Offences Against the Person Act: Section 58

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the position is that all women have access to safe and legal abortions on the NHS in England and Wales. As I say, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific cases. I remind the House that abortion is a matter devolved to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to Scotland.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend the Minister agree that, to prevent such tragic offences from occurring in the future, the Government should urgently propose legislation to reinstate the requirement for women to be seen in person at least once before being prescribed abortion pills?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the current provisions applying in this area were brought in during the Covid pandemic when face-to-face access to medical personnel was restricted. The relevant department keeps the matter under review.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Wednesday 5th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to add my welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green, and congratulate her on her excellent maiden speech.

I believe that strong marriages and stable families are the bedrock of a healthy society. This is a view that I am sure many noble Lords across the House will agree with. It is imperative that in the work we do here in Parliament we carefully scrutinise the legislation that comes before us to ensure that it does not undermine that bedrock—marriage and the families that are formed through it.

Divorce law has a purpose not only in managing the end of a marriage but in setting out ideals about marriage. It recognises that marriage is an enduring commitment for life. As such, it is entirely logical that there must be serious and compelling reasons why what was hoped to be a lifelong union has come to an end. Under the current system, one spouse needs to allege adultery or unreasonable behaviour for the divorce to be considered immediately.

I do not believe that it is credible to propose a change in divorce law that maintains “irretrievable breakdown” as the sole ground for divorce when what is actually proposed is unilateral no-reason divorce. Under the proposed law there is no requirement to prove irretrievable breakdown. It can be a legal fiction asserted by one party who is simply bored of the marriage.

This empowering of the petitioner, the person initiating divorce proceedings, is further compounded by the fact that this Bill proposes removing the ability of the other party, the respondent, to contest the divorce. This leaves the respondent in a very vulnerable position. Because the importance of the marriage commitment is no longer expressed in the fact that it can be undone only in exacting circumstances, but rather whenever the petitioner wants to, the Bill creates the opportunity for divorce to come as a bolt from the blue. In the absence of any actual problems, one spouse could be blissfully unaware that her husband or wife is planning to divorce her because they feel that their relationship has lost some of its sparkle. The petitioner might appreciate this enhanced autonomy of freedom but the respondent has every reason to feel very insecure. Therein lies the rub. Anyone in a marriage is a potential respondent and thus, if the Bill becomes law, it will inevitably heighten the sense of insecurity in marriage.

We are told by the leading Conservative think tank Onward in its seminal publication The Politics of Belonging that the country has actually had enough of more and more autonomy, and that it now wants more security. The Bill, however, is no surprise, since that publication contends that the sympathies of Whitehall are indeed very much out of kilter with this new mood. In this context, I cannot help but wonder whether we are misjudging the mood of the country with the Bill.

Social science research has repeatedly found that marriage brings stability to the lives of children. One paper from 2015 found that families are most stable if parents are married before having children: 24% of couples who married before having children split up, compared to 56% of couples who married later and 69% of couples who never married at all. Regardless of socioeconomic status and education, cohabiting couples are between two and two and a half times more likely to break up than equivalent married couples. Furthermore, having married parents boosts self-esteem for teenagers. UK research from 2016 found that teenage boys living with continuously married parents have the highest self-esteem, while teenage girls living with continuously cohabiting parents have the lowest. Children from broken homes are nine times more likely to become young offenders, accounting for 70% of all young offenders.

I appreciate that the purpose of bringing forward the Bill is not to promote more divorce and thus more difficulty for children. However, I have two difficulties with its proposed approach. First, it is hard to see how making marriage a relationship that one can exit unilaterally, simply by saying that you want out, will not undermine the ability of marriage to bring stability to the lives of children. Secondly, of course I appreciate that part of the justification for changing the rules of exit is that it is supposed to help children by minimising conflict. That is certainly a laudable aim. However, I am concerned that that will not be achieved through the Bill. Conflict between parents will simply be shifted to arguments over finances and where the children will end up. No provision is made in the Bill, as was provided for in the 1996 reforms, for mediation or counselling for couples facing the possibility of divorce—other Members have mentioned that important fact this evening.

Central to our assessment of the Bill must be the question: to what extent will it facilitate divorce without increasing the rate of divorce and marriage breakdown? Obviously, the change in the law proposed by the Bill would lead to a spike in divorces as people waiting for divorces in the context of the current legislative framework are able to access divorce much more quickly. The important point is not whether there will be a short-term spike—that seems inevitable. The question is whether the new law would facilitate increased divorce rates beyond the first couple of years. The evidence on this from abroad is not encouraging. Leora Friedberg found in her research that unilateral divorce laws were responsible for about 17% of the increase in divorce rates in the US during the 1970s and 1980s. In a context where the annual cost of family breakdown is deemed to be more than £50 billion, it is hard to understand why one would embark on a policy that is likely to increase divorce.

Finally, given all the concerns I have set out, I am also concerned by the way in which the Government appear to have dealt with the consultation process that preceded the Bill. Consultations are intended to ensure that the Government have listened to the public and adjusted their proposals in the light of the concerns expressed. In the consultation on divorce reform, 80% of those who responded did not agree with the proposal to replace the five facts demonstrating that a marriage had irretrievably broken down with a notification process. A mere 17% were in favour of the proposed change.

Furthermore, 83% of those who responded disagreed with the Government’s proposal to remove the ability of a spouse who does not want divorce to contest the assertion that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, while only 15% supported the plans. Can the Minister please explain how much of the consultation was taken into consideration, because this appears to conflict with the process that the Government are taking forward? I have serious concerns that the Bill will have negative consequences for families.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice president and former chairman of the Local Government Association.

I begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on winning the general election. We can now get Brexit done, honour the referendum result and make sure that we level up all areas of the country. The ambitious Queen’s Speech makes it clear that the new Parliament is about getting Brexit over the line while delivering a powerful one-nation agenda, an agenda that is a force for positive change in communities across the country.

In the time I have today, I will focus on two issues that I am passionate about: the need to tackle the scourge of domestic violence, and the opportunity to reshape the way our country is run by devolving more powers to communities through their local elected councils. Domestic abuse is a hugely important issue, one that we all take seriously. The domestic abuse Bill is a legislative landmark. It will provide the first definition of domestic abuse that is not limited to violence. This will provide clarity for everyone involved, including councils. Women’s Aid said that it has the potential to create a step change in the national response. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that this is promising. In particular, the creation of a domestic abuse commissioner will help to raise the profile of this issue and ensure momentum behind it.

The Government’s approach should also recognise a greater focus on prevention and early intervention measures. This would include funding and investing in evidence-based perpetrator programmes and sharing at the national level the key learnings from domestic homicide reviews. By doing this, we can tackle the root causes of the issue and stop domestic abuse happening in the first place.

The Queen’s Speech made a commitment to

“give communities more control over how investment is spent”.

As a member of the APPG on devolution, reform and decentralisation, I have championed the call for further devolution. The simple truth is that local leaders are best placed to know what is needed in their communities. The Conservative manifesto rightly recognises this, calling for national politicians to move away from the idea that Whitehall knows best and that all growth must start in London. This is a call to trust people and communities to make the decisions that are right for them. That is something I wholeheartedly support.

Moreover, the need to act is urgent. According to the Centre for Policy Studies, the gap between London and the rest of the country has widened to the point where no other region in the country, apart from the south-east, is generating as much wealth per capita today as London was 20 years ago. Devolution could help us to change this picture. As just one example, local control over skills and employment support is something councils are desperate for. Evidence from the LGA suggests that a devolved skills and employment policy could deliver fiscal benefits of up to £280 million a year for local areas.

The Conservative manifesto also committed to levelling up every part of the UK, particularly our rural and coastal areas that are too often left behind. Previous deals have focused on urban areas using a mayoral model. While this approach has worked well for many areas, it may not be suitable for rural and coastal communities, which instead would benefit from the freedom to propose their own governance arrangements.

Brexit represents a real opportunity to rethink the way decisions are made. Where EU laws are repatriated back to the UK, they cannot simply rest in Whitehall, Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont. We need a bold new English devolution settlement in this Parliament. With this in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister, in wrapping up the debate, could provide an update on when we can expect to see the promised devolution White Paper and whether it will be co-produced with councils and the LGA.

I conclude by once again welcoming the Queen’s Speech. Proposals such as the domestic abuse Bill and the commitments to devolution will make important changes to people’s lives. It will allow us to make sure that we are protecting those who are often vulnerable and need our support, while ensuring our long-term success and prosperity as a nation. I look forward to working with the Government to deliver the proposals in the Queen’s Speech.

Criminal Justice System: Women

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, as we all know, the needs of women in our criminal justice system are diverse and complex. I therefore commend this Government’s female offender strategy, which built on the very welcome report of the Centre for Social Justice, which called for a woman-centred approach to women in the criminal justice system and for the formal recognition that this Government have given to the distinct needs of these women. I commend my noble friend Lord Farmer for his recently published landmark review into strengthening family relationships to reduce female offending.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the plight of Muslim women in Britain who have been in prison. There has recently been research into the experiences of Bradford Muslim women in this situation. The report found that the Muslim community shuns women but forgives convicted men, who are given liberal and sympathetic treatment whatever their crime. Honour plays a disproportionate role in British Muslim life. Defamation of the family name can be the ultimate calamity for the good name, status and social standing of the family. The Muslim Women in Prison project, based in Bradford, focuses on rehabilitation programmes and the specific cultural needs of Muslim women, many of whom do not have contact with friends or family.

I was pleased to see the recommendation of my noble friend Lord Farmer that the manual of guidance forms be amended to capture information about offenders’ dependants. This is something that the Centre for Social Justice championed in its recent report Control, Order, Hope as key to identifying and safeguarding the children of those facing imprisonment.

The evidence is clear: maintaining strong family relationships is key to female desistance. Around half of the women in our prisons say that getting support from their family would help them to stop offending. However, our current system does not adequately take the needs of women and their families into account. The Government’s decision to shelve plans for building five new women’s prisons has been a welcome step in the right direction—towards a women-centred approach to rehabilitation. However, the money saved by this decision has not been directly reinvested in the necessary community-based support for female offenders.

Last year, the Centre for Social Justice calculated that the Government could save up to £50 million by suspending plans for the five new women’s prisons. It argued that this money should be reinvested in a criminal justice transformation fund to support the development of capacity and infrastructure for female offenders in the community. However, the Government have instead pledged one-10th of this amount—just £5 million—to be spent on community provision for women. There is no doubt that even this limited funding will be invested in life-changing support for women.

One of the projects supported by the funding is the new Women’s Wellness Centre commissioned by North Yorkshire’s excellent PCC, Julia Mulligan. It will offer family-friendly services to women at risk of reoffending, mental health problems and homelessness. However, this funding does not go far enough. Had the full amount been reinvested in community provision for female offenders, we would be looking at a substantially more comprehensive offer of support for women in the criminal justice system.

There is a clear desire among some of our best police and crime commissioners to be given the responsibility and the necessary resources to create community-based programmes for female offenders that are both trauma-informed and responsive to their local needs. According to a poll commissioned by the Centre for Social Justice, three-quarters of police and crime commissioners believe that they should be given greater ownership of the female offender cohort and that they could commission better services for female offenders.

The funding situation faced by women’s centres across the country is precarious, to say the least. I have heard about the apparent failure of the Ministry of Justice Estates Directorate to take policy into account when making significant decisions about property. I am particularly concerned about the sale of Eden House in Bristol. It is a women’s centre with a crèche and refurbished residential accommodation, and many families benefit from its services. This was the only such resource owned by the MoJ and the decision seemed particularly at odds with the direction of travel of the MoJ’s female offender strategy. It is not difficult to find the details of the sale on the internet. The property was apparently sold for £622,000 in May 2017. Although that was 12 months before the formal publication of the new women’s strategy, the strategy was in draft. It recognised the valuable role of women’s centres and the need for residential services to support women as an alternative to custody, as well as for women leaving custody.

Can my noble friend the Minister explain why this sale was made, given the emphasis on supporting women in the community whenever possible as an alternative to custody? Can he also confirm whether the Ministry of Justice Estates Directorate applied the family test before making the sale? We need a clear and long-term commitment to sustaining and building on what works with women in prison, women in the criminal justice system and women at risk of offending. The cost of failing to make the commitments required should not be tolerated. Failing to provide some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable women with the support and interventions they need, and that we know can work, is wasteful, not only for the individuals concerned but to society at large.