective laws about it.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
I am very pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. Members may have seen recent reports in the media covering the experience of elite female athletes being subject to harassment and intimidation when doing training runs in the street. They cannot go to their athletic tracks to train at the moment because of lockdown. As has been said, this is not about wolf-whistling; it is about violence and harassment, mainly against women. If those athletes were competing in an Olympic stadium, they would be cheered to the rafters for their success, but because they are training on the streets and are anonymous, somehow they are objectified and are easy prey.
During White Ribbon Week, I asked the Minister to accept the two year-old Law Commission’s report recommending that misogyny be made a hate crime. This is now a matter of increasing urgency. The police forces that have been adopting policies to record gender hate crimes are to be congratulated, but this needs to be adopted generally. Superintendent Andy Bennett of Avon and Somerset Police said:
“We know women are less likely to report hate crime committed by strangers in public, which could be because discrimination is normalised for many women.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, Nottinghamshire Police was the first force in England and Wales to start recording hate crimes against women and girls. Sue Fish, the former chief constable of Nottinghamshire Police, said:
“Some of the feedback we had was that women, for the first time, described themselves as ‘walking taller’ and with their ‘heads held high’.”
According to the White Ribbon Campaign, one in five British men thinks that feminism has gone “too far”. Online misogyny can also be a gateway to wider divisions in society. A HOPE not hate report shows that some young men who interact with men’s rights activists online are on the first step to more extreme racist or far-right groups and regard more rights for anyone—such as people of colour, the LGBT community and people with disabilities—as a threat to their status. The chief executive of HOPE not hate supports this amendment. He states that misogyny is a recruiting tool for hate groups and a means to radicalise, especially among the very young. These online groups radicalise young men who go on to commit acts of aggression designed to intimidate, humiliate and control women.
Having better-quality information throughout all police forces is not just another paper exercise. It helps to increase understanding of the causes and consequences of violence against women and girls, and it gives women more confidence that their issue will be taken seriously. It may even go on to protect more women from violence and intimidation. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, this afternoon, many noble Lords have described misogyny outside the scenario of domestic abuse—such as elite athletes training in the street, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, just said. I hope to explain that, while I agree that the recording of misogyny as a hate crime is a good thing, it may confuse things when it comes to domestic abuse.
As has been explained, Clause 70 requires the Secretary of State to
“issue guidance to chief officers of police about the disclosure of police information by police forces for the purposes of preventing domestic abuse.”
This amendment is about including in that guidance that the police should record any crimes where the offender demonstrated hostility or prejudice based on sex, or where it is perceived that the crime was motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex. This, in effect, would require police officers to record misogyny as a hate crime, although as it is worded in gender-neutral terms it would also require them to record misandry as a hate crime. I am confused about why misandry would be a hate crime, but we will move on. It then tries to bring this within the scope of Clause 70, which is about preventing domestic abuse, by mentioning taking account of evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and misogyny and recording misogynistic crimes that, in the opinion of the police, have also involved domestic abuse.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I fully support Amendment 146, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The noble Lord set out in detail the issue of violence against women; he seeks in his amendment to make effective use of data to secure evidence, in order to help our understanding of the offence and our ability to prevent it. That is the whole point of data; the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made reference to that. By collecting data we can understand the issue, and that can then help us to find solutions. This is why data is so important to everything we do and what is so good about the amendment.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance that took account of evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and other offences involving hostility based on sex. It would require all chief police officers to collect and provide data on relevant crimes reported to police forces which they believe have also involved domestic abuse. Sadly, there are some men around who hate women for no other reason than that they are a woman. I do not know what the issue is; perhaps they feel that the woman somehow threatens their identity as a man—that she might be smarter than them or know a bit more about something. I do not know what it is, but there are men who absolutely hate women. We have to ensure we understand that more so that we can provide solutions. It is horrific when you think about it, but it is the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made reference to social media, which has shone a light on this. We think of the abuse received by our colleagues in the other place—on all sides of the House—if they dare to suggest anything that some people do not like. They have been threatened with all sorts of acts of violence, called names and generally abused. Some really offensive and disgusting remarks have been made about them, which are absolutely appalling and should be highlighted, but those are just the tip of the iceberg. Social media has allowed this to be brought into the sunlight and in that sense it is good, although I am sure we will come back to social media companies and their responsibilities another time. It is a dreadful situation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, it is important to note that nothing in this amendment makes anything an offence that is not already an offence. It is merely about collecting information, and understanding the issue in order to help us understand the problem. Many noble Lords have heaped praise on Nottinghamshire Police for their work. I used to work in Nottinghamshire many years ago so I have dealt with the police there on different matters. They are an excellent police force. I am looking forward to my honourable friend Vernon Coaker coming to join the House next month. In his roles as a teacher, a councillor and a Member of Parliament in the other place for 23 years, he had lots to do with Nottinghamshire Police; I am sure that we will benefit from his experience.
I agree with all the contributions of noble Lords who have spoken—the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull, Lady Burt of Solihull, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others. In particular, my noble friend Lady Donaghy talked about the risk of young men caught in this horrible tide of misogyny who are being dragged into other dreadful crimes. We should be very worried about that as well—about people who get dragged into other dangerous, illegal and criminal activity. We need to understand that.
I am very lucky in that my mum, my sister and my wife are all much smarter than me; I have been lucky to have them in my life to help me out. When I came into this House, my two sponsors were my two previous bosses in the Labour Party, both women—Baroness Gould and my noble friend Lady McDonagh. Lots of women in my life have helped me out on a whole range of things, and I am very grateful for that. This is a very important amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has been excellent. I can categorically attest to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is not a misogynist. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about how the behaviour of parents has almost a direct correlation with how their children might behave when they grow up. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, talked about the trans community; the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, might have looked at my notes because the words I have written in response to her remarks are almost identical to what he said: that hate crime laws in England and Wales protect identity characteristics such as race, religion or sexual orientation, or groups such as trans or disabled people.
I thank noble Lords for all their comments, including the very thoughtful comments of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the abuse of parliamentarians—it is horrific to see the comments that people have made—much of which is misogynistic. The opening gambit of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, was the tragic case of Kellie Sutton, which shows two things, one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It shows the failure to include domestic abuse in the MAPPA arrangements and the need for more effective use of Clare’s Law; the Bill remedies that, as it puts the guidance on a statutory footing. Noble Lords have talked about police forces that record misogyny. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly pointed out that those which record misogyny also record misandry.
I will be quite clear about the Government’s position on hate crime. All crimes that are motivated by hatred are totally unacceptable and have no place in this society. That is why, in 2018, as part of our updating of the Government’s hate crime action plan, we asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of current hate crime legislation, including considering whether other protected characteristics such as sex, gender and age should be included. We asked it to review both the adequacy and the parity of protection offered by the law relating to hate crime and to make recommendations for reform. This review began in 2019; over the course of that year and last, the Law Commission tried to meet as many people as possible who had an interest in this area of law, organising events across England and Wales to gather views and, of course, evidence, which the noble Lord so often talks about.
The noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lucas, stressed the importance of data in our considerations. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about opening a debate with the police; I am sure that, following the Law Commission’s findings, such a debate will be opened up. However, we have specifically asked the commission to consider the current range of offences, aggravating factors and sentencing, and to make recommendations on the most appropriate models to ensure that the criminal law provides consistent and effective protection from conduct motivated by hatred towards protected groups or characteristics.
The review also took account of the existing range of protected characteristics, identifying any gaps in the scope of protection currently offered under the law and making recommendations to promote a consistent approach. The consultation to support the review closed on Christmas Eve of last year. That consultation focused on whether sex or gender should be added to hate crime laws, noting that misogyny by itself might introduce inconsistency to hate crime laws—as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also pointed out.
We will respond to the review when it is completed. Given the range and depth of the work undertaken by the Law Commission, we do not think it would be appropriate to prejudice the outcome of its work, including by issuing guidance or requiring the collection of statistics along the lines proposed by the amendment. As I have said, the noble Lord rightly wants to see evidence-based policy. The work of the Law Commission will add significantly to that evidence base. I hope the noble Lord will agree that we should allow it to complete that work rather than pre-empting it. We will consider what changes need to be made once we have had the opportunity to fully consider the Law Commission’s final recommendations. On the basis of these comments, I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank everybody who took part in this wide-ranging debate. I thought it was appropriate for it to be introduced by a member of the weaker sex, but I thank everybody of whatever sex for their contributions. I thank my colleague in the other place, Stella Creasy. She and I had the pleasure of spending quite a bit of time together at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, where I got to know her. She has been a doughty champion of trying to get misogyny recognised as a rather pervasive element in modern society and I applaud her for her efforts, which have been supported across the Chamber in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Young—with his usual erudition and from his commanding height—laid out just how extensive the Law Commission’s interim report is. I, too, waded through 40-odd pages, and I confess that I did not look at about 500 footnotes in detail, but it is very impressive and goes very deep. What comes out of it very clearly is that the case for the prosecution is proven: misogyny is something that actually exists, is tangible and has a very unpleasant effect on a lot of people. However, finding out that it is bad is the easy bit; the difficult bit, which is what the Law Commission is trying to do now, is translating that knowledge—that truth—into legislation in a form that will have a materially beneficial effect on the very large number of victims of misogyny. That is the difficult piece to try to get right. Frankly, the more data that we have to help us try to understand how to do that effectively, the better.
My noble friend Lady Bull laid out some of the international context. This is not something that takes place only in our disunited kingdom, it is an international syndrome and a shameful one. The existence of gender-based hostility is a fact of life and it has probably always been with us from Neolithic times. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, quite rightly made the point that we must have the right information. I am to some extent agnostic on the technical issues of sex versus gender and all the rest of it. That is not a battle that I am going to fight. I do not feel qualified to do so, but I am quite sure that the Law Commission will look at that in detail as it is looking at all the other elements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about the pervasiveness of misogyny, based in part, I suspect, on her own experience and that of others that she has seen. It is shameful. She also made an extremely good point about the value of really good police domestic abuse training. I do not know to what extent there is a template for best practice and what good really looks like. I suspect that, as ever, some police forces are doing it infinitely better than others. Can the Minister tell us how much knowledge the Home Office has of where best practice is in existence or being evolved and, if so, what is it doing, or what does it aspire to do, to try to make sure that that is applied everywhere, not just in those police forces that are ahead of the game?
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about the importance of enhanced information, but he rightly made the point, as a lawyer, that hate crime is a difficult and very sensitive area, and data really will be king. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I saw the reports about the way in which female athletes have been tormented and abused because they cannot go to the normal stadia and places to exercise. It is absolutely deplorable that one should be trying to do what one loves and has a passion for—indeed, what one may be representing one’s country for—and is subject to abuse on the street. I cannot even imagine what that would be like. I hope that if I witnessed someone doing something like that, I would give them a piece of my mind—not that they would probably take much notice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, also pointed out that misogyny is a recruiting tool for hate groups. In doing research for this debate, I went down one particular rabbit hole that I found on the internet: a very bizarre male forum in which feminism is regarded as the root of many of modern society’s ills and as a conspiracy to belittle men and reduce their role. It was eye-closing, rather than eye-opening, to try to read it, but it exists and we cannot ignore it. We have to try to do something about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, quite rightly, with his extensive experience, laid out some of the heffalump traps that exist legally and in the way in which the police might try to apply this. He knows far more about it than I do, but I would defer to the Law Commission to try to work its way through some of the complexities that he outlined. I probably agree that they do not necessarily need to be in primary legislation; that is not the object of this probing amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, again, referred to the importance of data and the role of social media. Like him, I greatly look forward to the arrival of our new colleague: his friend and mine, Vernon Coaker. When he arrives, he will be a sterling addition to your Lordships’ House. I also—since I am married to one—agree with the noble Lord on the very important role of powerful women.
The Minister quite rightly mentioned the pervasive influence of the home that one is fortunate or unfortunate enough to grow up in, and how that influences one’s views. We both have shared history in the importance of timely, accurate and informative data. I think we all agree that although we know this is here, we still do not really understand its full complexity, how to record it accurately or how to respond to it. I hope that the Law Commission will come up with some answers, but the pandemic has acted like a pressure cooker on an awful lot of what is going on. Many women and children are suffering unspeakable oppression at the moment and I am very conscious that, while it is neat and tidy to say that we will wait for the Law Commission findings to come out, there is a feeling among most of us who have spoken that it would be good to do as much as we can in the interim to acknowledge that this is a live and shameful issue, rather than just sit on our hands hoping that the Law Commission will pull a rabbit out of the hat.
On that basis, I thank everybody who has taken part. I thank the Minister for listening so politely and answering as I expected she might, but I hope that she and her colleagues will consider whether more could be done, given the circumstances that so many of these women and children are in, to try to send some message to police forces about the benefits that other police forces which have trialled this are having from it, and to encourage them to look at it seriously. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 146A. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Lord Young of Cookham
(ii) resides or might reasonably be expected to reside with a person who falls within sub-paragraph (i) and is not the abuser”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the applicant for homelessness assistance to be either the survivor or someone who resides with the survivor or might reasonably be expected to reside with the survivor. However, the applicant cannot be the abuser.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Naseby for their support for Amendment 146A in my name.
I welcome Clause 71, which builds on the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, piloted through the other place by Bob Blackman and through this House by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in providing a better deal for those confronted with being homeless. As the Explanatory Notes say, the clause gives those who are eligible and are homeless as a result of fleeing domestic abuse priority-need status for accommodation provided by the local authority. Crucially, it removes the need for the person who is homeless as a result of domestic abuse from having to fulfil the vulnerability test of the 1996 Housing Act.
This change is needed because of examples such as that of Danielle, who was made homeless when her relationship ended, after a neighbour called the police following a two-day beating. Despite visible bruising and a letter from her partner admitting abuse, she was told by the council that she needed to provide further evidence of her vulnerability and that she was not a priority. She ended up homeless, sofa surfing for two years. Hopefully, the clause will mean that there are no more cases like Danielle’s.
Access to suitable housing is often the critical barrier to survivors fleeing domestic abuse. Inexcusably, some victims are forced to choose between returning to live with a perpetrator—a dangerous or potentially life-endangering situation—or facing homelessness because they cannot access housing. That is why I, along with many of my parliamentary colleagues and organisations across the domestic abuse and homelessness sectors, including Crisis, Women’s Aid, Refuge, St Mungo’s and many others, supported the “A Safe Home” campaign of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Ending Homelessness, which urged the Government to extend automatic priority-need status for housing to survivors of domestic abuse through an amendment to this Bill. In May 2020, the Government listened to the expertise derived from the work of the group and amended the Bill, which I welcome.
However, the detail of that amendment as currently drafted concerns those same organisations, as the Government’s amendment on priority need fails to entirely protect survivors of domestic abuse. Critically, as it stands, the Bill does not give a legal assurance to allow anyone else in the household to apply for homelessness assistance on a victim’s behalf. This is only stated in guidance, which falls short of a legal guarantee and means that some victims are likely to fall through the gaps between the different practices of different local authorities. Although the circumstances may be rare in which this additional provision is necessary, they can occur. For example, an adult child living with the abused and the abuser may be able to help the victim by filling out the forms and formally making the application, particularly where the victim does not speak English or has difficulty with form filling. This situation could occur in a multigenerational household, perhaps in a BAME community.
It is clear from front-line services supporting survivors that it is not always safe for survivors of abuse to make the application for homelessness assistance themselves. This could be, for example, because it too dangerous for them to leave their home until they know that they have somewhere safe to flee to. It might also be the case that they are unable to attend in person because they are receiving hospital treatment as a result of the abuse that they have experienced.
Furthermore, this is not the case in other areas of homelessness legislation. For example, Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 allows for another member of a household to make the application for housing assistance, such as when a woman is pregnant or when an individual is vulnerable through old age or physical disability. The Government have argued that the requirement for survivors to personally make an application is to stop further abuse from a perpetrator. However, experts in the domestic abuse and homelessness sectors firmly disagree. In response to a possible objection, I understand that there is no known case where the individual for whom the application has been made has come forward to say that they did not support it.
I support the call of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Ending Homelessness, which is also supported by Women’s Aid, for survivors in England to have the same support and legal protections as survivors throughout the rest of the UK and for the Government to address this anomaly or gap in the Bill. This change would not result in additional significant burdens on local authorities but would have a significant impact on survivors of domestic abuse, giving them an absolute, clear and guaranteed right to housing when they need it most. Given that we know that survivors are most at risk of homicide when they flee a perpetrator, it is vital that the Government look again at priority need and provide vulnerable survivors with a legal assurance of a clear, safe route out of abusive and life-threatening situations. This change will provide a vital safeguarding mechanism and a powerful lifeline for those in need. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, whose amendment I support. I will speak to my Amendment 147—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for adding his name to it. I also thank Women’s Aid for pointing out the problem that I aim to solve with this amendment.
Women and men experiencing domestic abuse face long-term and often lifelong risks from the perpetrator. Domestic abuse does not end when a relationship ends and research has consistently found that women are at significantly high risk when leaving the relationship. Often a woman can access safety only when she moves far away from the perpetrator. However, in recent years, Women’s Aid has seen a worrying trend in local authorities introducing “local connection” rules to tenders, with local refuges being capped on the number of non-local women whom they are able to accept. The very existence of refuges depends on these services’ ability to accept women from out of the area, as women will often need to flee from their local area to be safe. Data from Women’s Aid’s annual survey in 2017 shows that over two-thirds of women in a refuge on one day crossed local authority boundaries to access it. Women often cannot access a refuge in their local area due to the severe and ongoing risks faced from a perpetrator.
Women fleeing to a refuge rely on these services being able to accept them and their children from outside their local area, with no “local connection”. Government guidance makes it clear that locality caps and restrictions should not be written into tenders or contracts relating to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. However, this guidance is not consistently applied across England, leading to something of a postcode lottery of access to refuges and a major risk to the safe operation of this national network of services.
Similarly, there are real concerns about the inconsistencies between local authorities across England in meeting their obligations to house those from another area fleeing domestic abuse. I agree with Women’s Aid and many other NGOs that the ban on “local connection” rules and residency requirements must extend to wider homelessness duties and housing allocations, to ensure that all survivors can access safe housing.
Homelessness teams refusing to support women who are escaping abuse because they are not from their local area must also be included. Nearly a fifth of women supported by Women’s Aid’s No Woman Turned Away project in 2016-17 were prevented from making a valid homeless application on the grounds of domestic abuse for reasons that included having no local connection to the area, with local housing teams deprioritising survivors who do not have a local connection within their housing allocation policy.
Guidance from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government currently encourages
“all local authorities to 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 other form of temporary accommodation. Local authorities often use blanket residency tests in allocation schemes, without accounting for exceptional circumstances, such as for a woman fleeing domestic abuse.
The Government already require local authorities to make exemptions from local connection requirements or residency tests for certain groups, including for members of the Armed Forces and those seeking to move for work. My Amendment 147 would include a specific bar on local authorities from imposing local connection restrictions on survivors of domestic abuse when accessing refuges and, importantly, longer-term housing. This is needed to sit alongside the government department’s proposed statutory duty on local authorities to fund support in refuges and other forms of safe accommodation. This will ensure that all women and children fleeing domestic abuse can access safe accommodation where and when they need to.
Women’s Aid has given me a real example that highlights the urgency and importance of why this amendment is needed:
“A has experienced domestic abuse for the last 10 years from two partners as well as witnessing domestic abuse perpetrated by her father against her mother growing up. She has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety and PTSD. After fleeing her abusive partner with three children, she moved into a refuge in a London borough to be near her mother, who was her main source of support. She was only able to find a refuge in a different borough to her mother, and after six months she was required to leave that refuge. She presented to the borough her mother lives in, but she was informed she was not entitled to be housed there as she did not have a local connection. The local authority stated she had a local connection to the borough she had been living in for six months. This is despite her being a survivor of domestic abuse, having no option other than to live in the first borough where a refuge space was available at the time of fleeing and the fact that she felt at risk from the perpetrator’s extended networks there.
The borough her mother lived in then housed A and her three children, who were all under 14, in one room in mixed-sex temporary accommodation. This was extremely distressing for her. She describes feeling retraumatised from the experience of being forced to live alongside men she did not know. She also felt scared for her children, who did not feel safe in the mixed-sex hostel. The room was highly unsuitable as the entire family lived in it and were required to cook in it, which is of course unsafe for a toddler. Another child had ADHD, so A struggled to provide them with any quiet time and appropriate support. This experience also exacerbated her PTSD, depression and anxiety, and she reported feeling low and stressed regularly due to feeling unsafe in the accommodation. She is now having to live there indefinitely while the boroughs have been assigned an arbiter to decide who has a duty.”
I would also like this to apply to victims of modern-day slavery who can equally fall foul of this problem, as I, as a deputy chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, am only too aware. While I am aware that this Bill deals only with domestic abuse, I would ask my noble friend to look into this, whether people are the victims of domestic abuse or, indeed, of modern slavery. I ask that this should be done because housing has to be looked at seriously as a way of addressing the abuse that these victims suffer.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 146A, to which I have added my name. We know about the strong link between domestic abuse and homelessness, with access to housing often presenting as a critical barrier to survivors fleeing abuse. For example, in Wales, between 2018 and 2019, nearly 2,500 households were provided with assistance by their local authorities following homelessness caused by the breakdown of a relationship with a partner. Almost half of those relationship breakdowns were violent. In May 2020, the Government listened to the expertise of organisations across the domestic abuse and homelessness sectors, and the views of women who had experienced domestic abuse. In response, the Government amended this Bill to extend automatic priority-need status for housing to survivors of domestic abuse in England, as was already the case in Wales. This welcome amendment will provide a vital lifeline for many survivors of domestic abuse.
In Wales in 2018-19, over 300 households were owed a duty to secure settled accommodation as they were in priority need after fleeing domestic violence or being threatened with violence. However, organisations across the domestic abuse and homeless sectors have raised concerns that the government amendments will not adequately guarantee clear access to housing for all survivors of domestic abuse. Critically, it will not enable other members of a household to apply for this assistance on the survivor’s behalf, as is the case in other areas of homelessness legislation. For example, when a woman is pregnant, a partner is allowed to make the application for them. This sounds like a small distinction, but front-line services that are supporting survivors every day know that it is not always safe for survivors of abuse to make an application for homelessness assistance themselves. Allowing other household members to be the lead applicant provides a vital safeguarding mechanism which could give a vulnerable survivor a route to safety when they need it most.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 146A and I support Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Like others, I welcome the provisions in the Bill, but this is rather typical of the pattern of responses to many aspects of the Bill: the amendment seeks to tweak the provisions to ensure that the Bill works as I believe is intended.
There is an assumption that refuges are the answer to abuse, but that they should be only temporary for reasons relating to the individuals who occupy them and because people who get stuck in them become, to use an unpleasant term, bed blockers, which is not how anyone would like to see themselves. Refuges are certainly not a permanent solution. There are not enough refuge spaces even for temporary provision, and it is very natural for victims to want the security of their own home for themselves and their children.
Like others, I am indebted to the organisations which know their way around the legislation that relates to their own services, as is the case here. Of course, domestic abuse is by no means the only cause of homelessness, which is why one has to look at priority need. But, given that the Government have addressed this, the Bill should be complete and replicate the provisions allowing applications to be made on behalf of vulnerable individuals, as other noble Lords have said. It must be safe for the survivor to access the housing.
As regards Amendment 147, there is no need to repeat the debate about why it may be essential for someone to get right away from her or his local area. No one with children would contemplate that; you only have to think about school and social connections. I have to say I am not entirely sure how one would administer “likely to become” a victim. I remember from my days as a local councillor the difficulties related to the size of a family, because you cannot take account of a child who is not yet born. But the importance of enabling someone to get away before there is too much harm is obvious, and the need to get away demonstrates how extreme the situation must be, because often you want the support of your community for yourself and your children.
The scope for more joint working between local authorities is outside this Bill, but the use of reciprocal arrangements has a very helpful, if not very big, place in this scene. But the real issue is the need for more support and, overall, more housing supply. Not for the first time, it is a matter of resources. For every housing offer to one person, someone else is not receiving an offer.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 146A, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is one I fully support. I would have signed it if there had been a space, but people got there before me. The amendment ensures that someone made homeless as a result of domestic abuse will have priority need for housing support. It cannot be right that a victim is left with the choice of staying with an abusive partner or becoming homeless. That is no choice at all. The amendment would allow the applicant for homelessness assistance to be either a survivor or someone who resides with the survivor—but, of course, not the abuser. Again, enabling somebody else in the household to make an application could be an important protection.
I was delighted to sign Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which would ensure that local connection cannot be used as a restriction when someone applies for housing, either in a refuge, in other temporary accommodation or in longer-term accommodation. This is very important to enable someone to get the help and support they want, to get them near to friends, to get them away to a place where they are not known or to get them wherever they want. It enables those in difficult, dangerous situations to get somewhere where they can rebuild their lives.
I want to thank Women’s Aid and other organisations for the help they have given all noble Lords on this Bill and for their general work. I have always been grateful to Women’s Aid for its advice on a number of issues. The example that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, gave from Women’s Aid highlights the reason his amendment needs to be agreed—or, if the noble Baroness cannot agree the amendment, I hope she recognises the problem and will try to resolve it by bringing something back on Report.
In our discussion last week, we looked at the risks to victims, at home or at work, of being murdered. We have to ensure that, if somebody leaves a relationship, they can get somewhere they are safe and can rebuild their lives. It might be that they want to move to a completely different part of the country where no one knows them at all. Some victims have to completely cut off contact with abusers, because some abusers would do their damnedest to find somebody. We know people can choose not to be on the electoral register and that there is anonymous registration, but what shops they go to and where their families and friends are will still be known, so we have to ensure that people who want to can get away completely and start life afresh. That is why the noble Lord’s amendment is so important—so that no local authority can suggest, “Oh, you can’t come here because you’ve got no connection”. “That’s exactly why I want to come here—I’ve got no connection.” That is a really important issue. I look forward to the response from the noble Baroness at the end of the debate.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 146A, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Like him, I welcome the extension of automatic priority-need status for housing to survivors of domestic abuse, but I share his regret that there is no current right for anyone who lives with the survivor, or might reasonably be expected to live with them, to apply for this assistance on their behalf. This amendment aims to address this and to ensure that survivors have access to what one has been described as the first and most important priority for anyone escaping domestic abuse—a safe roof over their head.
Domestic abuse is often about control. There is a horrible, perhaps inevitable, consequence when that control is challenged, which is that abusers are likely to become even more violent as they seek to reinstate or retain their dominance over their victim. My noble friend Lady Finlay has already said the risk of domestic homicide is at its highest during separation. Research studies show that the worst incidents of abuse are triggered by the victim having left the abuser, and the abuse is even more extreme if the victim has left for another partner. In such cases, the risk of femicide increases fivefold. Interviews with men who killed their wives in the United States pointed to separation or a threat of separation as the most common trigger for the murder. This means that the difficult decision by a victim of domestic abuse to leave their abuser and seek out support may well result not in the provision of a safe haven but in further victimisation, physical risk and even risk to life.
Front-line services in both the domestic abuse and the homelessness sectors are clear about the potential risks to survivors of abuse in making an application for homelessness assistance themselves. They know that abusers will employ the most varied and creative tactics to track their partner, from using GPS locators in their partner’s phone to calling around women’s shelters or even filing a missing persons report. Front-line workers know that in some cases a call for help may become a death sentence.
This amendment addresses this risk and provides an important safeguarding mechanism by allowing an ally to fill in the application, thus allowing victims of abuse to make plans without running the risk of those plans, or the location of their future home, being discovered by their abuser. It has the backing of Women’s Aid and of the APPG for Ending Homelessness. I urge the Government to listen carefully to their arguments and to the arguments in your Lordships’ House and to adopt this amendment so that survivors of domestic abuse have a clear legal route to that most basic of needs—a safe roof over their heads.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I agree with all she said and give my unreserved support to both these amendments.
In a long Committee stage, some amendments are, very properly, probing amendments. Others stand out as improving amendments. I really hope that this amendment, so eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, will be incorporated into the Bill. Perhaps there will have to be the odd change of word, but I have referred to the Bill on a number of occasions as a landmark Bill, and a landmark Bill, in this area, has to be able to deliver as near perfect, total security as it can.
In common with many constituency Members of Parliament, I saw young women—they were mostly young women—who had been harassed, bullied, tormented and beaten, who needed somewhere to go. They needed a safe and secure refuge. In the immediate future that was often a home of refuge, where others were similarly placed. But what they needed most of all, as they came out of the trauma they had suffered, was a secure permanent home. Very often, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, that had to be some distance from where they had suffered.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Amendment 147. Both deal with being clear about what the Government have sought to do in Clause 71 to extend to survivors or victims of domestic abuse the priority need for homelessness. It is very clear that women who are leaving or seeking to leave an abusive relationship need to be seen as a priority. I am delighted that the Government acknowledge that.
I am concerned that, with both these amendments, the Government are undoing some of their good intent by not making sure that those who live in a multigenerational household are not able to ask someone else to be their advocate in front of the housing department or homelessness unit. Someone is fleeing the locality that they live and are well known in to escape their abuser, but they are not automatically seen as being in priority need when using either of those routes.
I understand that the Government are reluctant to keep opening the category of priority need, because there is not enough housing and because waiting lists for social housing are getting longer, not shorter. But I think that they need to be clear in their will to support women who have experienced domestic abuse in both Amendments 146A and 147. I know that they will want to move words and so on, but I feel that they need a general acceptance that women who experience domestic abuse should be treated by the local authority homelessness unit as being in priority need. They need to make sure that that happens in the two cases that these amendments deal with.
It is very straightforward to accept this sort of amendment. I just hope that the Government recognise what the APPG is saying and what the Welsh Government have achieved in their legislation. We need that acknowledgement in our legislation in England. The sooner they do this, the more it will reassure people that they are going to get the sort of priority need that they are looking for, if they have been abused. The trauma of being abused is one that most of us can only imagine. I have met many of these women and this issue has been raised with me, on numerous occasions. I hope that the Government find a way to meet the aspirations of these women, so that they get the independent housing that they require of their local authority.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, these are two good rounding-out amendments, well argued for by all speakers, and I fully support them both. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I would have signed Amendment 146A too, if I could have.
Clause 71(5) deals with priority need for victims, as we have heard. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, introduced Amendment 146A, which seeks to extend the application of priority need for housing for homeless victims of domestic abuse to those who live with, or might be expected to live with, the victim. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, explained that this already works perfectly well in Wales. I am sure that the Government have looked at that and seen it for themselves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, described the lengths to which an abuser will go to find out where the victim has gone, which is why it may not be possible for the application to be made in person. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, reinforced the need of so many victims to get right away. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, there is a great shortage of housing, which causes a lot of consternation. It is much better on every level for the perpetrator to move. I am just trailing my amendment that tries to achieve this, which is Amendment 163, coming on Wednesday.
Amendment 147, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, tackles the local connection issue for a victim fleeing an area. It would ensure that, even if the victim were not from that area, this would not count against them for housing priority, hence them being designated with a local connection. It stops local authorities from refusing survivors on the grounds of no legal connection. The example from the noble Lord, Lord Randall, shows exactly why this is needed. Both these amendments make a great deal of sense, and I hope that your Lordships’ House is minded to support them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I come first to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. He explained that Amendment 146A seeks to amend Clause 71 to allow those who are not experiencing domestic abuse themselves, but are in the same household as someone who is, to be given priority need status. I share his ambition to make sure that all victims of domestic abuse and their household are supported by ensuring that they have access to a suitable offer of safe and secure accommodation. I agree that it is vital that domestic abuse victims who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, are supported to find an accommodation solution that is safe, meets their needs and reflects their individual circumstances. We think that this amendment is unnecessary because, when an applicant has priority need, the Housing Act 1996 already requires local authorities to provide accommodation that is available for occupation and is suitable for the whole household.
We see several risks with this amendment. We know that victims of domestic abuse may be vulnerable and at risk of being exploited, manipulated and controlled by those in their lives, including family members, the perpetrator or a new partner who may also be abusive. Allowing someone else in the victim’s household to be in priority need would mean that that person, not the victim, would be the primary contact with the local authority. They would receive all correspondence and the offer of accommodation would be in their name. For this reason, it is important that the victim of domestic abuse alone has the priority need for accommodation, guaranteeing the victim control of the application and the rights to secure the accommodation as it will be in their name. I recognise and share my noble friend’s intention to ensure that all victims are able to access accommodation, and that the process of making an application for homelessness assistance should not be a barrier to accessing support. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I disagree with him on how best to achieve that intended outcome.
I agree that it is vital that domestic abuse victims can be supported to make a homelessness application. That is why the Government have made clear in the published draft Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities that they should be flexible in their approach to taking homelessness application from victims, by enabling victims to be supported in making that application by a family member, friend or support worker if they wish to be. The guidance also reinforces that local authorities should facilitate interviews by phone or online, where this is most appropriate for the victim, and make sure that translation services are available. Lastly, the guidance highlights that local authorities, where appropriate, should accept referrals from concerned parties, allowing someone else to make the initial approach on behalf of the victim, provided that they have the victim’s consent and the application can be safely verified with the victim. In short, we believe that there is already provision in place to achieve the outcomes sought by my noble friend in his Amendment 146A.
Amendment 147 in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall seeks to amend the Housing Act 1996 to give victims of domestic abuse a local connection to all local authorities in England when seeking homelessness assistance under Part 7 of that Act. The existing legislation and guidance on this matter is clear that a housing authority cannot refer an applicant to another housing authority where they have a local connection if they or anyone who might be reasonably expected to reside them would be at risk of domestic abuse in that area. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities makes clear that a housing authority is under a positive duty to inquire where the applicant would be at risk of actual or threatened domestic violence. It stipulates that authorities should not impose a higher standard of proof of actual violence in the past when making their decision. If an applicant is at risk, they can present at another local authority.
As such, protections are already in place for victims of domestic abuse that ensure they are not housed in a local authority area where there is any risk of violence or abuse. The local connection test seeks to keep a degree of fairness to ensure that those who live locally are prioritised and that no one authority gets oversubscribed. The current provisions in place under Section 198 of the 1996 Act strike the right balance to support victims.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, talked about when women often flee to other local authorities, and the situation with social housing need. They are absolutely right that many victims of domestic abuse are forced to flee their homes to seek that safety and support in a refuge or other form of temporary accommodation. It is often in another local authority area because, of course, why would you stay where you were in danger? In November 2018, the Government issued statutory guidance for local authorities to improve access to social housing for victims of domestic abuse who are in refuges or other forms of safe temporary accommodation. The guidance here makes absolutely clear that local authorities are expected not to apply the residency test for victims who have fled to another district. I hope, with the points I have made, that my noble friend would be content to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity, having listened to a very interesting debate. At Second Reading I raised the issue of cross-border co-ordination within the United Kingdom—at that time, particularly in connection with European protection orders and how to ensure that an appropriate system would be in place within the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. It strikes me that it is also an ongoing issue with those that flee across one of the internal borders of the United Kingdom and then seek housing. I would be grateful for any reflections that the Minister might have on what implications these amendments—or their rejection, as she is recommending—would have for women who have flown across borders, and for the internal arrangements that are in place between the local authorities of the whole United Kingdom, not just England.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Clearly, this Bill does not extend to the jurisdiction in Scotland, but I absolutely understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I will write to him with any updates on that because, of course, a woman should not be prohibited or stopped from receiving support just because she has crossed a border. I will write to him further on that and I thank him for raising the issue.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all of those who took part in this debate and particularly to the Minister for her reply, which I will come to in a moment. The initial speech was made by my noble friend Lord Randall, who made a forceful speech about the importance of flexibility on local connection. He referred to the postcode lottery due to the different local authorities interpreting the guidance in different ways. In a sense, his plea was the same as mine, namely that it is not enough to leave this to guidance; one wants a legal assurance on the face of the Bill. My noble friend, and others who supported Amendment 147, will want to reflect on the Minister’s reply to that section of the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, reminded us that in Wales the amendment is, in effect, already in place, and that there has been no abuse of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, put our debate in a slightly broader context, and reminded us of the need for move-on accommodation in order to free up capacity in the refuges, and she is absolutely right. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for Front-Bench support for the amendments and I am sorry that he was not quick enough off the mark to add his name to my amendment. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who rightly pointed out that the application for housing, if it is known to come from the survivor, can be a trigger point in a relationship and provoke a violent reaction. This is why it is important that somebody, who she referred to as an ally, should be able to make the application on behalf of the victim to avoid exactly that risk. My noble friend Lord Cormack said that, unlike the previous amendment that was a probing amendment, these amendments meant business. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, was too modest to say that she spoke with the authority of a former Housing Minister, which of course adds weight to the representations that she has made. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for Front-Bench support from the Liberal Democrats. She used the opportunity to trail an important amendment later on, which puts the emphasis on the perpetrator moving out of the building rather than the victim.
The Minister, my noble friend Lady Williams, is of course a former Minister at the Department for Communities and Local Government as it then was, and so she will have a first-hand knowledge of the issues that we discuss. I am sure that she remembers the passage of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, if not always with happy memories.
I was grateful to my noble friend for saying she entirely shared the objectives of those behind the amendments. She made two points in rebuttal. She referred to the Housing Act 1996, requiring that the accommodation should be suitable for the whole household; however, the whole household may not want to move—it may just be the victim. She did not quite address the point that in Wales and Scotland they have already resolved the issues she described and enabled an application to be made, as I understand it, on behalf of the primary victim.
I very much hope there can be a way through. My noble friend said the guidance says that the initial approach can already be made with consent by a third party. If the initial approach can be made with the consent of the victim, it is not absolutely clear why the substantive approach could not also be made. While I am happy to withdraw the amendment, I very much hope we can have some discussions to see whether we can give the assurance that I think the whole House wants and avoid the issues my noble friend raised in her response. In the mean time, I repeat my thanks to those who have contributed and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 148. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 148
Lord Rosser
“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 (exclusion from benefits) after subsection (10) insert— “(11) This section does not apply to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section (Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”(3) In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 after sub-paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) to a person who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section (Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or”.(4) In section 21 of the Immigration Act 2014 (persons disqualified by immigration status or with limited right to rent) 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 (general provisions for regulation and control) 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 who provides evidence in one or more of the forms set out in section (Recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; 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 a person is a victim of domestic abuse 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 2021; “victim” includes the dependent child of a person who is a victim of domestic abuse.(8) Within 12 months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review into the operation of the provisions in this section.(9) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the review.”Member’s explanatory statement
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. There will be a review into the operation of this provision.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments is on the key issue of protections for migrant victims of domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds, an issue which has been raised by Members across all sides in both Houses. I will speak in particular to Amendment 148 and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for adding their names to it.
Amendment 148 provides for a new clause in the Bill which seeks to ensure that certain provisions under the Immigration Acts, including exclusion from public funds and certain types of support and exclusion from right to rent, do not apply to survivors of domestic abuse. The amendment also provides for a review into the operation of this change to be commissioned by the Secretary of State.
There are currently no provisions in the Bill for migrant women facing domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds. This is despite their abusers being able to use the immigration status of a victim and their consequential inability to have any access to public funds as a means of control. It can be almost impossible for migrant women to escape from their abusers if they have no money to gain access, for example, to a refuge or other accommodation. They are often fearful too of any perceived or actual threat of action by their abusers, or their own actions, that would bring them to the attention of the immigration authorities and possible subsequent immigration enforcement and separation from their children.
The situation is not helped by the fact that it is the same department—the Home Office—that deals with immigration issues, including deportation, and support for victims of domestic abuse, which gives rise to our concern that a victim should always be treated as a person in need of support and not first and foremost as an immigration case.
The Commons Home Affairs Committee stated:
“Insecure immigration status must not bar victims of abuse from protection and access to justice”
and the Joint Committee on the draft Domestic Abuse Bill said:
“We recommend that Government explores ways to extend the temporary concessions available … to support migrant survivors of abuse.”
The Sun also, I believe, gave its support to protecting migrant women in this Bill when it said:
“Domestic abusers don’t discriminate, so why should the law discriminate against their victims?”
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. This would apply, for example, in respect of someone on a student visa. It also applies when migrant women, including their children, become a victim of domestic violence, when the restriction hinders their ability to access life-saving refuge support and other necessary welfare provisions.
Amendment 148 would remove the statutory exclusion that prevents migrant survivors accessing the support and assistance they need and would ensure that no survivor, whatever their immigration status, was treated as being in breach of immigration laws or Immigration Rules by accessing that support or assistance. Without recourse to public funds, migrant victims of domestic abuse are not eligible to welfare benefits needed to cover the cost of a stay in 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 a woman’s stay without that funding.
Research by Women’s Aid found that only 5.8% I think it was 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 a refuge were refused because of a lack of availability and 64% of all referrals to a refuge were declined. That rises to 80% for black and minority-ethnic women. The chances of a migrant woman being able to access a refuge are slim, bordering on impossible.
The experiences of survivors with no recourse to public funds, unable to access a refuge, are grim. Only 8.2% of the women with no recourse to public funds, and supported by the No Woman Turned Away project in 2017, were able to access a refuge—about one in 12. Many had to sleep rough, sofa-surf or even return to the perpetrator while they waited for help. To escape abuse, an individual and their children need to have somewhere to go that above all is safe, providing a bed and food, and to have the resources to be able to get there and stay there. We should not be turning away victims of domestic violence from refuges because of what it does or does not say on their passport, and we should not leave survivors with the only option of sleeping on the streets, with any children, if they are desperate to leave an abusive relationship.
Migrant survivors are often too scared to report domestic abuse as they could then be investigated and even detained. They cannot access safe accommodation and their abusers use their immigration status as a tool of coercive control over them. Women without access to public funds can find it hard to support themselves and their children independently from the perpetrator. It is often the case that the perpetrator is in control of the incomes and the bank accounts.
Women without secure immigration status are prevented from renting accommodation, which also means that refuges can find it difficult to take them. A refuge will always want to provide support, but if a person cannot move forwards into rented accommodation, refuges are left knowing that the move-on options are very limited.
According to the estimates of Southall Black Sisters, we are talking about a group of individuals numbering in the low thousands a year. We are not talking about a large sum of money, but for each of these women the impact on their lives would be enormous.
At the most vulnerable point in their lives, these migrant women need to be believed and to be told that they can be helped. When the abuser tells them that they cannot leave, they have no access to public funds, there is no one to help them and they will be on the streets, they need to know that he is wrong. The trouble is, at the moment he is right. Migrant women are not migrants first and foremost; they are mothers, neighbours, and colleagues in workplaces—for example, care workers and NHS workers. Surely, the solution to the problems many migrant women who suffer domestic abuse face is to give them access to housing benefit, ensure that they can access welfare support and allow them to rent accommodation.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I am again glad to speak in this Committee and draw attention to my interests in the register. It is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I thank him for his excellent speech.
Amendment 151, in my name, seeks to ensure that migrant victims of abuse have access to refuge spaces and essential support services, as with other victims of abuse. I thank all noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who have added their names in support of this amendment.
The existing domestic violence rule, or DV rule, is a proven route for a limited group of survivors, including those on certain spousal or partner visas, ensuring that they are able to regularise their immigration status independent of their perpetrator, and can access public funds for a limited time while the application is considered. Since 2002, this has given migrant women a lifeline—an escape route out of abuse, removing the power from abusers who threaten detention, deportation, destitution and separation from children.
However, the current rule excludes survivors who for one reason or another are dependent on their perpetrator for their status, or who have other expectations of staying in the country, such as having settled or British children, or being unable to return to their country of origin due to risk of further harm on return. Extending the DV rule to a slightly larger category of migrant survivors of abuse offers them security in what are often highly complex and challenging situations. As we have heard, the number of additional applications likely to be made each year under an extended eligibility criterion is estimated, on the basis of data from Southall Black Sisters and Women’s Aid, to be in the low thousands. But for those highly vulnerable individuals, the impact would be immeasurable. At this point, I add my own thanks to SBS for its excellent and tireless work.
The Istanbul convention has been mentioned previously in Committee, and I draw attention to Articles 4 and 59, which, as we have heard, the Government have signed and are committed to ratifying. They require victims to be protected regardless of their immigration status. This amendment and others presented to your Lordships provide an opportunity for the Government to take steps in the right direction.
Women without secure immigration status find it virtually impossible to access refuge and other welfare support to escape abuse. As we have heard, with no recourse to public funds or housing support, they are routinely denied access to safe accommodation and welfare refuge spaces. Only about 5.8% of refuge beds are available to women without recourse to public funds. They are therefore faced with the impossible decision of becoming destitute and homeless and separated from their children or returning to their perpetrator. This traps many women in abuse that often escalates, creating greater risks and vulnerability. Perpetrators regularly weaponise women’s lack of secure immigration status and economic independence to exert absolute control and keep them in a state of fear, often providing false information, withholding essential documentation, and interfering with applications such that women become overstayers and undocumented as a direct result.
As has been repeatedly said across debates, behind every statistic is a unique individual—so just one story. Last year, Hamida—not her real name—went to Southall Black Sisters seeking safety and help regarding the return of her child, who remained with her abusive partner, and assistance in regularising her immigration status. She had no money to support herself or to seek legal advice. She had originally entered the UK from Morocco on a tourist visa, having been persuaded to do so by her British partner. Soon after arriving she was abused, and her partner began to control every aspect of her life and forbade her even to speak to anyone. He also put her to work as a carer for an elderly lady and demanded that she give him all her earnings. She was subjected to sexual violence and rape. When she discovered that she was pregnant, her visa had expired and she could not return home, as her family had made it clear that her single mother status would bring disgrace and shame on them.
Hamida stayed. She had an Islamic marriage, but continued to be subject to abuse. She had no door key and no phone; her husband told her that he would never register the baby as British, as it would give her a route to resettlement in the UK. In the final weeks of her pregnancy, she was kept locked in a store cupboard at his workplace without food. Eventually, she made a disclosure to social services after her husband took the child away from her; as a result, her child was placed on a child protection register and Hamida was referred to Southall Black Sisters.
This brief portrait illustrates the immense challenges that Hamida has faced. Due to her exclusion from the DV rule, she has endured more than nine months of anxiety and uncertainty since escaping violence. She is dependent on donations for her survival and has no security about her future. She is unable to process the trauma that she has faced and remains in ongoing child contact proceedings to reunite with her baby. No survivor deserves to face such trauma and hardship after fleeing violence.
That is just one story. Research has shown that most women on non-spousal visas require assistance for periods of three to eight months and some even longer, because they have often had long and complicated abuse and immigration histories. With this Bill, we have an opportunity to intervene and relieve these women of their suffering, and we must take it.
In response to this clear gap, the Government announced a one-year pilot scheme to assess better the level of need for this group of victims and inform spending review decisions on longer-term funding. However, the £1.4 million offered to run the pilot project is inadequate to meet the needs of all vulnerable migrant women who need crisis support. As an example, the pilot project has set a financial cap on the rent payable for each woman, based on local authority housing allowance rates, which can be as low as £70 per week. There is also a cap on the subsistence payments that can be made to each woman to meet other basic needs, which cannot exceed £37 a week. These rates are inadequate to avert destitution, not least in even being able to pay for refuge accommodation. Furthermore, as we have heard, it is estimated that the number of migrant survivors who require support is probably between 3,000 to 5,000 a year. The pilot project is likely to provide only minimal support for up to 500 women for a maximum period of 12 weeks.
My next objection is that if this pilot is aiming to collect more data, I highlight that that has already been submitted by key specialist organisations during the review process. SBS and the Latin American Women’s Rights Service published a formal and detailed response to the Home Office’s migrant victims of domestic abuse review in September 2020. As far as I am aware, there still has been no response.
The pilot project has failed to allow for the impact of Brexit, which is expected to lead to a significant increase in the numbers of women who will be excluded from protection as they will now be subject to the same immigration rules as non-EU nationals, including restrictions on recourse to public funds.
Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the pilot scheme does not guarantee that any lasting change will follow when the scheme is ended. Running a pilot that gives no long-term assurance of anything in the Bill at the end of it is not an option. Only legislative protection for this vulnerable cohort of women will ensure that the Bill delivers its promise as landmark legislation that can deliver protection for all survivors in the UK.
The Bill provides the Government a significant opportunity to address the gaps in protection for migrant women with insecure immigration status. As a Christian, I am called to love my neighbour and welcome the stranger. This includes showing mercy and justice towards refugees and immigrants, perhaps especially so for those whose hope has been extinguished by abusive partners. I urge the Government to support the amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid we are having difficulty hearing my noble friend. I wonder whether she might give it another go; otherwise, we will have to move on and revert to her when the problem is sorted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I think we must move on. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, my sympathy to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic; that is a very disconcerting situation.
I have added my name to Amendments 148 and 151. I would have added it to Amendment 160 but it is one of those amendments where the slots for adding one’s name fill up very quickly. I am particularly sorry about that because it puts the point very succinctly, and I would have liked to have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, before I spoke.
This is a matter of equality, of principle as well as a practicality. Last week we debated amendments relating to immigration status. I do not want to repeat too much of that debate but one cannot say too often that what we do must be rooted in equality and humanity. A victim may believe that she has no status. That very situation can be and is used for coercion and control. She—usually “she”, though not invariably—may in effect go underground or find herself in a very perilous situation while her abuser goes unpunished, and noble Lords will understand what all that entails, or of course she may remain with her abuser since she may have nowhere to go “back” to. As I recall, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked about this last week.
I was struck by a representation made by Southall Black Sisters that was quoted in the report by the committee on the draft Bill, which I will repeat:
“Abused migrant women are at risk of the most serious and prolonged forms of abuse, slavery and harm but cannot access justice or protection if they have unsettled immigration status; they are effectively excluded from the few protective measures contained in the Bill. The Bill does nothing to remove immigration and other barriers, including providing safe reporting measures to encourage abused migrant women to access necessary protection.”
I regard protection as including access to resources. These reasons apply to all the amendments in this group, which are among the priorities of the domestic abuse commissioner designate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, it is hoped to get the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on the telephone. In the meantime, I call the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests on the register. I have put my name to Amendments 148 and 160, and I support Amendment 151, to which I would have liked to add my name. I agree with what has already been said, and I do not propose to go through it again. I would, however, like to mention the powerful speech from the right reverend Prelate, with which I strongly agree.
I have a concern for several groups of women, about whom I have spoken earlier in this debate. One such group is migrant women who have been subjected to modern slavery. Very often the woman comes over with a man who she thinks is her boyfriend but who then turns her into a slave to make money for him. She is a victim and has irregular immigration status, if any.
I am particularly concerned about a group of women who are married according to the customs of their religion but whose marriages have not been registered and are therefore not recognised in English law. If such a woman leaves—either with her children or on her own—having suffered domestic abuse, she will not be recognised as a wife, her immigration status will not give her any of the support she needs, financial or otherwise, and she will be in danger of being deported. This is a huge injustice inflicted on a small but significant group of women, many of whom have suffered as the victims of forced marriage.
I will refer briefly to Amendment 160. The support that it proposes is urgently needed by victims of both forced marriage and modern slavery.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in regretting that we have not yet heard the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, introduce Amendment 160. On the assumption that we will do so eventually, I shall contain myself to simply offering support for Amendments 151 and 160. I join others in saying that, had there been space, I would have been very happy to attach my name to them.
I shall speak chiefly to Amendment 148, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He has already provided an eloquent and powerful introduction, so I shall briefly add some further points.
I start with a reflection on the overall status of no recourse to public funds. This applies to some 1.3 million people who are part of and contribute to our society. We should ask ourselves some very tough questions about why we ask people to contribute without offering them protection.
However, today, with Amendment 148 we are specifically addressing the issue of victims of domestic abuse. I very much hope that every Member of your Lordships’ House will agree with the statement that the state must not be the facilitator of domestic abuse and that it must not act in ways that trap victims in abusive relationships. It is very clear that that is currently happening, and the amendment would seek to ensure that it does not.
Over the past year, I have been doing quite a bit of work on no recourse to public funds from a number of angles. I have spoken to Green Party councillors and asked them to share with me cases that they have dealt with. Of course, at that very distressing local level, very often it is local councillors, who have very few tools and resources at their disposal, who are forced to rush around trying to help and provide support in any way they can.
I want to quote one person who has been stuck with no recourse to public funds during the Covid pandemic. She had just about cobbled together the circumstances in which to survive, but then the pandemic pulled those apart. I ask your Lordships to reflect on this woman’s words. She said, “The citizens advice bureau is a vicious cycle of being referred to the same departments that have already said no.” We should think about what that must be like and the circumstances in which that leaves people. I note from information provided by Women’s Aid what it means practically. It noted that women with no recourse to public funds who care for children are, theoretically, entitled to continued support for their children under Section 17 of the Children Act, yet under the Women’s Aid Federation of England’s No Woman Turned Away project, of 20 women with no recourse to public funds who were fleeing with children in 2017-18, social services refused outright either to fund a refuge space or to provide emergency accommodation for 14. In six of the cases, they offered to accommodate the children but not the mother.
Those findings show very clearly that women with no recourse to public funds who have children are being refused help, despite Section 17 duties, and that the state is acting in ways to break up families. So, we have a situation where victims of domestic abuse are being trapped and families are being broken up by the law. That is why I very strongly support Amendment 148, and I hope that the Government will see the need to support it, or something very like it, too.
I finish with words from a Women’s Aid briefing. It is a simple, bald statement and I ask the Government whether they agree with it:
“No survivor should be left without access to a safety net and it is essential the Bill delivers reforms to ‘no recourse to public funds’.”
Those are the words of Women’s Aid. I very profoundly agree with them and I hope that the Government will too.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I think it is now possible to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, so I call her again.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
I hope that you can hear me better now. I will speak to Amendment 160, which stands in my name. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Hussein-Ece, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their support. It is also a pleasure to follow the powerful speeches that have just been made; their arguments about the needs of migrant women are compelling and compassionate.
Amendments 148 and 151 are important and have my full support. In particular, I will focus on Amendment 160, on non-discrimination. It is not just about migrants or women; it is about making sure that all victims and survivors of domestic violence, whoever they are, get the support and justice they deserve and that we owe them. This amendment is also about international obligations and the Istanbul convention.
I started my work focusing on this Bill as someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about foreign policy, which I still care about—but I know how important it is that we meet our treaty commitments. The Government are rightly proud of their work on girls’ education, and we used to lead on the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative; we have a good record on leading on these issues internationally. However, leadership requires moral authority as well: it requires us to do the right thing at home rather than just speak about it abroad.
The Government’s intention to ratify the Istanbul convention as soon as possible is very welcome, but gaps remain nine years after we signed, as the Government themselves acknowledge. The last review, in October, flagged progress on Articles 4(3) and 59 as “under review”, pending the outcome of the migrant victim pilot scheme. The Government have signalled their intention to wait, but we have an opportunity to set things right here and now.
As we have just heard, there is extensive evidence of the needs of migrant women and the precarious situation they are in. There is no need for the further delays that the pilot scheme entails and no need to wait to find new legislation to address a problem we face now. This Bill is a natural home for efforts to tackle domestic abuse; why should we knowingly leave areas out of it? If we want to get the Istanbul convention ratified, as the Government have said they do and as I believe we must, we will need to improve protection for migrant women as well. It is better to do that now than to delay it needlessly.
As such, this amendment is necessary in order to ratify the Istanbul convention. It also has an important role to play in making sure that the Bill’s provisions actually work for survivors, whoever they are and wherever they come from. There is a reason why the Istanbul convention contains an explicit list of non-discrimination grounds—it is not about giving us a warm fuzzy feeling; it is based on empirical research into whether victims of domestic violence and abuse seek help, how they do so and what help they get.
We can pass all the reforms we like to the courts, but most migrant and refugee victims never get to that stage. If we are serious about wanting to help all victims of domestic abuse, we need to ensure that we are not discriminating against some of them. By enshrining a principle of equal protection, this amendment would ensure a consistent and cohesive approach to victims, wherever they are.
Research by King’s College London and the Latin American Women’s Rights Service found that 46% of migrant women were denied support by the police when reporting abuse. The report on police and crime commissioners’ approaches to violence against women and girls found that the responses varied widely across the country, with some deemed “very inconsistent” and even “haphazard”. This adds to the well-known barriers to disclosure and reporting that all victims of domestic violence face. By making sure that equal protection is embedded in the law, the amendment will both shape the response of public authorities and give victims the confidence to come forward in the first place.
This amendment is supported by End Violence Against Women, a coalition of hundreds of specialist services, academics, activists and NGOs. It is supported by informed organisations such as Southall Black Sisters, which work with black and minority victims of domestic violence. It is supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. They all say that the current local authority duty in the Bill will not tackle the barriers and challenges that BME and migrant survivors face in accessing refuge unless there is a clear legal commitment to equal support.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. She has said that she normally talks about international affairs, but in speaking to her Amendment 160 she has brought great skill and knowledge about discrimination, the Istanbul convention and international law in addressing this very important domestic question. It is therefore a great pleasure to be able to support and endorse her remarks, but also those of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and those who have supported his Amendment 148, as I do too. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Arise Foundation and I intervene in this debate specifically to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and her Amendment 151, to which I am a signatory.
The amendment would extend the eligibility to the domestic violence rule, DVR, and the destitution domestic violence concession, DDVC, to all migrant survivors of abuse and extend the DDVC from three to six months minimum. Undoubtedly, this amendment, like Amendment 148, would offer protections to some of the most vulnerable migrant women in our country who are currently denied support simply because they are on the wrong visa. The DDVC provides migrant women three months leave to stay in the UK, with access to benefits and the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain under the DVR.
This is a crucial path for women to escape abusive households and begin to be able to rebuild their lives, yet it is only open to a minority of migrant women—those on spousal visas or a small number of family visas. Those on all other visas suffer from no recourse to public funds, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reminded us earlier. While there are no concrete numbers of how many women are penalised by this limitation, welfare charities estimate that the number is in the low thousands.
With no recourse to public funds, many of these women are trapped in situations of horrific abuse, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, told us in an excellent speech earlier on. I will give just one example here of a woman who came to the United Kingdom over 17 years ago from Sri Lanka. She said that for the first few years her marriage was okay, but:
“Day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year, a whole dark world built up around me. It was then that I realised that I was trapped by him. I had been sexually, mentally, verbally abused by him every day. I was so scared to talk to anyone about it because of my immigration situation.”
This woman has lived in the UK for her whole adult life, yet due to her visa she could not apply for the destitution domestic violence concession or the domestic violence rule. As she said:
“If I had a chance to access public funds, definitely, I would have taken the opportunity to move out a long time ago.”
For many of these women, the lack of recourse to public funds, combined with the abuse and lack of security, means they suffer high levels of anxiety, depression and even suicidal thoughts. Believing themselves to be completely trapped, they do not think there is anywhere they can turn. Their choice is so often either to stay in an abusive house or be returned to a country they left many years before.
As we have heard throughout the debates on this very welcome and much-needed Bill, the Covid-19 lockdowns are only increasing the vulnerability of those at risk of domestic violence and reducing the opportunities they have for escaping and rebuilding. Charities providing support to those with no recourse are finding themselves not only overwhelmed with women coming to them, but also having to face massive funding cuts.
Reading the testimonies from migrant women, I cannot help but be reminded of some of the stories I hear from the small anti-slavery charity of which I am a trustee. Let us not fool ourselves: in many other contexts this crime would be considered slavery, as my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss told us a few minutes ago. We should be treating those condemned to this life, and suffering so grievously, with the highest level of support that we can provide, no matter what their immigration status may be.
This amendment would begin to provide them with the welfare and benefits necessary to escape their abusers and build new lives. Moreover, by extending the DDVC support from 12 weeks to six months, we would be providing these women with enough time to really establish themselves and complete legal proceedings—12 weeks is simply not long enough to tie up all the legal ends necessary when leaving an abusive household and changing your immigration status.
It is time to end the visa lottery and extend the destitution domestic violence concession and the domestic violence rule to all migrant women, no matter what their immigration status. No doubt the Government will say—I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, when she comes to reply—that they have instituted a pilot scheme. While this is commendable, and of course welcome, it is not a viable alternative to legislative and additional protection for these women. This pilot commits £1.5 million for one year, which charities estimate would be sufficient to support only about 500 women; it can be described as a sticking plaster at best.
This amendment is an opportunity to create a fair and compassionate system of support that can be accessed by all migrant victims without discrimination. Let us not miss this chance, but instead give a fair wind to the right reverend Prelate and her amendment, and to the other amendments before your Lordships tonight.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am really pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has spoken to Amendment 160 and that we were able to hear from her. I am very pleased to have put my name to it. I also support what I have heard about Amendments 148 and 151, which were excellently and very eloquently moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
I am speaking to Amendment 160 to support non-discrimination to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Bill is truly victim-centred and complies with the Istanbul convention, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. I signed amendment as someone who worked for many years supporting women from BAME and migrant communities who were victims of domestic violence. I saw terrible instances of violence and abuse against women and girls and, along with the women I worked with, I often faced threats from abusers who thought that an outsider interfering should not be allowed. This was very common; this was a private matter and anyone trying to intervene, to rescue women or give advice or information, could and did receive threats, as we did.
I want to ensure that all victims and survivors of domestic abuse can properly access protection and justice equally—which, sadly, is currently not the case. I helped establish a user-led, BAME women’s centre, IMECE, which for over 25 years has helped thousands of Turkish-Kurdish, Turkish-Cypriot and other migrant women, mainly across London, to access services and be given support. While I was a local councillor in the London boroughs of Hackney and Islington, for a total of 16 years, I dealt with numerous cases of domestic abuse—in fact I still get cases referred to me as a result of my work there.
This amendment would enshrine a more consistent and cohesive approach. The principle of equal protection in the Bill would ensure that all public authorities must adopt a consistent and cohesive approach to making provision and arrangements for victim protection. We currently have a postcode lottery approach to victim protection, but this would have to change if this amendment was enshrined in the Bill. Research found that 46% of migrant women were often failing to access support by the police when reporting abuse. This is a startling figure. The new criminal justice measures introduced in the Bill are welcome, but they relying on victims self-identifying when reporting abuse or violence and the criminal justice process responding positively to the victim’s complaint. They do not address the well-known barriers to reporting faced by victims of domestic abuse which are a particular problem for migrant victims. We have already heard that that is, sadly, the case. When it comes to support for these victims, they are faced with the chronic underfunding of specialist services run by and for BAME women which have the expertise, knowledge and links.
In December, I saw a report that the police watchdog advised that police should share less information with immigration officials about abused or trafficked women. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary said that women do not report abuse for fear of deportation. This advice to the police needs to be better enshrined in law. These communities and women deserve more support. The specialist organisations that I referred to, which have provided such unique advice and information and shared their experience with us in the formulation of this very welcome Bill, are uniquely placed to support migrant women to get help and rebuild their lives after abuse. For example, Imkaan reported that 43% of the requests for violence against women and girls support to BAME specialists were from women needing support in connection with immigration-related issues. We heard that 60% of women who approached Southall Black Sisters, which has been around for many decades doing excellent work, for support have insecure immigration status. The organisation I referred to, IMECE, with which I worked extensively, also reports that a significant proportion of women seeking its help were migrant women or refugees.
The fact that perpetrators use immigration status as a weapon to continue to control and abuse is well-known and a reality. This is often exploited by perpetrators and misunderstood by public authorities, so enshrining in law the right to protection from domestic abuse without discrimination would remove significant power that perpetrators exploit and would enable victims to access vital support to escape abusive situations and to hold perpetrators to account. Migrant women who have experienced domestic abuse face additional barriers and they need our support. Crucially, that includes access to safe housing, as we have heard from other speakers including the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee. We heard the shocking figure that just 5% of refuge spaces listed last year were accessible to women with no recourse to public funds. Where do these women go? They are often destitute or have to rely on the help of family or sympathetic friends. Their lives are made appalling and actually insufferable and their children suffer immeasurably.
We know about the limited specialist refuge provision for BAME women across England and Wales. The figure I have is approximately 30 refuges in total, which are concentrated mainly in London and are oversubscribed. The current local authority duty proposal in the Bill will do nothing to tackle the barriers that BAME and migrant survivors face in accessing refuge space unless there is a clear legal commitment to resourcing equal access by introducing a non-discrimination clause.
There has been much support for a truly non-discriminatory component to be enshrined in this important Bill. The Minister in the other place has already stated that it should ensure that,
“all victims of domestic abuse are treated first and foremost as victims, regardless of their immigration status.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/20; col. 299]
If this Bill is to be truly transformational, enshrining a non-discrimination principle is the only way to ensure that we do not have a two-tier policy where society’s most isolated and marginalised victims cannot get the support and justice they desperately need, and are left to suffer in limbo with no legal protection. Help should be available to all those who need it. There should be no hiding place for perpetrators and we cannot have a subsector of victims, a small but significant group of migrant women, who are left with little support and equality.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 151, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I want to start by commending the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and Southall Black Sisters for their work on this amendment and more generally for their work on behalf of migrants. I also want to mention a dynamic Christian group, the Black Church Domestic Abuse Forum, made up of academics, lawyers, pastors, therapists and counsellors who would, as well as representatives of Southall Black Sisters, very much like to meet the Minister to discuss these and other related issues. During the course of the Bill, we have heard a great deal from many unsung groups such as Southall Black Sisters who, by the way, have been on the front line of this work for more than 40 years.
I believe that the Government need to shift their position and ensure legislative protection for all migrant women. This amendment is a test for the Government as to whether they will turn their back on some of the most vulnerable women in our society today. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hussein-Ece, and many others have given us eloquent and passionate chapter and verse about the plight faced by these women, including intolerable coercion and the use of absolute power by abusive men. In effect, the Government are operating a two-tier discriminatory system of support for those fleeing violence, one in which migrant women and children, in the absence of state protection, are at heightened risk of escalating abuse, exploitation and harm. Their plight is summed up by Farah, a survivor being supported by Southall Black Sisters:
“I guess that No Recourse To Public Funds means that it is ok for me to be violated, physically and mentally abused by my father. I guess the Government approves of people like me being treated like I was.”
I appreciate that the Government have committed to support the migrant victims scheme pilot, but, frankly, the support is not enough. It will not reach the majority of abused migrant survivors who urgently need protection. Southall Black Sisters has estimated that the number of abused migrant women who are subject to NRPF and need support is likely to run into the low thousands—anywhere between 2,000 and 4,000 women a year. At a stretch, the pilot project is likely to provide only minimal support for up to 500 women for a maximum period of only 12 weeks. What answer should Southall Black Sisters and other groups give to the thousands of women and children who are turned away because the money has run out?
Without this change to the Domestic Abuse Bill, migrant women will continue to be turned away routinely at a time when they most need help and, worse still, are being regarded as potential immigration offenders rather than the victims of domestic abuse. This could be a matter of life and death. As the Bill makes its way through Parliament, we have borne witness not only to the Windrush scandal but to the Black Lives Matter movement as well. These are transformative events that have shed light on the deep and widening nature of structural economic and race inequality in the UK. This Bill offers the Government a real and ready opportunity to change course and provide redress for those who have been historically, and are presently, being excluded from protection and from their rights because of their background or immigration status. This would demonstrate a commitment to the promises made by the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, following the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, to address institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issues of race.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
I rise to speak to Amendment 160 while offering my sympathy and support for the other two amendments in this group. I reflect on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who said that this is a landmark Bill and needs to be as near perfection as we can possibly make it. I speak also as a member of the delegation from this Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Istanbul convention is one of the key cornerstones of the achievements of that council over the last several years. It grieves me that I regularly see on the material put out by the council that the United Kingdom is one of the countries that has not yet ratified the convention, although of course it added its signature in 2012.
The idea is that our legislation is not yet in line with all the requirements of the convention, and that we are working on that. Earlier today, I heard extraterritoriality mentioned in debates and that a parallel effort is being made in the Northern Ireland Assembly which, mercifully, will deal with a major part of what prevents us at this minute ratifying the convention. That leaves us with Article 4(3) and Article 59. The whole question of discrimination has been properly alluded to as a very important thing for us to accord. I believe that the Government wish to do that, but they have taken the extraordinary step, having seen the recommendation in what is the fourth report since we have had these annual reports, to refer the matter into a pilot that will sit from December last to the end of March. That pilot’s findings will help us to quantify and find sustainable responses to this particular need.
I say that it is ironic and it is because, in a sense, the two other amendments in this group, were they on the statute book, would provide exactly the guarantees being sought and would allow us to ratify the convention at once. Is the fact that we have the pilot, which goes on to the end of March, going to make it necessary or impossible for us to include any measures to deal with discrimination for migrant women within the timescale of the passage of this Bill? I cannot see that we can possibly do the Bill and include any outcome from this process, which means that we will have missed the opportunity in this landmark Bill to deal with the two outstanding obstacles to our signing the Istanbul convention.
I missed a lot of these riveting debates because I was in Strasbourg, virtually—but we were talking about the same things. It pains me that we have not ratified the convention. At this minute Turkey and Poland are on the point of withdrawing from the Istanbul convention, and our moral stance in urging them not to is greatly diminished by the fact that we ourselves have not ratified it. With all that in mind—and this point has not yet been made, although it has been alluded to many times—I wish that these amendments could be made. Some 58 people and organisations wrote to me, as I am sure they wrote to the Minister, to say that all the evidence we could possibly need has been gathered. What is to stop us going forward? Why cannot we find a way between now and Report to leapfrog any obstacle, if necessary? Is this really impossible?
At the end of the day, it will all come down to money—£1.5 million will not do what needs to be done in the next five months and certainly, it will take a lot of money to deal with this in a sustainable way in the fullness of time. The domestic abuse commissioner designate—what a welcome appointment and what a clear-sounding person she seems to be—says that, unless migrant women with no recourse to public funds are included,
“their options are brutal.”
So, there it is from the person who will be overseeing this whole area of our national life.
I do not know whether the Minister can assure us that, even though we are out of sync with the passage of the Bill, we can hope in the not too distant future to incorporate retrospectively all that we are seeking to do through these amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, who will be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as I and many others said at Second Reading, the biggest hole in the Bill is its failure to make any provision for migrant women—a group of domestic abuse survivors who are let down badly by current provisions. I therefore strongly support these amendments, which, in different ways, would fill that hole and ensure that abused migrant women receive the same support as other domestic abuse survivors.
It is to the Government’s credit that they listened to the criticisms from domestic abuse organisations and, in particular, those working with abused migrant women such as Southall Black Sisters and the Latin American Women’s Rights Service—to which I pay tribute—and revised the prospectus for the Support for Migrants Victims pilot scheme. However, they refused to face up to the most fundamental criticism, as cited by the right reverend Prelate in her powerful speech, that a pilot scheme of this kind is simply not necessary in order to provide the evidence that Ministers claim they need before taking longer-term action to protect abused migrant women. Southall Black Sisters, for instance, has already provided the necessary evidence and the domestic abuse commissioner designate supports its belief that the Government do not need further evidence to act.
Although much improved from its original specification, the pilot is still inadequate to meet the needs of abused women. According to SBS, and as we have heard, the £1.4 million allocated is nowhere near enough to meet the needs of all the women requiring crisis support. It calculates that this will enable it to support only 50 women for three months each over a year, which would leave many women still excluded from protection and crisis support. At the same time, the £1.09 million grant it was awarded from the tampon tax fund to support women subject to the no recourse to public funds rule is due to end in March. As the right honourable Theresa May pointed out on Report in the Commons, we have to take account of the fact that the removal of financial support from a woman in a relationship might be
“part of the abuse they are suffering”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6 July 2020; col. 712.]
The Government must surely do all they can not to compound that abuse through public policy. At the very least, will the Minister consider suspending the application of the NRPF rule to domestic abuse survivors during the lifetime of the pilot to minimise the hardship that is likely to result?
Whatever the merits of the pilot project there is, as we have already heard, no guarantee that it will lead to lasting change. Such an important part of the domestic abuse strategy should not be dependent on the presence of sympathetic Ministers. Domestic abuse legislation does not come along that often; indeed, how many years have we had to wait for this Bill, welcome as it is? It is therefore vital that provision be made within it to ensure equal protection for migrant domestic abuse survivors. Indeed, the EHRC warns that failure to do so might put us in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and, as we have heard, it would almost certainly breach our obligations under the Istanbul convention. Given that the Minister said in her letter to Peers following Second Reading that the Government will ratify the convention only when they are satisfied that we meet all our obligations, it is surely imperative that equal protection for migrant women be enshrined in this Bill, as argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to follow noble Lords in the debate on the three amendments in this group. I add my support for them. Noble Lords have already spoken very eloquently about the need for proper support for migrant women who have absolutely no recourse to public funds. I have seen so many examples of women who have come into this country, been married into households and then been treated in a terrible way simply because they do not have any status here.
As my noble friend Lady Helic said about enshrining legal support, domestic abuse cannot hide behind any discrimination. That is absolutely right. To sum it up—I have raised this issue on many occasions—I have met many women living in multigenerational households where they do not know their rights, what services are available or how to access them. It is a duty of any decent community or society to make sure that we are the voices for those people who are suffering—regardless, as noble Lords have already said, of what gender they are. If they are a victim of domestic abuse, they are a victim.
I have seen some horrific cases come before me. I remember one where a woman with three children spent many nights in her car to escape. She had nowhere to go; the car that she had been using for her work was all that she possessed. If we as a society are to demonstrate our humanity and meet the expectations of others—noble Lords have mentioned the Istanbul convention—then we have to lead by example.
I do not want to extend this debate because all noble Lords have made exceptionally eloquent and poignant points, but it is important that we as a civilised society recognise that this issue affects many people. I have my home in the city of Leicester. Southall Black Sisters has done phenomenal work, as have many organisations there, but everyone is going to have their hands tied if the facilities are not there for access and if information is not readily available because the victims cannot access it.
I hope that the law stands on the side of every single person, regardless of their immigration status. I am fully supportive of the amendments. I know that my noble friend the Minister is compassionate and passionate about making sure that we can remove as many obstacles as possible so that people can have the right access. I hope that she will take these amendments very seriously.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, I find it difficult to add to the arguments that have been made so persuasively in this debate.
I want to pick up the point made by my noble friends Lord Griffiths and Lady Lister. We want to make this Bill as good as it possibly can be, which leads me to the issue of evidence. Essentially, the Government are saying that there is currently a lack of robust data to demonstrate which cohorts of migrant victims are likely to be in most need of support. As my noble friend Lady Lister explained, the Government have launched a pilot scheme, which is due to run to March 2022. The Minister said at Second Reading that this
“will enable us to take well-grounded and evidence-based decisions on how best to protect these victims in the long term.”—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 126.]
The problem we have is that there is no guarantee that the Government will act, and 2022 is quite some way away—particularly when the evaluation would then need to take place.
One must ask how much evidence the Government need. We know that a large proportion of migrant women have no recourse to public funds, meaning that they are barred from accessing certain types of financial support, as noble Lords have already pointed out. We also know that the number of survivors of abuse with no recourse is set to increase post Brexit under the new Immigration Rules. It is quite likely that even more women will experience difficulties accessing safety and support. The Covid-19 crisis has served to demonstrate just how precarious the position of migrant survivors is and how essential it is that they can access financial support from the state. In the end, I hope that the House will have the gumption to pass amendments on Report because waiting for the pilot scheme and for the Government to review it, with no guarantee of future legislation, is simply not good enough. We have to act now.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rosser, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for three outstanding speeches introducing their amendments. The clarity and passion with which they speak should influence all of us but also, I hope, influence the Government too.
My late mother was a great believer in things coming along in threes, both good and bad, so I was delighted to hear on the radio this morning a government Minister confirming that the Government had decided to make sure that the Covid-19 vaccine is available to everyone regardless of their immigration status. This establishes a very good principle, just in advance of our debate here this evening: that things should be equal. I was also delighted to hear earlier in our debate the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, agree on behalf of the Government to look at Amendment 142 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and discuss with the devolved Governments the potential for a UK-wide amendment to the legislation that might improve the Bill in front of us, which is primarily for England and Wales. Thus, I hope that things do come along in threes, and that this evening we might have a combination of equality regardless of immigration status on the one hand and a UK-wide measure, which would make this Bill far better, on the other.
In recent years, I have had considerable experience of the daily reality of women facing domestic abuse in some of the asylum and refugee communities in Glasgow and the surrounding area. In your Lordships’ Chamber, we regularly praise the work of the Violence Reduction Unit, which was originally in Glasgow but is now across Scotland, and its successful strategy to reduce violence in the city and now across the nation. But its work on domestic abuse is made far more difficult by the restrictions placed on the rights of many migrant women living in the city and facing daily abuse, which has escalated during the Covid-19 lockdowns of the past 12 months.
I strongly urge the Government to look positively at this measure. Surely the objective outlined so clearly in Amendment 160 of equality for all victims and survivors of domestic abuse should be at the heart of the Bill, and support for these amendments would be a critical step in that direction. We have spoken often, and I have spoken in all my contributions, not just about the legal technicalities of the Bill but of its human impact. However hard it is for a woman to leave an abusive relationship or household when she does have access to finance, housing and rights outwith that home, how much more difficult is it to make that choice when she does not have those rights? Whatever access to funding or pilot projects the Government are willing to provide is no substitute for rights. Rights are at the core of the Bill and they should be available to these migrant women too.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the cogent arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Rosser and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. I thank Women’s Aid and Refuge for their comprehensive and helpful briefings on these amendments.
When the Bill was introduced in the other place by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, it was said that, among other things, the Bill
“aims to improve the effectiveness of the justice system in providing protection for victims of domestic abuse”.
There can be no more gaping hole in the effectiveness of the justice system than when a group with particular characteristics is deprived of its protection. These three amendments deal with one such group.
The Bill does not tackle the multiple forms of discrimination facing migrant women—at all. This was identified as an omission by the Joint Committee that preceded the first iteration of the Bill. The Government resisted attempts to change it in the other place, arguing that more evidence was needed to identify the groups of migrants most in need of support. Since then, domestic abuse campaigners, such as the Step Up Migrant Women coalition, have expressed concerns, and Pragna Patel, the director of Southall Black Sisters, was quoted in the Guardian as saying that
“to leave migrant women out of this bill sends the message that their lives are not valued, they are disposable, they are second-class people, they are invisible”.
Women’s Aid questions the Government’s proposals for a pilot scheme, as indeed have many noble Lords, arguing that evidence of need was there but was being ignored. It and other organisations are concerned that the findings of the Government’s migrant women review show
“a lack of meaningful engagement with the evidence that was submitted by key specialist organisations, resulting in inaccurate, poor and misleading analysis and conclusions”.
So the Government have a problem. They are not convinced by those organisations working most closely with migrant women and most likely to understand their problems, or that there is, as former Prime Minister Mrs May argued, a common intention between the Government’s view and those in favour of the new clause. It is clear that these organisations have difficulty believing that the Government are sincere in their stated commitment to support all migrant victims of domestic abuse. I hope that the Minister’s response convinces them otherwise.
The issue is very clear; it has been spelled out so well this afternoon. A large proportion of migrant women have no recourse to public funds. There is even an acronym for that category: NRPF. It means that they cannot seek certain types of financial support from the state, including homelessness assistance and other welfare benefits, so they do not have the means to secure a stay in a refuge. There are some exceptions, but those are on a limited number of visa types which allow access to something called the destitution domestic violence concession—DDVC. The Covid-19 crisis has demonstrated just how precarious the position of migrant survivors is without access to financial support from the state. They cannot keep themselves or their children safe.
All the organisations involved in fighting violence against women and girls are united in their view of the weight of evidence that NRPF should be abolished—or failing that, the eligibility for the DDVC should be extended to all migrant survivors. I hope that the Government will listen to these informed voices and to the powerful arguments made by noble Lords today in this debate and think again about supporting this change.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been a comprehensive debate. As noble Lords have explained, Amendment 148 would insert a new clause to ensure that those whose immigration status would exclude them from benefits and the right to rent can receive support and find a place to live if they are the victim of domestic abuse in circumstances that would otherwise leave them destitute and homeless. It sets out clearly what evidence must be produced to show they are a victim of domestic abuse.
As noble Lord, Lord Rosser, explained, abusers use survivors’ immigration status as a means of coercive control. As noble Lords have said, no one should be prevented from escaping domestic abuse because they cannot afford to leave or because they have nowhere to go, not least those who are additionally vulnerable because of their immigration status. Amendment 151, led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, requires the Secretary of State to make changes to the Immigration Rules to extend the number of victims of domestic abuse who can apply for, and be granted, indefinite leave to remain. It proposes that they should be granted limited leave to remain for not less than six months to enable this, or longer if the application is awaiting a decision, including access to support and accommodation during that time. As noble Lords have said, it is likely that victims of domestic abuse could be in danger were they to be forced to return to their country of origin, as the example graphically described by the right reverend Prelate demonstrated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, has said, while the current pilot is welcome, it is not necessary. We know all we need to know to take the issue forward—a point reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece have explained, Amendment 160 gives effect to Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence—the Istanbul convention—that requires all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, to receive equal protection against domestic abuse and equally effective support and, as such, encapsulates the essence of Amendments 148 and 151. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, has said, if Amendments 148 and 151 were agreed to, we could ratify the Istanbul convention. As he said, either this is a landmark Bill, or it is not. I agree with the noble Lord: this all comes down to money—money that the Government appear to be unwilling to spend.
It is concerning that the Home Office has responsibility both for providing support for domestic abuse survivors and for enforcing immigration legislation. With only 5.8% of refuge places available to survivors who have no access to public funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has said, something clearly needs to be done. With those affected numbering in the low thousands, it would not take much to implement these recommendations, and we support them. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, failing to take action would make it feel as though the state were complicit in these women’s suffering.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group centre on support for migrant victims of domestic abuse. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Lady Helic for proposing the new clauses.
All Members of the Committee will share the view that anyone who has suffered abuse, regardless of their immigration status, should first and foremost be treated as a victim. Where we differ, perhaps, is on how support is best provided to meet that end. Amendments 148 and 151 seek to provide, for all migrant victims of domestic abuse, at least six months of leave to remain, a route to indefinite leave to remain and access to publicly funded support. Amendment 160 seeks equally effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, while also referring to Article 4(3) of the Istanbul convention.
If I have correctly understood noble Lords’ objectives in tabling these very thoughtful and well-intentioned amendments, they are seeking to expand the existing destitute domestic violence concession and the domestic violence rule to cover all migrant victims of domestic abuse: to place the DDVC in the Immigration Rules, as well as lifting immigration restrictions, for any migrant victim of domestic abuse. The Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill recommended that the Government consider similar changes to the DDVC and DVILR. However, its recommendations did not include proposals to incorporate the DDVC scheme in the Immigration Rules.
As noble Lords will be aware, in response to the Joint Committee’s recommendations the Government committed to a review of the overall response to migrant victims of domestic abuse. That review has been completed and its findings were published on 3 July 2020. We were grateful to the specialist sector for the views and evidence provided during the review. However, it was unclear which groups of migrants are likely to be most in need of support, how well existing arrangements may address their needs, how long they might need support, and how they could be supported to move on from safe accommodation. It was clear, however, that a robust evidence base is needed to ensure that funding is appropriately targeted to meet the needs of migrant victims.
My issue with Amendment 151 is that it is based on a misunderstanding of the rationale for the DDVC and the domestic violence rule. Both were, and are, intended to provide a route to settlement for migrant victims who hold spousal visas. The system was designed in this way because, had their relationships not broken down as a result of domestic abuse, these victims would have had a legitimate expectation of staying in the UK permanently. Neither the DDVC nor the domestic violence rule was designed to support those without this legitimate expectation. This Government are concerned that expanding the scope of both would undermine the specific purpose that gave rise to them and introduce a route to settlement that might lead to more exploitation of our immigration system—or indeed of vulnerable migrants.
For this reason, at Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Safeguarding Minister announced that the Government would invite bids for grants from the £1.5 million support for migrant victims scheme. Such grants will look to cover the cost of support in a refuge or other safe accommodation for migrant victims of domestic abuse who are unable to access public funds. The Government will use the scheme to better assess the level of need for these victims and inform spending reviews about longer-term funding, which is very important. The competition for the scheme was launched on 15 December and closes on 8 February—today. The scheme will then run until 22 March, which answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
As I have indicated, our review has highlighted that a better evidence base is needed for migrant victims who are not eligible for the DDVC. Since 2017, the Government have provided over £1 million from the tampon tax fund to support migrant victims with no recourse to public funds. While clearly this fund has helped to deliver much-needed support for a number of individuals, and much has been learned, regrettably we require a more complete and reliable evidence base to enable us to make those long-term decisions. We particularly want to establish a robust dataset that we can interrogate about the circumstances in which support is most needed, the duration of support needed, what kind of support works best, and how individuals exit from support to regain their independence. We would like to do this work to ensure that the information that we need is available to inform future policy-making and that the decisions taken are sound.
I turn to Amendment 160. The support for migrant victims scheme and the associated evaluation work clearly illustrate that the Secretary of State is taking steps to ensure effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse. This scheme will be available to all migrant victims at the point of need while their eligibility for the scheme is assessed and other routes of support are explored.
The Government have been clear that migrant victims of domestic abuse should be treated first and foremost as victims, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, and others, said. Data collected through the course of this scheme will provide the information that we need to assess current provisions and ensure that effective protection and support is available to migrant victims of domestic abuse. Therefore, while I am grateful to my noble friend and appreciate the sentiment and intention behind her amendment, we do not believe that this is necessary in light of the action that we are already taking. The provisions in the Bill apply equally to all victims of domestic abuse, whatever their status, including the ability to apply for a domestic abuse protection order or the provisions in respect of special measures and the prohibition of cross-examination in person.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Helic and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Health and Lord Griffiths, have talked about the Istanbul convention. It is important to recognise that legislation is not needed to comply with Articles 4 and 59 of the convention. As set out in the latest annual report on our progress towards ratification of the convention, which was published on 22 October last year, the position on whether the UK is compliant with Article 4(3) of the convention to the extent that it relates to non-discrimination on the grounds of migrant or refugee status, and with Article 59, relating to residence status, is of course under review, pending the evaluation and the findings from the support for migrant victims scheme.
On the suggestion in Amendment 148 that the no recourse to public funds condition is lifted for all victims of domestic abuse, the Government believe that this is the wrong response. It is not subject to further definition in any way and would be a disproportionate and costly method of providing support for migrant victims. It is worth recognising that the principle of no recourse to public funds was established as far back as 1971, and no Government have sought to reverse that position. Successive Governments have taken the view that access to publicly funded benefits and services should 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.
These restrictions are an important plank of immigration policy, operated, as I have said, by successive Governments and applicable to most 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, rather than costs to the public purse. It does this by prohibiting access to public funds other than to those with indefinite leave to remain, refugees and protected persons, and those granted discretionary leave.
Nevertheless, exemptions from those restrictions are already in place for some groups of migrants. These include 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 and there is a risk of destitution, imminent destitution, risk to the welfare of a child or exceptional circumstances. Equally, as I have said, migrant victims on certain spousal visas can already apply for the destitute domestic violence concession to be granted limited leave with recourse to public funds.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister and so I call the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
I thank the Minister for her considered response and want to acknowledge her support and compassion for migrant victims of domestic abuse. The issue for me is still the one that has been raised throughout this debate of how we guarantee long-term protection for migrant women with insecure immigration status, given all we have heard about the mismatch in timing between the pilot scheme and this Bill. So I really welcome discussion with the Minister as we determine whether to bring this matter back at a later stage.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right to raise the point about sustainability, long-term solutions and what happens after the pilot scheme has taken place. It is precisely because we want to identify where the gaps lie and where long-term funding might be needed that we have done this pilot scheme. With that, as I have said throughout the course of this debate, it is our intention to review the matter when that pilot scheme has finished. But the point about funding is one that is well made, because we can have all the legislation in the world and if the funding is not in place there is no point.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I start by thanking the Minister for her very full and comprehensive reply to this debate. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, in which there has been a high degree of unanimity as far as the nature of the contributions is concerned and the objectives that we all want to achieve.
The Government have basically set out why they do not believe that the amendments we have been discussing meet the Bill as far as they are concerned. They have laid some stress on their point that a one-year pilot scheme is about to commence to better assess the level of need for this group of victims. It is, as the Minister has said, to run through until March 2022. Clearly, on that basis, as far as the Government are concerned, not a lot is going to happen to address the problems that have been identified in the near future.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester pointed out in her very effective contribution that the amount offered to run the pilot project would not meet the needs of all vulnerable migrant women who need crisis support. She also pointed out that the data the pilot scheme may collect is already available. Indeed, it has been published and submitted. I do not think that the Government, in their response, exactly made it clear what information they do not feel they have already, that has not been provided in the data that has been published and submitted. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester also pointed out that the pilot scheme did not guarantee change following its conclusion.
This Bill is surely the opportunity to provide legislative protection to all victims and survivors of domestic abuse, including migrant women who are among the most vulnerable. I had thought that was a government objective. I have no doubt the Minister would say that it is—or at least I hope that is what the Government would say. It does seem that it will be a little way ahead in the future before anything will get resolved. We have a serious issue that needs addressing now and not, maybe, at some unspecified date in the future.
I do not think we have heard, in the Government’s response, how the Government intend to address the immediate problem that exists already. I hope it might be possible, between now and Report, for there to be further discussions on this issue—which will involve a number of people, judging by the number of contributions to the debate and all the people who have added their names to the amendments that we have been discussing. But I share the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester that it would be helpful if there could be further discussions about the issues have been raised before Report. I suspect, at the moment, that the issues we have been talking about now for one and three-quarter hours will be brought before the House again on Report, unless discussions provide a solution to the issues we have been talking about. I hope that proves to be the case and that the Minister will ensure those discussions take place. In the meantime, though, I withdraw Amendment 148.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we still have a number of amendments to get through this evening, but I think now might be an opportune moment for a short break. I beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn until 8.23 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, the Committee will now adjourn until 8.23 pm, and we will return to deal with the group beginning with Amendment 149.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 149. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 157 or 168.
Amendment 149
“Controlling or coercive behaviour offence: post-separation abuse
(1) Section 76 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 is amended as follows.(2) Leave out subsection (2) and insert—“(2) “personally connected” has the meaning as set out in section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”(3) Leave out subsections (6) and (7).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that those who were previously personally connected are protected from any coercive and controlling behaviour (including economic abuse) that occurs post-separation.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 149 would protect those who were previously personally connected to an abuser from any coercive or controlling behaviour—including, in particular, economic abuse—that occurs post separation. It would do so by amending the Serious Crime Act 2015 so that its provisions concerning controlling or coercive behaviour were extended to cover those not living together. It would therefore also safeguard those covered by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which focuses on another important group in need of protection. I am grateful to noble Lords who have added their names to Amendment 149. Analysis of successful prosecutions of the controlling or coercive behaviour offence found that six in 10 involved economic abuse, yet the wording of that legislation means that, post separation, the victims of such abuse have no legal redress.
Economic abuse has been a long-standing concern of mine, even if I had not then come across the term, so its inclusion in the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill is welcome indeed. But I must admit that I had not been aware of the prevalence and seriousness of post-separation economic abuse until it was brought to my attention by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse—SEA—to which I pay tribute for all its work on the issue and express my thanks for its help with the amendment.
We are talking about, for instance, spending money from a victim’s bank account or a joint account without permission, running up bills in their name, prolonging the sale of joint property unreasonably, interfering with the victim’s employment, and jeopardising their social security entitlement through malicious calls or wrongly claiming the child benefit. Post-separation abuse can also involve indirect control through use of the family courts.
Following an interview I did on “You and Yours” last Autumn, prompted by SEA’s work, I received a long email from a mother of three children who shared her experience, and I am grateful for her permission to quote from it anonymously. Currently going through a divorce, having suffered a combination of psychological, economic and some physical abuse, a common combination, she detailed the ways in which her husband was putting debts in her name and was taking steps that undermined her financial position before the divorce and any financial settlement. She described his actions as
“malevolent, wilful, controlling that are all-consuming and intent on destruction.”
She describes
“sleepless nights worrying about debts put in my name, no pension provision, my credit score, ability to borrow.”
She said she had learned that
“the drive to dominate does not end after physical separation”,
and she finished:
“I hope your colleagues take note that economic abuse that continues post separation, particularly when children are involved is disordered behaviour that goes against healthy parental and societal norms and should be legislated as unlawful.”
Since then I have received many emails covering various forms of post-separation abuse. One described it as
“a merry-go-round that just keeps turning post-separation”
that
“in many ways has been worse than the emotional abuse I was subjected to throughout the relationship.”
Many echoed this plea from one of them:
“Please give survivors protection from on-going abuse after we leave as this is the most dangerous period for the victims.”
These emails are just the tip of an iceberg of anxiety, suffering and trauma caused by economic abuse which research shows frequently continues after separation.
For instance, in a national survey last year by Refuge and the Co-operative Bank about one-quarter of all respondents said they had experienced economic abuse after separation from their partner, nearly one in 10 said their former partner damaged or stole property that had to be replaced, and 6% reported that in each case their ex-partner had spent money from a joint account without consent or discussion, had run up bills in their name or had refused to pay any child support. In all, only just over half of those who had experienced economic abuse said it had ended when they split up with the abuser, and some said it started only after they had ended the relationship. The research underlined the devastating and long-term financial and mental health effect that economic abuse can have on well-being.
More recently, nearly four-fifths of post-separation abuse victims who responded to SEA’s pandemic survey said the perpetrator had attempted to control their finances, with success in two-thirds of all cases. Nicola Sharp-Jeffs of SEA has detailed how coerced debt is a particularly effective and insidious form of economic abuse and is all too frequent post separation. One project found that three out of five domestic abuse survivors had been subject to at least one coerced debt. One woman described such debts as “invisible chains” that link you to the perpetrator post separation.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
A large number of noble Lords wish to speak on this group. We have a number of amendments to get through before the Committee rises at midnight. While of course there are no speaking limits, perhaps I may appeal for conciseness and brevity from noble Lords. That will assist us in making as much progress as possible before we rise later tonight.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, before speaking to my Amendment 157 in this group, I want to express my strong support for my noble friend Lady Lister in her Amendment 149, which she has argued for so persuasively just now. My amendment is concerned with family abuse, particularly that suffered by elderly people and disabled victims. I am glad to have the strong support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt, Lady Mansoor and Lady Greengross. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has been an extraordinary campaigner for older people and years ago was bringing the problem of abuse being suffered by older people to national and international attention. The noble Baroness, Lady Mansoor, cannot be with us today because of a pressing engagement, but she is a strong and enthusiastic supporter of the amendment.
Our concern is that when it comes to domestic abuse, family victims are repeatedly, even continually, being forgotten. The only explanation I can think of is that elderly and disabled victims of family abuse who are dependent on their abusers are in general unable or afraid to speak out. To my mind, this should make the coverage of family abuse by Section 76 a high legislative priority. The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour under Section 76 covers such behaviour by a family member, including financial abuse, but only when they are living with their victim. According to research, most perpetuators of financial abuse against elderly people were family members rather than partners, and only 25% actually live with their victims. I believe that the UK criminal law must afford victims equal protection, irrespective of their place of residence. As Gary FitzGerald, the former CEO of Action on Elder Abuse for 18 years, has stated:
“Older women can have a higher level of physical, emotional and particularly financial dependence on perpetrators, and will often have experienced the abuse for a much greater period of time. It is those psychological and emotional relationships that are crucial in considering coercive control, much more so than whether or not the victim is living with the perpetrator.”
Material published by Action on Elder Abuse shows that financial abuse can involve victims’ houses being sold or taken without their consent, or victims giving their property away under pressure or without full awareness.
The outcome of financial abuse on older people can be devastating. Many lose large sums of money, lose property that they have lived in for years, do not receive benefits to which they are entitled, incur large debts, or simply do not have enough money to live on. Many of the alleged perpetrators of large-scale financial abuse do not deny having access to or spending large amounts of money belonging to a particular older person. They merely contend that the older person gave them permission to spend the money in question, but the vulnerability of the victims means that they are often unable to categorically deny that such permission was given. The likelihood of such cases being progressed through to a satisfactory outcome, full recovery of assets and a criminal prosecution of the perpetrator remains low. Caroline Abrahams, the charity director of Age UK, has urged the Government,
“to give serious consideration to any amendment that will improve outcomes for older victims and survivors.”
Becki Meakin, general manager of Shaping Our Lives, the national user-led organisation for disabled people, has said:
“The high incidence of violence and abuse among disabled people is related to being dependent on their family and informal networks for care and support. These caring relationships provide additional opportunities for perpetrators to abuse and coercively control. The perpetrator can coercively control the disabled person by withholding essential support such as food, medication or prevent them going out independently. This type of abuse can be done by a family member wherever they live and this type of coercive control would not be easily recognised by the legislation around stalking”
and harassment.
In her opening speech, my noble friend Lady Lister argued that it is wrong to say that post-separation economic abuse can be covered by stalking and harassment legislation, as the Government have done both in Committee in the Commons and at Second Reading. I agree with my noble friend that this is by no means sufficient.
We really need to take action on this now. Controlling or coercive behaviour, including financial abuse, does not become stalking or harassment simply because the victim does not live with their abuser.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 149, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for the reasons that she has set out so cogently.
Everyone, including the Government, recognises that post-separation economic abuse exists and is serious. Its full seriousness has been well documented by Surviving Economic Abuse, to whose work I also pay warm tribute. Along with others, I drew attention to this evidence at Second Reading, and it has been very ably set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
It can be summarised very briefly in two points. First, 95% of abused women experience economic abuse, as a result of which 60% of abused women are left in debt. Secondly, one in four abused women continues to experience economic abuse even after they have left their abuser. Economic abuse does not require physical proximity: it continues and/or escalates after a couple separates. It can also begin after the separation, when an abuser’s opportunity to continue other forms of controlling and coercive behaviour has been removed and when the only way left is through access to their former partner’s resources.
Vivid examples of the ways in which economic abuse can continue, escalate or even begin, as a form of coercive control, have been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and there is no need to repeat them. In short, as one abused woman put it:
“He can’t physically get me, he can’t emotionally hurt me, and yet still, economically he can cripple me.”
However, despite this overwhelming evidence, the Government have, up to now, resisted having post-separation economic abuse in the Bill, on the grounds that such abuse can be captured by a harassment or stalking order—and this is indeed theoretically possible.
However, if you told someone you happened to meet in the street that this was what was being proposed by the Government, they would find it very strange indeed. Stalking brings to mind something quite different from economic abuse. As SEA has rightly put it:
“Clear labelling is the primary function of the criminal law—clarity is essential in order for the criminal law to fulfil its preventative function.”
If people are asked to abide by the law, they need to be clear what it says. As the person in the street would say, words should mean what they say. As such, it is quite clear that, from the point of view of clarity for public order and the public good, we need to include this in the Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned, it is entirely possible that judicial resistance to convicting a defendant of stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act where there is evidence of economic abuse but not of stalking would mean that it simply would not go through. Quite simply, we should call things by their proper name. I very much hope that the Government continue to reflect on this issue and that they will see that it makes total sense to include this amendment in the Bill, where it properly belongs.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for so clearly and comprehensively introducing her amendment. Amendment 149 would insert a new clause that seeks to extend the protection from any coercive and controlling behaviour that occurs post-separation. The noble Baroness concentrated on economic abuse, but that is not the only form of ongoing abuse.
I was in a relationship that became increasingly abusive over a period of five years. The first time I noticed something was happening was when a friend, a former partner, sent me a birthday card. When I explained who it was from, my then partner tore it up and threw it in the bin. His controlling and coercive behaviour continued and got worse, and he eventually resorted to physical violence. When we split up, he threatened to kill me and threatened to write to my employer to try to destroy my career. I continued to live in fear of what he might do until, 18 months after we had split up, he colluded with a Sunday tabloid newspaper to expose intimate details of our private life, including making public my HIV status, as well as making false allegations that the newspaper eventually admitted were libellous. Fighting the issue in the courts would have resulted in me losing everything if I had lost that case. His actions did not amount to harassment or stalking.
Coercive and controlling behaviour can continue long after separation, with victims of domestic abuse continuing to live in fear of what the perpetrator might do next, and the law needs to reflect this. Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 applies only if the perpetrator and victim are in an intimate relationship or if they live together. This amendment would ensure that it would apply to all those who are “personally connected” as defined by Clause 2 of this Bill, whether they live together or not. As such, it would also include the circumstances that Amendment 157 seeks to cover, where a relative is exerting controlling or coercive behaviour, whether or not they live together.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, explained, his amendment is specifically aimed at protecting older and disabled family members. I strongly support Amendment 149 and welcome the focus which Amendment 157 brings to the abuse of older and disabled family members.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in this important debate; he speaks movingly and powerfully on this issue. I support Amendment 157, for which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt set out the argument very well, but I will speak primarily in support of Amendment 149, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have also put my name. I also wish to thank her for all of her work in this area, and for eloquently speaking to this amendment, setting out in forensic detail why it is needed.
David Challen, son of Sally Challen, wrote movingly today in the Times. He said that leaving an abuser can be the most defining moment of a victim’s life. The fear of what will happen when they separate from their abuser is often overcome by an instinct of survival and the hope that they will be protected. However, as the law stands on coercive and controlling behaviour, victims who leave are not protected.
It is obvious that coercive control does not end when a relationship does and that very often the exact opposite happens, and the abuse escalates. As many noble Lords have said, this is particularly true of economic abuse, which does not require physical proximity to perpetrate, but can have a crippling effect on victims as their abuser seeks to make their life as hard and as financially unstable as possible. We also need to remember how often children are caught up in the continuation of this kind of abuse, with child maintenance very often being turned off and on like a tap. It is therefore absolutely right that the definition of domestic abuse in this Bill will include economic abuse and also recognises that the abuse can continue when the couple split up. We now need to take this opportunity, as others have said, to amend the Serious Crime Act 2015 to bring coercive control in line with the far better drafting of this Bill.
Not accounting for post-separation abuse is a serious shortcoming of the offence. Given that separation, as we have heard from other noble Lords, is a time at which women are at heightened risk of homicide, this shortcoming is dangerous, too. The Government made the point that existing legislation on stalking and harassment already addresses post-separation abuse. Like others, I absolutely do not accept that. These crimes are not the same and to suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding about all these offences. I also do not believe that the Government’s outstanding report on controlling and coercive behaviour should stand in the way of this vital opportunity before us.
If the law on coercive control stays as it is, what kind of signal do we send to victims? It is this: “Stay put and we can charge him, but if you leave, we can’t touch him.” This makes no sense at all and must change. Failing to recognise that these abusive behaviours can occur post separation creates a dangerous gap in our understanding of this crime and would leave too many victims without the proper justice they deserve.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support this group of amendments and specifically wish to speak to Amendment 157, to which I have added my name. Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 covers coercive or controlling behaviours by family members who live with their victims; this amendment would ensure that this is broadened to include those family members who reside at a different address.
As I outlined at Second Reading, many older people suffer from domestic abuse, which all too often goes unreported. Until very recently, the ONS did not collect data for those aged 75 and over in the national crime survey. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, the ONS has stopped asking questions around sensitive topics including domestic abuse and sexual assault, so it will not be until sometime after the pandemic that the ONS will start publishing data on the abuse of older people.
From the information we do have, however, we know that the abuse of older people is often committed by family members and victims can be reluctant to report this. In cases where parents are abused by their children, they often feel that the abuse reflects on them as parents—and indeed it might. The Metropolitan Police and other UK police forces have said that this is a significant factor in the underreporting of abuse against older people.
The organisation Hourglass, formerly Action on Elder Abuse, which I originally set up with the help of the Department of Health and of which I am a patron, has a helpline to support older people who are victims of abuse. The most frequent perpetrators recorded by the helpline are sons and daughters, making up 30% of all calls in 2019 and 38% of calls in the first six months of the pandemic, from March to September 2020.
Abuse against older people, like abuse against people of any age, takes many forms, as we know. Hourglass reports that, in 2019, 40% of calls to its abuse helpline involved financial abuse. Very often, this form of abuse is carried out by family members who do not reside at the same address as the victim.
One way this financial abuse occurs is through the use of technology and the digital exclusion of older people. In June 2020, the International Longevity Centre UK, of which I am chief executive, published a paper entitled Straddling the Divide, which highlighted the issues that many older people face with digital exclusion during the Covid-19 pandemic. The report found that, in the UK,
“around 11.9 million people lack the digital skills they need for everyday life.”
It also found that
“only 47% of adults aged 75 years and over recently used the internet.”
At a time when older people have been told to stay home and shield, many have not been able to go to the bank as they have in the past. More than ever before, many now rely on others to manage their finances online. Very often, this is done by a close family member and sadly, as we know, this can lead to financial abuse.
Such abuse is often coupled with controlling and coercive behaviours by the perpetrator where other forms of abuse, such as physical or psychological abuse, are not used. It is crucial that the offence of controlling or coercive behaviours by family members includes those not residing with the victim, as this would strengthen the law in protecting against the abuse of older people—which, I hope all noble Lords agree, is a serious and often urgent issue that must be resolved as a matter of urgency.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I am advised that the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, was unable to get online so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I pay heartfelt and fulsome tribute to her for all her tireless work for older people. There is much to commend in Amendments 149 and 157 in this group, but I will direct my remarks to Amendment 149; I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and her co-signers for introducing it.
The mental anguish and emotional strain of this form of abuse, continuing post separation, is worthy of our attention this evening. I thank the charities such as Refuge, Surviving Economic Abuse—known as SEA—and others that have brought this issue to our attention in the context of this Bill. The figures brought forward in research undertaken by Refuge suggest that 53% of survivors of economic abuse said that it stopped after they had separated from their partner.
However, the controlling and coercive behaviour offence does not cover abuse that occurs when couples are no longer in a relationship or living together, so there are strong arguments for bringing in the type of behaviour so eloquently outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in moving this amendment. In paying tribute to the work of these charities and the many who have suffered abuse, we should look at the inconsistencies and at closing the loophole in the present laws. My starting point is that, now that economic abuse is being recognised in the context of the Domestic Abuse Bill, it makes sense to bring this type of coercive behaviour within the remit of the Bill.
In responding to the powerful arguments put forward in this debate, if my noble friend the Minister cannot adopt the amendments before the House, I hope that she will look kindly on bringing forward amendments from the department and in her own words to ensure that the inconsistencies identified in this amendment are brought to an end and that this type of abuse, the forms taken and its pervasiveness—this abuse can continue long after separation—are brought to a timely end. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for moving this amendment. I believe that it is worthy of the attention of the House, and that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and should be brought within the remit of this Bill. If that does not happen this evening, I hope that my noble friend will look favourably on bringing forward on Report a form of words that we can all unite around.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, given the excellent speeches that have already been made in support of these two amendments, I can be brief in supporting Amendment 149. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Burt, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, have all made a cogent case for aligning the definition in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 of those to be protected from coercive control with the much better and wider definition in the current Bill, so that victims of coercive control are protected post separation.
As I said at Second Reading, my interest in this issue arises from my experience as patron of a domestic abuse charity in Norfolk which helps support women and men who have left abusive relationships to rebuild their lives and their confidence. The work it does has made me very aware of the destructive effect ex-partners can have, even from a distance and long after separation.
Together with that experience, as others have said, I am grateful for all the briefing we have received from various organisations and charities. My particular gratitude goes to Cassandra Wiener from the University of Sussex, for having so clearly set out the way coercive and controlling behaviour, particularly—but not exclusively—economic abuse, can continue after the abusive partner has left; indeed, how the act of leaving itself can be a trigger for increasing the abusive behaviour, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, so powerfully described in his very brave and moving speech.
The argument that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is the appropriate way to deal with a problem that the Government themselves recognise is simply not acceptable. Earlier, reference was made to the need to beware of adding baubles to a legislative Christmas tree. This amendment is no bauble. It goes to the roots of this legislation: the aim that we should provide comprehensive protection for all victims of all forms of domestic abuse from all types of that abuse. I urge the Government to support it.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have heard excellent speeches this evening, so I do not want to cover what has already been so excellently spoken to in the Chamber. I support Amendment 149 and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for bringing this to the Committee. As the Victims’ Commissioner for over seven years, I met many survivors and victims of economic abuse. To sit side by side with someone and listen to their experience of abuse or, if not an abusive relationship, the use of coercive control to persecute them financially is a heart-breaking situation when your hands are tied.
I am very grateful, as many noble Lords have said, for lots of briefing but especially to Surviving Economic Abuse. Its briefing was outstanding, and I would like to highlight just some points as I know it is going to be a long night. One in four women reports experiencing economic abuse after leaving the abuser. In fact, given that economic abuse does not require physical proximity, as we have heard, it commonly continues, escalates and in some cases may begin after separation. This creates a significant barrier to the victim rebuilding their life. This is an horrendous attitude—the way that abusers absolutely pincer their victims.
To help people fully understand, I will quote a case study from Surviving Economic Abuse in support of this amendment. It says:
“Layla was married for over 20 years and has three children. Her husband was controlling and coercive throughout the marriage both economically and emotionally, pressurising her to transfer money to his bank account and forcing her to let him use the credit card she had in her sole name. 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 debts he has put in her name, including bank loans of £70,000.”
We are not talking pocket money here. These are huge amounts that prevent victims repairing their lives.
It is so important that this amendment is made to the Domestic Abuse Bill as other Peers have covered other sections of the Serious Crime Act. More importantly, this would send a message to other abusers in relationships where a divorce is sought and coercive control carries on and on through the financial settlement while, to the victim’s cost, the debt escalates and escalates. I know this from the personal experience of friends, victims and survivors. We have to ensure that we make this amendment to the Bill to send a message that this is taken seriously, and to empower victims by ensuring that they know that we support them, listen to them and will help protect them from the people who cause them to go into debt.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 149, as so excellently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who I warmly congratulate on all her work in this area. Amendment 149 relates to the abuse perpetrated after people have separated. I too thank Surviving Economic Abuse for its excellent work and briefing.
Economic abuse after separation can particularly affect older women, many of whom have been financially dependent on a partner who traditionally managed the family’s finances and then, after they have stopped living together, continues to try to withhold money or run up debts in the woman’s name, without her realising it in time. I also support Amendment 157, spoken to so well by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which relates to the problem of abuse suffered by older people generally. They can suffer many different types of abuse. Further, I add my support to Amendment 171, which looks at carers and the abuse that can be perpetrated against elderly or disabled victims; this need to be covered as well.
As my noble friend Lord Cormack has said, the Domestic Abuse Bill is a ground-breaking, landmark piece of legislation. It contains some important measures to ensure that the statutory definition of domestic abuse is really wide-ranging. Amendment 149 seeks to ensure that this legislation is clearly consistent with other legislation. The Domestic Abuse Bill is an ideal avenue to address inconsistency with the Serious Crime Act 2015, and to extend the current offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in Section 6 of that Act to ensure that it covers abuse post separation.
Currently, Section 76 limits this offence to those situations where the perpetrator and victim are either in an intimate relationship with each other or living together as either members of the same family or having previously been an intimate relationship. Under the 2015 Act, the two people have to meet the definition of being personally connected, but this would exclude two individuals who are no longer in an intimate relationship or living together.
Without the changes in these amendments, abusive behaviours such as economic abuse by one partner towards the other cannot necessarily fall within the existing offence of controlling or coercive behaviour. This is a crucial gap in the law, which Amendment 149 seeks to close by unequivocally making the 2015 Act and the definitions in this Bill consistent, so that abuse perpetrated when people are not living together can still be counted as a criminal offence. Indeed, if this amendment is accepted, my own Amendment 168, debated on the first day in Committee, will automatically be covered.
Existing legislation on stalking and harassment is not suitable to address post-separation abuse, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify to the Committee that the Government support the aims of this amendment and, if they do not accept these words, may come forward with their own wording on Report that can ensure that the coercive control offence will be brought into the criminal law in line with the statutory definition of domestic abuse to remove the current anomaly, so that victims need wait no longer for this much-needed protection. Whether this is about controlling or coercive behaviour, alienating behaviour or other forms of abuse, the criminal law will then be able to catch up with the more enlightened understanding of domestic abuse enshrined in the Bill.
Viscount Goschen (Con) [V]
My Lords, I, too, offer my support for Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I also heard compelling arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for their Amendment 157.
With regard to Amendment 149, we have heard some very compelling arguments this evening. Indeed, there has been unanimity thus far, and I expect that to continue. This proposal was the primary subject of my remarks at Second Reading. As we have heard, the protection afforded by Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act is limited by the residency requirement it contains. I completely agree with earlier speakers—indeed, it is self-evident—that victims can still be extremely vulnerable to abuse from their former partners even if they are not living together under the same roof. Research from bodies including the University of Sussex has reinforced the nature of this threat. They are concerned, quite rightly in my view, that this discrepancy creates a perverse disincentive for victims physically to leave their former partners.
Fortunately we have the solution to this problem staring at us from the Domestic Abuse Bill before us this evening. The enhanced definition of connected persons in Clause 2 does not have this residency requirement, as we have heard. Therefore, it seems entirely logical to harmonise the law between these two statutes. The clearer the law, the better, and there is no room for two competing definitions on the statute book. We need to choose the most effective one, and in my view that is the one contained in Clause 2. This is really extremely difficult to argue against, given that the Government have come forward with a new definition that is based on the lessons learned in the intervening five years. Why this should not be applied in these circumstances would be a difficult argument to make. So the issue is really as straightforward as that and, not surprisingly, the amendment has had a great deal of support to date both inside the House and externally, and I add my support.
The Bill has the potential to do so much good, and the Government should be warmly applauded for having brought it forward. Making the change proposed in this amendment would add further to those benefits. As I mentioned at Second Reading, we are fortunate enough to have a Minister with us this evening who is an expert in this field, and I very much look forward to my noble friend’s response after she has heard the arguments put forward this evening.
Baroness Finn (Con) [V]
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and other noble Lords who have signed it. I thank them for bringing this to the attention of the Committee and I wholeheartedly support this amendment on post-separation abuse, including economic abuse. It is tragic that so many women continue to be abused even after separation. They have done the right thing—left, escaped, moved or fled—but somehow the plague of abuse continues in other forms. It does not require physical contact, and for some victims this form of abuse only starts after they have left. It is another barrier to escape when they have surely suffered enough. It is widespread: one in four women reports experiencing economic abuse after separation. Most alarmingly, it is post-separation when women are at heightened risk of homicide.
Perhaps most tragically of all, the current law offers inadequate protection, and this amendment would begin to correct that. Currently, we are in the absurd position that many post-separation offences would be a crime only if they occurred before separation. In the words of one Crown Court judge:
“If you have had the strength to leave—we are suddenly not supporting those people? They have got the legislation wrong.”
There are a few important legislative issues to consider. The first is that the Serious Crime Act definition of coercive control does not cover post-separation abuse. Therefore, once this Bill passes, there will be an anomaly in the law, both within English statute and across the United Kingdom, since it is covered in Scotland. The amendment in the other place was withdrawn because of an ongoing government review into the offence of coercive behaviour. This would seem a compelling reason, but I do not think it reason enough to ignore this amendment. The review in question does not look specifically at economic abuse and, since it is concerned only with the current application of the law, which does not recognise economic abuse, it is unlikely to do the issue any justice. Therefore, the review should not stand as a barrier to the acceptance of this amendment.
Finally, it has been argued that victims of abuse can be protected under existing legislation concerning stalking, since statutory guidance has been updated to include economic abuse. But, practically speaking, this is unlikely to be effective. The guidance given to police officers when drawing up stalking protection orders does not include economic abuse provision. Indeed, it is not clear how it could. I therefore believe there is a clear and compelling case for accepting this amendment. The evidence that economic abuse is a crime has been accepted by all, as evidenced by the debate and continued passage of this Bill. It is now a question of offering every possible legal protection, consistently and universally, for the very brave victims of this awful crime. This amendment does that and has my unqualified support.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who is next on the list, has already spoken and inadvertently appears a second time. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has withdrawn. I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very supportive of Amendment 149. I would like to put it in the context of how I see this: supporting women from BAME communities in particular, where they are separated from their families and yet the coercive behaviour continues, not just by one perpetrator but by many family members, in particular with regard to the economics of abuse or the way they poison—and I say “poison” very strongly—the minds of children against the victims and survivors. We need to have something in place that supports women. I concentrate on BAME women because I feel that they are probably those who least know how to access the services that are available and how to utilise the law as it currently stands. We need to make sure that they have as much protection as possible and are able to access it.
I know my noble friend will take away the serious implications of the amendment, particularly for the women I am trying to focus on. I feel, as other noble Lords have said very eloquently, that this is something that is critical and missing in an important piece of our legislative framework.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 149 and 157. I am very well aware of the time and shall keep this short. Victims of domestic abuse who escape the perpetrator need protection in circumstances already set out so well by other speakers—and not exclusively, I have to say, in situations of economic abuse. However, to look at economic abuse, as a family judge financial dispute cases post-divorce came before me which undoubtedly came within the framework of economic abuse. They were very difficult to resolve because those who had perpetrated this economic abuse were usually very clever in managing to prevent adequate financial relief for the spouse. However, it is absurd to suggest that the CPS would be likely to prosecute these sorts of cases as issues of harassment. Possibly it would, but I would be astonished if it did or, indeed, if the police brought them to the attention of the CPS.
As I said, I also support Amendment 157. It is broader than has been suggested and, in my view, it includes teenagers who are being forced into marriage by family members who do not necessarily live under the same roof. An example would be uncles or brothers who have already left home, but they are as abusive and dangerous to the teenager being forced into marriage as those who live under the same roof.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lords and to listen to their powerful and compelling speeches. I am pleased to speak to Amendment 149. It is vital that post-separation abuse is recognised within this Domestic Abuse Bill, as the controlling and coercive behaviour offence only recognises victims who live with an abuser or who are in an intimate relationship with them. That cannot be right. Leaving a controlling relationship is very dangerous, as many survivors know. It is too easy to assume that once a victim has left their abuser, that abuse stops. In too many cases it is just the opposite and economic abuse is rarely used in isolation, as victims still suffer from other forms of abuse, which forces them to abide by their abusers with unreasonable demands placed on them. All the while, they desperately want to keep themselves and their children safe.
As one victim said, it is like an invisible chain: it goes on and on. That is because their abuser does not even have to know where their victim is. As a result, it puts them at an even greater risk of homicide during this period. The resulting outcome is that it prevents a victim from moving on with their lives. They feel that they can never be free. This new clause would ensure that those victims who were previously personally connected are protected from any coercive or controlling behaviour occurring post separation. This is a one-step opportunity within this Domestic Abuse Bill to change the law and save lives.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 149. It took us a long time to recognise coercive control, but now that we have, we have come a long way very quickly. The term “coercive control” has entered our vernacular; as mentioned in an earlier debate, “The Archers” centred a major story line on it, as did “Coronation Street”. That might sound trivial, but it is not, because with each storyline, society’s understanding grows and what was once considered acceptable is not any longer.
The Government should be proud of the part they have played in reaching this point. When Theresa May introduced the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour in 2015, England and Wales became the first countries in the world to recognise and criminalise this behaviour. With the Bill we are leading the world again by including economic abuse in the first legal definition of domestic abuse. Again, we are ahead of the curve.
When the Government launched consultation on the Bill in March 2018, LBC ran a phone-in discussing economic abuse. A woman called in. She had been suffering from emotional abuse and was also suffering from financial abuse without knowing it was a recognised behaviour. After listening to the show, the woman admitted she was now considering leaving her husband, saying: “I’ve always hidden it: ‘It’s all me; it’s all me.’ Now I realise it’s not all me. I’ve been going through this for quite some time, but I didn’t realise this was an issue”. This is just one example but it shows the very real impact of this Bill and how it is already forging that better understanding and, in so doing, providing better protection for victims—but it can provide better protection for many more victims if it accepts this amendment to include post-separation abuse in controlling and coercive behaviour rather than relying on stalking legislation in which it does not fit easily as a stand-alone offence.
I appreciate that my noble friend has said that we must wait for the outcome of the Home Office review and that this will be published by Report. I sincerely hope the findings will in fact cover this issue for, if we do not address this, we will be letting down all those victims, who we know exist and who continue to suffer even when they have summoned up the courage to leave their abusive partner. If we do that, I am afraid we will have renounced our leading role in this area.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and other noble Lords for bringing Amendment 149, and to Surviving Economic Abuse. I support both Amendments 149 and 157 and am particularly keen to support Amendment 149 on post-separation economic control.
In an earlier discussion, we had the debate about universal credit and other benefits and the need to ensure the victim can have the financial wherewithal to leave the abuser by making split payments the default position. I hope the Government will be kindlier disposed towards this amendment, which covers a whole aspect of abuse not yet covered in UK law.
As we have heard, the crime of domestic abuse as set out in the Serious Crime Act 2015 does not cover post-separation abuse. Amendment 149 rectifies this. I do not need to add further to the examples that have already been given by other noble Lords, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to make the point of how serious and all-pervasive to the life of the victim this can be.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the amendment to tackle post-separation abuse that was tabled in Committee in the Commons. The Minister, Alex Chalk, acknowledged that the charity Surviving Economic Abuse had done an “important public service” in raising the issue. However, the amendment was withdrawn in Committee due to assurances regarding an ongoing government review into controlling or coercive behaviour, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. We still await the review. It is now promised before Report, and I hope this Minister will not use the same reason for not allowing this amendment. Even better, we would love to see the Government bring their own amendment on Report.
We really need this. One Crown Court judge estimated that without something of this nature, the legislation would be missing 50% or 60% of the people who need to be protected. This is a great Bill, but it will still fail victims—even after they have summoned the courage to escape and even when they thought they had finally got their lives back—if we do not tackle this vitally important group.
Amendment 157 was ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I have added my name to it. It tackles coercive and controlling behaviour by a relative, whether or not they reside with the victim. As the noble Lord has said, only 25% do. The definition still applies, even if they are no longer in an intimate relationship but still reside together. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised the issue of forced marriage, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, mentioned other members of the girl’s or woman’s family who do not toe the family line and the way that their life can be poisoned as a result. This amendment therefore widens the definition of controlling and coercive behaviour to ensure that these relationships are still defined as domestic abuse and can be prosecuted as such. I hope that the Government give it favourable consideration.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I will just pick up on a point that was made by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. It concerns what was said during the debate on this or a similar amendment in the Commons, when the Government used an argument to deflect the amendment to the effect that we should await the outcome of the review of coercive control legislation due to be completed by “early autumn”. Last autumn was being referred to. It now appears that we might receive some further information—I hope, the outcome of the review—before Report. No doubt the Minister will confirm that or otherwise when she responds.
The point I want to make is that this is far from the first amendment on a key domestic abuse issue that the Government have told us at some stage that they cannot accept because they are awaiting the outcome of a review, pilot scheme or mapping exercise. That suggests that they know that there are real problems that need addressing but have not determined how in time for the Bill. The Bill has already been a long time on its still-unfinished journey to becoming an Act. I am not sure that this is a satisfactory situation. So often we are told that an amendment is unacceptable because there is a review, pilot scheme or mapping exercise outstanding.
My name is attached to Amendment 149 which, as expected, was moved so comprehensively and persuasively by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. It adds a new clause, which would ensure that those who were previously personally connected are protected from any coercive and controlling behaviour, including economic abuse, that occurs post separation. As we have heard, economic abuse makes the victim dependent on the perpetrator and limits their choices and ability to move. One in five women in the UK reports 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.
Through economic exploitation, the perpetrator looks to benefit from the victim’s economic resources and, in so doing, sabotage their economic independence. The perpetrator may also build up debt in the victim’s name through coercion or fraud, or even steal or damage the victim’s property, which then has to be replaced. Building up debt in the victim’s name is common and leaves the victim struggling to live with it thereafter. When this happens, the impact on the victim’s economic well-being is hugely destabilising and limits their choices post separation. Economic safety underpins physical safety, and building an independent life can, for many victims of economic abuse, feel impossible. I will not continue further. I had some more points to make, but I know that time is pressing and I am sure that they have already been made.
I conclude by saying that we support Amendment 149, which addresses the deficiency that I referred to earlier: that the post-separation situation is not covered and that currently, victims of economic abuse post-separation are unable to seek justice. We also support the objectives of Amendment 157, which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for setting out the case for their amendments, which seek to extend the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for tabling his amendment, which seeks to repeal the so-called carer’s defence. I join others in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and all the work that she has done in this area. I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lady Verma, for pointing out the very particular problems faced by some BAME ladies. My noble friend Lady Sanderson illustrated so well how society, including notable broadcasters, has, over time, got to grips with an understanding of coercive control and the terrible harm it causes.
I will address Amendments 149 and 157 before turning to Amendment 171. Amendment 149 seeks to remove the current requirement in the offence of living together in the case of former partners as well as family members. Amendment 157 seeks to remove the current requirement in the offence of living together in the case of relatives who are perpetrating abuse but who do not live with their victim.
Controlling or coercive behaviours are an insidious form of domestic abuse that have long-term debilitating effects on victims and survivors. Such behaviours, intended to harm, punish and frighten, can be perpetrated within intimate and family abusive relationships. The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour applies, as it stands, to those who are personally connected. That means that it applies to intimate partners regardless of whether they live together, ex-partners who live together, or family members who live together. The offence does not currently apply to ex-partners or family members who do not live together. The rationale behind this is that there are other criminal offences—stalking and harassment—that may be used to prosecute controlling or coercive behaviours post separation, or in cases where family members do not live together. Indeed, the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour was specifically introduced to close a gap in the law with regard to abuse by intimate partners or family members in the same household.
Turning to surviving economic abuse, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, along with other noble Lords and domestic abuse organisations, rightly highlight that controlling or coercive behaviour often begins, continues or intensifies when the victim and perpetrator no longer live together. They further argue that the stalking and harassment offences are not specifically designed to prosecute this sort of behaviour. Supporters of this amendment also make the point that controlling or coercive behaviour occurs between family members who do not live together, an example being adult children who inflict economic abuse on their elderly parents. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Goschen pointed out, 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 to the definition in Part 1 of the Bill.
There are convincing arguments on either side of this debate, and the case for change is not clear-cut. The offence of controlling or coercive behaviour has been in force for just over five years. Consequently, there is only limited evidence on which to build a case for amending the legislation. Given its relative newness, there is also work to be done to further embed the offence throughout the criminal justice system.
Additionally, though not specifically designed to cover controlling or coercive behaviours, the stalking and harassment offence is broad enough that it may apply to post-separation abuse. This includes forms of economic abuse so rightly highlighted by Surviving Economic Abuse. It is also worth noting that the stalking and harassment offence has a maximum sentence of 10 years, whereas for controlling or coercive behaviour it is five years.
The Government are committed to ensuring that any changes to legislation are made on a sound evidential basis. To support this, in 2018 we committed to conducting a review into the controlling or coercive behaviour offence. Though the Home Office has made good progress with the review, it has been unavoidably delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has necessitated refocusing our efforts to support victims throughout this difficult time. We will be publishing the review findings ahead of Report. As the case for change here is not clear-cut, we will continue to consider the evidence for and against change, including the review into the offence, ahead of Report. In coming to a final view, we will reflect very carefully on this debate.
Amendment 171 seeks to repeal what has been labelled by some as the “carer’s defence”, under Section 76(8) to 76(10) of the 2015 Act. This allows for a limited defence where the accused believes that they were acting in the best interests of the victim. The defence is limited as it is not available in cases where the victim fears that violence will be used against them. In addition to believing that he or she was acting in the best interests of the victim, the accused would also need to demonstrate to the court that while their behaviour might have appeared controlling, it was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The defence is intended to cover cases where the accused is genuinely acting in the best interests of the victim: for example, if the accused has a caring responsibility for a disabled partner and for medical reasons must compel their partner to take medication or stay at home against their will, for their own protection or well-being. Again, it is important to note that this defence is not available in cases where the victim feared that violence would be used against them.
Supporters of this amendment have put forward three main arguments: first, that it is necessary to protect vulnerable victims who have disabilities or mental health issues from coercion or control; secondly, that the defence has the potential to prolong the abuse of disabled victims and prevent them from accessing equal justice; and, thirdly, that alternative legislation, such as the Mental Capacity Act, may be used by the accused to argue that they were acting in the best interests of the victim. This would render the defence unnecessary. However, the Government consider this defence entirely necessary. There will be specific circumstances in which it is possible that the accused’s behaviour, while it might be considered controlling in a different context, is justified and reasonable given the nature of their caring responsibilities. There is a real risk that, without such a defence, a person may be wrongfully convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour when in fact they were indeed acting in a person’s best interests.
As is the case with all legal defences, it is for the courts and juries to decide merit on a case by case basis, and whether the threshold for the defence has been met or not. There are similar or equivalent defences in Scotland, in Section 6 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, and in the proposed new domestic abuse offence in Northern Ireland, in Clause 12 of the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill, which has recently completed its passage through the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In conclusion, while I cannot support Amendment 171, I undertake to consider further Amendments 149 and 157. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it has been a privilege and an honour to move this amendment which has had such great support from across the House and in particular an unusual level of support from the Minister’s own Benches.
We have heard a lot of very strong arguments. I will not go through them, given the time. At present, there is a disincentive for victims of abuse to leave. We have heard about the positions of older and disabled women, children and black and minority ethnic women. We have heard from a former Victims’ Commissioner and a judge, and we have heard the very moving personal experience of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Almost everyone who spoke dismissed, out of hand, the idea that post-separation abuse, and in particular economic abuse, could be treated as a form of stalking.
I had hoped that, having listened to the debate, the Minister would put up the white flag and basically say that the case had been overwhelmingly put. A number of noble Lords on her own Benches said they hoped she would bring forward her own amendment on Report. But I do welcome the fact that she said she will look again at this. That is progress. But she said there are arguments on both sides. Well, I have heard argument after argument for this amendment, and not one against it. The Minister did not really put an argument, so I look forward to what I hope will be productive discussions between now and Report, and I hope she will take note of the calls that, if she will not accept this amendment, she should bring forward her own amendment on Report.
I will leave it at that. I thank noble Lords again for such strong support for this amendment. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to Amendments 155 and 156. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 155
Lord Ramsbotham
“Screening for acquired brain injury in domestic abuse cases
(1) A woman who has been the subject of domestic abuse shall, with her consent, be screened for traumatic brain injury, and other forms of brain injury, including concussion.(2) For the purposes of this section a woman has been the subject of domestic abuse if—(a) she is the person for whose protection a domestic abuse protection notice or a domestic abuse protection order has been issued, or(b) she is the person against whom it is alleged the domestic abuse has been perpetrated, when the accused is charged with an offence that amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of this Act.(3) In the case of subsection (2)(a), the screening shall take place within two weeks of a domestic abuse protection notice or a domestic abuse protection order being issued.(4) In the case of subsection (2)(b) the screening shall take place within two weeks of a charge being made for an offence, where the behaviour of the accused amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of this Act.”
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 155 and speaking to Amendment 156 standing in my name, I must declare two interests: first, I am chairman of the Criminal Justice and Acquired Brain Injury Interest Group; secondly, I am a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Acquired Brain Injury.
The chairman of the APPG, Chris Bryant MP, unsuccessfully tabled these two amendments in Committee in the other place. Since then, he and I have had a discussion with Victoria Atkins MP, Minister for Safeguarding, during which she assured us that the Government recognised the impact of acquired brain injury on victims of domestic abuse. Since then, she has forwarded a copy of the draft guidance to be issued to the police on domestic abuse protection notices and orders. Both are mentioned in Amendment 155, which includes referral to an independent domestic violence advocate, who can advise a victim on a range of issues, including healthcare. That has been forwarded to noble Lords by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford.
These two amendments are linked in that both are to do with assessing whether a victim of domestic abuse is suffering from an acquired brain injury. I will speak first to Amendment 156, which covers prisoner victims of domestic abuse. It was the assessment of their needs conducted by the Disabilities Trust at HMP Drake Hall, a women’s prison in Staffordshire, that first alerted us to the added problems faced by victims suffering from an acquired brain injury.
The trust, which is a member of the interest group that I chair, had carried out an assessment of head injury at HMP Leeds, finding that over 40% of male prisoners were suffering from an acquired brain injury that affected their behaviour. The trust introduced a link worker scheme, in which someone who had worked with a prisoner while he was in prison supported him for six months when he was released into the community. The trust then carried out a similar assessment at HMYOI Wetherby, finding that a similar percentage of young offenders were suffering from an acquired brain injury.
Turning to women, the Ministry of Justice funded the trust to conduct a two-year specialist link worker scheme at Drake Hall. The trust found that 64% of the prisoners reported having suffered a brain injury, 98% of which were traumatic. Forty per cent of those suffering from a traumatic injury had a mental health diagnosis, and 62% of the women reported that they had received their injury during domestic abuse. For some, this was the first realisation that the injury was the cause of their behavioural symptoms.
In that connection, I have mentioned before in this House my disappointment that Theresa May, when Prime Minister, dropped the prisons part of David Cameron’s Prisons and Courts Bill. A number of us had hoped to use it to make statutory certain initial assessments on being received into prison, including an assessment of head injury. I hope that this Bill will provide the opportunity to make that good.
We have also corresponded with Alex Chalk MP at the Ministry of Justice regarding the follow-up to the Disabilities Trust report on Drake Hall. He confirmed that work was under way to improve the identification of individuals with an acquired brain injury and ensure that prison and probation staff were better informed and trained to understand and support the behavioural challenges of those with an acquired brain injury.
I shall move on, or rather backwards, to Amendment 155. In addition to the draft guidance for the police about domestic abuse protection notices and orders, I should draw attention to the inclusion of a time factor. Early assessment is of the essence in understanding the effects of an acquired brain injury no less for the victims than for those responsible for treating them. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has raised an important issue and outlined the size of the problem. Brain injury can arise from many different causes such as violent trauma, lack of oxygen to the brain or self-medication with alcohol and drugs. Sadly, brain injury is in large part irreversible, although sometimes the brain has the ability to relearn under intense rehabilitation, which is why rehabilitation services are so important.
One can see the motivation behind the amendment, but I fear that it may be difficult to have it in the Bill. In acute head injury, haemorrhage, usually a subdural haematoma, needs to be detected rapidly and the clot removed neurosurgically. If missed, the injury may become a chronic subdural as the clot acts like a wick, drawing fluid into it so that it slowly expands in the fixed box that the skull provides.
The other main category is that of repeated impact injury, sometimes associated with episodes of concussion as classically seen in boxers, which can lead to dementia. The part of the brain that is damaged determines the clinical signs exhibited. If the frontal lobes or some of the main nuclei of the brain are damaged, there can be profound personality and behavioural changes, while in others, speech and movement are affected. It can be very variable. Sadly, although supportive care can help a person to cope with deteriorating brain function and slow its effect, it is not reversible.
A possible difficulty with the amendment is that it requires a two-week timeframe for assessment, given that there are already waiting lists for MRI machine time for those with symptoms indicating brain pathology, such as cancers that need urgent treatment. Awareness of head injury is gained first and foremost from the patient history, followed by appropriate physical examination, after which further investigations may or may not be indicated. It is the history of the injury and the clinical signs that may indicate brain injury; the screening itself can establish only that the findings and type of injury described are, on the balance of probabilities, likely to be causally linked. This well-motivated amendment should raise awareness of head injury so that women are asked about the type of injury, including how it happened and when. A high index of suspicion of head injury is needed, but I fear that the amendment as worded would not be workable in practice.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which he spoke to so convincingly. Amendment 155 deals with screening for traumatic brain injury for female domestic abuse victims who choose to have it within two weeks of a domestic abuse protection notice or order, or when the abuser has been charged. This should provide valuable evidence of abuse for the court and possibly a diagnosis that could help health authorities to treat the injuries that have arisen both physically and mentally. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the harm to victims that acquired brain injury can cause; they are complex and worrying.
Amendment 156 relates to female prisoners. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, confirmed, many prisoners of the male variety have been knocked around and may well have brain injuries, although I would suggest that that does not happen very often as a result of domestic abuse.
As we have been told, the amendment is based on research by the Disabilities Trust which shows that nearly two-thirds of offenders at Drake Hall had had a brain injury, of whom 62% claimed that the injury was a result of domestic abuse. Of those diagnosed as having a brain injury, nearly all of them had suffered traumatic brain injury, potentially leading to very serious health consequences, as we have heard.
The amendment provides for all female prisoners to be screened within two weeks of starting their sentence. While they are inside, remedial treatment can be started, I hope, although I accept the very informed and concerning comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support both these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has had a long-standing interest in these matters, as he explained to the Committee, and he spoke with great authority, as he usually does. He also explained that he had had recent conversations with the Minister, Victoria Atkins, and I was pleased that he explained that she is taking this problem very seriously.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, gave a very sobering medical explanation of brain damage and brain injury. In my understanding, she said it is a difficult thing to assess, but it is a very real issue. I too got the review of the Disabilities Trust report on Drake Hall from 2016-18, and we have heard a number of the statistics from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
One particular statistic that was not repeated, and which I thought was particularly revealing, was that 33% of women with a brain injury sustained their injury before committing their first offence. That shows that brain injury can, and often does, lead to life-changing behaviours, which can and do mean that, disproportion-ately, people with brain injuries end up in prison—both women and men.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, did not actually say that this was a probing amendment, but whether or not it is, I am happy to support it. I hope to hear from the Minister that the Government are taking these sources of injury and changes in behaviour very seriously within the prison estate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for setting out the case for these amendments, which, as he explained, follow similar suggestions from Chris Bryant MP when the Bill was debated in another place. I am pleased that my honourable friend the Minister for Safeguarding was able to meet Mr Bryant and the noble Lord, and that their discussions were—as the noble Lord said—helpful.
Amendment 155 seeks to introduce screening for acquired brain injury for female victims of domestic abuse within two weeks of a domestic abuse charge being made, including those victims to be protected by a domestic abuse protection order. Amendment 156 seeks to introduce screening for brain injury for all female prisoners within two weeks of starting their sentence, with a subsequent assessment to take place if an injury is found.
I say from the outset that we want to make sure that we provide healthcare and support that meets the specific needs of all victims of domestic abuse, and female offenders too, including those with acquired brain injury. We have carefully considered these amendments, and while we appreciate their overarching intent, we feel that legislating would not be the appropriate course of action. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, set out clearly the clinical difficulties that would be involved if we were to put this in the Bill.
The National Health Service is there to provide appropriate care and treatment for everyone who needs it, based on clinical need. This key principle on which the NHS operates means that anyone who needs a certain diagnostic test based on clinical need should receive it. The healthcare needs of victims of domestic abuse will vary greatly based on their individual circumstances and experiences but, if they need urgent assessment or treatment, they will receive this from the National Health Service.
Moreover, as we have heard throughout the scrutiny of the Bill so far, domestic abuse can manifest itself in many ways, including—as in the group of amendments we have just discussed—through coercive control or financial abuse, and it would be inappropriate to invite victims of these forms of domestic abuse for brain injury screening. That is why we do not consider that testing all female victims of domestic abuse, as this amendment suggests, would be an effective use of NHS resources or provide the personalised care they need.
Nevertheless, we believe that improvements can be made to existing screening processes through non-legislative measures. I will provide some background to that. All people entering prison receive an early health assessment within the first 24 hours. This initial assessment is comprehensive so that their health needs can be identified and addressed at an early stage. It includes a standard requirement to undertake a screening questionnaire for head injury and loss of consciousness, which focuses on issues with memory or concentration. As noble Lords have said, these can be important signs.
We acknowledge that more could be done during this screening process to identify and address specific circumstances where head injury or loss of consciousness has resulted from domestic abuse. I am pleased to say that NHS England and NHS Improvement have confirmed that they would be happy to add further questions to the existing screening tool to ascertain, where an acquired brain injury has been identified, whether that acquired brain injury occurred as a result of physical injury related to domestic abuse, sexual violence or another form of abuse.
The national screening tool is reviewed and updated by NHS England and NHS Improvement on an annual basis to allow for any changes in NICE guidance or any recommendations arising from a coroner’s report to prevent future deaths. To amend the existing screening tool, NHS England and NHS Improvement will need to agree the precise questions to be asked and how these will be reported. I am pleased to say that the initial screening questions on domestic violence and the coding that is required have already been agreed and will be implemented by April this year.
Alongside this, NHS England and NHS Improvement are continuing to work with the Disabilities Trust on a training package for healthcare practitioners to increase effectiveness when supporting people with impaired neurological functioning, either as a result of domestic abuse or for other reasons, and also to support them by providing practical steps to those working with patients and self-help tools for the patients themselves to reduce and overcome the impact of any brain injury.
In so far as Amendment 155 seeks to link screening to the making of a domestic abuse protection order, it is important to recognise that, like other protective orders, these are designed to impose requirements on the perpetrator. They cannot impose requirements on the person to be protected by the order, such as requiring them to undertake a screening for an acquired brain injury.
We will, however, use the statutory guidance to the police to recommend that they refer victims to an independent domestic violence adviser, or another specialist advocate, who will be able to advise victims of their options on a whole range of issues, including healthcare. In addition, we will include information on where to go to seek medical attention in the advice materials provided to victims which we will be producing ready for the pilots of the orders.
I hope that these non-legislative measures reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that we are acting to support women with acquired brain injury and that putting this in the Bill is therefore not necessary. I am glad to repeat our thanks to him and to Mr Bryant for the discussions we have had on this important issue. I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that considered response and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for their support. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff for drawing on her considerable medical expertise to point out the practical medical difficulties with the timeframe proposed in Amendment 155. I majored on Amendment 156 and the assessment of victims of domestic abuse when they are received in prison, which has been proved to be so important. I will examine in detail what the Minister and my noble friend Lady Finlay said and decide what to do on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 158. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 158
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“Guidance: child maintenance
(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance relating to the payment of child maintenance where the person with care of the child is a victim of domestic abuse.(2) Guidance issued under this section must take account of—(a) the potential for the withholding or reducing of child maintenance to constitute economic abuse under section 1(4) of this Act;(b) the need for enforcement action to prevent non-payment; and(c) the difficulties faced by victims of domestic abuse in obtaining evidence to support an application for a variation of a child maintenance calculation.(3) The Child Maintenance Service must have regard to any guidance issued under this section when exercising a function to which the guidance relates. (4) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must publish any guidance issued under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the Child Maintenance Service to tackle the problem of abusers continuing economic abuse by withholding or reducing child maintenance payments.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for adding her support to this amendment, in which we return to the issue of economic coercive control, which we explored in today’s group 7, this time in respect of child support payments, which help with the cost of raising the child and can be used for everything from daily subsistence to helping to provide a home. They are vital for the security of a child who is often the victim of abuse himself.
When domestic abuse has occurred and the partners have separated, getting money out of the abuser for child maintenance and other things can, as we have already heard, be difficult and dangerous. The abuser will have the instrument of non-payment as a further tool of economic abuse, despite the fact that not only the ex-partner will suffer but so too will the children for whose benefit the payment is made. Child maintenance arrangements can be organised privately, through the government-run Child Maintenance Service or, more rarely, through a court order. When I was an MP in 2005 to 2015, in quite an affluent area, failure to pay child maintenance was a frequent issue that came up in my surgery. The Child Maintenance Service was severely criticised for failing to enforce payments to the parent with care, and for slowness to act and to process claims. Therefore, when looking at the Commons discussion on this amendment, which was raised by my honourable friend Christine Jardine, I was glad to read that the Minister, Alex Chalk, asserted that matters regarding the CMS’s performance had improved. That is great news, and I commend the Government on the work they have done with input from Women’s Aid and other charities to improve matters, and particularly on issuing a fee waiver in 2017 for survivors of domestic abuse who apply to the CMS for help. However, that fee waiver needs to be better publicised. Many victims are unaware of it.
I also welcome other improvements that the Government have introduced, including avoiding the risk of abuse as a result of having to give up new personal details, such as bank details, when setting up direct payments. However, parents often discover that banks and even CMS staff are unaware of some provisions, including non-geographic-specific bank accounts, which would avoid having to reveal the victim’s location to the perpetrator. These improvements can work only if people know about them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on this, as I think that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, is one of those that would help to close a little gap in the whole issue. When people think about domestic abuse, they often think about physical abuse, and perhaps about emotional and mental abuse, but tackling economic abuse is just as important if we are to stamp out domestic abuse.
I have signed this amendment, as it is important that the child maintenance system is not misused as a tool of abuse. Domestic abusers must not be allowed to continue their domestic abuse by withholding or reducing their financial support for children. This amendment, like so many of those tabled to this Bill, is a reminder of how multifaceted domestic abuse is, and how abusers will exploit any opportunity they possibly can. We must deny them those opportunities and punish them for what they do.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 158 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the Child Maintenance Service to tackle the problem of abusers continuing economic abuse by withholding or reducing child maintenance payments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, we have just had a debate on the issue of economic abuse post separation, and one of the examples given of such abuse was through the perpetrator failing to pay child maintenance.
Child maintenance is an essential source of income for many single parents in enabling them to meet their children’s basic needs, including food and clothing, and is of particular importance to victims and survivors of economic abuse, who often rely on such payments for economic stability after leaving a perpetrator. Perpetrators of economic abuse are only too aware of this, however, and withholding or unreliably paying child maintenance can be a way in which they continue to control victims and survivors, including post separation. This issue does seem to highlight the importance of agencies such as the Child Maintenance Service that provide front-line services carrying out training to recognise and respond to economic abuse, as a means of domestic abuse, as part of how they operate.
Economic abuse perpetrated through child maintenance is not new, of course; it has been used by perpetrators for some time. However, the coronavirus seems to have exacerbated the situation through providing perpetrators with increased opportunities to interfere with child maintenance payments. During the present pandemic, it has been reported that the Department for Work and Pensions has redeployed a number of Child Maintenance Service staff in order to deal with the spike in universal credit claims. It has been said that this included staff tasked with enforcing or following up child maintenance.
The media have additionally reported that the Child Maintenance Service was accepting verbal evidence from paying parents seeking to stop or reduce payments in relation to their income decreasing during the pandemic, when this would usually require evidencing through documents such as payslips. In their response, could the Government indicate whether there is validity in these reports and what guidance has been issued by the Government to the Child Maintenance Service on tackling the problem of abusers continuing economic abuse by withholding or reducing child maintenance payments—not only prior to but during the pandemic?
We support the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, in raising this issue and await the Government’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for outlining her amendment. I certainly agree with her and all the noble Lords who have spoken that guidance for front-line staff on tackling economic abuse through the withholding or reduction of child maintenance payments is extremely important. I assure her and, I hope, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the Child Maintenance Service takes the issue of domestic abuse extremely seriously and is committed to ensuring that victims of abuse get the help and support that they need to use it safely.
The service has recently substantially strengthened its procedures to support people who are experiencing domestic abuse: in particular, a new programme of domestic abuse training is currently being delivered to all Child Maintenance Service caseworkers. However, before that, the service had already implemented training in this area, designed with input from Women’s Aid. That included: recognising that domestic abuse can take various forms, including physical, psychological, emotional and financial abuse; appropriate signposting to domestic abuse support groups; and advice on contacting the police and, if people did not feel able to do so, asking whether they were content for the Child Maintenance Service to call the police on their behalf. The service has also introduced a complex needs toolkit for its caseworkers which includes clear steps to follow in order to support people who are experiencing abuse. It is regularly reviewed and strengthened on the basis of feedback. The Child Maintenance Service will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of its guidance and training in this area.
Beyond that guidance and training, there are a number of ways in which the Child Maintenance Service responds to cases involving domestic abuse. It might be helpful to outline some of them. They include waiving the application fee for victims of domestic abuse; providing appropriate advice and support to help victims use the service safely and to ensure that there is no unwanted contact between separated parents; acting as an intermediary to facilitate the exchange of bank details and ensuring that no personal information is shared; providing advice on how to set up bank accounts with a centralised sort code, which does not allow victims of abuse to be traced; and providing advice and directing people to a number of specialist domestic abuse support organisations as well as providing advice and information on how they can stay safe.
The Child Maintenance Service also has a range of strong enforcement powers, which can be used against people who consistently refuse to meet their obligations to provide financial support to their children. First, it can make deductions directly from earnings and seize funds directly from a paying parent’s bank account, either as a lump sum or regular payments. We have extended this power to cover joint and certain business accounts, thereby removing the opportunity for paying parents to put their money out of reach. Secondly, it has the capacity to seize goods or force the sale of a non-paying parent’s property. Thirdly, it can seek to have those who wilfully refuse to recognise their obligations either committed to prison or disqualified from driving. Finally, we have also introduced the ability to disqualify non-compliant parents from holding or obtaining a UK passport, which we believe acts as a strong deterrent.
We are therefore confident that the Child Maintenance Service already has sufficient enforcement powers and that it has further strengthened its procedures for supporting people who have suffered domestic abuse. I assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief but important debate that we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these enforcement powers and the support that they give. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the speakers who have contributed to this short but, as the Minister says, important debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke very supportively about the importance of child maintenance to the family and how it is abused as a tool of control. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made an interesting contribution about the role of coronavirus and the redeployment of CMS. Obviously that is a concern.
The Minister talked about further strengthening procedures and training, which is what the Minister Alex Chalk said in the other place. I am reassured that the evaluation of the effectiveness of the guidance is continuing, and I hope that the success rate continues to rise so that more families have the wherewithal to survive economically. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 159. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 159
“Anonymity of domestic abuse survivors in criminal proceedings
(1) Where an allegation has been made that a relevant offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the survivor.(2) Where a person is accused of a relevant offence, no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed as the survivor shall during the survivor’s lifetime be included in any publication.(3) This section does not apply in relation to a person by virtue of subsection (1) at any time after a person has been accused of the offence.(4) The matters relating to a survivor in relation to which the restrictions imposed by subsection (1) or (2) apply (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in the relevant subsection) include—(a) the survivor’s name,(b) the survivor’s address,(c) the identity of any school or other educational establishment the survivor attended,(d) the identity of any place where the survivor worked,(e) any still or moving pictures of the survivor, and(f) any other matter that might lead to the identification of the survivor.(5) At the commencement of a trial at which a person is charged with a relevant offence, the judge may issue a direction for lifting the restrictions only following an application by or on behalf of the survivor.(6) Any matter that is included in a publication in contravention of this section must be deleted from that publication and no further reference to the matter may be made in any publication.(7) If any matter is included in a publication in contravention of this section, the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—(a) where the publication is a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;(b) where the publication is a relevant programme—(i) any body corporate or Scottish partnership engaged in providing the programme service in which the programme is included; and(ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper;(c) in the case of any other publication, any person publishing it.(8) For the purposes of this section—“publication” means any material published online or in physical form as well as any speech, writing, website, online news outlet, social media posting, relevant programme or other communication in whatever form which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;“relevant offence” means any offence where it is alleged by the survivor that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse;“survivor” means the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have tabled this probing amendment because I am trying to address the woeful underprosecution of domestic abuse and domestic violence in our courts. I do not think that the courts are quite set up to secure justice for survivors. Part of the problem is the intrusive nature of court into the survivors’ lives. The nature of domestic abuse means that deep and intimate details of a survivor’s life and their abuse can be exposed to the public eye. These intimate details can be exploited by the tabloid press or be the subject of trolling on social media. The higher the profile of the abuser or survivor or the more extreme the abuse, the more likely they are to face that media circus.
This should not be happening. Intrusion into survivors’ lives has to stop; they are revictimised and exploited by this publicity, which is incredibly damaging. Other survivors see this and it makes them less likely to report crimes that have been committed against them. It forces people to maintain secrecy for fear of becoming the latest victim of a media circus.
The courts are not currently set up to help survivors avoid this media chaos. There is scope for a survivor to seek a reporting restriction, but this is limited to situations where the restriction would help improve the quality of evidence or the level of co-operation given by a witness in preparing the case. This is not necessarily a survivor-focused approach; it is actually focused on helping the court to have the best available evidence, rather than the rights and protections of survivors. I hope that the Government will work with me to improve this. There must be some way to find agreement on the need to protect survivors, while allowing them to tell their story and obtain justice. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for introducing this amendment. The openness of judicial proceedings is a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This underpins the requirement for a prosecution witness, including the victim, to be identifiable not only to the defendant but to the open court. It supports the defendant’s ability to present his case and to test the prosecution case by cross-examination. In some cases, it can encourage other witnesses to come forward, particularly if the victim has made false allegations in the past.
However, the principle of open justice can sometimes be a bar to successful prosecutions, and we know that domestic abuse survivors are less likely to report abuse if their name is going to appear in the press as a result. I speak from personal experience again. When I was a victim of domestic abuse, I was not prepared even to report my abuser to the police out of shame and fear that it might become public knowledge.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
This amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would add a new clause to the Bill to provide lifetime press anonymity for survivors of domestic abuse. It reflects similar protections for survivors of sexual assault enshrined in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said. It prevents identifiable details being published online or in print and creates a new offence for breaching this anonymity.
This issue has risen up the agenda because stories are published in which victims and survivors of domestic abuse, as well as family members and children, are named. When these stories then make their way on to websites, victims have no anonymity but the people who choose to make comments do have anonymity.
Apart from the protection for survivors of sexual assault enshrined in the 1992 Act, I believe the Serious Crime Act 2015 grants anonymity to and protection for victims of female genital mutilation, and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 grants anonymity to victims of any human trafficking offence. If I am right, that is three examples of anonymity given to three categories of victims. If the Government are not enthusiastic about this amendment—which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said is a probing amendment—no doubt they will explain in their reply why they consider that survivors of domestic abuse do not require the same protection as survivors of sexual assault, victims of female genital mutilation and victims of any human trafficking offence.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I hope I can be relatively brief in my reply—not because the point is not important, nor indeed out of a lack of respect for any of the contributions we have just heard, but because there is a single and critical point, fundamental to the administration of justice, which lies at the heart of this debate.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, explained, this probing amendment is designed to protect the identity of complainants in domestic abuse cases by the automatic application of reporting restrictions from the point when the allegation is made. Although the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred us to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, I dare say that the principle of open justice goes back much further than that. We are all familiar with the adage that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. That statement, with which we are all familiar, I am sure, recognises that automatic reporting restrictions of this kind are an exceptional interference with open justice. Therefore, we make those reporting restrictions available only when there is a real need to do so.
The most familiar precedent is in relation to complainants who allege that a sexual offence has been committed against them. In those circumstances, there is a clear justification for preventing the reporting of the complainant’s identity, because there is an overriding need for anonymity to be guaranteed from the outset so that victims of a type of offence that still carries considerable stigma are emboldened to come forward and tell the police. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, says, there are a couple of other such other examples in the law, but each of those is an exception to the general rule. We must be very careful, I would suggest, to limit those exceptions to cases where it is demonstrably required. Therefore, while I listened with care to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his personal and, if I may say, moving testimony, we do not consider that, as a matter of generality, domestic abuse cases in which no sexual offence has been committed fall into the same category such that they require automatic protection in the same way.
However, as a number of noble Lords identified, that does not mean that victims of domestic abuse should be denied anonymity where they both request and need it. The courts have discretionary powers to impose, on application, reporting restrictions prohibiting the naming of a witness, where the court is satisfied that being identified would diminish the quality of that witness’s evidence. I suggest that there is sufficient discretion before the courts to meet cases where reporting restrictions are required. To go further would be an unjustifiable interference with the extremely important principle of open justice.
I hope, therefore, given that this is a probing amendment —and while of course I am always willing to discuss anything with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I realise this is a tricky subject to legislate on, but I think there is a problem and we need to fix it in some way. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, for their largely sympathetic comments. I heard the Minister say that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In that case, I would like him to go, perhaps, one of these days, to the High Court and see what is happening in the spy cops inquiry, where Judge Mitting—or rather the Met—is giving anonymity to many police officers who have committed crimes. Therefore, it does seem to me that somehow there is justice for some and not for others. I will, of course, withdraw the amendment now, but I still think this is a problem and that there has to be some way of sorting it out.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to Amendment 161. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 161
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Evidence of domestic abuse for the purposes of legal aid: restriction of fees
(1) Where a healthcare professional has examined a person in the course of providing services under a general medical services contract, the healthcare professional may not impose a fee upon that person for providing a letter or report for the purposes of regulation 33(2)(h) of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/3098) (supporting documents: domestic violence).(2) In this section, “general medical services contract” has the meaning given by section 84 of the National Health Service Act 2006.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to prevent GPs who have a contract with the NHS from charging victims of domestic abuse for letters confirming their injuries so that they can seek access to legal aid.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 161 in my name—and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Burt of Solihull, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—seeks to add a new clause to the Bill; its purpose is to deal with an issue that I have been raising in this House since 2016. Although I have had expressions of support from both inside and outside the Chamber, we just have not been able to deal with it.
The problem is that GPs are often asked by victims of domestic abuse to provide letters to a set text, which they need to access legal aid, and a GP can charge a fee for that letter. The vast majority of GPs do not charge and would never dream of doing so, but a minority do, and the charges can be anything up to £150 for such a letter. That is just wrong. The purpose of my new clause is to stop this happening in the future by finally putting an end to this practice, because even one victim being charged is one victim too many.
As I said earlier, this is not the first time that I have raised this issue in the House; I have raised it many times before. I want to give you a flavour of the engagement that I have had with the Government. On 24 January 2018, I moved an amendment on the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, responding for the Government, told me that it was
“far from an ideal situation”,—[Official Report, 24/1/18; col 1058.]
that the matter was being discussed by the Department of Health and negotiated with the GPs, and that it would be reviewed in April 2018. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, from the Government supported me. I raised the matter again on 6 March 2018, and was told by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, that my amendment this time was too widely worded but that, in “early soundings”, the Department of Health had confirmed that it was an issue that needed “looking at”.
I raised the matter again on 22 March 2018. This time, I was told by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that she was “shocked” to learn that some GPs would charge victims of domestic abuse for letters so that they could get access to legal aid. On 15 November 2018, I raised the matter with the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, who told the House that
“the Department of Health and Social Care has put this important issue forward as part of the general practice contract negotiations for 2019-20.”
So, this was the second year running that they would be in the negotiations. He said that
“while the progress of these negotiations is not discussed publicly until agreement is reached, I can reassure the House that the Government are committed to dealing with this issue.”
He continued:
“I agree with the noble Lord. I feel uncomfortable with the idea of these letters being charged for. They have been identified by the Ministry of Justice and MHCLG as barriers to accessing support for victims of domestic violence. That cannot be right, and we are seeking to end that situation.”—[Official Report, 15/11/18; col. 1969.]
On 4 March 2019, I raised the matter again with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. He recalled that I had raised the issue before but said again that the issue was part of contract negotiations, and that he was unable to update me or the House any further. I raised the issue again via a Written Question, which was answered on 29 April by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood of North Oxford. She said that the Government
“recognise the importance of tackling domestic abuse. General practitioners (GPs) can have an important role in supporting victims, including by providing evidence to enable them to access services.”
I was told:
“GP provision of evidence was discussed as part of the 2019/20 GP contract negotiations and work is ongoing to improve the process. Charges for provision of evidence of domestic abuse are not a specific requirement of the contractual relationship between GPs and the National Health Service. The Ministry of Justice and the General Practitioners Council are currently working together to clarify and improve the process for GPs and applicants in relation to evidence of domestic violence for legal aid applications.”
On 14 May 2019, I raised the matter again with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, when he presented a Statement on domestic abuse and women’s refuges. He did not answer my questions that day but I accept that it was a wider Statement on domestic abuse.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, both for introducing this amendment, to which I have signed my name, and for his persistence, as we have heard, in raising this issue in this House and beyond.
The decision to leave an abusive relationship may be among the hardest choices a person will ever make. However cruel the relationship and however damaging its impact, breaking away cuts a bond. It may be the only type of connection that that person has ever known. Sometimes, the relationship is just one in a lifelong pattern. The person brave enough to make that break needs all the support they can get, but too often they encounter barriers, including those related to access to legal aid. Without it, many abuse survivors are unable to challenge the perpetrator through the courts, yet eligibility for such aid is based on the requirement to provide evidence of abuse. It is hard to imagine the pain of reliving the situations of abuse, the shame it can entail and the difficulty of disclosing details of that abuse to different professionals and services over and over again. It is not hard to see why this is something that many victims will never do.
As we have already heard, research from the Ministry of Justice identifies a number of barriers faced by individuals in providing the evidence of their abuse that they need to unlock support. These include difficulties in gathering evidence if the victims do not disclose the violence at the time to those organisations that are recognised as able to supply evidence. Language barriers can be an issue; data protection issues can be a problem; and, of course, as we are discussing with this amendment, the financial costs of acquiring certain pieces of evidence —and the unwillingness on occasion of organisations and health professionals in particular to provide a letter confirming that abuse has taken place—can be a barrier. Taken together, these issues can be the determining factors in a victim’s ability to access legal aid.
This Bill now includes economic abuse in the definition of domestic abuse, recognising that the ways in which one partner seeks to control and abuse the other often include the control of household and personal finances. Therefore, if there is a financial cost to securing a GP’s letter attesting to the fact that abuse has taken place—as we have heard, it is a letter that can cost up to £150—this could push this vital piece of evidence beyond the reach of survivors. Accessing the money from bank accounts that are scrutinised by the partner might alert the abuser to the fact that the victim is in the process of seeking support, which puts them at further risk.
This amendment would remove what might be a crucial block to victims accessing justice. It is supported by the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales. The British Medical Association, as we have heard, has tried to address this issue through guidance, but this has not achieved the aim. This Bill provides the opportunity to put a definitive stop to these charges and ensure that a lack of financial resources is not a hindrance to survivors who are brave enough to try to escape from the perpetrators of domestic abuse.
The Lord Bishop of London [V]
My Lords, I add my voice to this amendment simply because it should go without saying that some things need to be penned into law for there to be consistent access to justice. Amendment 161 has been tabled because it prevents GPs charging survivors of domestic abuse for letters which confirm injuries they have suffered—evidence which survivors need for their legal aid applications. The case for this amendment has been extremely well made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I agree with the statements they have made, so there is no need to add much to what has been said.
There should be no gatekeepers when we consider the path to justice, not least from those who are on the path to help facilitate it. As we have heard, the British Medical Association has recommended that patients should not be charged for medical evidence when seeking it for legal aid. I too stand by this, by virtue of calling for this amendment to be included in this Bill.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 161 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling it and for being so tenacious. It is an honour to speak after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. We cannot on the one hand spend years putting together a great Bill like this that says to victims, “We hear you; we are there for you; we want to help you escape”, and on the other hand stand by and allow those same victims to be potentially charged £150—an extortionate amount for many people—for proof of that abuse.
Domestic abuse does not discriminate. You can be a victim of abuse whether you are rich or poor. Unfortunately, while this fee remains, it does and will discriminate against poorer victims. Many of them will go without legal representation, many will return to an abuser and many will be seriously injured or worse as a result of being unable to access the legal remedies that are supposed to keep them safe. I know that the Department of Health has a fair amount on its plate right now, but it should endorse this small change to the Bill. It could have an immeasurable impact on people’s lives when they are at their most vulnerable.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for raising this matter—I am tempted to say “again”, but of course I should really say “again and again”. The list of engagements which he set out was impressive, and I fear I may not be able to provide satisfaction to the noble Lord where so many of my illustrious forebears have already failed. If I can put it this way: what he has said this evening has only increased my resolve to try to sort out this issue, not only because it is plainly an important matter to be addressed, as so many have said, but because it means that I will escape the horrid fate of being added to the noble Lord’s list.
The Government, as will be clear from what has been said by my forebears and what I have just said, wholeheartedly agree that vulnerable patients should not be charged by doctors for evidence to support them in accessing legal aid. That being the case, we are sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment. The issue requires further consideration ahead of Report for the reasons I will briefly set out. While I cannot commend this amendment to the Committee today, I will be looking at it in detail between now and Report. I should also take the opportunity to point out a couple of technical issues with the amendment, which I hope will also be helpful.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was able to meet with the Minister for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care and representatives from the British Medical Association ahead of today’s debate to discuss the issue. I think it fair to say that everyone who attended this meeting was seized fully both of the issue and of its importance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, we do not want to do anything to prevent or discourage victims of domestic abuse coming forward, and that includes questions of cost. That said, it is fair to say that there was some anecdotal evidence at the meeting which pointed to this perhaps being a diminishing problem, particularly since, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London reminded us, the BMA issued advice to its members last year that they should not charge for this service, advice which they recently reinforced.
Following that meeting, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, graciously undertook to provide what evidence he had of this being a continuing issue so that we could consider the matter further. We look forward to receiving that evidence and continuing our discussions. However, as matters stand this evening, we remain to be persuaded that this issue needs to be resolved through primary legislation.
The position is that GPs can provide services in addition to NHS contracted services. They are classified as private services, for which they have the discretion to charge the patient. Letters of evidence to access legal aid is one such private service. It is therefore up to an individual GP practice to decide whether a charge should be levied and, if so, what it should be. However, as I indicated, as part of the 2020-21 contract agreement, the BMA recommended to all GPs that a charge should not be levied for letters of this kind. That is a welcome recognition by the BMA that, as was said, vulnerable patients with limited means should not be expected to pay for such letters. We recognise and commend the vast majority of GPs who are following that guidance, but it is a non-binding recommendation. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned, we are informed of anecdotal examples where patients can be charged up to as much as £150 for that evidence.
As I said, I should make a couple of observations about the drafting of the amendment, although I recognise that these can be readily addressed in a further iteration of it. First, as currently drafted, the amendment refers to
“providing a letter … for the purposes of regulation 33(2)(h) of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations.”
That regulation was amended by later civil legal aid procedure regulations in 2017, so there is now no such regulation as presently referred to in the amendment. That is something that could be addressed in further drafting, and I respectfully suggest that it is.
Secondly, the amendment relies on the definition of a “general medical services contract” in Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which applies to England only. I assume that that is the case because, as the noble Lord is aware, the health service is a devolved matter in Wales and therefore this issue is a matter for the Welsh Government. I thought that it was worth making that point clear as well.
I return to the main point, on which, if I may respectfully say so, we have heard a number of very cogent speeches. I have not yet mentioned the contribution of my noble friend Lady Bertin, which was equally forceful. The Government remain committed to exploring options around this issue with the medical profession to ensure that vulnerable patients are not charged, and I would welcome the noble Lord’s continued help in this regard. In particular, once he has been able to provide what evidence he has of GPs continuing to charge victims of domestic abuse for these letters, we will be happy to have further meetings with him ahead of Report.
I hope that in the meantime he will feel able to withdraw his amendment, but he can rest assured that I have it ringing in my ears that I will face a similar amendment on Report if we cannot satisfactorily resolve the matter before that stage. I commit to working with him and to doing all I can to reach that satisfactory conclusion.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken—the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Bertin, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—for their support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for his very careful and considered response. It was very welcome.
The noble Lord made reference to the meeting. It was a very good meeting. We actually had four Ministers from three departments on Zoom—I have never had that before—so in that sense I was very pleased. Clearly, Ministers are taking this seriously, and I appreciate that very much.
Obviously, the technical issues can be ironed out. I am not a draftsman, but I am sure that we can get that sorted out. We have been raising this issue since 2016. The negotiations have been going on for a very long time, but we do not seem to have gone beyond the fact that everybody is against it, no one wants to do it, but no one wants to do anything about it. We have not moved on much from that position today.
As I said, I hope that I will not have to push the amendment to a vote at a later stage. I hope that I can work with the noble Lord to resolve this issue but, if that does not happen, we will divide the House. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 162. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“Threats to disclose private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress
(1) Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) It is an offence for a person to threaten to disclose a private sexual photograph or film if the threat is made—(a) without the consent to the threatened disclosure of an individual who appears, or is stated to appear, in the photograph or film, and(b) with the intention of causing that individual distress.”(3) In subsection (2), for “subsection (1)(a) and (b)” substitute “subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (1A)(a) and (b)”.(4) In subsection (3), after “disclosure” insert “or threat to disclose”.(5) In subsection (4)(a), after “disclosure” insert “or threat to disclose”.(6) In subsection (5), for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”.(7) In subsection (8)—(a) after “disclosed” insert “or threatened to disclose”;(b) after “disclosure” insert “or threat to disclose”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause will make the threat to disclose private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress a criminal offence.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 162 is in my name and the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, Lady Crawley and Lady Grey-Thompson. I thank them, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, for their support. I am grateful to all noble Lords who indicated their support to me for this change in the law. I also thank Ministers in both Houses for their constructive engagement on this matter so far and, in particular, the Secretary of State for Justice, who was himself involved in securing the change to the law in 2015 to criminalise the sharing of intimate images, otherwise known as “revenge porn”.
As I said on Second Reading, more and more of us are using technology and living our lives online, and never more so than in the last 12 months. I want to thank the charity Refuge which, with its Naked Threat campaign, has a specific tech abuse team. It launched its campaign because one of the abuses reported to them in more and more cases was the making of threats to share intimate images. Even before the pandemic, 72% of women accessing Refuge’s services said they had been subjected to technology-facilitated abuse. Most often, these images had been taken in the course of a relationship, and the majority of women who had been threatened in this way had been threatened by a current or former partner. That is why I would argue that this Bill is the right place for this House to recognise and criminalise these threats.
At its core, this is an issue about the exercise of control by one person—the abuser, the maker of the threats—over another. Too often, the threats are followed by physical abuse. If anyone should doubt the prevalence, the research conducted by Refuge as part of its campaign found that one in 14 adults in England and Wales had experienced the threat to share. That is equivalent to around 4.4 million people, and younger women were disproportionately impacted by threats to share, with one in seven having experienced this form of abuse.
What is the impact of the making of such threats? Figures from Refuge show 83% of threatened women said the threats to share their intimate photos or videos impacted their mental health and well-being. About 78% said they changed the way they behaved as a result of the threats. But more worrying is that one in 10 women said the threats had forced them to allow the perpetrator to have contact with their children, and almost one in 10 said they were forced to continue or resume their relationship with the perpetrator and/or tell them where they now were.
I want to pay tribute to those victims who have told their stories and been prepared to come forward. The hour is late, and I do not want to detain the House, because I know there are other noble Lords who want to speak on this amendment, too. But I want to mention one victim who has come forward. Natasha was threatened by her ex-husband. He is now in prison and I am pleased to say she is happily remarried. She said:
“Knowing an abuser has intimate photos feels like you’re being violated. Those images were for his own gratification and a tool to keep me compliant. I had no way of proving my ex had shared these images but the threat of sharing them was equally distressing and compounded my isolation.”
The reason these brave victims and, sadly, millions of others, are not getting the protection they should is that they are too often told that no police action can be taken until the images are actually shared. Of course, the actual sharing of the images might take place, but just as likely, if a partner or ex-partner wants to exercise control over and play havoc with their victim’s life, they will leave the threat hanging out there, often for many years. So the police and everyone else need to know and be clear in their own minds that the making of threats is an offence and should be prosecuted, in the same way as the actual sharing of intimate images was made a crime by this Government under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. I should also point out that in Scotland, the threat to share is already an offence.
Having said all of this, and hopefully made the case for why the law should be changed, I do not think that there is too great a difference between those of us who support the amendment and my noble friend the Minister on this matter. I believe that the Government accept that there is a gap in the law which needs to be addressed. The real issue is one of timing. As I understand it, the Government would prefer to wait until the Law Commission has published its consultation on image-based abuse overall and then made its recommendations. But we were promised this consultation early this year; I suspect Ministers hoped that it would be published before we reached this stage of the Bill, but we are still waiting, and this is only a consultation. The recommendations to follow and then the change in the law could take several more years.
I do not disagree that a full review of the law on image-based abuse would be welcome, but in the meantime we have a Bill before us which, as I said at Second Reading, provides an opportunity to tackle this abuse now. Ultimately, this amendment would not make it more difficult to eventually extend the law on broader image-based abuse, but approving it now, and including it in the Bill, would protect millions of women and victims of domestic abuse sooner than some indefinite date in the future. I hope the Minister will therefore accept that the time for action against these threats is now. I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment, and I beg to move it.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and to add my name to her important and transformative amendment, alongside the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Grey-Thompson. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has set out with great clarity and passion the urgent need for this amendment to fill the very obvious gap in the current law on sharing intimate images.
In my many years of making the case for women’s rights, both here and internationally, I have come to the conclusion that technology is a wonderful thing—until it becomes an instrument of control and abuse, directed so often at women and girls as they are bullied, harassed and threatened online. We may hear the Government’s response to this amendment asking us—as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has said—to wait for the relevant Law Commission review. We know that that review began in 2019, following on from a scoping review in 2018, and that it is not going to report until the end of this year, 2021. There will then be a government review, and that will take us into 2022. There is no guarantee that any legislative action will take place immediately, in the medium term or in the long term—or before the next general election, for that matter. This is not good enough.
There can be horrendous consequences of so-called revenge porn: anxiety, depression, life-changing behaviour and, while suicide is not common, neither is it unheard of. Rachel lived in absolute fear of having intimate images taken without her knowledge sent to her family. It left her so hopeless and desperate that she became suicidal. The anxiety also left her unable to report the other horrendous abuse by her partner that she was suffering, because, as is so often the case, the threat to disclose intimate images is part of a pattern of abuse that is extreme. Refuge tells us that one in 10 women said that the threat to share images forced them to allow the perpetrator not only to have contact with their children but to resume the relationship because of the threat. Revenge porn crimes are undoubtedly linked to other forms of criminal behaviour. We know this because the majority of all image-based charges are brought alongside family violence offences.
This amendment specifically relates to an escalation of offending and co-offending that adds up to the domestic abuse that this Bill seeks to address. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, younger women are in the eye of this storm of abuse. Alison’s story is shocking, but not rare. Her ex-partner told her he had drugged and raped her and recorded the incidents on his phone. The police could not act before he did. However, they spoke to him, and he told them that he had deleted the images. Needless to say, he had not. He contacted Alison and told her that he still had the videos and threatened again to share them. I ask the Minister to take the temperature of the Committee tonight on this vital amendment and to work with us and the courageous women—Alison, Natasha, Rachel and all those young women who stand in ranks behind them—to ensure that this amendment forms part of the Bill. It is time to put a stop to this particularly insidious form of 21st-century patriarchal sadism.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and I am pleased to stand in support of Amendment 162, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Morgan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady Grey-Thompson. It aims to close the criminal loophole that the ease of smartphones and modern technology has afforded perpetrators of domestic violence.
In her introduction to the amendment, my noble friend Lady Morgan set out the sheer scale of how simple threats to share sexual images or videos without consent are being used as a tool of coercive control and domestic abuse with devastating effect. Sadly, this seems to be a growing problem. The time is late, and I do not propose to repeat the statistic that we have already heard: that 4.4 million people are affected. The impact of these threats from current or ex-partners has huge negative results on mental and emotional well-being, creating enormous fear and anxiety, and, sadly, they are very effective. Four out of five women surveyed changed the way they behaved as a result of threats. They feel ashamed, anxious, isolated, frightened and even suicidal.
On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister acknowledged these concerns and highlighted that the Law Commission has launched a review of the law relating to the non-consensual taking and sharing of intimate images, including, but not limited to, the revenge porn offence in Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. However, as she has already said, waiting for the results of the review may take a long time, because once it is concluded it can take up to six months for the Government to provide an interim response to the findings and a full year before a final formal response. While the Government often accept Law Commission findings, as your Lordships well know, they are then subject to the Government finding a suitable piece of legislation and parliamentary time to make the legal changes enabling a recommendation to come into force. As has already been mentioned, it could be years, so why wait when this Bill provides the perfect opportunity for the change today? We do not need a review to tell us that this is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, as do our concerns about the effectiveness of the law as it stands. I ask the Minister: why not accept this amendment, even if it is not perfect? This change, which we can make now, will provide victims with the support they need to fight back against such abusive, despicable behaviour as revenge porn and give the police the power they require to be able to act.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my declaration of interest, in that I am a vice-chair of the Local Government Association.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and others who have put their name to this amendment have comprehensively covered it and I commend them all on their ongoing commitment in this area. It is a privilege to add my name to this amendment. I also thank Refuge for providing an overwhelming picture of the scale and impact of this threat. The data and figures are compelling.
Lord Judge (CB) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for unavoidably missing Second Reading. I will only add something that is based on my own experience. We are dealing with the instruments of power. The more personal they are, the more powerful they can be; the greater their use, the greater the risk of their misuse. I approach this amendment—the spirit of which I strongly support—on the basis of experience, or experiences, of the way in which all the horrors and indignities can now be heaped on victims in a non-domestic situation: it is rape by strangers, pervertedly using modern technology to add to the humiliation of their victim by taking intimate images before leaving them to all their harrowing distress.
What is the purpose of those photographs? Is it to humiliate, or to threaten? They can be circulated to others with potentially rather perverted sexual titillation in mind, who themselves will have the power to threaten the victim with yet further circulation of the images. Such threats are appalling and should be criminalised. I hear the Minister thinking, immediately, “But this is a Domestic Abuse Bill.” There is a link, however, between that sort of behaviour and the behaviour to which I now come.
I am assuming for present purposes that, far from being rape cases, the images which we are now discussing are based on participation in the taking of images at times of cherished joy by two perfectly happy, willing people. I know that is not always the case, but I am taking it at the other extreme end. They are taken consensually, on the basis of trust—that they will remain private and personal, that they will never be circulated, that the power they give to one participant over the other will never be abused, whether via circulation or threat of circulation, and trust in particular that they will never be abused as a weapon of power, pressure, or control. I emphasise that to me, a threat alone constitutes a grotesque breach of the trust which was once reposed in the other half to the relationship. It leaves the victim with an impossible choice to make: to risk circulation—how awful—or give way to what may be utterly outrageous demands by someone who was once trusted.
We criminalised the sharing of intimate pictures. Section 33 of the 2015 Act is a perfectly simple piece of legislation. We do not require the Law Commission. We do not require very much time to be able to adapt the Section 33 provision so as to make criminal the circulation and the threat to circulate or share images such as this. It is simple and obvious.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my name to those saying that this is a change we should make, and now. I would like to be sure, which I am not at the moment, that the wording will cover an image which does not actually exist but is merely asserted to exist. On some of these occasions, a recording will have been made or said to have been made without the victim’s knowledge, but she may well believe that the allegation is true because it is a believable one. Under those circumstances, it should be clear that this offence is activated. I would also like to understand better how one can consent to a threat. If it is a threat, what does consent look like? What would it take for someone to consent to a threat? How would that be phrased; how would it work? Is “publish and be damned” consent? If not, what would be?
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for putting down this amendment, which I strongly support.
One way to judge the gravity of a crime is to assess the anguish it brings to its victims. Usually, this emotional suffering comes as a by-product of, say, physical harm or financial loss. However, sometimes the creation of anguish is deliberate, the whole point of the crime, and a source of great satisfaction to the criminal. It is perhaps no surprise that our courts have reserved special condemnation for those responsible for this sort of behaviour. In 2015, amid mounting evidence of a growing problem, the Government decided to tackle the ugly phenomenon of so-called revenge porn: the sadistic online dissemination without consent of sexually explicit photos and videos, usually of young women, and usually by disgruntled former boyfriends. Ministers recognised that this behaviour is particularly nasty because it targets the most private and personal aspects of life, exploiting intimacy to create ridicule, contempt and public shame. Indeed, each of these emotions is precisely what is intended by the perpetrator, particularly the public shaming. This conduct was thus made a crime that could lead straight to prison.
However, it is now clear that the present law does not go far enough, for what about threats to share intimate images? As your Lordships have been told, at present, these attract no criminal sanction at all, although the evidence shows that significant numbers of women and girls face this menacing behaviour.
Much has been said in this debate about the survey carried out by Refuge, the country’s largest provider of domestic abuse services. That is not surprising when the results of this survey appear to show that as many as one in seven young women in England and Wales have faced these threats.
These figures portray a world of anxiety and dread. Because most of these threats come from current or former partners, they also speak of deliberate schemes of domination and control that we should acknowledge for what they are: straightforward examples of domestic abuse. Like all crimes in this category, they gift a gratifying sense of power to the abuser, who is intent on using this power to signal the victim’s utter lack of worth.
Amendment 162 provides the opportunity to change the law to criminalise this behaviour, granting thousands of women and girls access to justice and protection—the first duty of the law. At present the Government prefer to push this issue off into the future, awaiting a Law Commission review into all forms of image-based abuse. But for all the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, people subjected right now to this behaviour should not have to wait. I hope the Government will accept what is widely acknowledged: that this is a gap in the law and the Government’s duty is to plug it without delay.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in this morning’s Times there is an article in which the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead officer for child protection, Simon Bailey, said that arresting hundreds of sex offenders every month has little effect, because millions of abuse images are readily available online. Mr Bailey pointed out that the number of indecent images in circulation has risen exponentially, from 7,000 in 1990 to 17 million today. They predominantly involve girls aged between 11 and 13, because 44% of these images were or are self-generated. This is part of the ever-growing online library of intimate images, curated—in the loosest sense of the word—by technology and social media platforms, only some of which grudgingly acknowledge a limited degree of responsibility.
Consider the 11 to 13 year-old girls of today and how they may feel about these images existing and getting into the wrong hands as they navigate through adolescence and towards adulthood. Consider those women who were the 11 to 13 year-olds five, 10 or 15 years ago, who not only have their legacy images stored in the cloud but who may have continued to populate that library in the interceding years. This is the reality of the scale of the problem we are discussing tonight.
The statistics are compelling and depressing. An estimated 130,000 young people aged between 18 and 20 have experienced threats to share their intimate images, and almost 1 million people now in their 20s have experienced similar threats. Whether we like it or not, the sending and receiving of intimate images is an increasingly common part of dating and relationships. In 40% of cases in which individuals have received threats to share intimate images, they did not consent to those photos or videos being taken in the first place.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, which I wholeheartedly support, is an important and necessary part of what must be a legal and societal assault on the myriad ways in which technology can be used to abuse, control and coerce. Whether individuals consented to their images being taken is irrelevant; they should have ironclad protection under the law from those images being used without their consent. Their bodies, their self-esteem and their right to privacy and protection should be theirs and theirs alone.
On 28 December last year, as we enjoyed a later-than-usual Boxing Day bank holiday in England, and your Lordships prepared themselves for the rigours of the 30 December debate on the TCA with the EU, in Dublin, President Higgins signed the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Bill into law. This created two new offences. One deals with the taking, distribution or publication of, or threat to distribute, intimate images without consent and with intent to cause harm, with the penalty of an unlimited fine or up to seven years in prison.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I too will speak to Amendment 162, although, by this stage in the evening, the arguments have already been made. It is not necessary for me to outline the damage that is done by threats to share intimate images or how distressing it is for victims. Anyway, the Government recognise the problem, which is why they have asked the Law Commission to conduct a review.
I understand why the Government wish to wait for the outcome of that review, but we already know that these threats are carried out largely in the context of domestic abuse, which seems to make this Bill the appropriate legislative vehicle. So that leaves us with a conundrum. I appreciate the difficulty, so simply ask my noble friend the Minister how the Government intend to address this issue, in a timely way, if they cannot consider this amendment at this moment in time.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Jones, have withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, absolutely it is late in the day, and so many other noble Lords have made brilliant speeches to which I cannot add a great deal. I wholeheartedly support Amendment 162 and thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for setting out the case so well.
We have heard a lot about why we are waiting for the Law Commission. I do not think that we should wait, because threats to share intimate images make up such a small part of this review. Amendment 162 is a simple, narrow yet powerful amendment to extend an existing offence. I ask the Minister how many more victims will live without the legal protection they need while we wait years for the law to change—a change that we can make right now in this Bill. I hope that the Government consider and take on board this amendment.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak only briefly on Amendment 162. I too thank those organisations that have provided a briefing for this debate, particularly Refuge, which has been excellent throughout. Like other noble Lords, I commend its report, The Naked Threat.
At the beginning of the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, eloquently outlined why we need to act now. It is impossible to imagine the horror that someone might feel when their phone pings with a message from their ex-partner with photos attached, perhaps ones that they did not even know had been taken, and a threatening message saying, “How bad would it be if these were sent to your work colleagues?” By threatening to share the photographs, your ex-partner is escalating a campaign of intimidation and coercive control to make you do what they want. You can try to deal with it, but he is going to continue with those threats. He had been volatile and controlling, which is why you left him, and now he is trying to get you to go back to him or he wants to prove that he can still control you.
Over time, those threats become darker and more unsettling. You become anxious, you feel unsafe, you are not sure whether he is coming to your home or your work, following you or contacting your friends. He is now frightening you and threatening your physical well-being. Finally, you go to the police, but they decline to help on the basis that he has not done anything wrong and has not committed an offence, so there is nothing they can do. You feel deeply depressed, isolated and fearful. You stay away from friends and virtually go into hiding, not knowing where to turn for help.
As noble Lords have said, young women are disproportionately affected by these threats. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has compellingly set out the statistics. This issue is only going to grow, so any form of protection now needs to be brought in rapidly. The data is clear and illustrates why it is vital that an amendment is made to this Bill. No doubt, as other noble Lords have said, the Minister will cite the Law Commission review. However, as we know, those reviews can take years to come to a conclusion, as well as the Government deciding which recommendations they will accept. The Government then need to find parliamentary time. In replying to the debate, the Minister really does have to answer the question put by other noble Lords: if we are to wait for the outcome of the review and the Government’s decision on which recommendations they will apply, how long will that take? How long are the Government asking the survivors of this abuse to wait?
The Law Commission review covers a vast area of policy. Amendment 162 is not about pre-empting the full review. The changes it would make are small, straightforward amendments to an existing law that would not have a broader impact on the legal landscape. There really is nothing to stop the Government making this small change now, given that we have appropriate legislation before us.
This debate has clearly demonstrated that the threat to share intimate images is widespread. It is linked to domestic abuse and is having a devastating impact on the survivors of abuse. It is an issue that is going to increase and will continue to put power in the hands of the perpetrator, leaving survivors traumatised and isolated, perhaps forced to change their lives and move away from their homes, simply because the Government refuse to make this small change to the law. I hope that, in replying to the debate, the Minister will explain clearly, if the Government are unable to accept the amendment, how they propose to protect the survivors of this abuse.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for bringing this much-needed amendment to the House and recognising that the changes that have occurred in the past few decades, since the widespread introduction of mobile phone technologies and social media coverage, have irreversibly changed the way in which we communicate. The inherent dangers of the misuse of that communication have become increasingly prevalent. As the noble Baroness said, we are living our lives online, and today’s debate is into its ninth hour.
As a former teacher of media studies, I taught my students that the medium is the message—but, like many of my colleagues, I had no idea at that time how exploitative the medium would become. The key element to this amendment is that the Bill as it stands does not do enough to ensure that survivors of technology-facilitated abuse have sufficient protection in the criminal law. Threats to share intimate or sexual images and films are an increasingly common tool of coercive control that can have enormous negative impacts on survivors of abuse. While the sharing of intimate and sexual images without consent is a crime, threatening to share is not, leaving survivors of this form of abuse without the protection of the criminal law.
During my reading for this topic, I was powerfully moved by a key report, Shattering Lives and Myths, by Professor Clare McGlynn and others at Durham Law School. This was launched at the Supreme Court last year, and it sets out the appalling consequences to victims of intimate images being posted without consent on the internet. Nearly half of the victim-survivors the researchers spoke to had experienced threats to share nude or sexual images and videos without consent. While many of these threats were followed by non-consensual sharing, there must be a recognition that threats to share such images can in and of themselves have significant life-threatening impacts.
The domestic abuse commissioner designate has also supported this addition to the law, saying:
“The threat to share an intimate image … is an insidious and powerful way that perpetrators of domestic abuse seek to control their victims, and yet the law does not provide the protection that is needed. Threats to share these images play on fear and shame, and can be particularly dangerous where there might be multiple perpetrators or so-called ‘honour-based’ abuse is a factor. What’s more, the advent of new technologies enables perpetrators to make these threats even where such images do not exist, but there is no clear criminal sanction for this behaviour.”
Lack of support leaves victim-survivors isolated, often attempting to navigate alone an unfamiliar, complex and shifting terrain of legal provisions and online regulation. There needs to be a recognition in the Bill that image-based sexual abuse is a sexual offence, and an adoption of a comprehensive criminal law to cover all forms of image-based sexual abuse, including threats.
The Domestic Abuse Bill is the most appropriate vehicle to make this change: victims and survivors would benefit almost immediately, and it would help them in preventing further abuse and getting away from their perpetrator. This amendment can close that gap in the law, and I urge its support in this Committee.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will start with the point made by my noble friend Lady Bertin. It is of course late; I am conscious of that. But I have to say that it is worth staying up late to hear the debate we have just had, with the quality of the contributions to which we have all just listened. Therefore, I will take a little time—I hope not too long—to respond to the debate, because this is obviously a very important issue.
I listened with great care to the way in which the amendment was presented and explained by the four noble Baronesses who proposed it. My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes explained in detail how the threat to disclose such images can lead women to give way on matters that are of the utmost importance, whether that be contact with children or telling the perpetrator where they are now living. The story of Natasha that she shared was powerful and was added to by the stories of Rachel and Alison, which we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. It is right to say, as my noble friend Lady Morgan put it, that this is an issue essentially of timing and not necessarily of principle. I will come back to that point a little later.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He certainly addressed the points raised in the debate, but I do not think he will be surprised to hear that, unfortunately, I do not think he satisfied many of them. Because the time is late, I will obviously not take a long time to go through the arguments in response, but I want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken at this late hour. The fact that so many noble Lords waited to make their points in the way that they did—and I would agree with the Minister that this was an excellent debate—shows the strength of feeling on all sides of the Committee in relation to this amendment.
This is an amendment and a subject that reaches beyond the House and beyond Westminster. It is of direct interest to millions of victims, survivors and their families and friends. I want to thank all those who have campaigned, particularly Refuge—who have rightly been paid tribute. I thank the designate domestic abuse commissioner for her support too. In the course of this debate, we heard clearly why this change to the law is needed, why it needs to be included in this Bill and why the change should be made now.
I will address two very specific points. We have already heard about the length of time Law Commission recommendations take to come into force, but I would say that making threats to share such matters a crime is a relatively small and straightforward change to an existing offence which would not have more complex implications for the broader legal landscape and would offer protection sooner. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, and the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. They have spoken so compellingly this evening.
I have also seen the College of Policing guidance that has been issued. I do not think that any police force would feel that they knew more about how to bring prosecutions in the case of these threats than before they had read that guidance. While a small proportion of threats could be prosecuted at the moment, that is not happening in practice. Therefore, the law is not working as intended, which means that there is a gap.
I hope that Ministers will work with those of us who want to see a change in the law. I will, of course, beg leave to withdraw this amendment at this stage of the process, but I strongly suspect that—depending on the nature of future discussions—this amendment will be back at the next stage and it is possible that the feeling of the House will need to be tested.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have enabled us to cover all the amendments listed for today.