Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I first came across the problem with which Amendment 1 deals when I was promoting the divorce Act in 1996 and I was assisted in great measure by my late friend Lord Jakobovits, who was then the Chief Rabbi.

The problem arises, as has been explained, for a person of the Jewish faith who is married and then decides to seek divorce. If she is female, she may get a decree of divorce in the English courts, but the Jewish law to which she feels bound requires that she cannot be divorced under that law without the agreement of her husband. Some husbands who have been divorced by the English courts decline to agree that the wife should be allowed to divorce under the Jewish law which they have both agreed to follow. In that situation, the husband is able to hold the wife into the marriage which she has made clear she wishes to leave.

The exercise of power by the husband is a controlling or coercive power within the meaning of Clause 1(3) of the Bill. Since they are both over the age of 16 and have been personally connected within the meaning of Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill, it is clear that the husband is showing what under the Bill is described—and this will shortly become law—as domestic abuse towards the wife and therefore is subject to the remedies for her provided in the Bill. No distinct amendment is required in order to bring the wife into the situation where she can receive the help that the Bill will provide when it becomes an Act.

I agree that there is a problem which cannot be solved by us about a get having to be voluntary. The use of one of the remedies may be easier than another in that situation, but one thing I am sure of is that it does not do any good to alter the provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill by these amendments, at least in respect of everything except the Serious Crime Act—but I do not think it requires anything to be done in that place, either. Adding things such as “reasonable” and “unreasonable” and so on is a mistake and the proper thing to do is to leave Clause 1 as it is, because it undoubtedly carries with it the implication that the refusal of a get is domestic abuse.

[Baroness Deech (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the Ministers involved have done a great service by listening to the Members who have put forward these amendments. I am pleased to support all the amendments in this group, to which I have put my name.

By accepting the need to stigmatise husbands who behave unreasonably in not giving a get, the Government are sending a signal to spiteful men and to fossilised religious authorities that compassion and secular standards have to prevail. I support the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in all that he has said about this. The ability to refuse a religious divorce provides abusive husbands with power to control and to subvert conditions relating to the divorce, by, for example, demanding that the divorce settlement be repaid. The refusal can have a grievous effect on a woman’s entire life. She may be prevented from remarrying while still of childbearing age and there is concern for the status of children that she may have in future.

I am not defending the religious law underlying this, and it is not confined to Judaism. Nevertheless, it is accepted by some women here, and by millions around the world, but it is time for the secular law principles to prevail, all the more so since from this autumn, we will have no-fault divorce, a system which does not allow the unwilling spouse to defend a divorce at all—it must be accepted. The guidance, which I hope will contain these provisions, is a good example of how British law manages to encompass a diversity of views within its system. A man who refuses a get unreasonably in the future may even be found guilty of a criminal offence of coercive and controlling behaviour, under the Serious Crime Act 2015, because this Bill clarifies that domestic abuse provisions apply to former couples, even after separation. Nevertheless, this provision would work more effectively as a threat than an actual imprisonment, because the get must be granted by the husband without direct coercion. The clarification in the statutory guidance which we hope for will mean that this is a good day for women and a step closer to equality in religious law.

[Lord Winston (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I speak personally in this debate. It is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, because I remember 1996. I was in the Chamber as a newly appointed Peer and remember very well Lord Jakobovits, who was quite a close friend.

I come from an orthodox Jewish family and I am an orthodox Jew. My grandfather was an orthodox rabbi. He taught me Hebrew and Aramaic from the age of six or seven, and his wife, my maternal grandmother, was very concerned about the problem of get. She used to try persuading the rabbinical authorities, including my grandfather, who was not a dayan—a judge—of the rightness of the cause. She remained, throughout her life, from the First World War onwards, an activist on this. My grandfather supported her with a smile, but he recognised that the Jewish courts were rather reluctant to move forward.

My mother travelled around the world trying to persuade the rabbis of the problem faced by the agunah. She spoke to American, Israeli and Australian rabbis—for example, the Chief Rabbi of Israel—and those in parts of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who will be speaking in this debate, can testify to how frightening my mother was. Unquestionably, many strictly orthodox rabbis appeared to be persuaded. She was always greeted with polite acquiescence, but nothing has happened, and one of the problems is that there are many different courts, so-called batte din, around the world. There is more than one in this country and they have been reluctant to work collectively in any way.

Another reason for being personally interested in this debate is that this is the week of my 48th wedding anniversary. My wife is not listening to what I am saying about divorce, by the way. Judaism differs from many other faiths because religious law is based on Talmud, which dates back to the Mishnah from the second century and the fifth century. It is a huge and remarkable compilation of discussions by the rabbis, who, of course, disagree with each other. Jews always disagree, and the Talmud is one of the few books of law of any kind which is almost entirely a matter of questions. One rabbi asks a question and another group of rabbis answers with a question. That is how the Talmud has built up. It has left Judaism almost unique in its religious format. It is not pyramidal—there is no one central authority. There is no supreme court in Judaism. I suspect that a supreme court would be in the world to come, not in this world. That has been a major problem for a few issues, particularly this issue of the chained woman.

It is embarrassing for someone such as myself to try persuading an English Parliament, to which I am absolutely committed, to help with Jewish law. I would also say that these instances of irreligious men hiding behind their religious cloak is much rarer than one might think, but none the less, there is this very important case for a few people where the future happiness of a woman, her freedom and, to some extent, the possibility of her having children is so important to her and to the community. It would at least prevent this shocking instance, so I am delighted that the Government are minded in some way to help us. I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, feels that the amendment to follow, to which I will listen with great care, will help to sort this matter out. I congratulate her on bringing forward this important matter, which affects a number of Jewish families.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am proud to stand with the other signatories to the amendment, which is eminently sensible. Sadly, our discussions on the Bill have uncovered the nasty elements of the ways in which one human being can behave towards another. This is another example.

Stereotypically, it is the mother with children most in need of staying put, housing and avoiding children changing school. It is much more difficult to rehouse her if he causes her to flee. We must therefore remove the power of the abuser who is a joint tenant to remove the victim. The amendment would allow the victim to apply for a tenancy transfer, even if she has already been forced to flee. He, the perpetrator, could potentially cause rent arrears and damage to the property, for which she would be responsible.

It is a shame that the amendment cannot apply to private tenancies. Are there no alternatives? At the moment, a victim might obtain a temporary court order, such as a non-molestation or occupation order, but they are time-limited and could cost up to £5,000 at legal aid rates—more if there is no legal aid. The perpetrator might return. He may well not consent to a tenancy transfer and there is no guarantee that the landlord would grant a sole tenancy to the victim in the alternative. He, the perpetrator, might vindictively give notice to end the tenancy. Therefore, if there is a temporary eviction, it would have to be followed up by a transfer of tenancy action, again costing thousands. A married victim who is seeking a divorce could apply for a tenancy transfer under the Matrimonial Causes Act or Section 1 of the Children Act. This is all slow and expensive.

We need to avoid those complications and expenses that mean that the victim has to become homeless and start finding a home all over again. In the case of social housing, the provider can evict the perpetrator only after the victim has left the shared property. Again, she is put in a position of rendering herself homeless and hoping that someone will take care of her immediate housing needs. That is just not good enough because it is all disjointed and no-one has pulled together all the strings and pieces of legislation that might protect the victim, albeit imperfectly.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

As legislators, we have a duty to do our utmost to protect those trapped in this way. As well as providing support to the victims, characterising the situation in British law as domestic abuse or criminal behaviour may be of assistance to the rabbinic courts. We hope that they will work with us to find a better resolution to this terrible agunah problem. I beg to move.

[Baroness Deech (CB) [V]]

My Lords, like the other stories lying behind the need for this Bill, this set of amendments reveals a shameful story. I am pleased to support this group of amendments and to support the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. There could be as many as 100 women at a time caught in this situation who are known to the religious courts. It is not uncommon for women to secure their release by paying sums extorted from them by acts comparable to blackmail. The grant of the get can be used by the husband as leverage. A recent case involved a woman paying her ex-husband £50,000 for her freedom after 15 years of being chained; others have cost similar five-figure sums. It is reported that more abuse occurs nowadays than previously, perhaps connected to higher divorce rates and higher financial obligations imposed by secular courts. It is true that a religious divorce needs the woman’s agreement as well, but her refusal can be overridden by a religious court whereas a man’s cannot. Noble Lords can imagine what we women think of this and the lack of respect we have for the rabbinic authorities who manage to find all sorts of loopholes in religious law but not in this one.

It is embarrassing to have to turn to secular law for relief. The Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 allows parties to ask a judge to delay a decree absolute until a religious divorce is finalised, but this law is ineffective if the husband does not care about getting a civil divorce. Then there is the Serious Crime Act 2015, Section 76, which is referred to in the amendment too. In the circumstances of a get refusal, there have been prosecutions launched against wholly unreasonable and controlling husbands under that section, which created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. Withholding the get fits well within that section. It is not, however, retrospective, and a person bringing a private prosecution has to be prepared to foot the bill for their legal costs. The section needs the proof of intent to cause fear of violence or serious distress. The cases about the get brought under this section never came to court because, once the husband had been served with the charge, he caved in. The result is that there is no precedent that this section can in fact be used where a get is withheld.

So why will the potential of Section 76 not suffice for the cruel treatment that has been described? The answer is that there would be advantages to dealing with unreasonable withholding of the get in the domestic abuse setting rather that of the Serious Crime Act. The use of a domestic abuse protection notice or order would open the door to a range of support for the victim. It also would mean that, rather than a criminal procedure, the perpetrator—usually, but not always, the husband—will be subject to a civil preventive measure, the notice, not a finding of guilt. A domestic abuse protection order can contain appropriate conditions, and must not conflict with the perpetrator’s religious beliefs. It is important that a domestic abuse order or notice be perceived as less coercive than a criminal conviction under the Serious Crime Act 2015. This is because a strict interpretation of the orthodox Jewish law requires that the husband be not directly coerced into giving the get; it has to be voluntary, as is widely understood. I am not defending this for a moment but, for those for whom the correct religious forms are important, and bearing in mind the impact on their present and future families, a domestic abuse protection notice or order would be a lifeline in secular and religious terms.

I support this set of amendments, which define the unreasonable withholding of a get as abusive behaviour; that is, when one spouse acts in a way which is controlling, coercing or threatening, or abusing the other spouse’s normal civil liberty of being able to remarry and have children in accordance with her beliefs. I hope that this House and the Government will extend a helping hand and free these unfortunate women.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 3, 5, 168, 169 and 170. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Altmann on her excellent introduction. I am delighted that my Government are putting forward this Bill and its attempt to provide as comprehensive as possible a set of arrangements relating to domestic abuse; it has my strong support. I am particularly grateful to the Ministers, my noble friends Lady Williams of Trafford and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for their willingness to engage.

To be clear, as my noble friend Lady Altmann said, the majority of cases of Jewish divorce are completed without too much difficulty; in the Orthodox community, they are handled by a beth din, and the judges—or dayanim—of the beth din ensure that all provisions of Jewish law are fully and appropriately adhered to. However, there are far too many cases where a man with ill intent can frustrate the process with potentially devastating ramifications for his spouse and, of course, his children. These amendments are clearly being proposed to ensure that victims of domestic abuse or coercive behaviour have full access to the provisions of the Bill. The amendments do not reduce the court’s existing ability to allow the religious courts to apply halacha—Jewish law—or, in particular, the provisions of the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002, which had the support of Lord Jakobovits, Lord Sacks and the London Beth Din.

As a practising member of the modern orthodox community, let me be absolutely clear: I am not remotely qualified to make statements on behalf of anyone, and certainly not on behalf of the beth din. However, I acknowledge that the beth din of the United Synagogue should be commended on the efforts it has made to limit the number of agunot—chained women. It has recently and rightly taken out adverts in the Jewish press that name and shame Jewish men who have refused to give a get, but sadly there is still so much more to do. However, these are overriding matters for the religious authorities and they should continue their own deliberations, although I believe that there may be scope for the Minister, my noble friend Lord Wolfson, to explore potential opportunities with the beth din going forward.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a very depressing debate. I had thought that maybe our record of domestic violence in this country was outstandingly bad but—and this is also depressing—we are by no means the worst in Europe, nor are we the worst in the world. It is far worse in Africa, India, south-east Asia and the eastern Mediterranean. It is very bad in South Africa, Turkey and, oddly enough, New Zealand, which is otherwise such a paragon of governance. Maybe this is for religious reasons or maybe it is cultural, but it seems that those religions and cultures which treat women as less than equal are the ones that are prone to domestic violence.

There are gaps in this very welcome Bill. It should make threats to share intimate images a criminal offence. True, the Law Commission is conducting a review of harm online, but it would be quicker to outlaw it right now in this Bill, in case we do not have another chance for years. The organisation Refuge reported that one in seven young women had received such a threat, mostly from current or former partners, with devastating effects. We older people who had no experience in our youth of the online phenomenon may regard the taking and sharing of intimate photos as extremely unwise in any case, but it appears to be a current fashion and, as such, its misuse must be dealt with.

There should also be improved protection for disabled victims who are subject to coercive control by carers by repealing the “best interests” defence to that crime in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 where it applies to a caring situation. The definition of “personally connected” in Clause 2 of this Bill should include carers. Although we have the utmost respect for the carers’ profession, it is possible that, in such a close relationship of dependency, abuse may occur and not be recognised as such. When the Bill becomes law, together with Clause 66, dealing with extraterritorial jurisdiction, I hope that the UK can ratify the 2012 Istanbul convention.

I hope that attention will be paid to the perpetrators of domestic violence, their motives and their education. It should be perpetrators who are evicted from a joint tenancy, not a mother and children being rendered homeless, as is typical. Early intervention to restrain perpetrators is welcome. It is good news that compulsory relationships education has been introduced into schools; this includes teaching on what healthy and unhealthy relationships look like. It is shameful that there should be any opposition to this, especially from faith groups, whom I suspect might be in denial about domestic violence carried out by their own adherents. The Drive project works with perpetrators to change attitudes, beliefs, behaviour and their other problems. A review by Bristol University found that three-quarters of the perpetrators improved their behaviour after intervention.

Incidentally, I fear that the introduction of no-fault divorce later this year might also increase abuse, because a divorce application will come out of the blue, without any period of separation. This might well incite, for example, the husband against whom it is directed and whose potential for abuse may have led to the need to start divorce proceedings.

Finally, we need a continuing government publicity campaign to make the public aware of the aims of this Bill and to publicise the fact that third parties can apply for domestic violence orders and notices, not just victims. I leave the final word to Her Majesty the Queen, who, in her Christmas broadcast, used the phrase “You are not alone”, which is the key message of domestic violence protection. That augurs well for this excellent Bill.

Hate Crime: Misogyny

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I was aware of Nottinghamshire and other police forces doing that. I welcome police forces across the country disaggregating hate crime into, say, anti-Semitic hate crime, Islamophobic hate crime or, as the noble Lord said, misogyny. The data that they produce is very helpful but, again, I hesitate to say anything further until the Law Commission has reported.

[Baroness Deech (CB) [V]]

Reflecting on an earlier answer from the Minister, I would point out that a French author has published a book called I Hate Men. Far from being condemned, it has received widespread and pretty favourable coverage. The Law Commission’s work shows that this is a very complex area. Research has even thrown doubt on the deterrent effect of sentences aggravated by hate crime. So, should we not wait, even if it takes another year, for the outcome of the Law Commission’s consultation before rushing to create a specific offence?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for pointing out the complexity of this area. The consultation will finish on 24 December and the Law Commission will report next year. I agree with her that we should not pre-empt the outcome of the review just yet.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 5th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cormack. I certainly support this amendment, moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and its proposed new clause requiring the Secretary of State to issue physical evidence of migration status.

To start with, as has been said, we might well be disposed to approve of a system which is entirely digital, dispenses with cards or paper, and is quick, slick and nicely up to date. In this case, however, although well-meaning, such a system is flawed. That is even so in general, thus for numerous purposes and types of daily use, regardless of the particular and sensitive context of migration status at all. Consider driving licences, student ID cards, pensioners’ bus passes, national insurance cards, and so on. Suppose we could not use these and had to go online instead; at best, this would be frustrating and, most of the time, extremely annoying. It is so much easier to have a card or piece of paper immediately there in your pocket or in the file which you keep at home.

All the more so would it therefore be unsatisfactory—something which this amendment corrects—if evidence of settled status could be provided only digitally. As so many of your Lordships have already emphasised, digital-only immigration status will create new barriers for EU citizens, especially the elderly and most vulnerable, who may not have the necessary digital skills. That apart, if and when some aspect of the digital process fails—which is quite a frequent occurrence—people without a physical form of back-up will obviously be disadvantaged.

Conversely, even when the process may go as smoothly as it can, many still fear lengthy, contorted, multistep sequences involving presentations of passports, birth dates and unique one-off codes sent to mobiles, followed by both parties having to access the Government’s website separately. Worse still, a recent study has shown that the majority of landlords do not want to accept a digital-only proof, stating that they do not trust it.

For these reasons, I am sure that my noble friend would accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, or produce a government one corresponding to it.

[Baroness Deech (CB) [V]]

My Lords, only today we have seen another example of centralised government technology failing: namely, the PHE Excel spreadsheet not counting all the coronavirus statistics. We know what happened to some Windrush immigrants whose proof was destroyed.

I am happy to admit that when I began to enter the House of Lords, I had to establish my British nationality. That involved finding proof of my father’s naturalisation as a British citizen in the late 1940s. To my amazement and pleasure, there was the document in the small pile he had left me when he died. We should not forget future generations who may need a piece of paper. I shall never forget the comfort of having that piece of paper.

Employers and landlords will look for it. I surmise that, if they are told to check online, this could be an obstacle to the offer of housing or employment when time is of the essence. Older people may not be familiar with the technology—another demographic that the Government sometimes forget: for example, in relation to the NHS track and trace app, where the considerable numbers of older people who do not have smartphones are simply ignored. Moreover, hard copy of proof may be a requirement when an entitled person travels abroad or when there is an emergency and no access to a phone or the internet is possible.

Failure or hacking of the digital system will be catastrophic and are by no means unforeseeable. Of course there could be both digital and paper evidence as a back-up. For those reasons, I support this amendment and urge the Government to do the sensible thing and provide a paper proof of settled status.

Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Disabled Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Deech Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 24th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of chairing the 2016 Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability; we produced a report a year and a half ago. When I say “privilege”, I am not following the normal courtesy of reference; I mean it very literally. We heard, saw and received written evidence of the heartbreaking, and often unnecessary and unthinking, obstacles faced by disabled people in their everyday lives, in doing things that the majority take in their stride. We admired the courage of our witnesses and their ability both to function in the way they do and find the extra energy to campaign on behalf of all disabled people. I salute the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and other noble Lords who are disabled—I must single out the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, who never stops campaigning. They do the same.

The Bill, and the report I referred to, should not be seen as a project for the 11 million or so disabled people, most of whom acquire their disabilities after birth. It is for all of us. The statistics show that, as we live longer in general, unless we are extremely lucky we will all experience a disability in our last few years, whether of sight, hearing or mobility—as many noble Lords will be only too aware. The Bill is not about special pleading; it is about making premises accessible to the entire population in the fullness of time. I say to our sprightly young Ministers: your time will come, too.

The government response so far to the Select Committee report has been ungenerous and disappointing. The committee was careful to make sure that its recommendations did not cost much. We established that there is relevant law, but that implementation and detailed guidance are lacking, especially in transport and access. So the Bill has my full support, as it should have from every right-thinking person.

Not only has the government response been unhelpful, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission seems to be going backward on this. The statutory Disability Committee has been replaced by the Disability Advisory Committee, with no similar powers, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, was disappointed to discover that, when appointed as a commissioner, he would not have the special responsibility for disabled people that seemed so obvious for him and for which he had hoped.

The message to and from the Select Committee was that disabled people suffer from the rolling-in of disability as a protected characteristic into all other such characteristics under the Equality Act. Disabled people must have equal treatment, but to get to the level playing field they may need an adjustment that is not needed by others. Access by ramp is just one example. The cost of putting in the ramps will be more than met by the increased custom in time.

As I have said before, disabled people are let down across the whole spectrum of life. Access to public buildings is a fundamental right. The removal of legal aid has made it even harder and more costly for individuals to challenge the blockages to their rights. The burden is on them alone, for class and proxy actions are not allowed. It has been proposed that local authorities should have the power to refuse to grant or renew the licences of premises such as restaurants, pubs and clubs unless they are accessible, which would go a long way to curing the problem. The House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee supported a similar approach, and recommended changes to the Licensing Act 2003 to mandate licensing officers to act on a failure to make licensed premises accessible. I and other experienced noble Lords put forward an amendment to that effect last December when the Policing and Crime Bill was passing through this House.

The Government opposed the amendment on the ground that it was duplicating already existing law—which was not in fact the case—and the Opposition decided not to vote on the amendment for what they called “strategic reasons”. It was one of the most disillusioning events for me since I entered this House. There is a chance now to remove that blot on the record of both parties and to show the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that its critical report on the UK’s compliance with the treaties has been listened to. We recall the special pride and joy taken in our Paralympic champions. That sentiment should not be forgotten when slightly less athletic disabled people seek the nation’s help.

The Bill is the tiniest step in the right direction. It has been said that legislation should be slow to place additional regulatory burdens on business, but this is a zero-sum game. The reduction of the regulatory burden on business means an increase in the burden on a group far less able to bear it: namely, disabled people. The Government may well point to their accessibility projects such as the Built Environment Professional Education Project; but that has been handed over to the Construction Industry Council, and at best will only influence future design, not make adjustments to existing premises. Likewise, the Accessible Britain Challenge morphed into the Disability Confident scheme for employees—these bold words disguise action not commensurate with their tone—leaving a gap that can be filled only by this Bill.

There is another gap. The Select Committee referred to the need for codes of practice and specific guidance on the concept of reasonable adjustments for disabled people, most often in the workplace. But even if they are produced there will be owners of premises who are unaware of them or will ignore them, knowing that they can get away with it. Support for this Bill is essential to stop the callous or ignorant denial of an easy remedy of accessibility for all of us. Any Government who care for minorities or those who are not just about managing must bring it into law.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I did not put my name to this amendment because there were enough people already, but I used to teach family law, including the law of marriage. In this country, it is very easy to get married in a registry office or in a properly registered religious place. You can get married in a hotel if you want to or you can have a civil partnership. There are all sorts of official unions that you can make very easily, but the worst of all possible worlds is to be duped into believing that you are married in a religious ceremony and then find that you are not, because you lose any protection that English law gives you, while at the same time, stereotypically, your husband—if he is really your husband—can abandon you or take another wife.

This is not just a question of running parallel systems of law: it is about the protection of women and the need to preserve transparency and regularity in people’s marital status. All that is necessary is for more mosques to become registered as proper places of marriage, just in the way that synagogues are, and all would be resolved. I see no arguments against this amendment at all. It is overdue.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Deech, my noble friend Lady Buscombe—who made an excellent speech—and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. As has been said, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has done so much to raise in this House the problem of marriages that are not legally binding and that therefore do not carry the legal rights and responsibilities of a legally binding marriage. I recognise that she has spoken to many women in this situation and has sensitively presented their evidence to your Lordships this evening and on other occasions. There is particular cause for concern if one or both of the parties is unaware of their lack of rights or coerced into a marriage.

There is a strong tradition of religious marriages in England and Wales, with a long-established right that couples are able, in their place of worship, to enter into a marriage that is legally contracted, provided that the requirements of the law are met. Some people, for religious or other reasons, have preferred to enter into a marriage that is not capable of legal recognition. To make it illegal to conduct, or enter into, religious marriages that are not legally contracted is likely to be an overly complex solution and one that restricts personal choice. It is also unclear how many unregistered religious marriages would take place in breach of any change in legislation, since, by their nature, public notice of these marriages would not be given. I am sure that noble Lords appreciate the complexity of legislating in people’s private and religious lives.

We are conscious that there are complex issues behind religious marriages that are not legally valid, including where people use a religious ceremony to give recognition to an additional spouse, and so we do not consider that any one approach to Muslim or other faith communities can work in isolation. Of course, we are also aware of concerns that some women can be put under pressure to use the services of religious councils, including sharia councils, to arrange matters on the break-up of the relationship and that these women are not always treated equally when recommendations are made.

One of the issues that the noble Baroness highlighted was that of child custody, a matter raised by women to whom she has spoken. In fact, it is not the case that women have few or no rights in this matter, although they may well not be aware of their rights. In England and Wales, where there is any dispute between parents about arrangements for their children, either parent may apply to the family court for one or more types of order under the Children Act 1989. Most commonly, this will be a child arrangements order determining who a child is to live with or spend time with, and where and when this is to happen, referred to respectively as custody and access in many other jurisdictions. These proceedings are free-standing. This means that a parent is entitled to make an application to the court at any time, simply by virtue of being the parent of the child concerned and regardless of the status of their relationship with the other parent. There is no distinction for this purpose between legally married parents, unmarried parents, parents in a religious marriage that is not legally binding, parents who are otherwise cohabiting or, indeed, parents who are living apart.

On the issue of polygamy, noble Lords will be aware that polygamous marriages cannot be legally contracted in the UK. Attempting to enter into a polygamous marriage under the law of England and Wales is a criminal offence which carries a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. Nor is it possible for anyone domiciled in the United Kingdom to enter into a polygamous marriage abroad. Where a polygamous marriage is contracted within the law outside the United Kingdom between parties neither of whom is domiciled in the United Kingdom, it will be recognised by the court. The Government continue to support the law preventing polygamous marriages from being entered into in England and Wales.

The Law Commission has also given initial consideration to the issue of religious marriages that are not legally valid. It published its scoping study in December last year setting out the parameters of a potential review of the law concerning how and where people can marry in England and Wales, following consultation with a wide range of religious organisations and other interested parties. The scoping study concluded that this was one of a number of issues that might be ameliorated through a fairer and more coherent framework for marriage. The Law Commission also considered that offences relating to the celebration of marriage should be reviewed. It would not make sense for the Government to introduce a new criminal offence, such as that proposed by this amendment, without evidence of the scale and nature of the problem and without consideration of how the new offence would fit within existing marriage law.

The Government are carefully considering the Law Commission report and will respond in due course. We will also wish to consider the issue of unregistered religious marriages in light of the findings of the independent sharia review, launched in May by the current Prime Minister. The Government share the noble Baroness’s concerns and take them very seriously indeed. These concerns are central to the independent sharia review and involve the equalities, justice and faith and integration agendas across government. I thank the noble Baroness for raising again this important issue and the very real consequences for people’s lives.

My noble friend Lady Buscombe asked how many sharia councils there are across Europe. I do not have a number; I will have to go away, look into it further and write to my noble friend. I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will understand the need to wait for the Government’s response to the Law Commission report and the sharia review and, on that basis, will withdraw her amendment.

Prevent Strategy

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord was speaking on behalf of others because his was the only name attached to the Question—but I take his point. My Answer was not actually “no” in the sense that we review how effective Prevent is being all the time. The previous Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, commissioned an internal Home Office review of Prevent which concluded that it should be strengthened, not undermined, and made 12 suggestions on how to do so. Those suggestions are being brought forward as part of the Contest strategy review this year.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, inquiry or not, universities need to be trained in how to ensure that extremist speakers are challenged and to be reminded of their public sector equality and diversity rights? It has been responsibly recorded that many extremist speakers are coming on to campuses—people who preach what is anathema to our human rights and equality law. The campaign against Prevent is masterminded by the National Union of Students, whose own leader has been accused of associating too closely with terrorists.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that we have to tread a very fine line in protecting what is a great freedom in this country—the freedom of speech—without creating an environment of the kind she outlined.

Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability Report

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

To move that this House takes note of the Report from the Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability (Session 2015-16, HL Paper 117).

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, this Motion could not be more timely. I quote the Prime Minister, who said on her first day in office that we need to build a country that works for everyone. She said that every child should be allowed to rise as far as their talents will take them and that birth should never be a barrier. The Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability agrees. The Prime Minister has ordered an audit of the equality of treatment by public services. Our report was ahead of the game and delivers for the Government the very audit that she is seeking. It shows the inequality that was uncovered, with straightforward remedies to remove unfairness. If our recommendations are acted upon, a prime ministerial goal will be achieved.

What I learned during my chairmanship of the Select Committee, which was a privilege and an enriching experience, was that disability potentially affects nearly everyone in the country. Our report contains statistics that show that, as we all live longer, it is very likely that our last few years will be spent with a sight, hearing or mobility impediment. Indeed, the number of years spent living with disability is increasing. One has but to look around your Lordships’ House to see how true this is. Therefore, our report addressed how to ensure that employment, travel, education, information and even politics are accessible to all of us, whether born disabled or affected by injury or simply old age.

First, I thank our skilled and committed clerk, Mr Collon, and his team, who went beyond the call of duty. I also thank our members, several of whom have first-hand experience of the impediments described in our report. Special thanks go to our witnesses, some of whom were severely disabled and yet conveyed to us in a moving and articulate way how they battle against the insouciance with which some employers and organisations fail in their simple duties under the Act. We were also the first Lords committee to take evidence in sign language.

Our committee was charged with post-legislative scrutiny of that portion of the Equality Act dealing with disability. Our task was to consider the adequacy of the law. Has it strengthened disability discrimination law? Are there gaps in legal protection against discrimination that impact on the ability of disabled people to play their full role in society? Are reasonable adjustments being made in relation to access to goods and services and to employment, bearing in mind that it is government policy to reduce unemployment among disabled people? Is enforcement of their rights effective and accessible? Is the Equality and Human Rights Commission doing all that it can in this regard? The answer to those questions in our report, after investigation, was a resounding no.

Having pointed out the repercussions of our longer lives, we concluded that we must plan for the inevitability of disability and mainstream adjustments in buildings, services, travel and licensing. Every organisation and every branch of government should be pro-active in planning for disability access, not wait for problems to arise and then be so slow in solving them that the disabled person loses the opportunity to enjoy the service.

We need to listen to disabled people explaining their needs. They themselves need to be made aware, as we all should be, of their rights. Sadly, as is common now throughout the legal system and its users, the law and the courts are failing as enforcement mechanisms through lack of legal aid and increased fees. Disabled people need champions at law and a champion in government so that when cuts, benefits or new laws are considered their needs do not slip through a gap. The cumulative impact of cuts and new laws must be taken into account in order that the gravity of the situation is fully revealed.

Once the evidence of our report is taken into account, it is impossible for any Government—except a nasty party—to ignore our recommendations, which have been crafted to be almost cost free. We need willingness on the part of government to take care of all our people, and we need organisations and services to be forced to adapt if the softly-softly approach does not work—and I am afraid it has not. We were disappointed with the government response in July, which in general I can sum up by calling it buck-passing and the dragging of heels.

We have all enjoyed the Olympic Games this summer and look forward to the Paralympics with enthusiasm. Yet when it comes to ensuring that sports grounds are open to all, regardless of disability, the Government are stalling; as they are in relation to ensuring audio-visual guides on all buses and alterations to common parts at the request of the tenant and at his or her expense. There is simply no need for any more consultation or pilot schemes. We show that the need is clear and the actions straightforward and cost free to the taxpayer. The Bus Services Bill passing through the House at the moment is a good opportunity to ensure audio-visual provision on all buses. The DfT calculated that this would cost only £5.75 million a year to apply to all new buses.

A recurring theme in the government response is that conversation and raising awareness achieve more than regulation and are cost free. Sadly, the evidence in our report shows that this is a faulty belief. For example, although we demonstrate that tribunal fees have almost certainly led to a fall of 68% in discrimination claims, the Government attribute this to an improving economy and alternative dispute resolution. We do not agree. We recommend that more new homes should be wheelchair accessible, but the Government want to leave that change to local authorities.

There is so much thoughtlessness. We heard from a disabled tenant who had to wait three months for an advocate to read the tenancy agreement to him because it was not anyone else’s job. There are banks that phone deaf customers, who cannot hear them, while the bank refuses to speak to anyone else. There are announcements at railway stations of platform changes which are missed by those who cannot hear them. There are employers who will not accommodate those who have to take insulin. There are mothers with huge baby buggies who will not yield to wheelchair users—I wonder whether it is not time for a limit on buggy size on public transport, rather like the limits on hand luggage on planes. There is the pedestrianisation of shopping centres and shared space traffic management which removes safe places for disabled people to cross and to park.

Government activity and ongoing government reviews have, it seems, been long drawn out. There is no need for more reviews and talk. We need action. “Law-law is better than jaw-jaw”, if I may adapt a phrase. Now that we have a new Government with a new equality policy, is it too much to hope that the government response will be withdrawn and rewritten to reflect their more inclusive and more socially mobile goals?

Another theme in the government response is the failure to recognise the burdens that existing inadequate law enforcement places on disabled people, whereas, by way of contrast, the Government are only too sensitive to burdens that might fall on, for example, taxi drivers or landlords if they had to make the adjustments that the law—on the books, at least—requires. Removing red tape is all very well, but that red tape does not vanish into cyberspace: it falls as a strap, tying up the efforts of disabled people to join in the activities and employment that they want and are entitled to.

Other noble Lords will examine particular aspects of the scope of our inquiry; I can touch on only a few. The EHRC joins with us in wanting the Minister for Disabled People to be a member of the Cabinet social justice committee. It is not enough for the Government to respond that he or she should be present only when specific disability items arise. We call for him or her to be a constant member in order that issues that affect disability, which may or may not be on the surface, are not overlooked.

The EHRC agrees with us that a cumulative assessment of the effects of new laws on disabled people is feasible and practicable. We call for this impact assessment, which would do so much to ensure that the needs of disabled people are never overlooked in the government programme.

Some of what we recommend can be easily and cheaply achieved. Section 36 of the Equality Act has not been commenced, and it is shocking how many sections of that Act lie dormant, ignored and uncommenced. That section provides that disabled tenants may ask the landlord to agree to alterations to common parts of blocks of flats to facilitate access at the tenants’ expense. The landlord has to agree if it is reasonable. The Government’s excuse for not activating this is that they are waiting for results from the Scottish experience of this provision. However, as the Scottish regulations have not been made, there is no such experience. The Government reviewed this area of the law in 2005 and have announced another review, apparently concerned that landlords might be deterred from renting to disabled tenants. This is speculation. This is Alice in Wonderland:

“I give myself very good advice, but I very seldom follow it”.

There is no need for any more reviews—just do it. Which is a way to call on the Government to implement this section forthwith.

Another example of reticence on the part of the Government in helping disabled people at no cost is the interpretation of the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act, which requires public authorities to have due regard—note that it is “due regard” and no more—to the elimination of discrimination and the advancement of equality of opportunity for those with protected characteristics. Witnesses before our committee urged us to recommend to the Government, as we do, that the PSED section should be amended to ensure that public authorities do not just take account of equality but actually take steps towards achieving it in the carrying out of their duties. Will the Government back an amendment to achieve this? It is no answer to say that a further review will consider it. Our witnesses gave us all the evidence that one could reasonably need to support this conclusion.

Other noble Lords will address the issue of travel—perhaps the most significant and comprehensive issue facing disabled people and all of us, and one where we were shocked to discover that provisions about taxis and disabled people have been sitting on the statute book ignored and uncommenced for 20 years. Over that period, the Government have flouted the will of Parliament in this matter and this must stop. Provisions to enable taxi drivers to claim health exemptions from helping disabled passengers have been commenced but not the substantive provisions to assure disabled passengers that they can get into a taxi and not be charged extra. Although it has been announced that by the end of this year—why so long?—the core duty set out in Section 65 of the Equality Act will commence, some other important sections about the details of accessibility remain frozen and vital regulations cannot be made. This is incomprehensible and we call on the Government to commence the entire chapter of the Act; otherwise, one can conclude only that yet again the Government are more mindful of the alleged burden on taxi drivers and local authorities than the real burden on disabled people. The Government want to see disabled people in employment and the lever is in their hands.

In general, our report has secured the backing of the EHRC, itself hamstrung by the lack of resources it has suffered and by the inclusion of disability as just one of the many characteristics it has to protect. It agrees with our report that it should be able to offer conciliation services where there is an employment dispute. We see no reason why the Government should disagree with that. Nor is it possible to understand why the Government ignored our recommendation and the will of the EHRC in relation to the Equality Advisory and Support Service helpline. The EHRC agreed that it wanted this service returned to it either in-house or as contract manager. The Government flouted that request—and the recommendation set out in our report—by themselves tendering for the service in April of this year. The EHRC will get to sit only on the project board. This is in itself incomprehensible.

To whom was the contract to run the helpline given, which is so valuable to disabled people seeking advice that they call it a lifeline? It has been given to G4S. We have all read about G4S in the news recently, because the Medway secure training centre which it runs was condemned for growing levels of violence. It was G4S which failed to provide adequate trained security staff for the 2012 Olympics. An Angolan deportee died while being restrained by G4S staff. It is reported that G4S ran a call handling service in a police control room to which hundreds of bogus calls were made to enable it to meet its target. The company is described by the Guardian as an,

“endlessly scandal-hit global security firm”.

The internet is awash with sites questioning the exercise of the tender, and I echo them. The precious lifeline for the disabled person who is seeking advice does not seem to be safe in G4S’s hands, so it must go back to the EHRC.

All in all the Government’s response has been ill-informed, and with a new Government the committee calls on them to withdraw that response and start again. The committee is fortunate in that the House of Commons has set up a Select Committee on Women and Equalities whose chair, the right honourable Maria Miller MP, is interested in picking up our work of promoting the interests of disabled people. We are fortunate to have its backing. I assure the Minister that she and the Government have not heard the end of this. That is because, taken overall, the recommendations of our Select Committee were about promoting a more inclusive and socially mobile society. If this is a genuine goal, our recommendations cannot be ignored.

In sum, we call for the restoration of the Equality Advisory and Support Service and conciliation services to the EHRC. We call for a cumulative impact assessment of the effect of cuts and financial changes on disabled persons; for amendments to the PSED, buses Bill and licensing objectives; and for technical guidance to be laid before Parliament as codes of practice. We call for the Government to take up the Accessible Sports Grounds Bill, promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, a member of the committee; and in general we call for a fresh approach—a positive and holistic one—to every member of society who is not 100% young and fit, and that means all of us eventually. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, we are all deeply grateful to the Minister. I know that her heart is in the right place and she has listened very carefully and responded warmly to contributions from Members, to whom I express deep gratitude on behalf of my committee. However, I believe that our new Prime Minister has an agenda that goes beyond the concessions that the Minister has made. Obviously, we are grateful for her understanding and for the issues on which she has said that there will be action, but I am convinced that the Prime Minister’s new agenda goes further than that. When I see the Minister, Justine Greening, I will put it to her that there still needs to be a fresh look at this response in the light of the Government’s agenda, because our report fits that new agenda so well.

Our report is not just about disability. We are all on a spectrum of disability at some stage; we will all get there. Our report is talking about making society inclusive, following the Government’s agenda of getting more people back into work, making them less reliant on the state. We still need a champion at the centre of government to keep an eye on that, to make sure that everyone can participate to the best of their ability—exactly as the Prime Minister has said. So while we are very grateful for the concessions, if I may call them such, that the Minister has made, I retain—and I think I speak on behalf of the committee—concerns about not going further with PSED. Complications are not an excuse. Having due regard does not mean second-guessing—it should go beyond that; it means that throughout government and public authorities progress should be made towards the goals that we all agree on. Licensing, too, needs to take on board all the requirements of the equality legislation. So I think that we have not gone far enough.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has its eye on us. The Government have said that the provision adheres to the UN convention, but it may be found to be lacking. We live in a diverse society—that is what this report is about—and we want the Government to give a green light to all these recommendations, which cost so little, or nearly nothing, to make the whole of society work properly, everyone to the best of their ability. I and the members of my committee will continue to push for this at every level of Government, because we believe that this is what we all want and this is what the Prime Minister wants.

Again, I reiterate my gratitude to my hard-working members and reiterate all of our deep thanks to those who have spoken and in particular to Mr Collon and his team, who did a wonderful job. We will continue to move forward with this in every way that we can while at the same time expressing appreciation to the Minister, who has listened carefully and given us some hope.

Motion agreed.