Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 25th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but I none the less think that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and her colleagues are on to something. There is no question but that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is right that, under common law, doctor-patient confidentiality is not and has never been absolute. The question is when it is trumped by other considerations, and who decides.

It is always dangerous to suspect what the Minister will say in her eventual reply, but I suspect that she will say reassuring things, and her colleagues will have given her reassuring things to say, about the intention. I am sure that the intention is not for the wholesale trumping of doctor-patient confidentiality. There is no public interest in that and the Government would not want people to take that as the case, because it would be completely counterproductive not just to the effective functioning of public health but to law and order. To give an obvious example, if everyone involved in knife crime feels that there will be no confidentiality whatever in the emergency room or elsewhere, one runs the danger of people not going to get the vital help and emergency care that they need. I know that the Minister will understand that.

Going back to the detail—as this is Committee—when should there be a trumping and who decides? That is a worthwhile, detailed conversation to be explored between organisations such as the General Medical Council and the Minister and her team. Because, while it may not be the Government’s intention to trump common-law principles of ethics and confidentiality en masse, we have to remember of course that statute displaces the common law. If the statute is unclear and people think or perceive that the common law has been trumped and that the decision has been taken completely out of the hands of an individual practitioner on the advice of ethical bodies or ultimately taken out of the hands of a judge and that the principles of confidentially have been totally trumped, we have a problem—and that means the Government have a problem as well.

So I hope that, when the Minister eventually replies to this debate, she will not reject these concerns out of hand and will take on board the possibility of a bit more detailed discussion about when the duties to collaborate and so on should trump confidentiality, when not and, crucially, who is to decide. For my part, I would favour practitioners, properly advised, perhaps by more and further guidance from their professional bodies, and, if necessary in individual cases, by the order of a judge, possibly sought on an ex parte basis, as opposed to anything too wholesale or administrative. That is just my suggestion. I am sure that the Minister and her team will be able to come back with something that meets the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and her colleagues before the next scrutiny stage of the Bill.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very minded to support this series of amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, explained, doctor-patient confidentiality is far more than a common-law obligation. It is an ethical duty in a relationship of trust. Will the Minister consider whether the public understand what this aspect of the Bill compromises of that confidentiality?

Our doctors know a lot about us: the most intimate physical details, sometimes our psychological weaknesses, sometimes our darkest fears about life and death matters. While it has been a long time since we offered uncritical deference to our doctors, as patients and at our most vulnerable we are not equal partners and we need to trust that relationship, despite the power imbalance. So it is understandable that the General Medical Council and the British Medical Association are rightly worried that the Bill will smash the principle of confidentiality to bits.

The issue of confidentiality and trust will appear later in Committee in some other amendments that I shall speak to later, but my main question here is: why is this part of the Bill necessary? I genuinely do not understand. People involved in medical practice understand that, while confidentiality is an important legal and ethical duty, it is not an absolute. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, explained, it may be that some doctors get the balance wrong, but doctors are already expected to share confidential information if it is in the public interest, and that includes serious crime. However, this is presently understood as the exception, not the rule. At the moment, doctors need to consider the specific circumstances of what to share to satisfy the intended purpose and when to share it, and they have to weigh up the benefits and harms of disclosure.

Doctors are asked and trusted to exercise their professional judgment and to strike a balance between individual and community rights. I, for one, want to continue to trust medical personnel to make such judgments in good faith. Is the Minister saying that the Government do not trust them on this? It feels like an attack on professional discretion that will undermine doctors in the eyes of the public. At the moment, with the medical profession being under so much pressure and scrutiny—anger over no face-to-face GP appointments, tragic backlogs in hospital treatments—there is already tension between the public and the medical profession. If it comes out that when you go to the doctor, the sacred bond of confidentiality could in fact be expected to be broken, that will be very damaging for no good purpose.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in this mammoth omnibus Bill, there is an uncomfortable shift in the balance of power away from citizens and towards the state and the police. It feels like a lockdown hangover. The suspension of civil liberties for a public health emergency was bad enough, if understandable, but now, using the language of safety, protecting citizens and fear—again, although fear of crime this time—I am worried that the Government think the new normal should be less freedom and fewer rights. There are lots of examples of this throughout the Bill, but, for now, I shall confine my remarks to Part 3, which should be removed in its entirety from the Bill.

That is because, first, despite the reassurance from the Minister, which I know she means sincerely, I cannot see how, having read the Bill, it is not glaringly obvious that the Bill will damage hard-fought-for historic rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Other noble Lords have explained that very well. Secondly, why is Part 3 necessary at all? There are plenty of laws on the statute book which would deal with the problems that the Government have identified.

I realise that this debate comes hot on the heels of Extinction Rebellion’s rather egregious disruption to the M25 and the lives of so many drivers. There has been a series of utterly galling and self-indulgent actions of late, and it becomes easy to conclude, as many do, “lock ‘em up and throw away the key”. Do not get me wrong, I find that these stunts are misanthropic and narcissistic, and I think it is a real problem that they are driven by the anti-democratic instinct that because the majority are allegedly being too slow at adopting net-zero or hairshirt eco-policies, they must be coerced, bullied and annoyed into submission by these demonstrations. However, I do not think the answer to that anti-democratic instinct is for the Government to introduce anti-democratic legislation.

The truth is that the statute book is bulging with laws that could be used to ensure that when protest tips over into bringing society to a halt, it can be dealt with. If statues are pulled down, buildings defaced and roads blocked, we already have laws against that. Criminal damage, obstructing highways, hindering emergency vehicles—that is all against the law. Cressida Dick even conceded, on a review of the Extinction Rebellion protests in London, that the powers of the Public Order Act 1986 were sufficient to deal with them.

Surely the question for the Home Secretary is: why are the police not enforcing the existing laws? Why do they so often seem to stand by and watch when obvious lawbreaking happens? Why do the police seem instead to be rather zealous when, for example, they are scouring social media for allegedly offensive tweets? They become very efficient at adding innocent citizens’ names to the utterly illiberal non-crime hate incident database, as has already been mentioned, and they are very energetic when they are parading their own social justice and diversity credentials on Instagram, but they seem somehow hesitant when they are policing some demonstrations.

I appreciate that that comes over as a crass caricature by me—some people might not be surprised—but I note that it is the way it is widely discussed and perceived. Many people in the public believe that the police have become politicised and that they treat demonstrations differentially: some with kid gloves, some with real brute force. Yet here in the Bill, in Clause 55, we are asking the police to have even more discretionary powers to decide what protests should be clamped down on, what should be allowed, et cetera. This can only exacerbate the situation and put the police under even more political pressure, and it is why so many front-line officers are themselves worried about the Bill.

The police, for example, will have to decide which protests “may” or “risk” causing too much noise or result in disruption, as we have heard. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, very wittily reminded us, those who are not familiar with demonstrations should note that protests are, by their very nature, noisy. That is the point. They are not sedate garden parties or occasions where you whisper: noise is a crucial way to make your voice heard by the people in power but also, actually, by your fellow citizens, who you are trying to persuade to join you. And the larger the demo, the noisier. One of the noisiest demos that I inadvertently encountered was calling for a second referendum. I was harangued by many people on it. I can assure noble Lords that I did not agree with it, but it was certainly loud, and I defend their right to shout even about an anti-democratic call for a second referendum.

I find it particularly distasteful that Clause 58 widens the geographic scope of curtailing protest around Westminster. Of course parliamentarians need access to their place of work for democracy to function, but this clause has much wider-ranging provisions and creates a de facto buffer zone around the corridors of power to protect the Westminster village from encountering dissenters. The Government regularly rail against student snowflakes retreating into safe spaces, and now they suggest turning the Palace of Westminster into a giant safe space and echo chamber. That would be a terrible mistake.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Every single one of us in this Chamber was born of a mother; many of us have daughters, sisters, nieces and grandchildren. It is unacceptable. We have to start moving forward, and I think this amendment would be an excellent way for the Government to indicate that they are really listening and for the majority of the police forces that I am sure are considering this to actually take the plunge and do it.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, outside this place the amendment is causing quite a lot of excitement and anticipation—certainly a lot of interest —on social media, in the press and among the NGO world and women’s groups, as we have heard. It has been directly linked to the tragic and brutal murder of Sarah Everard. The Fawcett Society, which, along with other groups such as HOPE not hate, the White Ribbon Association, Tell MAMA and others that we have heard about have focused their lobbying on the need to act now against violence against women. We are told that now is the time to change. That was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, when she introduced the amendment.

We have been asked to vote for the amendment because it will make misogyny a hate crime and will require all police forces to record where crimes are motivated by hatred of women. However, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors here. We need to be careful about allowing an emotive tragedy to be exploited in a way which will not help women and not enhance the Bill. I understand that when something as brutal as Sarah’s murder captures the public imagination, there is a desire to do something. For any of us who have been unfortunate victims on the receiving end of a violent sexual attack, let me tell noble Lords that I empathise with those expressing sorrow, anger and a feeling that they need to act, whether by attending a vigil, going on a protest—legal or otherwise—lighting a candle or even demanding more laws.

Here in this House, we need dispassionate, cool heads and to scrutinise exactly what amending the law in this way will achieve. It is hard to be objective when discussing the murder or abuse of women, of course. There may be a temptation to rush to appropriate blame beyond the perpetrator or to ascribe social and cultural explanations beyond the immediate crime. However, what are asserted as facts are often, at the very least, contentious or contested political concepts. Misogyny is one of those. It is popularly understood as hatred of women but in the past week, and even today, as has been hinted at, the police have been described as institutionally misogynist. Is it true that the police hate women? Should we repeat the mantra that society is suffering an epidemic of misogynist violence? I do not recognise that nightmarish catastrophising vision.

In the Nottinghamshire pilot on measuring misogynist hate crime that has been mentioned, misogyny can include cat-calling, following and unwelcome approaches, which can be conflated with flashing, groping and then more serious assaults. That is all thrown into the misogynist hate-crime category. Meanwhile, as we have heard from another noble Lord, HOPE not hate’s lobbying email for the amendment told us that ideological misogyny is increasingly at the core of far-right thinking, including the threat of far-right terrorism. So, we have gone from wolf-whistling to terrorism. We cannot therefore assume that there is any shared meaning of misogyny and it is therefore unhelpful to tack it on to a Bill on domestic violence or abuse.

I do not think that misogyny is widespread in society and I certainly do not believe that domestic abuse is driven by ingrained hatred of women. That flies in the face of all the nuance, complexity and evidence that we have heard in the many hours of our discussion on the Bill, whether it is our understanding of the impact of alcohol or mental health, the recognition that there are male victims or the debate that we have just had on pornography.

I understand that perhaps opinions are not enough. I acknowledge that the amendment is an attempt at collecting data to assess how much domestic abuse is driven by prejudice, anti-women prejudice. However, if we want accurate data, we should not look to hate- crime solutions because hate is almost impossible to objectively define. The amendment states that the person who defines this hate is the complainant. The police will be asked to collate data based on what

“the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of, or in a recent period before or after, the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice”.

What would be recorded is when an accuser

“perceived the crime to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice”.

That is not a reliable way in which to collect accurate data and will not help us understand perpetrators’ behaviour as it is based on perceptions, dangerously subjective and untestable legally. There are also some wholly undesirable potential outcomes. It can only encourage individuals to attribute motives to others. Even if they are completely wrong about those motives or intentions, the police will record them as hate-driven. This floats dangerously close to legislating thought crime and could well lead to finger-pointing, malicious allegations, the stigmatising of all manner of behaviour and the labelling of all manner of speech as hateful prejudice.

We already know that the fear of being accused of prejudice or hate is one key factor in chilling free speech. Being officially counted by the police as a bigot would inevitably affect free expression and close down debate. No doubt, some noble Lords will say that I should stop privileging free speech over the amendment because it will mandate the police, to quote the charities, to gather crucial

“evidence about the extent, nature and prevalence of hostility towards women and girls”

and how it relates to domestic abuse. But let us be clear. This is an illusion, too, even a deception because to present the amendment as having anything to do with women or girls is not true. Women are not mentioned in the wording and they are not the focus at all of the amendment. In fact, the language used is particular and purposeful. An amendment championed in the public realm as anti-misogyny and assumed to be about women talks of hostility towards persons who are of a particular sex or gender. That can only muddy the waters and make any data collection unreliable and opaque. Citing the Law Commission as an explanation for the wording does not work because the Law Commission has not yet reported.

Gender is not defined in UK law and is a cultural identity—malleable, subjective and one of choice. Sex is, however, a material objective reality. The Office for Statistics Regulation recently emphasised the need for clarity about definitions and stressed that sex and gender should not be used interchangeably in official statistics, and gave the example of criminal justice statistics. Highlighting that variation in the way in which data about sex is captured across the system means that it is not possible to know which definition of sex is being captured. This, in turn, places limitations on how some criminal justice statistics can be interpreted and used. I should say, in referencing the new resource Sex Matters, that by adding the word gender into this confusing mix the amendment undermines any possibility of accurate information being accrued, let alone of addressing the prior problem that that information is based on subjective perception. If our intention is for the police to track whether domestic abuse crimes against women are based on prejudice and hatred, that should be simple enough to do if the police have a clear definition and a reliable data field for the sex of victims and perpetrators. The amendment will not help and will confuse the situation.

If there is one example of misogyny in plain sight, it is surely here. If I thought that erasing the word “woman” from the maternity Bill was bad, not naming women in an amendment on misogyny seems to be even worse. More grotesquely, it could mean that women will be labelled by the police as misogynistic perpetrators if they are perceived as hostile to a person’s gender in a domestic setting. Is the mother who misgenders their child the perpetrator, the hate criminal? Should the position on sex-based rights and service provision of female staff at a women’s refuge be perceived as motivated by prejudice? The highly charged and febrile atmosphere of the past week, of which I am sensitive, in focusing on violence against women, must not pressurise us into passing an amendment that will allow the Bill to be the midwife of criminalising women with gender-critical views. It will not, anyway, help us to understand or help any victim of domestic abuse.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, for those who are wondering why I am at this position in the list, it is because I wanted to speak personally on this issue, rather than as the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson on the Bill. Having just listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that turns out to have been a wise decision. I remind the House of my experience of 30 years as a police officer in the Metropolitan Police service and as a survivor of same-sex domestic violence. Those are the positions from which I make this speech, rather than as the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman on the amendment.

I want to start by saying that, obviously, I cannot talk about the substance of this amendment without addressing the context of last week’s events. I echo the comments of former Chief Constable Sue Fish, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I did not hear Sue Fish on “Woman’s Hour”, but I want to echo what she said.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 91. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Hodgson, for their very clear explanations of it.

The Government have said that they will ratify the Istanbul convention with this Bill. Article 7 requires “a holistic response” to ending violence against women and girls. As has been said, all that Amendment 91 seeks to ensure is that there is coherent join-up. The statutory guidance issued alongside the Bill must be linked with any violence against women and girls framework.

It was very good to hear the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, say last week in response to the amendments on Jewish marriage that a larger section on faith and spiritual abuse is in the draft guidance, following work with the Faith and VAWG Coalition, which a number of us have requested. Amendment 91 simply seeks to add similar coherence.

As has been said, I am extremely grateful to the Ministers here now, who are passionate about the Bill and committed to ensuring that we join the dots, but that might not always be so. Therefore, we cannot rely on good intention alone.

I confess that I am utterly bewildered and baffled as to why the amendment is being resisted, given that it would simply ensure that the guidance is clear about the right hand and the left hand being co-ordinated. If there is nervousness about a focus on women and girls, the reality is that the Government have committed to a VAWG strategy. They do not have a violence against men and boys strategy; if they did, we would ask for it to be named and linked in as well. Not accepting the amendment, which is simply about the statutory guidance, will make a very strong negative statement, not least at this poignant time.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, Clause 73(3) is the one and only reference in the Bill to the fact that the majority of victims of domestic abuse are female. This is therefore an important part of the guidance that should stand alone as fact, unencumbered. Also, adding in a link to

“any strategy to end violence against women and girls adopted by a Minister of the Crown”

seems far too open-ended politically. None of us here knows what the strategy might comprise. Will we agree with that strategy, and should we have blind trust in Ministers of the Crown? It seems like a rather unreliable hostage to fortune.

I am also nervous that this again takes us into the murky area of contested political explanations of domestic abuse, in the name of joining the dots. The Bill, rightly, gives both practical support to victims of domestic abuse, and criminal redress. Its job is not to supply a closed narrative. I am all for political debate on these issues, but statutory guidance could close down such a debate. There is a debate to be had on these matters, because we do not all agree—and we do not all need to agree—on the causes of violence against women or domestic abuse.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

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

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Meyer for the work that she has done and, as my noble friend Lord Cormack said, the effort that she has put in to trying to make sure that the suffering that she has been through is not repeated or, should it be, that the victims have proper protection under the law.

I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asserted: that the deliberately broad definitions in the Bill, which I know my noble friend has explained to the House, are ground-breaking and deliberately so and provide the widest possible access to justice for victims by having broad definitions under which others can fall. Will “controlling or coercive behaviour” in Clause 1(3)(c),

“psychological, emotional or other abuse”

in Clause 1(3)(e), and “conduct directed” at their child in Clause 1(5) cover situations where a parent deliberately damages the relationship between their child and the other parent in order to alienate that child?

For example, a father of African origin wrote to me about his partner, who had been turning their four year-old child against him since they had decided to divorce. The child, previously loving, suddenly did not wish to spend time with him. He said: “My ex made several unfounded allegations of domestic abuse to stop me from seeing my child. Not a single allegation was proven, or true, but she constantly and unjustifiably obstructed my contact with my child. I recall that a year ago my child refused to have a bath that I had run for him. He said his mother told him, ‘Daddy puts witchcraft in the tub’.” He said that the alienation built up over time so that the child now refuses to see him. Can my noble friend confirm that that father would have protection under the Bill?

I have personal experience of other situations where parents were cut out from the lives of their children. The children were being manipulated or weaponised and the wider family cut off from grandchildren and nieces and nephews. I would never want a child to be forced to be with an abusive parent. However, the ex-partner of a friend of mine, who met a new partner from Australia and wanted to move there, decided to try to break the children away from their parent. In that instance, they were told: “Daddy does not love you, because you look like me and Daddy hates me. If you see Daddy, I will get sad. If you see Daddy, he will kidnap you, because he does not want me to be with you any more. If you say that you hate Daddy and you don’t want to see him, I will buy you a bike or take you on holiday.” This is something that has really happened. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that victims of such alienation will automatically be covered under the broad definitions, so that we will not need to press this amendment to a vote.

I hope that the controversy that seems to have been caused by the term “parental alienation”, which has driven the different wording of this amendment, can be settled by being tested in court. I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she says that the child needs to be listened to and assessed by professionals. The key is for the courts to be aware that alienation such as in these examples may happen and, sadly, is not a rare occurrence. As my noble friend Lady Meyer said, we have had well over a thousand signatures in a short space of time from parents who themselves have suffered this form of abuse. If the courts are looking for this situation and can bring in experts to assess whether what the child is saying has been driven by fear instilled in them by the other parent unnecessarily, unreasonably, or deliberately to rupture the relationship with that parent, the justice system will be able to differentiate between the genuine cases, where a domestic abuser or abuser of children should not have unsupervised contact with their own child, and cases such as have been described.

Cases have been clearly identified in academic studies and evidence where parents who would otherwise be able to enjoy a relationship with their child are denied that opportunity and the child is denied access to that parent and their family. That can cause lifelong mental and emotional damage to the child and, indeed, to the parent. In some cases, the distress of being broken away from one’s children or grandchildren has caused suicide. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to confirm that this is indeed covered by the Bill and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. That speech was so well articulated, passionate and thought-provoking. I also echo and “Hear, hear” her comments on the exemplary work of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, on this issue.

I have previously expressed concern that the Bill expands the definition of domestic abuse too widely because I worry that some categorisations of abuse, such as emotional and psychological, are too subjective and broad to guarantee justice. Every time I look, a new category of abuse has been added. We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, that we now have “spiritual” abuse. Even the focus on domestic abuse is endangered as we stretch what constitutes “domestic” far wider than I think is helpful. My concern is that too much is being thrown at the Bill, meaning agencies and the police will not be able to see the wood for the trees.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

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

This Bill presents an opportunity to create a real change to better protect women and girls. We must not delay any further—too many women and girls are paying with their lives.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, when considering these amendments, I thought at first about tackling the perpetrators guilty of persistent stalking and constant and continued terrorising or harassment of the victim. The kind of stories that we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in the testimony about Cheryl is what came to mind. For anyone who has experienced, or known friends or family on the receiving end of, that kind of treatment—constantly living under the awful reality of fear, looking over one’s shoulder and sometimes then facing police indifference or negligence—that is what springs to mind, as it did for me when I first looked at these amendments.

Yet I have some real qualms and queries about these amendments and feel that, however emotive this topic is, we need to pause and be cool. At the very least, I think there is a need for more precision in terms of what or who we are talking about. Who, exactly, does this allow the law to target? What constitutes a serial offender? What constitutes a serious enough offence to trigger these kinds of perpetrator interventions? Are there any time limits at all on surveillance, the sharing of information or the labelling of someone as a perpetrator? I worry that we could bring our own prejudices and subjective views and assume that we all agree on who or what we are talking about.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, stated as fact that

“past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.”

I dispute that. It flies in the face of agency and the possibility of reform, and it is not necessarily the basis on which we should develop law. We should certainly suggest that it is not always true. We heard the terrible story of Colin, whose past behaviour went on and escalated. But this Bill broadly spells out abuse to include a huge range of different types of behaviour. Do we always think they will escalate and end up as murder?

We are told that if somebody moves and starts a new relationship or moves away, they must report to the police, but that assumes that they will always be an abuser. We assume the police should have the right under Clare’s law to warn partners. But again, I want to know: does that mean we consider abuse a permanent feature in somebody’s personality? I worry about a national system of surveillance that follows around somebody dubbed a perpetrator that involves all state agencies. This amounts to state stalking of those labelled as abusers. I worry when perpetrators are accused in this Bill of hiding in plain sight, as though they are permanently committing offences, when maybe they are living in plain sight as citizens who have done the time for their crime and are not offending. Why do we always see them as perpetrators?

Of course, the most extreme examples are being given here today, and some of those terrorising examples of the most violent abusers, leading to preventable murder, are what concern me and many others here. Yet this legislation has broadened the meaning of abuse to an ever-expanding number of behaviours, as though all of them are escalating behaviours. I worry about losing a sense of perspective and justice. I worry that we end up focusing on offenders, not offences. For legislators, that is nerve-wracking. I do not think that if somebody has been abusive, they should for ever be tarred as abusive or we should see it as predetermined that they will carry on.

We will go very close, if we are not careful, to seeing certain people as malevolent, dangerous and evil. Are we saying those who have ever committed any of the multitude of abuses named in this law are a peculiar breed of criminal who, inevitably, no matter what, will strike again, and will carry on posing an ongoing threat? It is far too reminiscent of outdated views about “criminal types”, and that view of people has a long, unsavoury history.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, earlier asked us to “spot the signs”, but I am worried about us wandering around spotting signs in people. In an earlier part of this Committee, we were told that football matches and drinking might lead to domestic abuse. The “spotting the signs” version of legislative change strikes me as being too arbitrary and rather dangerous. Whenever we discuss domestic abuse, I often detect a lurking class prejudice. But the most important thing is the danger of lumping together a variety of individuals and behaviours.

I will make one point as an aside. Many noble Lords have mentioned that we all received a huge amount of information before these amendments were discussed. That is true, and in the debate so far those briefings have been used as evidence. I will make a caveated note about what constitutes evidence. When people stand up and say “But the evidence shows”, it is not quite the same as the evidence of the efficacy or safety of, for example, a vaccine against coronavirus. The evidence we are sent as legislators is often commissioned by, and presented by, lobbying organisations. Their briefing documents, much repeated in this House, might be repeated as facts or truth, but they are not always objective —or, in fact, factual. At the very least, we should recognise that they can be contentious. So, I ask for some caution that, while we want to deal with the most extreme examples, in the course even of this discussion facts and evidence have been thrown in that have been ideological than helpful.

[Baroness Finn (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we have debated at length whether our laws are sophisticated enough to catch all the terrible subtlety and invidiousness inherent in domestic abuse. It is important, though, that we also consider what can be done by way of prevention and reform. It is for this reason that I speak in support of Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bertin and other noble Lords.

I say, first, that not a penny should be spent on perpetrator programmes until we are sure the victim support provision is comprehensive. But where it is, we should also look at perpetrator strategies. We must do all we can to help victims, but our ultimate aim is to come as close as we can to eradicating domestic abuse from our society. Here, we are looking to reform individuals but also to weed out the idea that domestic violence is somehow a normal part of existence. Our targets are as much perpetrators as their children and extended families. It is right, then, that the Government should come forward with a perpetrator strategy, and one year should suffice to ensure it is sufficiently thought through and properly resourced.

In particular, I call attention to proposed new paragraph (a),

“improving the identification and assessment of perpetrators.”

Everything we have heard throughout the passage of this Bill has been about domestic abuse and its victims falling through the cracks—cracks in public health, cracks in early intervention, cracks in enforcement and cracks in sentencing. We need to get ahead of this crime wherever we can, and that means getting better at identifying perpetrators as well as victims to lessen damage and expedite justice and reform.

A large number of organisations, including those that support victims, have come forward to say they support this amendment and call for the Government to create a perpetrator strategy. The only caveat I would offer is that we should make sure that the strategy is thoughtful and comprehensive and that the programmes it offers are quality-assured. I read with interest the debate from the other place, where Members heard stories of providers that were not only opportunistic but unqualified bidding for contracts to provide perpetrator programmes. But if we get this right, the effects could be profound.

Other noble Lords have mentioned the Drive project, which works with high-risk, high-harm abusers—in other words, the worse and most dangerous perpetrators of domestic abuse. A University of Bristol evaluation found the Drive project reduced the number of perpetrators using physical abuse by 82%, and those displaying jealousy and controlling behaviour by 73%, and that it was similarly effective in reducing other types of abuse. In other words, if we have a strategy that supports quality-assured programmes such as these, we can prevent abuse, reform perpetrators and save lives.

My final point is a call for the Government to ensure that funding is available for such programmes consistently and universally. Local authority budgeting cycles or geographical location should never prevent such provision being available. The consequences are simply too profound for postcode lotteries. Domestic abuse is unfortunately ubiquitous and, if we are to attempt to eradicate it, our support programmes must be too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 186, and I would also like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for being so honest and open about his own experience.

At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords spoke about Erin Pizzey, who set up the first ever refuge for women and deserves much credit for doing so. It was good to see her being acknowledged in the context of this Bill, because the truth is that you do not hear much about Erin Pizzey anymore. Once she began campaigning on behalf of male victims of domestic abuse, she was pretty much airbrushed out of history. This is not the time to get into the whys and wherefores of that, but it shows how the facts were forgotten as the debate became more politicised.

As far as I can see, this amendment is simply stating a fact. It does not ignore the reality that the majority of victims are female; it simply seeks to acknowledge

“that one third are male, and that some are in same sex relationships”.

Of course, this figure may change, so it could be difficult to be so specific on the face of the Bill. But I think the aim is a good one—to make sure that in recognising that women are disproportionately affected we do not forget that there are other victims of domestic abuse. We do not want inadvertently to diminish the voice of others or discourage them from coming forward, as was mentioned by the last speaker. Let us not forget that the aim of this Bill is to encourage and protect all victims of domestic abuse.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on an earlier day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, said:

“The Bill seeks to raise the profile of domestic abuse in all its forms, and the wide definition should therefore help to clarify that wide-ranging nature for all involved in the criminal justice system.”—[Official Report, 3/2/21; col. 2286.]

I am increasingly concerned that this notion of profile-raising and these wide definitions are doing the opposite of clarifying and may unintentionally muddy the waters and see the legislation opened up as a vehicle to push a wide range of politically driven ideologies and hobby horses.

Here, we have what looks to be straightforward: the linkage of domestic abuse to the violence against women and girls agenda. These may seem obvious things to link. Certainly, I am of an age that I remember when this was a feminist issue. In some ways, it was simpler and there was more clarity when we talked of domestic violence—not abuse—and “battered wives” and “battered women.” I understand this legislation wants to be scrupulously gender neutral, but I have felt at times that this approach means erasing the reality that women are predominantly the victims of abuse, especially violent abuse. But I understand the Government’s desire to ensure equality under the law and to avoid as unhelpful the group victimhood of women or the labelling of all men as potential perpetrators. Also, we have greater knowledge now. We know that male partners can be victims, that women can be perpetrators and that same-sex relationships can be abusive. All that means we have a more inclusive approach.

--- Later in debate ---

What is for tonight is an interim solution, and to acknowledge and truly thank the Minister who, among all else that she has to do, has found the time to deal with Wales. I therefore welcome Amendments 178 and 188 and thank the Minister for them and for what she is doing to help the Bill ensure that domestic violence is tackled in Wales, as the work of the Welsh Government and investigations there have shown what a very serious matter this is in Wales. I simply observe that this clause is a perfect illustration, by providing for two sets of guidance, of the need for a long-term and rational scheme of devolution which eliminates the complexities and disadvantages to Wales. It is really remarkable that, alone of the four nations of this our United Kingdom, Wales is not able to enjoy the unified approach set out in the Bill for England.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I might as well start by saying that as Baroness Fox of Buckley in North Wales, and with close family and friends who work in the area of domestic abuse, there is some tying up that we can bring together in my last contribution to this Committee stage.

All the amendments in this group, apart from the Welsh one, are about preventive measures that focus on children. Although I am not a fan of cycle of abuse theories, which I think are too fatalistic and deny agency, I want to address the broader question of education as a solution and raise some reservations before we get to Report. Of course, I am not in any way opposed to the resources and specialised service provision that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested, but I am more concerned about the way that sex and relationships education, or just education in general, is used as the solution. I think that can be problematic.

Indeed, the Minister earlier today—goodness know when; she probably will not remember because it has been a long day—made a point that summed up what a lot of people have been saying: that we need to teach pupils what healthy relationships look like. I thought, “Well, good luck with that.” I do not know whether the Government know the secret of healthy relationships or whether they have a blueprint for success. If so, I hope they will share it. But, in all seriousness, I do not know how appropriate it is for the state to suggest, let alone teach, that there is an agreed or right way of conducting one’s intimate, personal private life. This might be asking too much of teachers—I declare my interest as a former teacher. Practically every single social problem has been outsourced to schools at some time or another, with the thought that schools will solve it and, in some instances, with queueing curriculum priorities.

When it comes to relationships, there is a real problem. If you teach maths or physics, you might have the right answers. Even I, as a former English teacher, would say that teaching the moral complexity of a Shakespeare tragedy would be a doddle in comparison with teaching what a good relationship is. There just is not a right or wrong way to do it.

We have to be careful as we tread the line between socialisation and a coercive, even, kind of social engineering. I always worry when adults talk about the need to talk to children about how they should behave, because it is always easier to win an argument with them and manipulate young minds than to win an argument with adults. That makes me nervous as well.

Because this is the end of this stage of the Bill and some of the issues that have been raised are worth reflecting on in relation to the whole Bill, I would like us to think of the perils involved in how we view relationships and decide what a healthy relationship is. I do not know about other noble Lords but, for me, other people’s relationships are always a bit of a mystery. I know couples who, as far as I can see, spend all their time squabbling, arguing and fighting, and sometimes even shouting. To an outsider, that might look like an unhealthy relationship, but I know that they are families full of love and it is just the way that they express themselves.

I know some religiously conservative couples who have adopted a traditional approach to relationships in terms of gender: maybe a wife who is financially dependent on her husband has adopted a subservient demeanour or is very modest, and perhaps the man is the man about the house and strikes a certain macho pose. On the surface, according to some of what we have heard in Committee, those relationships might look problematic and there might even be signs where one might spot abuse, yet, in reality, these are consenting relationships between religiously conservative people and they are healthy and happy. I just make the point that, although these might not be my chosen types of relationships, it is not my business, and it should not be the business of the state either. Conversely, I know couples who have open relationships, where one or both of the partners are promiscuous. That is definitely not my thing but, in a free society, that is up to them. My point is that every relationship has its own dynamic. It is negotiated by the participants involved and that is their choice.

Let us then think about teaching children. If we teach pupils that those versions of relationships—the various distortions that I have cited—are toxic, and that their dad being macho might mean that he is abusive and that their modest, subservient mum is a victim, or that the fact that their divorcing parents are for ever fighting means that that is a sign of abuse, we risk alienating children from their parents.

Possibly, if we looked at it from a different angle and said that the teaching model should not be to say those relationships are wrong but, rather, it should be to describe unhealthy relationships with graphic images of violence and horrifying narratives of abuse, some of which we have heard during Committee, then I fear that we will feed the young with a diet of alarmist scaremongering that will put them off intimacy and relationships, which in most instances are the wonder of life—full of love and so on.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked powerfully about the dangers of filling young minds with ugly visions when he was referring to pornography. I also do not want us to corrupt young minds by telling them that relationships are so damaging that they have to be scared all the time. In other words, the whole area feels like a moral minefield. We have to be careful when asking schools to be involved in this or saying that education will solve it that we do not fuel battles between parents and the state about which family values should be imparted and what model relationships should look like. We have to question whether that is what we want from this Bill.

My appeal to anyone, anywhere in the world, who is watching and who might be worried about the well-being of children and about them coping with the stresses of family life is that we demand that the Government open the schools as soon as possible, because that would really help. I thank noble Lords for their patience.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will start by talking to my Amendment 184. I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey of Darwen and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support and for their excellent and knowledgeable contributions. Amendment 184 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish separate statutory guidance on teenage relationship abuse. The amendment not only covers teenagers who experience domestic abuse but extends to those who perpetrate abuse within their own teenage relationships.

The Minister may say that this duty has no place in the Bill because of the statutory definition that domestic abuse occurs between two adults over the age of 16, but that definition does not stop it making provisions for people of all ages who are affected by domestic abuse. There is no suggestion that the age for domestic abuse or for criminalising anyone should be lowered. The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance that acknowledges that teenage domestic abuse is a reality and that special referral pathways are needed to stop teenager abusers and abused turning into their adult versions.

To miss out these youngsters would be to miss out a vulnerable, troubled and abused section of our young people, who are unseen, unheard of and, as a result, unsupported. Research by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that one in four young girls between the age of 13 and 17 reported some form of physical relationship abuse. That is pretty much the same as in the adult population. We need to ensure that help is available for our children now. What is the point of waiting until they are 16 to start trying to pick up the pieces?

The Government’s Working Together to Safeguard Children report makes no mention whatever of teenage relationship abuse. This oversight has led to policies and referral pathways that do not meet needs. Recent research by the Children’s Society found that only 21% of local authorities had a policy or protocol in place responding to under-16s, and policies and protocols really matter. It worries me that we have introduced compulsory relationship and sex education lessons in schools yet abuse among teenagers remains pervasive. If no services are available to tackle teenage relationship abuse now, we will see teenagers with a problem grow into adults with a problem.

Talking about the other amendments, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who made some thoughtful observations on devolution on government Amendments 178 and 188. Amendment 180 is in the names of my noble friend Lady Featherstone and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—as well as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who, regrettably, was unable to join us—and they too made knowledgeable and interesting contributions, which, in the interests of the time of night, I will not go into now. On Amendment 183, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, talked about evidence-based motivational drivers of abuse in his usual clear and authoritative manner.

I feel as though I have been through a bit of a masterclass this evening, but, the hour being late, I do not want to detain the House by elaborating further. As such, I will leave my last contribution of this stage for now.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it might sound peculiar to say that I have great reservations about amendments that seem so sensible in putting forward a better use of technology, AI and data. What is there to argue with? However, I have some very big concerns about this set of amendments.

Using data as a predictive tool to improve preventive interactions sounds like common sense but could mean adopting a pre-crime approach that criminalises and demonises people when no crime has been committed. It can also be fatalistic and get things very wrong. One noble Lord made the point that algorithms can predict our likes and dislikes based on what we buy. Well, if you could see what Amazon predicts I will like, based on what I bought at Christmas, you would know that depending on algorithmic predictions in something as serious as criminal justice cases would be a mistake. We should be very wary of going down that road.

I think it is important to protect civil liberties, even in our eagerness to protect those at potential risk of being abused. When the likelihood of repeated abuse is based on data of previous convictions, I worry about branding someone as an abuser in perpetuity. We have to ensure that we do not forget redemption, second chances, the possibility of learning one’s lesson and rehabilitation. We have long since rejected the abhorrent practice of branding women with the letter A for adultery—a barbaric practice consigned to the past—and we must be wary of not metaphorically branding people as abusers through being cavalier about using data to predict future behaviour. We also have to consider the possibility of the police or the authorities undermining an individual’s life or job prospects on the grounds of an indelible label—branded an abuser forever. I worry about data being discussed in that way.

To take another issue, that of hate crime, we have seen problems with how data retention is being used. We already know that when no crime has been committed, non-crime hate incidents are stored and accessed by third parties and can be used as part of the DBS checks used by potential employers and other authorities. So I think we need to be very cautious here. In Amendment 62, the police can access previous related criminality and convictions when handing out a DAPN, which is after all a non-criminal sanction. We just need to be hesitant about saying that we can tell, fatalistically, what someone is going to do.

I am also concerned that data sharing is being talked about as though it is an obvious answer in preventive work. Data sharing is a contentious and important issue and we need to take it seriously in terms of this Bill. Sometimes under the guise of multi-agency work and precautionary inventions and policy, there may be a temptation to forget why we as a society understand that sharing data is something that should be done with great care for civil liberties and our commitment to the right to privacy. We even have special GDPR legislation—which in my view is overly bureaucratic and overzealous, but that is not the point. That makes a fuss if data sharing happens when, for example, theatre ticket data is shared with another arts organisation. That can be illegal. Therefore, just because we care so passionately about stopping domestic abuse, we should not be cavalier about data sharing. In intimate and family matters, data sharing needs to be handled sensitively.

Since the Covid emergency, we have become perhaps less vigilant about sharing our personal data, for example with track and trace. However, this is an emergency and not the new normal. Normal concerns about data sharing touch on important matters about who has access to data and our personal information. We rightly worry about the irresponsible sharing of intimate data concerning our medical histories or interpersonal relationships. I therefore either need reassurance to accept these amendments or will be objecting to them. I need reassurance that in our eagerness to protect victims of domestic abuse, we do not forget that data is not just a pragmatic, technocratic matter; its misuse can destroy lives. This is a political issue, and a matter of civil liberties that we take it seriously.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, particularly in following the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Before I speak, I apologise to the Hansard writers; I was asked for my notes in advance and said “Well, here’s the notes, but there’s no guarantee that I will stick to them”. That is certainly the case, in the light of two developments.

First, there was the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I agree with everything she said about the need for care and caution in dealing with data and algorithms, and the way things are going in the future. I have no problem whatever with that. However, I will speak positively in support of Amendments 23 and 28. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on his great opening speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who also spoke on those two amendments.

Secondly, I have had my feet and legs cut from under me, to a degree, by the great response that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, gave on the group starting with Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. She referred to pressure from me, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for a review of how tagging might be employed. We had a meeting 10 days or so ago, at which I raised that issue. I said that I was not happy about the view expressed on alcohol by the Minister responsible for safeguarding, Victoria Atkins, at that meeting but, in fairness to her, she has responded very positively to the views we expressed about the potential need to use tagging in the area of domestic abuse. I hope that, in the context of our later debate on stalking, the Government will look at the use of tagging in a positive way—applying, of course, care and caution.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the work that she has done on tagging. She worked with the previous Mayor of London, whom I congratulate on a day when he is getting a kicking; the current Prime Minister was wise enough to see that there was a growth in abuse linked to alcohol, not a lessening, and that one way to slow it down might be to tag people who were drinking excessively. They were likely then to be sentenced and sent down; instead, they were tagged. I have met a lot of people in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings who have been tagged. They would rather have the tag than be sent to jail, given the stigma that goes with jail compared to being tagged, which is then forgotten about. I believe this can be applied equally in dealing with individual perpetrators. I have worked for perpetrators and tried to defend their interests as best I could, to get them on the right track. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has recognised, tagging can be done very usefully; in turn, I think it can be used for stalking.

I am grateful to the LSE and, in particular, Manchester University for the work that they are doing. I believe we are opening up an entirely new area in which we need to do ever more work, not less. We are short of resources. I am grateful to the Royal College of Psychiatrists for the assistance that it gives me but we are extraordinarily short of psychiatrists. We need to spend time with individuals. We have to look for technology developments that enable us to gather the data which helps with identification, and to find positive ways in which algorithms can assist people. Why should algorithms be used solely for the benefit of profits for the gambling industry and so on? Why can they not be turned the other way, so that public services can use them beneficially to identify the facts about individuals and bring those facts to their attention, and then offer support and assistance to move in a different direction?

That is the message which I give to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We do not look back and worry all the time. Yes, we have cares and concerns, but we look to see what form of opportunities are opening up through AI and other technologies. Tagging is an old-fashioned technology; I was going to speak about that but I could spend some time on AI as well, which I will not. However, there is much opportunity here for us. In particular, we need to look at the segregated way in which our police forces operate. That approach has been worth while and beneficial, but it has had its day. Now, technology encompasses the whole world, not just Europe, and we need to see how we, in turn, can come together and work for positive outcomes.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

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

[Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 2 and 4 on parental alienation. As the former Victims’ Commissioner, over the years, I have spoken to many domestic abuse victim survivors, and I have spoken about parental alienation. I know that this issue has been raised several times over many years from several parts of the country. No doubt like others in this House, I have been inundated with briefings and emails from domestic abuse organisations and victim survivors.

Most recently, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friends, the domestic abuse commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, and the London victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, who all say that they are very concerned about parental alienation. As we have heard, the domestic abuse commissioner is very concerned about giving perpetrators of domestic abuse a weapon to silence their victims in the family courts.

Submissions to a Ministry of Justice report last year made it plain that parental alienation is a barrier to victims of abuse. Current practices around parental alienation expose domestic abuse survivors and their children to further harm. Once again, silencing the victims of abuse and erasing the voice of children in the courts leads to their being regularly misunderstood or overlooked.

The criminal justice system and the justice system have been part of my DNA since 2007, so it does not sit comfortably with me to say that I also disagree with the amendments. However, hand on heart, I say to my noble friend Lady Meyer that her speech was very emotional, heartfelt and powerful. The justice system is a very lonely place to be. It still feels very lonely, clinical and unemotional and my voice is unheard as I go through it every day. I agree with my noble friend Lady Helic and the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Parental alienation creates a loophole. It poses a huge threat to the validity of the Bill and will ultimately expose the survivors to the very harm that the Bill is designed to prevent. That is why I cannot support the amendments and ask my noble friends to withdraw or not to move them.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am sympathetic to the amendments, with some caveats. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, for her amendments, which are important for us to address. They may give us an insight into some of the broader issues of the Bill.

One point of emphasis in the legislation is the victim. Contemporary culture tells us that we should believe the victim. I understand that for those of us frustrated over the years that domestic abuse was not taken seriously as a heinous crime, and sometimes dismissed when reported, leading to tragic consequences, it seems reasonable to be victim-centred—to put the victim centre-stage. However, my concern is to ensure that due process is not neglected in this endeavour and that we have nuance when we discuss who is the victim.

We know from recent events, such as the egregious case of Carl Beech, that believing the victim per se can lead to false allegations with terrible consequences. In the context of domestic break-ups and family issues, sometimes when the bitterness of broken relationships centres, for example, on the custody of children—we have heard many examples here today—ironically, or sadly, accusations of domestic abuse itself can be deployed and weaponised to paint one party as a perpetrator and another as a victim, alienating the accused parent from their children, but without any proof of guilt; it is just an allegation.

However, that allegation or accusation of domestic abuse in that instance is a terrible stigma. Imagine that your mum or dad is labelled an abuser by the other parent. That can obviously lead to great pain and parental alienation, all without anyone’s guilt being proven. I just want to remind the Committee of the important principle of innocent until proven guilty and make sure that is not sidelined.

Ironically, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, claims that the very concept of parental alienation can be misused and lead to false allegations and, of course, she is right. But that is true of any piece of legislation, or any rule. Parental alienation can be falsely alleged but so can domestic abuse, but we do not suggest that we should not have legislation on that.

We might ask why in this debate we are so cynical and disbelieving of those who claim that they are victims of parental alienation. That seems very one-sided in a culture where we are told that we should believe the victims all the time. It is a reminder that claiming to be a victim is not proof and needs to be evidenced; that is not just in relation to the one issue of parental alienation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, tells us that fathers are the majority who claim parental alienation, and then seemed to imply that this was proof of the misuse of the concept by perpetrators. To be fair, that seemed to suggest that fathers were perpetrators of domestic abuse, which, as I say, is an accusation that goes too far for me. It reinforces my worry that there is a bias against one parent—often gendered—based less on evidence than on prejudice. I say that not as a men’s rights activist, as somebody accused me of being the other day when I made this point, but as a women’s rights activist who thinks that we should be fair in this discussion.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am glad to be here to discuss such an important piece of legislation. It needs to be taken seriously, with the fullest debate. Sometimes debate can be hemmed in when an issue seems consensual—what is there to argue about?—but there are some concerns that we should raise. A debate can also be hemmed in when an issue is highly emotive, and this is an emotive issue: there is something so shocking about the breach of trust when intimate relationships turn toxic and descend into horror, especially because we associate intimacy with love and not terror.

It is also important to note that this is not the norm. Reading the briefings that we have all been sent has been relentlessly grim, but let us remember that the vast majority of intimate relationships are a source of joy and solidarity. Families per se are not horrors behind closed doors, and even bad relationships should not be a matter for law in most instances.

It is also true that we need sensitivity and nuance when discussing the individual dynamics of people’s intimate lives. We should note that third parties sometimes view the interactions of other couples as problematic and abusive, but they are not viewed that way by the individuals concerned. In that way, the law can be a blunt instrument and we need to take care when dealing with people’s private affairs.

The emotive nature of the issue is understandable when we focus on the victims, but that should not mean that we dispense with careful scrutiny of the Bill from the point of view of the accused. Not all are proven perpetrators. Civil liberties and principles of criminal law should not be treated cavalierly, and when we remember the rights of the accused, we should not be accused ourselves of being soft on domestic abuse. Being labelled as a domestic abuser has serious consequences for your reputation and access to your children. There can be false allegations—the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raised some of these concerns. At the very least, evidence must be thoroughly tested, especially when the statutory definition of abuse involves a range of what might be largely subjective accusations in terms of emotional, controlling behaviour and so on. I therefore worry at the eagerness of noble Lords to make cross-examination less robust.

There should also be concern, as the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, noted, about the domestic abuse protection orders and notices that give the police a nebulous bundle of unaccountable, coercive powers. Orders can be granted without anyone being formally tried and can be based on the authority’s belief that abuse is threatened or on third-party—for example, neighbours’—reporting. The police have the power to order someone to leave their home or neighbourhood even against their partner’s wishes.

Let us consider also what is known as Clare’s law —the right to know and the right to ask—where the Government wish to put guidance to the police on a statutory footing to drive its greater use, but does that not encourage the police to drag up your past in public, which surely has risks? Does it not also propagate the idea that, once convicted of certain offences, you are simply beyond redemption, which goes against the spirit of the law and justice as we see them?

My final appeal to noble Lords is that we are dispassionate in approaching this legislation, that we have a fully rounded and holistic approach to the law, and that in our undoubted horror at domestic violence we do not lower our guard when it comes to civil liberties and legislation new to the books.