14:47 - Division conducted remotely on Motion B1 - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 240 - Motion B1 agreed.
16:51 - Division conducted remotely on Motion E1 - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 253 - Motion E1 agreed.
17:41 - Division conducted remotely on Motion F1 - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 233 - Motion F1 agreed.
19:01 - Division conducted remotely on Motion G1 - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 228 - Motion G1 agreed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 1, 2 and 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 1A, 2A and 3A.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the House will recall that these amendments sought to bring all carers within the definition of domestic abuse that applies for the purposes of the Bill. This would include carers who are unpaid, such as neighbours and friends, as well as paid-for carers and people in a position of trust who care for disabled people. The noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Grey-Thompson, and others were right to bring the issue of carer abuse to the attention of the House, and I was most grateful to have a discussion with both of them this morning. I just hope that, this afternoon, the tech of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, works so that we all have the benefit of her quite considerable expertise.
I fully accept that disabled people who are abused by a paid or volunteer carer are just as in need of effective protection and support as someone who is abused by an intimate partner or family member. We remain firmly of the view that the focus of the Bill should continue to be on domestic abuse as the term is internationally recognised in the Istanbul convention and elsewhere. The elected House has agreed that we need to maintain this focus and disagreed with Amendment 1 by a substantial majority of 139.
None the less, the Government have reflected carefully on the earlier debates in this House, and we want to ensure that the justice system and social care sector deal with carer abuse effectively, while preserving the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill as originally introduced. The Government are therefore committing to a review of the protections and support available to victims of carer abuse. The review will access existing criminal laws, safeguarding legislation, regulation by the Care Quality Commission, the protections available for non-regulated care and the support available for victims of carer abuse, including local authority and voluntary sector support. We would aim to complete the review within 12 months.
Of course, there will be an opportunity—we discussed this this morning—for organisations representing disabled people and others to engage in the review, and naturally we will want to discuss the details of the review with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I will confirm something that I said this morning: we will not just do a series of round tables. I agree with her that data is absolutely key to underpinning some of the work that might need to go forward. The review’s intention is to address the concerns raised regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the current protections and the support for victims of carer abuse. I hope that, with the discussion that we had this morning and the undertakings this afternoon, the noble Baroness and indeed the House will be content to support the Motion and not insist on the amendments.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Lords Amendments 1, 2 and 3 and Motion A, moved by the Minister. As I have stated, I will not oppose the Motion.
First, I thank the Minister for our helpful meeting today; despite the technological challenges, we had a very good exchange. At that meeting, I explained why I have decided not to pursue further attempts to incorporate carer abuse of disabled people in the Bill. Although I think we all agree that the abuse of disabled people frequently takes place within a domestic setting, it has become clear that the Bill is confined to abuse by an intimate partner or family member. There is no appetite to widen its scope at this stage.
In addition, this long-awaited Bill, with its multi- functional role, will demand a great deal of resources to change the domestic abuse culture. I would not wish to hold up the task of addressing the horrendous domestic abuse experienced by thousands of adults and children every day—no way.
I am currently confident—especially after our conversation this morning—that the Government have taken on board the deep concerns expressed across this House at the exclusion of disabled people from the Bill. I believe that they are committed to finding alternative means to address carer abuse, as the current protections are clearly inadequate.
I was therefore very pleased that, in the consideration of Lords Amendments in another place, the Minister, Victoria Atkins, announced in response to my amendments that
“the Government abhor all abuse, and we have every sympathy for the spirit of these amendments”
in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell.
“Abuse of disabled people by their carers must be called out and acted upon ... we have listened carefully to the experiences and concerns raised in this House and the other place ... That is why the Government intend to carry out a review of the protections for people at risk of carer abuse. We will engage with ... the disabled sector on the scope of the review, but it would broadly seek to examine the protections offered against carer abuse and the support available to victims. We have listened and we will act.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/21; col. 519.]
I should be grateful if all sides of the House would strongly support and engage with this review. I hope it will not keep anything off the table, including further legislative protections if necessary. I hope that the review will commence as soon as possible. Of course, I shall be chasing it and look forward to working with the Government and especially with disabled people’s organisations.
Carer abuse—as evidenced throughout the pandemic and during earlier debates and pre-legislative scrutiny—must not continue unchecked. Disabled people deserve to have equivalent protection—no less.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am disappointed that these amendments will not remain in the Bill, despite the tremendous work initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. She has worked tirelessly to bring these issues to the forefront during the debate on this landmark Bill. In mitigation, however, I welcome the Government’s commitment to conduct a review.
Trusting someone enough to let them provide either personal care, or support with day-to-day tasks or communication, is in itself an emotionally intimate act which creates a close bond but also the risk of abuse. It is not infrequent for abusers to target the disabled person and befriend them. They persuade the disabled person that this is done for altruistic motives while, at the same time, they exploit and abuse them. The victim will experience the same ambiguity about power and control versus emotional attachment as any other victim of domestic abuse.
I should stress that we will expect everything that is usually asked for in such a review. The Government must get on with it. They must ensure they are led by experts in the field—including engaging with services such as Stay Safe East which work with victims on the front line. The authentic voices of disabled victims must be heard. It is vital that carer abuse is recognised and tackled, and that no victim of abuse is left without support. We therefore support the Motion and the review.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, first I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, for her words. This morning, I stressed that I was concerned about all the abuse taking place behind closed doors throughout the pandemic. Carer abuse is not exempt from that. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, asked, “what else is it, if not domestic abuse”? It is abuse which happens and about which we have been very concerned during the last 12 months. With the lifting of restrictions, this is a timely opportunity to look into carer abuse.
Noble Lords have asked about timings. These will be announced shortly. As we undertake the review, we intend to engage with the disability sector about its scope. If it is to be meaningful, we must listen to those who have lived experiences. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked if we shall talk to experts such as Stay Safe East. Yes, we will. The review will be open, with no preconceived outcomes. The Government will await its findings before deciding next steps. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and other noble Lords that we will keep all options under review.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the elected House has disagreed with Amendment 9 by a substantial majority of 130. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has subsequently tabled Amendment 9B. While removing the requirement for accreditation of child contact centres and services in relation to public and private family law cases, it still requires the Government to introduce a set of national standards to which organisations and individuals would be required to adhere—in effect, a form of indirect accreditation.
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Burt of Solihull, my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for taking the time yesterday to speak with me about the revised amendment. While the Government recognise that the provision of child contact centres and services is vital in supporting families and enabling parents to have contact with their children, this amendment remains problematic for a number of reasons.
First, there is not an issue in relation to private law cases of parties being referred to non-accredited child contact centres. That is because there are protocols in place, involving the judiciary, magistrates and Cafcass family court advisers, which require them only to refer parties in private law cases to NACCC-accredited child contact centres when referring parties in those private law proceedings for supported, supervised contact and handover contact. That protocol has been in place with the NACCC since 2000 and was revised a few years ago, in 2017. The memorandum of understanding between Cafcass and the NACCC has been in place since 2018. Cafcass has assured the Government, as well as NACCC, that it is compliant with that memorandum of understanding.
However, in light of what was said on Report, I have written to the President of the Family Division and to the CEO of Cafcass requesting that they raise awareness amongst their colleagues and officials of the judicial protocol and memorandum of understanding which has been agreed. I understand that the NACCC is updating that judicial protocol. It will be agreed with the President of the Family Division and reissued to the judiciary and magistrates.
Further to that, Jacky Tiotto, the chief executive of Cafcass, has responded to my letter to her confirming that she will write to all Cafcass operational managers and family court advisers, reminding them of the importance of the memorandum of understanding. While she is unaware of any evidence to suggest that Cafcass staff are not complying with the requirements, she emphasised that Cafcass is committed to working effectively with the NACCC to ensure that every child receives the best possible service.
That is in relation to private family law. I turn now to public law family cases where children are in the care of the local authority. Comprehensive statutory provisions are already in place determining how local authorities should discharge their duties, including in relation to meeting statutory requirements to maintain contact between a child and their family.
In that context, Section 22 of the Children Act 1989 places a general statutory duty on the local authority in relation to children looked after by it to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. Section 34 of that Act establishes the presumption that there should be continued contact between the child and their family while the child is in the care of the local authority. It places a duty on local authorities, subject to certain provisions and to their duty to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare, to allow contact between a child in care and their parents. Details of contact are set out in a child’s care plan, which is governed by the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. Those regulations set out the role of independent review officers to ensure that contact is supported. They will consider whether contact commitments in care plans have been implemented and whether the child is happy. In 2015, the Department for Education published guidance on care planning, placement and case review; further statutory guidance was published in 2018. That is the statutory architecture.
I turn now to the safeguards in place before each contact between a looked-after child and a parent is made. Whenever contact is arranged by a local authority, the social worker should undertake a full safeguarding risk assessment, meeting the requirements of the guidance for the assessment of contact produced by each local authority. A broad range of factors is looked at: the risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including domestic abuse, and neglect; the risk of abduction; whether there is a history of violent or aggressive behaviour and whether the child or supervisor is at risk; and the parent’s ability to prioritise the children’s needs above their own. In outlining all that, I seek to reassure the House that there is already adequate statutory and regulatory provision in place.
I have spoken about private and public law proceedings. In addition, I should mention that parents can self-refer to contact centre services. NACCC officials themselves have suggested that very few parents actually do that, so any concerns that parents may be self-referring to non-accredited centres are not borne out by the evidence, and certainly not to any significant scale.
What is the essential argument behind the amendment? Those supporting it argue that there are large numbers of unaccredited child contact centres and services, posing significant risk to children and parents around safeguarding and the risk of domestic abuse. The NACCC provided some initial data on the number of unaccredited contact centres, but the current evidence base is insufficiently robust to support legislating on the issue. While I am grateful to the NACCC for compiling the data, I have to note that some of the “unaccredited” contact centres initially identified by it in fact turned out to be regulated by Ofsted or the Care Quality Commission. There is plainly more work to be done to understand the issue. The Government remain ready to work with the NACCC in this regard, but outside this Bill. In particular, I am ready to explore further whether there is a case for ensuring that there are appropriate arrangements in place for anyone who seeks to set themselves up as a provider of child contact services to be subject to criminal record checks.
I can therefore assure your Lordships’ House that the Government are committed to ensuring the highest levels of care and safeguarding where circumstances have necessitated involvement with the family justice system. However, given existing mechanisms within private and public family law, and the extensive regulatory environment which I have set out, without further evidence of a problem we do not believe that this amendment is warranted at this time.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, as is often the case, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put the point simply and persuasively: that there should be common standards for all those who provide services under child contact centres.
We have heard about the welcome exchange of views between the signatories to this amendment and the Minister. In the email we received from him, he seemed to acknowledge that the DBS regulations should be assessed, and potentially amended, to see whether they apply to individuals setting up contact centres—so, he has acknowledged that deficiency in the existing arrangements. Further to that, in the concluding paragraph of the Minister’s email he undertakes to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place for anyone who seeks to set up as a provider, and to explore further whether that is indeed the case.
The starting point is that there are uneven levels of regulation across the network of child contact centre providers. I accept what the Minister has said regarding private law in our courts and that the existing memorandum of understanding is going to be updated and revised, but that very fact may be an acknowledgement that improvements are needed. I have to say, speaking as a family magistrate, that all the child contact centres I have ever referred children to have been accredited by the NACCC. The Minister also set out the existing public law statutory architecture, which is more complex, but as so many speakers have said in this debate, we are talking about private providers—providers who may come and go and may come from particular communities which do not trust existing services. Those are the difficult cases that we are seeking to include in this extension of regulation.
As the Minister will be aware, we are talking about some very difficult cases—cases which are difficult to put in the public domain—and a few cases, not the many cases which he claimed. The Bill is an opportunity to close this loophole. We on the Labour Benches will support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, if she chooses to press it to a vote.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am mindful of the views which have been expressed across the House. I start with a point on behalf of the Government and of myself. So far as the Government are concerned, like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, they are committed to the welfare of children—that is not a phrase with which any of us would disagree. For myself, if I may accept the point put by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I do have a human side. Notwithstanding that I am a lawyer and a Government Minister, something of a human side still pokes through occasionally.
There is nothing between us on the aim; what is between us is the means. I therefore remind the House of two points. First, of course anything said by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in this area has to be heard with care and listened to diligently, but it is the case already that the vast majority of people in child contact centres will have to have certain checks through NACCC accreditation and because of the local authority obligations. That is the first general point.
The second general point in response to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is that the fact that the memorandum of understanding is being updated and revised is no indication whatever that there is a problem with it. For example, one of the revisions which is being made is to substitute the name of the previous President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, with the name of the new president, Sir Andrew McFarlane. Updating and revision of an MoU does not indicate that there is a problem. A lot of very good documents are continually updated and revised.
One is therefore back to the essential point, which is: what is the evidence which underpins the proposed amendment? It is all very well to talk of a loophole, but the real question is whether there is an underlying problem. It is the evidence base with which we have concerns. I say with genuine respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that anecdotal evidence is not a sufficient basis in this area on which we should be legislating. Of course, staff must be trained and we must look to see whether there are legislative gaps, but we have to proceed on proper evidence.
So far as my email is concerned, I do not pull back from that at all; I stand by every single word of it. In particular, with regard to DBS checks, I am happy to repeat from the Dispatch Box precisely what I said in the email: “I am ready to explore whether there is a case for ensuring that there are appropriate arrangements in place for anyone who seeks to set themselves up as a provider of child contact centres to be subject to criminal record checks. The issue is that the regulations with regard to DBS are about eligibility for DBS checks, not whether they are mandatory.”
I suspect that where we end up is on the question of whether there is a proper basis to legislate in this space, given my assurances that we would be looking at the DBS point and that there is no cogent evidence that the current system is not working. The protocol is in place and has been endorsed at the highest level by the judiciary and Cafcass. There are statutory and regulatory requirements in the public law cases. Indeed, the only first-hand evidence which we have heard this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has been that the matter is working well. As he confirmed, he sends his cases to an accredited centre only.
That is the position. Even at this late stage, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all who have spoken, and particularly to my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss for her support, which I view as weighty. I stress to the House that a call for common standards seems to have come through in all the speeches in support of my amendment. I am slightly concerned that the Government decry an evidence base because I have seen no evidence that they have undertaken a systematic review of the standards of all the child contact centres and services around, nor have they looked at them systematically. When they asked for evidence, we brought it, and did what we could in the time available, and now it is being dismissed as anecdotal. We have gone round in circles and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the elected House has disagreed with Amendment 33 and by a substantial majority, in this case of 143. In inviting this House not to insist on the amendment, I first take the opportunity to underline the Government’s recognition that comprehensive, high-quality and up-to-date training on domestic abuse is of critical importance for judges and magistrates involved in family proceedings.
Perhaps I may also take a moment again to record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and other noble Lords who have taken time to discuss this matter with me, including most recently on a call to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, was also party. While the Government recognise that victims and survivors of domestic abuse can face difficulty in the family justice system, especially during proceedings and in particular when giving evidence in them, there are serious and fundamental concerns with regard to the substance of Amendment 33.
The first point is a constitutional one, which I have made on previous occasions but reiterate today. Training for the judiciary is the responsibility not of the Government but of the Lord Chief Justice—not the Lord Chancellor. The elected House disagreed with this amendment on the basis—correctly, I would submit—that it fundamentally undermines the important constitutional principle of judicial independence. We have a number of constitutional principles in this country; some have been debated in your Lordships’ House in the last several months. But perhaps I may venture that judicial independence is among the most important principles, if not the most important.
The statutory responsibility for ensuring that the judiciary in England and Wales is properly trained rightly sits with the Lord Chief Justice and is exercised by way of the Judicial College. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor does not have a role beyond providing the resources required by the judiciary, through which the Judicial College is funded. As such, the Lord Chancellor simply cannot direct the judiciary on training with either a strategy or timetable, as would be required by this amendment.
Amendment 33B would therefore replace the reference to the Secretary of State in the original amendment with one to the Lord Chancellor. That correctly reflects the constitutional role of the Lord Chancellor, who, as opposed to the Secretary of State, has duties in respect of the judiciary. The amendment also adds the Lord Chief Justice to the list of those who must be consulted before the strategy and timetable are published. However, it does not alter the fundamental way in which these amendments impinge, I suggest, on the independence of the judiciary. That is the first point and it is an important constitutional proposition.
The second is a practical point. It is already mandatory for any judge or magistrate to have training in domestic abuse before they hear cases in the family court. More than 50% of the content of private law induction training for judges is now focused on domestic abuse, such is the judiciary’s recognition of its importance. There is not only induction training but ongoing training as well. Continuation training annually is compulsory for judges and any judge authorised to hear public family law cases must also attend the appropriate seminar for that authorisation at least once every three years.
Domestic abuse is covered in all family law cases run by the Judicial College, and training reflects the wide nature of domestic abuse. Therefore, it covers all areas recognised by the Government as abuse, ranging from serious sexual and other assaults, emotional abuse to coercive or controlling behaviour, including financial coercion and control. Let me explain what the training includes. This is not just one judge talking to other judges. The training includes practical exercises and role play and is delivered by a wide range of experts, including academics and experts in psychiatry, psychology and other professions and agencies working in this area, as well as victims. The Judicial College also advocates the use of specialists to co-train and provide an annexe of specialist organisations. In the e-learning, SafeLives, Cafcass and Cafcass Cymru and IDVAs have all contributed to the films provided to the Judicial College.
Thirdly—and importantly going forward—the Judicial College is committed to reviewing and improving training on domestic abuse for both the judiciary and the magistracy. The senior judiciary, including both the President of the Family Division and Lady Justice King, the chair of the Judicial College, both acting on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice, are working to further develop domestic abuse training.
As part of my departmental responsibilities, I meet regularly—albeit at the moment virtually—with the President of the Family Division. My last such meeting was, in fact, yesterday and we discussed judicial training on domestic abuse in the context of this amendment. He has given me his categoric assurance about the importance he places on effective training in the area of domestic abuse. He has said that the training will continue and, importantly, that it will be updated in light of the Bill, the harm panel, and the recent Court of Appeal judgments in four conjoined domestic abuse cases. Lady Justice King has given me the same assurances. Specifically, I have been assured that the Judicial College already has in hand the training that will be required as a result of this Bill, which is a landmark piece of legislation, as we all agree.
While I respectfully commend my noble friend Lady Helic for raising this important issue, for the reasons I have set out, specifically the constitutional and practical reasons, I respectfully ask her and all noble Lords not to insist on Amendment 33 or to press new Amendment 33B in its stead. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am again grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I first pick up the contribution from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. On the previous Motion I respectfully commended her experience. Even though I lost that vote, I do so again, because she has given the House a lot of detail as to the training that is actually provided. The House now ought to be reassured that, right from the top of the judiciary through to the Judicial College, there is a commitment to the importance of training, to ongoing training, to training from a variety of providers and not just judges, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, picked up, to specific training on the Domestic Abuse Bill—or, as I hope it will soon be, the Domestic Abuse Act. I hope that that level of detail has been helpful to the House and, in particular, helpful and reassuring to my noble friend Lady Helic.
I also tried—I hope I succeeded, to an extent—to reassure my noble friend as to the extent and content of the judicial training. I repeat the constitutional point that we cannot force the judiciary on the nature, content or extent of that training. But there is, as I have said, commitment from the very top to make sure that the Judicial College fulfils its role and that all judges and magistrates are properly trained on domestic abuse generally, and specifically on this Act. The House can be assured that in my ongoing discussions and meetings with senior judiciary, including the President of the Family Division, I will keep the question of training on domestic abuse on the agenda. Even if I did not, the President of the Family Division would be totally focused on it anyway, but none the less I will ensure that it is part of our discussions.
I also respectfully agree with the point make by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, that we must remember the particular difficulties—and the judiciary is increasingly aware of this—that victims of domestic abuse have in court proceedings. The House will be aware that we have made a number of other provisions in this Bill to do with witnesses, parties and cross-examination that will improve the lot of victims of domestic abuse in our courts. That is something I personally am very conscious of and focused on. Courts can be intimidating places at the best of times, and if you are a victim you can double, quadruple or quintuple the amount of intimidation you feel merely from the process. We have made some good improvements there.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, correctly says that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The danger with metaphors is stretching them too far, but in this context we are all committed to making the best possible pudding. The way you do that, if I can stretch the metaphor, is to have the best set of ingredients. That is why the Judicial College, in its training, has already engaged, and will continue to engage, training from a wide variety of providers—though the decision as to who those providers are has to be ultimately that of the Judicial College.
I hope I have dealt with all the points raised in this debate. I will take literally 30 seconds to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, on the judicial independence point. It is such an important point that I must not let it go past, if the House will indulge me. My approach to judicial independence is really very simple: you can disagree with the decision but you respect the decision-maker. It really is as simple as that. I fear that, for the second time this afternoon, I have touched on points of important constitutional principle. I will not continue the lecture any further. I hope that my noble friend Lady Helic will indeed withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed and agree with a great deal of what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has been an invaluable support throughout this process, not least on navigating the constitutional issues, and I commend his words on the feelings of survivors and the importance of up-to-date training.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has been a powerful voice on training across all stages of this Bill. I am pleased we agree on the importance of training, even if we do not agree on the mechanism for reform. Her update on the specifics of training is very interesting. It is reassuring that the courts are at least heading in the right direction, even if I believe that there is still some way to go.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, makes the important point that not all training is equal. It is not enough to have training; it needs to be good training. That is why reform is important. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, adds his support for updated, quality training. This really is a cross-party issue, and I hope that this will be noted by the judiciary, which I hope is following these debates.
My noble friend the Minister has been generous with his time and in his response. I also value his role as an intermediary with the judiciary. It is very good to hear from him that reform is under way. I hope he will continue to raise this issue in his meetings with the President of the Family Division and others, and to keep an eye on training, even if the Government will not direct it. I am certainly grateful for the assurances he has offered us today.
I hope that, in debating judicial training, we have helped raise its status as an issue and made clear to the Government and the judiciary how important it is in tackling domestic abuse. The greater detail on existing training that my noble friend offered was important. The assurances and commitments we are hearing from him, and from the judiciary via him, are very welcome. There is much more work to be done. I hope that this can be the beginning of a process, rather than the end. For now, I will withdraw the Motion.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 37A, and do not insist on its Amendments 38 and 83, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 38A and 83A.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the elected House disagreed with these amendments by a substantial majority. In inviting this House not to insist on these amendments, I remind noble Lords that the amendments seek to create two new statutory defences. Although the Government are sympathetic to the aims behind the new defences, we were, and we remain, entirely unconvinced of their necessity.
Amendment 37 sought to extend the provisions contained in Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. In effect, if I can shorten what is a bit of lengthy law, the amendment essentially seeks to extend the special householder defence, where force is used for the purposes of self-defence. Amendment 37 sought to extend those provisions to any person who is, or has been, a victim of domestic abuse and who has been accused of a crime involving the use of force against their abuser. The current householder defence in Section 76 recognises the acute circumstances of dealing with an unexpected intruder and makes it lawful to use disproportionate force. Amendment 37, however, made the disproportionate use of force defence available at any time and any place if the person accused has suffered domestic abuse at the hands of the person they assaulted.
Although the Government are sympathetic to the aim behind Amendment 37, we remain unpersuaded of its necessity. We are not aware of any significant evidence that demonstrates that the panoply of the current full and partial legal defences available are failing those accused of crimes where being a victim of domestic abuse is a factor to be taken into consideration. Full defences, such as the defence of self-defence, are defences to any crime and, if pleaded successfully, result in an acquittal. In the circumstances of domestic abuse, there are partial defences available relating to loss of control or diminished responsibility that can be argued. Additionally, the fact that an accused is also a victim of domestic abuse will be considered throughout the criminal justice system process, from the police investigation through to any CPS charging decision, down to defences deployed at trial under the existing law and, if relevant, as a mitigating factor in sentencing. We are also concerned that the proposed defence could, because it provides a full defence to murder, be open to misuse, potentially even by an abuser who sought to claim that they were the victim of domestic abuse—which is very widely defined in this Bill, which is a very good thing—rather than the actual victim.
Turning to Lords Amendment 38, I remind the House this sought to create a new statutory defence for victims of domestic abuse who, by reference to a reasonable person in the same situation as the victim and having the victim’s relevant characteristics, are compelled to commit certain crimes on the basis of having no realistic alternative. Amendment 83, which would insert a rather long and somewhat intimidating schedule, set out the offences to which this proposed defence would not be available, but even though that schedule is long, it would still mean that the defence would be available for many serious criminal offences, such as drug dealing, serious assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and most non-fatal driving offences. Although, again, the Government absolutely understand that victims of domestic abuse may also be compelled to resort to crime, we are not persuaded that the model on which this amendment is based, which is Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, is either apt or effective with regard to domestic abuse. As I have stated previously, we have several concerns in relation to this amendment in terms of the nature of the defence itself and the nature of the offences for which this would be a defence. I will not detain the House by setting them out again, especially as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has now put forward an alternative amendment, Amendment 37B. It instead calls for independent review of the defences available to the victims of domestic abuse. However, I thought was worth briefly restating our arguments against the original Lords amendments because we contend that the existing full and partial defences are up to the task, and because of that, we have significant doubts about the case for a review of the kind proposed in Amendment 37B.
We are of course aware of the horrific impact and often devastation posed by domestic abuse, not only for direct victims but also indirect victims, such as children and the wider family and the House has noted the way the early clauses of the Bill have been drafted with that in mind.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws set out in detail the case for her amendments in Committee and on Report, and it is disappointing that they have been rejected by the other place. In response, she has tabled Motion D1 in her name. As we have heard, she is seeking an independent review to look at the issues that we have been talking about throughout our consideration of these matters. I think that is the right way forward.
I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, is resisting the new Motion from my noble friend, but she made the point, as have others, that if the Government are resisting the issues raised in the amendment, he ought to address the question of whether they could be looked at by the review of sentencing—or is that a step too far for the Government?
There is a huge issue here. I recall the debates that we had when my noble friend and others presented harrowing cases. There is a real point here: if there is an intruder in someone’s house then, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, often a male can defend himself there and has a defence, but a woman attacked by her partner in her own home, which should be a place of safety, cannot rely on such a defence. That cannot be right.
The Bill is seeking to address the whole issue of domestic abuse in all its various facets. It is a good Bill, but it would be an even better one if we could make sure that all the gaps were plugged here. The fact is that women in their own homes, their place of safety, can often find themselves in very dangerous situations. If they have to defend themselves and end up injuring or killing their partner, we should understand that and ensure that they have the proper defences to take account of the difficult situation that they have found themselves in, often over many years. After all, these things escalate; they do not happen overnight.
My noble friend has identified an important point here, and I hope that when the Minister responds he can address it. We need to find a way to look at the issues that my noble friend raised in the review of sentencing, as he referred to in his earlier remarks.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am again grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to these exchanges. Right at the start, I say that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, was spot on when she characterised my position as disagreeing but sympathising—that is absolutely right. For the reasons that I have set out, I disagree but sympathise with the aims of the amendments.
Like the noble Baroness, I found the meeting with the representatives from the Centre for Women’s Justice extremely helpful. I have read a lot of material that they have produced, and, in particular, like her, I found the conversation with the survivor who joined us extremely powerful. Like my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, we have to remember that, while we may be debating what sometimes seem here to be quite dry and technical issues of law, there are real people—if I may use that terrible phrase—and, in this case, real victims of domestic abuse, who are affected. The House can be assured that I have that at the very front of my thinking.
I will not go over the substantive points that I made—I hope I am excused for that. As I explained, the review is of sentencing in domestic homicide cases, but it is a broad review. The terms of reference are still being developed, but it will look at the impact of defences on sentencing, and, while I appreciate that that is not as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, would like me to go, I hope that it is an indication of the seriousness with which the Government take this matter and, in particular, the review of sentencing.
I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. We respectfully disagree that there is a read-over to either the householder or the trafficking issue. As to the latter, I have made clear on previous occasions that we have concerns with the way that that defence is used in practice. Indeed, if I remember correctly, one of Her Majesty’s judges recently explained that in a case that he was hearing in, I think, Bradford—I may be misremembering that. As such, there is an issue as to how that trafficking offence is applied in practice.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, I am well aware that there is a substantial proportion of women in prison who have themselves been victims of domestic abuse—that is of course why a review of sentencing is so important. Without being trite, they are in prison because they were given a prison sentence; therefore, a focus on sentencing in the review is entirely appropriate.
I do not know whether there is anything I can do to help the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in her apparent dichotomy between lawyers on the one hand and common sense on the other. The point I was making about the majority in the other place was actually that it was not the standard government majority, so to speak: it was a significant majority—with the greatest respect, that is something that this House ought to bear in mind. However, my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge did perhaps solve an age-old conundrum about a justification for the existence of lawyers, particularly in Parliament. He even came close to giving an explanation for their possible utility, so I am grateful to him for that.
My noble friend was also right when he said that people should not go to prison if they have been convicted of a crime that they were forced to commit—“forced” is a critical word, and that is where you get into the defence of duress. However, as I said, it is not only the question of the defence of duress: if there is a conviction, the nature of the force—if it does not amount to a defence—would still be relevant to sentencing and to mitigation.
As such, I hope that I have set out the reasons why the Government disagree. I hope that I have also responded to the particular point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, on the scope of the review. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, will indeed not press her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister. I beg your pardon; I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wishes to speak.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
As I explained, the review’s terms of reference are being set out. The date will depend on how broad the review is, which will obviously affect the date by which it reports. Certainly, as soon as there is a date fixed or anticipated, I can perhaps write to the noble Baroness to inform her of it.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am of course disappointed that there has not been any movement—because the suggestion of there being a review in relation to the defences was posited last week, and I had hoped that, in the interim, we might have heard that some movement had taken place behind the scenes. Given that the terms of reference have not been finalised, I will write to the Lord Chancellor and seek to persuade him that the terms of reference might extend to a look at the defences as well as the sentencing in homicide cases where there is a background of domestic violence or abuse.
As I indicated, I will not press this Motion. I beg leave to withdraw it, but I ask that the good offices of the Lord Chancellor’s Department might be open to some reconsideration.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 41 and 43, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 41A and 43A
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will recall that Amendment 41 sought to provide at least six months of leave to remain and access to public funds to all migrant victims of domestic abuse and provide them with a route to apply for settlement. In so doing, this amendment effectively sought to expand the existing destitution domestic violence concession so that it made provision for all migrant victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of the wide range of circumstances represented in this group. The underlying objective of Amendment 43 was similar in kind to Amendment 41; that is, to secure equally effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, as provided for in the Istanbul convention. The Commons disagreed with these amendments on the basis that they gave rise to a charge on public funds.
Given the Commons’ reason, I welcome the fact that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Lady Helic have come forward with substantially different amendments. I will take the new Amendments 41B and 43B in turn. Amendment 41B, in essence, seeks to lift the no recourse to public funds condition for migrant victims of domestic abuse until the conclusion of the support for migrant victims scheme. The amendment also provides that within two months of the scheme’s conclusion the Secretary of State must consult the domestic abuse commissioner and specialist sector and publish a strategy for the long-term provision for victims who do not have leave or have leave subject to the no recourse to public funds condition.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for her careful consideration of debate thus far and acknowledge the effort she has made to separate out the immediate needs of victims from their immigration status in the revised amendment. However, the Government still do not think that this amendment would provide an appropriate way forward. The notion of an automatic waiver of the no recourse to public funds condition raises some concerns. Furthermore, I highlight to noble Lords that, like its predecessor, this revised amendment will inevitably also involve a significant charge on public funds.
Our concerns about Amendment 41B are practical and principled. Perhaps I may deal with the practical difficulties first. The support for migrant victims scheme will commence imminently—by which point, under the terms of this amendment, a process by which to lift the no recourse to public funds condition for migrant victims of domestic abuse would need to be operating. This would carry with it both considerable cost and logistical difficulty. It is not a change that could be delivered in time for the start of the scheme. Even assuming such practical difficulties could be overcome, we have, as I have said, more fundamental concerns about implications of this amendment.
Broadly speaking, successive Governments have taken the view that access to publicly-funded benefits and services should normally reflect the strength of a migrant’s connections to the UK. We think that such access should 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 they are applicable to all migrants until they qualify for indefinite leave to remain. The policy is designed to assure the public that controlled immigration brings real benefits to the UK but does not lead to excessive demands on the UK’s finite resources, and that public funds are protected for permanent residents of the UK. Automatically waiving the no recourse to public funds conditions for all migrant victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their diverse financial circumstances and needs, would not seem to be an appropriate course of action.
What is more, to provide access to public funds one must also necessarily confer leave. The two cannot be disaggregated in the manner suggested by the amendment. It is for this reason that we have launched the support for migrant victims scheme, which can provide support for migrant victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds. We think the support that will be available through the scheme will, in practice, ensure that the majority of migrant victims without recourse to public funds will receive the support they need directly from the support organisation, without the need to access those funds.
As I have pointed out during earlier debates on the Bill, we still need more information and evidence to inform longer-term policy decisions and to ensure that funding is appropriately targeted to meet the needs of migrant victims. I am therefore very happy to inform the House that we have now awarded the funding for the £1.5 million support for migrant victims scheme to Southall Black Sisters. We will work together with Southall Black Sisters and an independent external evaluator to ensure that this scheme provides protection and support for migrant victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds, as well as supplying the evidence that we need to inform subsequent policy.
The scheme is designed to provide support to those individuals who fall through the gaps of other support mechanisms, such as the destitution domestic violence concession. It provides a safety net of support through provision of accommodation in a refuge or other relevant safe accommodation. Also, the scheme can offer wraparound provision, including emotional support and more practical support such as immigration advice to aid victims in their recovery and in navigating the options available to them to move on from that support. In that sense, it already goes further than the rather blunt mechanism of simply granting access to public funds; the support that it provides can be tailored to the needs of individual victims.
Amendment 43B was put forward by my noble friend Lady Helic. I assure her that the Government remain committed to ratifying the Istanbul convention as soon as practicable, and the swift enactment of this Bill will be a significant milestone in enabling that to happen. I welcome how her revised amendment now focuses on the provision of accommodation-based support under Part 4, but I contend that it is not needed because the duty on tier 1 local authorities operates in respect of all victims of domestic abuse and their children in need of accommodation-based support in their area. We will make clear through the statutory guidance under Part 4 that local authorities and local partnership boards will be required to take steps to understand the additional barriers that may prevent victims with protected characteristics accessing support in safe accommodation services. Local strategies will also need to set out clearly how tier 1 authorities, working with and through the board, will address the barriers identified.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, my noble friend Lady Helic and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are to be commended for championing the cause of migrant victims. We all broadly want to achieve the same outcome, albeit that we have different views on how best to achieve it. I hope that in the light of the votes in the elected House and the reasons that it has given for disagreeing with these amendments they and all noble Lords will be content to agree Motion F. As I have indicated, the support for migrant victims scheme will soon be up and running. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate and others will be as keen as me to see the outcome of the scheme and will, quite properly, continue to press the Government to act on its conclusions. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. I start by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who said that this should be a “magnificent” Bill of which we can be rightly proud. Some of the work that noble Lords have done is turning the Bill into a magnificent Bill of which we can be rightly proud, and the Government have gone some way in meeting the concerns of your Lordships’ House. A significant number of amendments from the Government and from noble Lords have been accepted. The Bill is well on its way to being a magnificent Bill and this has been a good debate.
We all agree that all victims of domestic abuse should be treated first and foremost as victims and have access to the support that they need. I welcome the fact that the right reverend Prelate’s revised amendment now seeks to draw a distinction between the issue of leave to remain and the provision of support. As I said, her Amendment 41B does not quite achieve that, in that the no recourse to public funds condition is intrinsically bound up with a person’s immigration status. In any event, we continue to believe that the Support for Migrant Victims scheme, together with other existing arrangements such as the destitute domestic violence concession, are the right mechanisms to ensure that victims of domestic abuse who are subject to immigration control get the support they need.
On costs, the revised amendment lifts the no recourse to public funds conditions for the duration of the scheme—that is, for 12 months. Even under the DDVC, leave is granted for three months, so waiving the NRPF condition for a year incurs significant new costs. My noble friend Lady Helic and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about progress towards ratifying the Istanbul convention. We are already under a statutory duty to report annually on that progress towards ratification and the next report is due in October.
In conclusion, I welcome this constructive debate and the efforts of the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend to find alternative legislative solutions. However, Amendment 43B will still result in a significant call on public funds and I suspect will invite the same response from the Commons as Amendment 43. In the context of Part 4 of the Bill, my noble friend’s Amendment 43B is unnecessary, as the duty in Part 4 will operate in respect of all victims of domestic abuse and their children. As I have indicated, we remain firmly of the view that the Support for Migrant Victims scheme is the way forward. It will provide access to safe accommodation for migrant victims who need it and the evidence that we need to take decisions for the long term about how best to support this group of victims. On that basis I invite the House to agree to Motion F.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
I thank the Minister for her words and I thank deeply all noble Lords who have spoken so passionately in this debate and really added extra substance to my arguments. I am left still feeling very frustrated. I hear the Minister talk about the support that is available, but I still feel that what is not being named is all the people for whom the support is not available while this pilot happens.
With all due respect, the Minister has not answered my questions about the inconsistency in the Bill regarding the sharing of intimate sexual images and the Government recognising that there is a case for immediate action there, despite the fact that there is an ongoing Law Commission review—so we already have that situation happening in a different part of the Bill.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for quoting Jess Phillips MP in the other House, who raised that really important question: what happens when the 501st victim comes forward? There will not be anything. There seems to be a lot of fear going on here, and a lot of assumptions. The whole point of this amendment is that it is time limited and not risking the immigration system being exploited, because it will be subject to a review at the end of 12 months.
So I do feel frustrated. I hear what is being said, but I want to seek the opinion of the House because I believe that this amendment would improve what is already a good Bill. This would make it really good. I beg leave to seek the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 42 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 42A, 42B and 42C in lieu.
“Strategy for prosecution and management of offenders
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish a document setting out a strategy for—
(a) detecting, investigating and prosecuting offences involving domestic abuse,
(b) assessing and managing the risks posed by individuals who commit offences involving domestic abuse, and
(c) reducing the risk that such individuals commit further offences involving domestic abuse.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the strategy under review;
(b) may revise it.
(3) If the Secretary of State revises the strategy, the Secretary of State must publish a document setting out the revised strategy.
(4) In preparing or revising a strategy 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) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to any revisions of the strategy if the Secretary of State considers the proposed revisions of the strategy are insubstantial.”
“( ) section (Strategy for prosecution and management of offenders);”
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords know that Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, seeks to amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and provide for a new category of offender to be managed under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, otherwise known as MAPPA. The intention is that such offenders are recorded on ViSOR, the dangerous persons database. The new category would cover perpetrators who had either been convicted on two or more occasions of a relevant domestic abuse-related or stalking offence or who had been convicted of a single such offence and had been assessed as presenting a risk of serious harm. Those features are retained in exactly the same form in Amendment 42D.
The noble Baroness’s original amendment would also place a duty on the Government to issue a report on these changes 12 months after Royal Assent. The amendment specifies that the report would need to include a comprehensive prevention and perpetrator strategy for domestic abusers and stalkers. The noble Baroness’s new Amendment 42D modifies this aspect of her original amendment by incorporating the provisions of government Amendment 42A but with the key difference that Amendment 42D would provide for a strategy to tackle domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators.
Following the decision by this House to agree Amendment 42, we have once again reviewed the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness and others in favour of her amendment. I will now outline our thinking and detail the conclusion that we have reached.
It was impossible not to be moved by the many personal accounts that were shared during the course of debates in Committee and on Report. However, I think there has been some misunderstanding of what the amendment would actually achieve, and that is worthy of clarification. An example of this concerns the report that has been circulated, which many noble Lords have raised, that outlines 30 harrowing and extremely distressing cases of women and children who have been murdered or seriously injured by violent perpetrators. Based on the information provided in the report, in many of these examples the perpetrator would already have been eligible for management under the current MAPPA provisions or the proposed amendment would not have made a difference because the perpetrator had not been previously convicted.
What is clear from those examples is that the systems were not always working as they should and victims were let down. Those cases illustrate the need for a changed agency response to perpetrators so that they are brought to justice earlier and agencies work together to reduce the risk that perpetrators will commit future offences that might lead to death or serious injuries of women and children. That is why we have continued to argue that simply providing for a separate MAPPA category covering serial domestic abuse or stalking offenders, as Amendment 42D seeks to do, would not strengthen the way in which MAPPA operates or indeed address the underlying issues.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, rather than going over the arguments about why we do not agree with the amendment, perhaps I might stress that we all seek the same ends. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I am at risk of repeating myself.
My noble friend asked, quite logically, why putting offenders on a register was problematic. It is not problematic. So many noble Lords made the point about improving things in practice. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would ask, I am sure—although I do not want to think for him—what we will do now to make things any different from how they were before, and that is a totally reasonable question, particularly in National Stalking Awareness Week. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is right to say that some of the stories we have heard have been absolutely horrific. Noble Lords may recall that I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, pointing out that these stories were horrendous. Would they have fared any differently with this additional category? I contended that they would not, but said that I felt we could all agree that the current arrangements had to be improved.
I will address what I think the noble Lord, Lord Russell, would ask, which is, “What are we going to do that will make a difference?” The answer is: several things. We will revisit and refresh the statutory guidance to include sections on domestic abuse. It will ensure that all agencies involved take steps to identify domestic abuse perpetrators whose risk requires active multiagency management, and to put in place a plan of action which reflects the risk, no matter what the category. We are legislating in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to clarify the information-sharing powers under MAPPA.
Noble Lords who know me know that I am very supportive of multiagency information sharing, and that Bill puts beyond doubt that the information-sharing powers of those agencies are subject to the duty to co-operate under MAPPA. That is absolutely crucial. It will also explicitly clarify these information-sharing powers for those agencies or individuals who can contribute to the assessment and management of risk: for example, GPs. It will give greater confidence to these agencies when sharing information and will support more effective risk management. So, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, in terms of the statutory duty to co-operate with the aims of the DA strategy, the Bill makes provision for statutory guidance that bodies exercising public functions must have regard to offenders convicted of a stalking offence who are managed under level 2 or level 3 of MAPPA having to be on ViSOR. The guidance is not voluntary. That is a very important practical step.
HM Prison and Probation Service will issue a policy framework setting out clear expectations for the management of all cases at MAPPA level 1 by the National Probation Service, including domestic abuse perpetrators. This will further help improve the quality of information sharing, the consistency and regularity of reviews and the identification of cases where additional risk-management activity is required.
We will decommission ViSOR, which is now almost 20 years old, and bring in the new MAPP system, which will be piloted from next year. As I have said, we will also bring forward a new statutory domestic abuse perpetrator strategy as part of a holistic domestic abuse strategy, to be published later this year. In terms of resources, I totally concur with the noble Baroness. We are investing in new resources, with an additional £25 million committed this year, but she is absolutely right that we need ongoing certainty in funding, and I give a personal guarantee to her that both Victoria Atkins and I will be lobbying the Chancellor as we head towards the next SR period—because she is right; we absolutely need sustainable funding.
We do want to be held to account on our commitment to do more. I started trying to deal with the perennial problem of getting huge improvements in our response to domestic abuse when I was at MHCLG, and I continue to do so through this Bill. We brought forward Amendments 42A to 42C, which the Commons have agreed, and I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness has incorporated Amendment 42D into her amendment. I hope that I have outlined the tangible action that we are taking and that the House will support our Motion and reject the noble Baroness’s. However, in rejecting it we are not, ultimately, on a different page in what we are seeking to achieve.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister, who has outlined many tangible actions. We all agree that the current system is not working, and many of the actions which she outlined are indeed going to improve things. I am delighted by her announcement that ViSOR does not work and is therefore going to be replaced; that is great. As she mentioned earlier, the perpetrators of domestic abuse are going to be part of the new data system, but I do not think that she said that the perpetrators of stalking are going to be included on that register. I feel extremely passionate about that because stalking and domestic abuse are inextricably linked. There is a pattern of behaviour: one thing leads to another and, ultimately, women are murdered. I therefore think it extremely important that the perpetrators of domestic abuse and of stalking be dealt with in the same way.
The noble Baroness mentioned many things about the perpetrator strategy, and I will have to look carefully at what she said. As I understand it, there are going to be two distinct strategies, one for stalkers and the one covered by Amendment 42. There, again, I do not understand why there would be two strategies when the perpetrators of both offences need to be dealt with in the same way. If I am wrong, and there are not going to be two strategies, please tell me. But as it is, I find the solution to some of these problems quite confusing and frustrating.
I think—I know—we are all willing the same end. I do not yet agree with the means by which we are getting to that end, but I am confident we can agree in due course. There are more conversations to be had, and I would like more conversations following this evening and before we get to the next stage of this Bill, which I very much want to reach the statute book, and of course it will. Because I still have questions and there are things I wish to insist on, I am going to test the opinion of the House. But with that, I thank the Minister very much. I look forward to our conversations, and I am sure we will find a way through in the coming days.