UK: Violence Against Women and Girls
Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, in the UK, for as long as I can remember, we have had a very successful practical measure that has worked to help keep women and girls safe: the provision of single-sex spaces and services—toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards and dormitories, to name just a few. When we saw a sign saying “Ladies” or “Women” on the door of a facility, we believed that we would come across only females in that space. We are often told that signs on a door do not keep men out, but the social contract did in the vast majority of cases, and women and girls felt able to raise the alarm when a male breached those boundaries.
I suspect that a lot of women have a story to tell about escaping a predatory man—a man who would not take no for an answer or was being verbally or physically abusive—by escaping to the ladies’ toilets and waiting until he had given up or gone away. Ask your female friends, mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts and cousins; you may be surprised and saddened by their stories.
The social contract is now broken. In many public buildings and areas, single-sex facilities have been replaced by mixed-sex ones, or men have been given the impression that they can go where they like and nobody will challenge them. I have heard from women who tell me exactly this: they are afraid to challenge men who should not be in a female-only space, due to the fear of how they may react—so they fake a smile, which many men take as acceptance, and get out of there as quickly as they can. In many cases, they never go back to that venue.
Of course, violence does not have to be physical. In 2021, Ofsted published a review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges. In England, it found that sexual harassment occurred
“so frequently that it has become ‘commonplace’”.
We heard today of an alleged attack on an Essex schoolgirl, which is outrageous. Some 59% of girls reported being photographed or videoed without their consent. Males having access to previously female-only spaces enables this. Do large retailers, who proudly boast of their inclusive and gender-neutral changing rooms, conduct regular sweeps for hidden cameras? Voyeurism is still a crime, so why are some organisations enabling it by replacing single-sex spaces with mixed-sex spaces? Often, it is because lobby groups have told them that it is more inclusive, when, in fact, being inclusive excludes many women and girls from taking an active part in public life.
In law, single-sex spaces and services are intended for one sex only: that is the very thing permitted by Part 7 of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010. It is not possible to admit a male to a single-sex space or service for females without destroying the very basic nature of that service. Once there are males using it, however they personally regard themselves, it becomes mixed-sex. Some 88% of sexual offences occur in unisex changing rooms and unisex bathrooms, and this cannot be allowed to continue. The Government have done really good work on the social contract, but it is broken and needs fixing. We have to keep spaces single-sex.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Baroness Stedman-Scott ExcerptsTuesday 6th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (30 Sep 2020)
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Flight, this amendment would prevent regulations made under Clause 5 including any provisions that could be inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement. I presume that the aim is to avoid any action that might serve to undermine the rights of UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens here that were guaranteed under the withdrawal agreement.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we have had this debate at earlier stages and on Clause 4. On the basis of those past debates, I think there is a decent chance that the Minister will say that this amendment is unnecessary. But as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, pointed out: what is the downside? Given the uncertainty caused by statements elsewhere about the nature of the withdrawal agreement and the extent to which the UK is committed to it, the Minister will understand why some noble Lords are nervous and want the kind of assurances that one would hope she should be able to give without difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Flight, explained the terribly important issues that are covered by Clause 5. This will be our only engagement on Report with the subtle joys of this clause. I raised many of the issues about social security co-ordination at Second Reading and in Committee, and felt that I did not get satisfactory answers in Committee. However, I have now received a letter from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman- Scott, which has provided more information. In the light of that, I do not intend to move Amendment 29 in my name in the next group.
I remain very concerned about the implications for too many people of the loss of reciprocal arrangements for social security co-ordination, but I recognise that we will not get anything more at this stage of the Bill. I hope that the letter I mentioned will be placed in both Libraries. Because it contains information about new developments which were not reflected in the draft regulations shared with us in Committee, it would be helpful if the letter were displayed as soon as possible in the relevant place under the “will write” section of Bills before Parliament, so that its contents are readily accessible to those who are interested.
These are very important issues. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to this amendment. The Government have given written assurances in every Bill document throughout the passage of the Bill on this point; I have reiterated those assurances in Committee, and I will do so again here.
I can assure the House that Clause 5 does not enable the Government to alter the rights guaranteed to those in scope of the withdrawal agreement. The entitlements of this cohort are guaranteed by Sections 7A and 7B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The power at Clause 5 will not and cannot affect those provisions. Rather, it allows for EU law retained by Section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be modified. The rights under the withdrawal agreement are therefore provided by a distinct and separate legal mechanism in relation to that of retained EU law, and this power will not affect the rights of those within the scope of the agreement. This includes those examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, such as state pension uprating, the S1 scheme and the aggregation of contributions. It is therefore the Government’s view that Amendment 28 is unnecessary, on the grounds I have set out.
I note the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for my letter to her to be placed under the “will write” section—I am so pleased that that makes sense—of Bills before Parliament.
I reiterate that it is the Government’s view that Amendment 28 is unnecessary, on the grounds I have set out. I hope that with this explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Flight, will withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to ask a question of the Minister, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Flight.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Baroness Stedman-Scott ExcerptsWednesday 16th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (14 Sep 2020)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken to this group of amendments. I also thank Ministers from the Home Office for their stewardship of this clause to date.
The EU social security co-ordination regulations operate in the context of the EU’s free movement rules. I will refer to these as the SSC regulations. They set out which member state is responsible for the payment of social security benefits, and require the export of some benefits and the aggregation of social security contributions when claiming benefits and pensions. The rules require equal treatment for citizens across the EU, and they also ensure that individuals pay social security contributions in only one member state at a time.
The Government have repeatedly and transparently set out that as we end free movement, the EU social security co-ordination rules will change to reflect the arrangements we have with countries outside the EU—for example, in relation to the export of UK benefits. It is right that the UK be able to set and negotiate its own rules, in line with well-established UK policy in this area, now we have left the EU and as we prepare for the end of the transition period.
Clause 5(1) of the Bill duly provides the power for an appropriate authority to modify the retained SSC regulations specified in subsection (2). Clause 6 specifies that the power to modify includes the power to amend, revoke or repeal. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 5 ensure that supporting incidental or consequential changes made under the power can be appropriately reflected in domestic and retained legislation—for example, to address inoperabilities or inconsistencies which may arise from the modification of the retained SSC regulations. This provides Ministers with the power to ensure the continued operation of domestic social security legislation which refers to, or is related to, the retained SSC regulations.
Subsections (5) and (6) disapply EU-derived rights to ensure that there are no unintended interactions between areas of EU law and new policies, for those not covered by the withdrawal agreement. Subsection (7) defines “appropriate authority” as
“(a) the Secretary of State or the Treasury, (b) a Northern Ireland department, or (c) a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a Northern Ireland department.”
This provision currently confers on a Northern Ireland department the power to make changes in this area so far as they relate to matters within its devolved competence.
Schedule 2 sets out the scope of the power as it relates to a Northern Irish department, providing details on the powers used in relation to devolved competence, joint use with Ministers of the Crown and consultation with the Secretary of State where that is normally required. The Northern Irish Minister for Communities confirmed that a legislative consent Motion will be requested from the Northern Ireland Assembly in respect of Clause 5. My officials are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive, given the need to bring the LCM discussions to a conclusion—one way or another—by Report.
Schedule 3 provides further detail on the form that regulations will take under the clause. The schedule also provides that any regulations made through the use of the power are subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Ludford, raised issues around the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s criticism of the breadth of and justification for the powers. I have noted the recommendations in the DPRRC’s report of 25 August and have heard the House’s views.
The power enables the Government to implement policy changes in this specific area, for example, to stop the export to the EU of a UK benefit where that benefit is currently required to be exported under these EU rules. The Government’s position is that the powers in other legislation do not provide for this. That is the purpose of this power; it cannot be used to initiate policy changes where these do not arise from the modification of the specified retained SSC regulations. The understanding of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is correct in that regard.
I note that the DPRRC’s recommendation that this clause be removed is unchanged since its report on the previous iteration of the Bill. While the clause is broadly unchanged, the context is very different. First—as acknowledged in that report—we now have a withdrawal agreement with the EU, and nothing in Clause 5 enables the Government to alter the rights guaranteed under that withdrawal agreement. When discussing Clause 5, we are therefore talking about those who move between the UK and the EU once the transition period has ended and not about any current recipients of UK benefits living in the EU while they continue to live there. There is no time now for a more detailed explanation of what it means to be covered by the withdrawal agreement, but the Government will publish detailed guidance on this question.
Secondly, on 27 February—before the introduction of this Bill—the Government published their future social security co-ordination policy, confirming that they would seek an agreement with the EU in this area, covering co-ordination on the state pension and social security contributions.
Thirdly, on 19 May, before Committee in the other House, the Government published, in full, their proposed legal text for negotiations with the EU in this area. To support the scrutiny of the clause in Committee in this House, we shared—on 4 September—a draft of the regulations illustrating the approach the Government intend to take under Clause 5 in a negotiated outcome with the EU, which remains our objective.
We have set out that the retained SSC regulations would be repealed were they no longer required. The intended policy consequence of this approach is that where provision is not made under a future UK-EU agreement on social security co-ordination—for example, in relation to the export of a particular benefit—that provision would cease. This point is critical: the retained SSC regulations are designed to operate on the basis of reciprocity with the EU and its member states. The Government are seeking a new reciprocal social security agreement with the EU—an agreement similar to those we have with key trading partners outside the EU, where the UK can agree the limits of what we co-ordinate, in line with our national interest. Those negotiations are ongoing.
We need this power to provide the essential legislative framework for the Government to deliver future policy changes from the end of the transition period in this specific area. This needs to be done in the window between the conclusion of negotiations and the end of the transition period and in response to the outcome of those negotiations. The Government’s approach has to be viewed in that context.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about avoiding scrutiny. Far from seeking to avoid scrutiny, this approach gives Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s position during the Clause 5 discussions. As Clause 5 provides the power to make draft affirmative regulations, Parliament will have the opportunity for further debates on the affirmative regulations, based on the outcome of the negotiations. We have consulted the Social Security Advisory Committee on our draft regulations and will continue to engage with it as the regulations are finalised.
I will come back to more detailed points on the scope of this power on the next group of amendments, but my arguments also apply in respect of Amendment 84 in this grouping. In isolation, Amendment 84 unnecessarily inserts the word “only”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, spoke about Amendment 91, which seeks to time-limit the regulation-making powers under Clause 5 to within one year of the end of the transition period. The amendment would prevent the Government making further changes to the retained SSC regulations beyond 31 December 2021 without new primary legislation. The Government can already make and revise co-ordination arrangements with non-EU countries without a time limit, using secondary delegated legislation under the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
To time-limit the Clause 5 power would require the Government to use primary legislation to make even minor changes to the retained SSC regulations, to the extent that those remained on the statute book once the power had expired, which would not be a good use of parliamentary time. Unlike the position with non-EU countries, all regulations made under Clause 5 are subject to the draft affirmative procedure and require a debate in each House before they can become law. By committing to that, the Government are providing reassurance to Parliament that future use of this power will be open to scrutiny.
On Amendment 85, the noble Baroness said that she sought to remove the power to distinguish between recipients of state pensions and benefits on the basis of nationality or residence in a particular member state. The effect of the amendment would be to restrict the Government’s ability to make
“different provision for different categories of person to whom they apply”,
for example, on the basis of nationality, immigration status or date of arrival. The social security co-ordination agreement that the UK seeks with the EU is a nationality-blind agreement.
However, there is a possibility of a non-negotiated outcome. The wording in this clause is largely standard wording in social security legislation. The wording makes it clear that there might be different provision for different categories of person, and this includes immigration status or nationality. Making different provision for different categories of person is not new; examples can be found in bilateral agreements the UK has with other countries. For example, the UK has already signed a social security agreement with Ireland, which applies to UK and Irish nationals and their family members in the UK and Ireland.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, for tabling Amendments 86 to 90 and 92. I sincerely apologise for any effort on my part that allowed the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to get lost in my explanation. That was never the intention. I can confirm to all noble Lords that we will write, as requested. I hope it is clear that, as in the run-up to Committee stage, our door is open for further meetings for clarification.
These amendments seek to probe and limit the consequential powers at subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 5, which are intended to provide the flexibility needed to fully implement, across the statute book, policy changes arising from the outcome of negotiations with the EU. In general, the provisions at subsections (3) and (4) provide the Government with the ability to give full effect across the statute book to policy changes arising from the modification of the retained SSC regulations listed at subsection (2), based on the outcome of negotiations with the EU in this area.
The purpose of these powers will be to ensure that there are no inconsistencies or gaps in provision between domestic social security legislation and retained SSC regulations following modification of the regulations at subsection (2). Such inconsistencies could potentially hamper the operation of domestic social security law where there are references to the regulations at subsection (2). Subsection (4) is not a “new power”, as the noble Baroness suggests. Nothing in subsections (3) or (4) enables the Government to do anything that does not arise as a result of changes to the SSC regulations. In particular, changes made under subsection (4) are limited by Clause 5(3)(c).
Wording used in Clause 5(3)(a), (b) and (d), for example, in relation to the use of discretion, as well as making different provision for different categories and purposes, reflects largely common wording in social security and other legislation which ensures that the regulations made under Clause 5(1) can appropriately reflect the different categories and statuses of those affected. I have previously mentioned the withdrawal agreement and the agreement that we have with Ireland on social security. Both are examples of where, for persons in scope of those agreements, we have already made provision for different categories of persons and for different purposes, and may need to do so again under regulations made under Clause 5 through subsection (3).
Subsection (4) simply ensures that any changes directly related to the retained SSC regulations can be fully implemented—for example, where supplementary or transitory provision is required in other legislation arising from the changes to the SSC regulations. The terms used at subsection (3)(c) allow for the making of provisions that arise from the changes to retained SSC regulations and for temporary or time-limited provisions that assist in the implementation of any changes brought about by the outcome of negotiations with the EU, if appropriate. The removal of subsection (4) could result in incomplete or incoherent amendments to domestic legislation or retained EU law not mentioned in subsection (2), potentially affecting the functioning of domestic social security law and a future agreement in this area.
We have shared with the Committee an illustrative draft statutory instrument that would be made under Clause 5. The draft SI includes a section which makes consequential and supplementary amendments of different types and purposes that arise elsewhere in the statute book as a result of the modification of retained SSC regulations. It is important that the Government have the power to make such consequential changes to avoid inconsistencies, gaps and inoperabilities across the statute book.
In my previous comments I gave an example of where the Government could not use this power to stop the export of the state pension. The state pension is payable worldwide under domestic legislation. Therefore, this power could not be used to such effect. With regard to Amendment 90, subsections (5) and (6) simply ensure that there are no unintended interactions between areas of EU law and new policies for those not covered by the withdrawal agreement. We have been very clear that there will be new policies in this area, which will mean that there will be a change in social security co-ordination entitlements for future cohorts of claimants.
These amendments would restrict the Government’s ability to reflect changes and to make appropriate changes across the statute book to ensure the full implementation of any outcome of negotiations with the EU. I think I have confirmed to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that I will respond to her in writing. To the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on lack of scrutiny, I have set out under the previous group the specific consequences that justify this approach. I say to her also that, on Amendment 89 on the use of discretion, reference to discretion is standard wording in social security legislation and can be found in many Acts of Parliament. On the issue of why Amendment 85 is unnecessary, I will happily write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
I hope I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment for the reasons outlined.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is not the Minister’s fault that I was confused in the previous group. I certainly was not accusing her of anything—it is entirely my own fault.
I am interested to hear that Clause 5(3)(d) is standard in social security legislation. It is not something that I am accustomed to in Home Office legislation—this Bill brings the two together—but I may be wrong in that and might not have noticed it before.
The Government have got themselves into a pretty tight timetable on this. That is why they want scope to make changes. I do not doubt the noble Baroness’s intentions; she sounded very reassuring. But it is not about being reassuring now, it is about what is possible under the very wide powers, as I and other noble Lords have been pointing out. Clearly, at this moment it is appropriate that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment, so that is what I will do. However, I say to the noble Baroness—and it is no accusation—that I have not been assured. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Islam: Tenets
Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on securing this debate. His introduction was quite interesting, although I was a little disappointed that what began as a calm disquisition on Islam turned, as it moved on, into a kind of diatribe. That is an inevitable danger. If one talks about Islam as a whole, rather than concentrating on a particular aspect of it, there is a danger of spreading oneself too thinly and covering a lot of ground. Therefore, as, I hope, a good academic, I want to concentrate on the Question itself.
The Question that the noble Lord has asked—every word is carefully chosen, although occasionally mischievous, and certainly interesting—is whether the Government will encourage Muslim leaders to re-examine the three Muslim tenets of abrogation, Taqiyya and Al Hijra, and to publish their findings. I want to look at those three concepts. What are the Islamic tenets on these three concepts? Do they need to be revised or re-examined and, if so, along what lines?
The first is “abrogation”. I am sorry that the noble Lord used Arabic for the other two tenets, whereas he left this one as “abrogation”; in Arabic the word is “Naskh”. Naskh is simply a theoretical tool to interpret the Koran. Where the different verses of the Koran—or the verses of the Koran and the Hadith—do not match, you need a rule for interpretation. The rule generally is that the later Koranic verses supersede the earlier ones, as they do in the Hadith. That is what abrogation means.
Taqiyya is a much trickier concept. It largely means “covering up” or “dissimulation”. It means that when a Muslim is in a crisis situation or likely to face intense persecution, he is allowed to lie about his faith. He can say, “Look, I’m not a Muslim”, if Muslims are going to be attacked. At one level, he would seem to be disloyal to Allah to whom he has agreed to submit, but on another level he is excused because his life is in danger. As the Oxford dictionary puts it, it is really a precautionary dissimulation of religious belief. But again, it has been reinterpreted, as all these tenets have been. It was reinterpreted after 9/11 to mean that a Muslim has a religious obligation, not just a religious permission, to lie and to lie not only to survive but to proselytise his own religion.
The third idea is the idea of Al Hijra, which refers to Muhammad and his companions migrating from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE to set up the first Islamic state. The Muslim calendar counts dates from the Hijra, and Muslim dates have the suffix AH, which means “After Hijra”. In recent times, the concept of Al Hijra or Muhammad’s move from Mecca to Medina is taken to mean that Muslims have an obligation to move from a secular society to one that allows you to practise religion or be suffused with the religious spirit—or to oppose colonial rule. That is what happened, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, suggested, in India during the time of British rule, when several Muslims on religious grounds said that they would rather move to Afghanistan from India rather than stay on because they suspected that colonial rule was not going to give them freedom.
My point in all this is simply to say, first, that the re-examination of these concepts is going on and that no encouragement is required because circumstances compel Muslim leaders to reinterpret those concepts, just as Hindus and Christians have been compelled. Secondly, government intervention in these matters is always ill-advised because it politicises scholarship. Scholarship loses its sense of detachment and integrity. More importantly, the Government have no competence in the matter. If someone interprets Al Hijra in one way and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, interprets it in another and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in another, how will the Prime Minister decide which one to encourage and which to discourage? It is not the Government’s business. To give the Government religious authority is the worst thing that any liberal, or even non-liberal, society can aim to do.
The third difficulty is why only these three tenets? These three are not really crucial. I can think of half a dozen others, so why just these three? And more importantly, why only Islam? What about Hinduism? The noble Lord, Lord Desai, wrote a book about the Bhagavad Gita—a secular reading of a religious text. Lots of Hindus whom I know are deeply uneasy about it because they would like it to be seen differently. The question is why concentrate only on Islam. Even verses in the Old Testament breed the spirit of violence and hatred. The New Testament is just as bad in some cases—apart from the “Sermon on the Mount”, it contains other passages that can be just as obnoxious. So why concentrate on only one religion?
The next question that worries me is: will it assist the cause of anti-terrorism? It will not. Terrorists are not just guided because of these three tenets. They are guided by other considerations, such as being unhappy with our foreign policy or a sense of alienation growing up in our society. There are all kinds of reasons, and religion is simply being used as the language of expression, not as the source from which the inspiration is derived. When religion is simply being used as the language of expression, the causes lie elsewhere. If we are looking for a reinterpretation of the tenets in the hope that that would stop terrorism, there is no such possibility of that happening.
The last point that I want to make is that Islam, like any other religion, has both violent and non-violent traits. That is just as true of Christianity. How could the religion of simple peasants lead to the largest empire, of many different kinds, in human history—the British colonial, the French and all that? How could it justify slavery? If we think of Christianity, the enormous amount of good as well as harm that it has done simply cannot be explained away. Every religion has the potential for both. Which potential is being actualised depends on the circumstances. Muslim countries—it is not Islam as such but Muslim countries—are passing through a phase of identity crisis, deep alienation and anger against the West for its foreign policy or for its support of native tin-pot rulers, so obviously they are going to take the form of aggression.
The simple point I want to make is that, if we want to have this sort of discussion as part of an anti-terrorist strategy, the Government’s strategy—which I would have loved to discuss—leaves a lot to be desired. The Prevent strategy is not the answer, and to fit anything into that mould is not the way to proceed.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may say respectfully that we have limited time in this debate. All noble Lords have prepared for it incredibly well and have great points to make, but we need to allow time for the Minister to reply to them. I would ask noble Lords to honour the time allowed for speaking.
Policing and Crime Bill
Baroness Stedman-Scott ExcerptsWednesday 30th November 2016
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-I(Rev)(a) Amendments for Report, supplementary to the revised marshalled list (PDF, 62KB) - (30 Nov 2016)
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, if Amendments 108A or 108B are agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 109 by reason of pre-emption.
Clause 61: Limit on period of bail under section 30A
Amendment 108A
Domestic Abuse: Rural Communities
Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to help families in rural communities experiencing domestic abuse and other relationship problems.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the distinct challenges faced by victims of domestic abuse in rural communities. The new violence against women and girls strategy sets out our ambition that by the end of this Parliament every victim of abuse, irrespective of where they live, will be able to secure the support they need.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the Minister. Noble Lords will know that the recent storyline in “The Archers” electrified the nation and put a spotlight on this issue, showing that early intervention and prevention are much better than cure, as with so many of the social issues that we face. Can the Minister help us understand in particular what the Government are doing to help people in rural communities earlier rather than later?
Lord Keen of Elie
There is no doubt that the problems faced, particularly in rural areas, could be addressed earlier. Indeed, our nationally acclaimed campaign, This is Abuse, has had an impact. We have invested a further £3.8 million in a new campaign, Disrespect NoBody, which we hope will build awareness of these issues.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Stedman-Scott)
I remind the Committee that if Amendment 234B is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 234C to 234F by reason of pre-emption.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
Indeed, and no doubt that is why the Government have consulted on it. I, too, am looking forward to hearing the results of the consultation, and I hope that if the responses indicate the need for legislation, there will be legislation. I am not saying that there should not be legislation to fill in any gaps, but that I am not convinced that a completely new approach is what is needed here.
Finally, because I am conscious of the time, I am aware that there is opposition in some quarters to relying on sentencing; in other words, regarding an offence as being domestic as an aggravating factor. If what is being considered in this debate is more serious sentences, we have to look at what sentences are available for the offences as they stand, so I would like to see a general debate about whether there is a sentencing element in this or whether it is about the offences in themselves.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I, like my noble friend Lord Dobbs, have not been involved in the conversations during this Bill, but I speak because of the importance of the issue and our debating it in full. I am very glad to be discussing whether domestic abuse, including psychological abuse, coercive control and a pattern of abuse should be seen in the eyes of the law as a serious crime. The impact of domestic violence on women and their children can be devastating and long lasting, yet its essence of power and control is not criminalised.
My noble friend will be aware of surveys which show the strength of support for change. The Victims’ Voice survey found that 98% of victims feel that reform of the law is needed. A survey of front-line domestic violence professionals found that 97% agree that coercive control should be recognised in law, with 96% agreeing that patterns of behaviour and psychological abuse should be recognised in law.
I welcome the Government’s consultation and appreciate that it will take time for my noble friend and colleagues to consider the 700 or so responses before deciding whether legislation would provide better protection to victims, but, like other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing the outcome of the consultation. Changing the definition of domestic abuse in March last year was obviously a very important step, but there is a clear need to create a culture where victims report much earlier, are believed when they do and the dynamics and patterns of abuse are recognised and understood. Will my noble friend also look at other countries which have successfully criminalised psychological abuse, coercive control and clear patterns of behaviour, because this could be the catalyst which will not just save money but save lives?
Lord Bates
My Lords, first, I will make a brief response to my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. One of the things which struck me very much when I was preparing for this debate was the final page of the HMIC report into domestic abuse, which contains some of the statistics. It lists that in the 12-month period to 31 August 2013, the period which was reviewed, 1.01 million calls for assistance were as a result of domestic abuse. There were 269,700 crimes of domestic abuse. This figure goes to the heart of what my noble friend was saying: there were 57,900 individuals at high risk of serious harm or murder. On average, every 30 seconds, someone contacts the police for assistance with domestic abuse.
I think that those statistics show the importance of the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has brought before the House this evening. I am sure that we are all very grateful to him for doing so, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I am glad to have this opportunity. I entirely agree with the sentiment behind Amendment 49. Domestic violence and abuse are unquestionably serious crimes and must be treated as such. It is an appalling violation of the trust that those in intimate relationships place in each other. Last year, an estimated 1.9 million people were abused at the hands of those with whom they were closest.
The Government recognise that domestic abuse has not always been treated as the serious crime that it undoubtedly is. That is why, in September last year, the Home Secretary commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to conduct an all-force review of domestic abuse. HMIC published its findings in March and highlighted serious failings in the police response to these issues, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee touched on under the heading of “It’s a domestic” in terms of giving the seriousness to calls for help in this way that they would in any other circumstance in any other public place when somebody is under threat.
Moreover, the Home Secretary has initiated a number of other measures to improve the police responses to domestic abuse. This includes the establishment of a new National Oversight Group, which she chairs. While further legislation may have its place, new laws cannot be a substitute for the vital work of driving improvements in the response from the criminal justice agencies themselves.
In addition to the important operational improvements, the Government want to ensure that front-line agencies have the tools they need to provide the best possible protection for victims. In March, we announced a national rollout of the domestic violence protection orders, to which, again, a number of noble Lords have referred, that can prevent the perpetrator from having contact with the victim for up to 28 days, and the domestic violence disclosure scheme, which enables the police to disclose to the public information about previous violent offending by a new or existing partner. This, I felt, went to the heart of the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, when she raised that harrowing case study of Laura and the inability to take action. Clearly, this was something where the domestic violence protection orders may not be the solution but they are certainly an indication of a recognition of the problem.
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
My Lords, I, too, was pleased that the gracious Speech included a commitment that the Government will strive to improve the lives of children and families. My motivation for wanting to contribute to this debate is the work that I see first-hand at Tomorrow’s People. I therefore declare an interest in that I am the chief executive of that organisation.
I, too, was interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, and I sense that she was in concert with the issues that our young people face in society. With regard to the young people whom we are talking about and trying to help, we can spend many hours deciding whose fault it is and how their situation has been arrived at, but those young people are interested in what we are going to do about it. It is on that that I wish to speak today.
A great deal of effort has been invested in understanding and proving the need for earlier intervention in children’s lives. Much evidence exists to confirm the value of this. My heart was in concert with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, when she referred to the need for early years intervention. For too long, effort and finance have been invested in services that try to put right the consequences of not dealing with issues at an earlier stage.
Perhaps I may give noble Lords some examples. Some 16% of 16 to 24 year-olds in England are NEETs —not in education, employment or training. They are three times more likely to suffer from depression, four times more likely to be out of work and five times more likely to have a criminal record. The fiscal cost of those things alone does not bear thinking about. In 2008, the total NEET cohort cost an estimated £13 billion in public finance and £22 billion in lost opportunity costs over their lifetimes. A more compelling case for working with children and families at an earlier stage I cannot imagine. Preparing our children for life at the earliest opportunity is a must if we are to avoid the human cost of doing nothing, let alone avoid the accompanying fiscal burden.
I read with interest a newspaper article this weekend by Anthony Seldon, the well known headmaster of Wellington College. His article talks about the wide-ranging role of educating our young people, both academically and socially. While the education system quite rightly must focus on academic attainment, we must not lose sight of the need for a more rounded system which focuses on the social development of our young people. It is the development and support of the whole person that we must strive for. Perhaps I may share with noble Lords some more information that demonstrates the case.
If you are not in education, training or employment, you face significant challenges. Half of the parents of such people have no educational qualifications. Many deal with alcoholism, crime and domestic abuse at home. Four out of 10 come from homes where no one works. At least one in 12 has a medium to high level of caring responsibility at home.
I commend to the House the work of the Private Equity Foundation in trying to turn the tide on this issue. Working in partnership with the Government, a new service called ThinkForward has been launched. In essence, it is an opportunity for young people to receive the individual help that they need to become rounded citizens and to make an effective transition to the workplace. It is delivered at the age of 14, it involves prevention rather than cure and it invests in getting things right rather than trying to clear up a problem at a later stage. I hope that this will be rolled out in other areas of the country.
I would not blame noble Lords if they had started having palpitations at this point. I can hear the call, “How much is it going to cost?”. The working capital to deliver this does not come from government; it comes from individuals, companies and businesses that are prepared to finance the delivery. Only when success is achieved do the Government need to pay, and then it comes out of the savings achieved. The cost cannot stand in the way of doing something.
Recently, I met a young man of 17 who was desperate to work. He was bright, keen and responsible. What was stopping him? Was it the labour market? No. His mother was a drug addict. He had three brothers ranging in age from eight to two. He got them dressed in the morning, gave them breakfast, got them ready for school and delivered them there. He wanted to be near his brothers during the day. Because their mother was an addict, they were ridiculed at school, and the fact that they were not dressed in quite the same way as other young people was a real problem for them. He collected them from school, made sure that they got home safely, fed them and got them to bed in order that they could function at school as well as they could because he did not want them to end up as their mother had.
If any of us have palpitations because of this injustice then I shall be pleased, but let our hearts beat quicker and with more determination so that we work with children and their families to ensure that they are prepared for a productive life and to ensure that that life works for them. At the beginning of the debate, my noble friend Lord McNally asked what type of society we wanted to be in. The answer is one that responds to those young people and prevents them having problems, rather than having to cure them at a later stage.