Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Verma and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to follow noble Lords in the debate on the three amendments in this group. I add my support for them. Noble Lords have already spoken very eloquently about the need for proper support for migrant women who have absolutely no recourse to public funds. I have seen so many examples of women who have come into this country, been married into households and then been treated in a terrible way simply because they do not have any status here.

As my noble friend Lady Helic said about enshrining legal support, domestic abuse cannot hide behind any discrimination. That is absolutely right. To sum it up—I have raised this issue on many occasions—I have met many women living in multigenerational households where they do not know their rights, what services are available or how to access them. It is a duty of any decent community or society to make sure that we are the voices for those people who are suffering—regardless, as noble Lords have already said, of what gender they are. If they are a victim of domestic abuse, they are a victim.

I have seen some horrific cases come before me. I remember one where a woman with three children spent many nights in her car to escape. She had nowhere to go; the car that she had been using for her work was all that she possessed. If we as a society are to demonstrate our humanity and meet the expectations of others—noble Lords have mentioned the Istanbul convention—then we have to lead by example.

I do not want to extend this debate because all noble Lords have made exceptionally eloquent and poignant points, but it is important that we as a civilised society recognise that this issue affects many people. I have my home in the city of Leicester. Southall Black Sisters has done phenomenal work, as have many organisations there, but everyone is going to have their hands tied if the facilities are not there for access and if information is not readily available because the victims cannot access it.

I hope that the law stands on the side of every single person, regardless of their immigration status. I am fully supportive of the amendments. I know that my noble friend the Minister is compassionate and passionate about making sure that we can remove as many obstacles as possible so that people can have the right access. I hope that she will take these amendments very seriously.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, I find it difficult to add to the arguments that have been made so persuasively in this debate.

I want to pick up the point made by my noble friends Lord Griffiths and Lady Lister. We want to make this Bill as good as it possibly can be, which leads me to the issue of evidence. Essentially, the Government are saying that there is currently a lack of robust data to demonstrate which cohorts of migrant victims are likely to be in most need of support. As my noble friend Lady Lister explained, the Government have launched a pilot scheme, which is due to run to March 2022. The Minister said at Second Reading that this

“will enable us to take well-grounded and evidence-based decisions on how best to protect these victims in the long term.”—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 126.]

The problem we have is that there is no guarantee that the Government will act, and 2022 is quite some way away—particularly when the evaluation would then need to take place.

One must ask how much evidence the Government need. We know that a large proportion of migrant women have no recourse to public funds, meaning that they are barred from accessing certain types of financial support, as noble Lords have already pointed out. We also know that the number of survivors of abuse with no recourse is set to increase post Brexit under the new Immigration Rules. It is quite likely that even more women will experience difficulties accessing safety and support. The Covid-19 crisis has served to demonstrate just how precarious the position of migrant survivors is and how essential it is that they can access financial support from the state. In the end, I hope that the House will have the gumption to pass amendments on Report because waiting for the pilot scheme and for the Government to review it, with no guarantee of future legislation, is simply not good enough. We have to act now.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Verma and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to have added my name to my noble friend’s amendment, to add my support to that of my noble friend Lady Crawley.

When my noble friend Lady Armstrong spoke at Second Reading, she described the challenge of supporting women at risk of losing custody of their children when the main need was identified as domestic abuse. We know that victims face many challenges, and that more than half of women victims have a common mental health problem. One in five has been homeless, and one in three has an alcohol problem. All too many are in poverty, and most women in contact with the criminal justice system have faced domestic or sexual violence. Supporting those victims who face multiple disadvantages requires a workforce with the skill, knowledge and awareness to understand the range of experience that victims have faced, so that they can effectively engage and support them.

But that is not always forthcoming. Many practitioners report that the ongoing training and awareness-raising needed to support that type of practice is often the first thing to be cut to save money. Women affected by domestic violence often highly value support when the person working with them knows what it is like to be in their shoes, and they value hearing from other women who have been through similar experiences. But effective involvement in the workforce of those with lived experience requires real support mechanisms, proper training and development, and for the organisations to use reflective practice to ensure that any challenges that may arise can be addressed effectively and in a supportive environment. We have heard in tonight’s debate that there are other challenges. There is a lot of evidence showing that public services are failing to pick up and respond to domestic abuse, so many survivors are passed from service to service before finally getting what they need, causing years of preventable hurt and even putting lives at risk.

It is clear that public services need to transform their approach to domestic abuse. Asking victims and survivors about their experience in a trained and compassionate way is crucial to ensuring that they get the support they need at the earliest possible opportunity. Both my noble friends Lady Armstrong and Lady Crawley referred to NICE guidelines that all mental health services should make trained inquiries into experience of domestic abuse among all those accessing their services. Yet the evidence is that many mental health service patients are still not asked about abuse. I take that as pretty hard evidence that guidelines are simply not sufficient. The case for a statutory duty on public authorities is therefore persuasive. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Armstrong: I see that not as a massively onerous task but as one that is essential if we are ever to ensure that public services respond to victims in a co-ordinated way.

Like other noble Lords, I hope that the Minister might take this back and consider it before Report. Of all the amendments that we have debated today, I cannot think of a more important one.

[Baroness Verma (Con) [V]]

My Lords, first, I refer to my interest in the register as chair of UN Women UK. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, for introducing this amendment.

For me, it is really about making sure that public services also incorporate those from the BAME community, many of whom have cultural issues that need to be addressed. As I was listening to noble Lords, I was trying to work out how best to illustrate the difficulties that I have known, and seen from the workshops I have done with organisations such as H.O.P.E Training throughout all of last year, during the Covid crisis of 2020, and into this year. We looked at women and girls in communities where there is multi-generational living, and where language is such an issue that, even if they were able to speak about their circumstances, they would have to do it through a family member or somebody acting on their behalf.

I know that my noble friend cares very much, like me, that we do not leave anyone out when it comes to accessing services. I ask that, when considering this amendment, she makes sure that the guidance that is put in place and given out to the public sector ensures that we meet the needs of women and girls—and it is predominantly women and girls, although of course there are circumstances where there are abuses against boys and men.

I have spent many years looking at these issues. The worry for me remains: we tend to reach out to people in these communities through organisations that are supposed to be helpful, but they become an obstacle. I recall a recent case, where a woman was going into hospital to have a scan. She was accompanied by family members and was unable to say what her circumstances at home were, simply because the family were there around her. It was not picked up at the hospital. The only reason it came across my table was because this young lady spoke to a friend who brought the issue to me. This is really important. It is not just about GPs, because, yet again, often BAME individuals live within and stay within their own communities. I hope that, when my noble friend looks at this amendment and at the training, she looks at it in the round and ensures that it incorporates appropriate training for public bodies.

Because of my position as chair of UN Women UK, I have spoken about safe spaces. This is also a really important area of training for the private sector. While this is not in the amendment, we would make great headway getting the private sector to come on board, recognising that, when women are in distress and have concerns, being able to identify that and play a much more supportive role can be helpful for people who are suffering violent abuse at home.

As I have seen in recent days, it is about the threat of having their children taken away, their money stopped, or relatives in the country they originally come from being threatened. There are a number of issues that need to be taken into account. However, I am very supportive of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and I hope we will be able to work together to ensure that training is appropriate to the BAME community.

Nuclear Management Partners

Debate between Baroness Verma and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Thursday 20th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I remind my noble friend that the skills in the department and the skills that we bring in from outside are hugely specialised in this area. We are gifted with having some of the greatest minds in the nuclear sector within this country, and we should be very proud of that. We have an absolutely fabulous regulator, which is seen in the world as one of the best. So I do not want to undermine the great skills that we have, but we draw on skills from outside the sector, too.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, clearly we have a lot of skills in the nuclear sector in the UK, but let us go back to my noble friend’s Question. The fact is that in recent years the performance of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has been very disappointing, particularly as regards Sellafield. The question is this: given that disappointing performance, should it not have been a question for Ministers as to whether the NMP contract was extended? Why did Ministers not take that decision?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I will return to my first Answer. Ministers were cited after a full review by the NDA and my officials were in on that review; we have been kept informed at every juncture. The decision to go forward with this contract is absolutely right. We are building on the work that has been done. Noble Lords from across the Chamber cannot take lightly the challenges facing the Sellafield site. We are discovering things that were not properly characterised in the inventory and so we have to deal with new challenges as well as with the current ones. We are in a position to see, review and make sure that progress is being made.

Crown Prosecution Service

Debate between Baroness Verma and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Thursday 12th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I can only repeat to my noble friend that serious cases will remain with the CPS, which will still have an overview of every single case that comes through the courts. However, what we are doing is leading to reductions in bureaucracy and, I hope, an increase in the efficient use of police time. The piloted programmes have indicated a saving of 50,000 police hours. Building on that, by June of this year a further 40,000 police hours will be saved.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness address the second point raised by my noble and learned friend that it is the combination of the police being given prosecution powers on the one hand and the Government’s proposal for elected party-political commissioners on the other that brings a great deal of fear? Why are the Government pursuing these two policies, which will undermine confidence in the police force?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I completely disagree with the noble Lord. As he is aware, we are trying to introduce efficiencies to the way in which charges are brought. First and foremost the lesser charges are with the police because it is much easier and quicker for them to deal with them. The serious cases will be with the CPS. As to the noble Lord’s second point, he knows exactly where we stand on that.

Equality Act 2010 (Public Authorities and Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Order 2011

Debate between Baroness Verma and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation of the draft order, which applies to a number of public bodies in the list in Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010. We will be happy to support the order.

I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. He has certainly livened up what is sometimes a rather dull affair in Grand Committee. He will not be surprised to hear that I do not really agree with the general thrust of his arguments; in general, I am proud of what we achieved in equality legislation. I agree that one would like to enhance people’s minds; that is a preferable approach. However, legislation sometimes needs to underpin desirable changes, and this legislation is very important.

Sometimes, of course, there is excessive zeal, sometimes there are instances where people have made mistaken judgments and it is fair to raise those issues, but overall this legislation has proved to be effective, though I look forward to a comprehensive response by the noble Baroness to her noble friend’s questions on this point. I, too, have one or two questions about the order. First, where is the Office for Budget Responsibility? Why is that not listed? I understand that it is considered to be a legal entity and since it seems to have unparalleled influence, it would be useful to know whether her department intends to put it on the list. Will she also say something about the Criminal Cases Review Commission?

I want to come on to discuss the Public Bodies Bill because I am very puzzled about some of the organisations listed in the schedule. We have spent hours and days debating the Public Bodies Bill, sponsored by the Cabinet Office, which gives Ministers the power to abolish or change the function, governance and finance of organisations. It is a remarkable Bill, which is now smaller than when it started, which is very unusual for your Lordships’ House. I see the Youth Justice Board listed in Schedule 1. It is true that last night we voted to retain the Youth Justice Board, but my understanding is that it was the Government’s intention to abolish it, so why is it in Schedule 1? Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is that, if it is listed, presumably its duty is to go through the responsibilities contained in the Act.

I am hopeful that the Government will accept your Lordships’ view on the Youth Justice Board, but let us say that they do not, that they reverse it on ping-pong and that eventually that is accepted. The Youth Justice Board is going out of business, but in this order, we are placing responsibilities on it. That seems to me to be a bit of a puzzle. I then come to “A Primary Care Trust ...” In the other place there is NHS legislation abolishing primary care trusts. These bodies which face going out of business are none the less having duties placed upon them as a result of the order.

The Audit Commission is going to be abolished, not in the Public Bodies Bill, but by separate legislation: again, it is listed in this order. On page 7, police authorities are listed. Shortly, after the Easter break, we will be having Second Reading of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, abolishing police authorities. I thought that the Government were trying to reduce regulation. Why are these bodies listed? As I see it, if we are going ahead with this appalling decision to have elected police commissioners, politicising the police force and abolishing police authorities, why are they listed in the order?

I come to the bodies that are listed in the Public Bodies Bill whose functions are to be transferred to charities or trusts. The noble Baroness mentioned the Inland Waterways Association. I can see why she says that that should not be covered, but what about the British Waterways Board? That will, as I understand it, cease to be a public body and become a trust. The question is whether the equality duty ought to transfer to the trust. I think it ought to do so and I would be grateful for her views on that.

The noble Baroness mentioned GP consortia. As this is part of the NHS Bill, I ought to declare an interest as chair of Heart of England foundation trust and as a policy consultant and trainer to Cumberlege Connections in relation to the health service. I know the Government have now said—the noble Baroness has now repeated the comments of her honourable friend in another place—that in the event of the Health and Social Care Bill becoming law GP consortia will be added. That of course is very welcome, but shadow consortia are in fact being set up at the moment, and, as I understand it, starting to make decisions in relation to commissioning. Could she consider adding consortia as soon as possible, assuming the legislation goes through?

Finally, I come back to the issue of police reform. My understanding is that if the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill is passed in its current shape, the responsibilities which apply to the police authorities listed here will transfer to chief constables and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, including the employment of police staff. Can the noble Baroness give me some assurance, assuming that this Bill becomes an Act, that this responsibility would be transferred to police commissioners and the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis?

[Baroness Verma]

I thank noble Lords for their warm welcome to the order and for a very good and reasoned debate. As noble Lords will know, when the Equality Bill was going through your Lordships’ House, it really did generate common consensus across the House. It was something that we all signed up to.

The first point that my noble friend Lord Shipley raised was about the opportunity for the public to challenge if they feel they are not able to get a positive response. We have to make sure that there are enough processes and systems in place, and we are working on that at the moment through making sure that local authorities will be able to give advice to individuals on how to get information if they feel they are not being heard. There will be much broader consultation on that, and I hope that in that process the noble Lord will allow me to write to him and other noble Lords about the way we are taking this forward so that we know that individual citizens are empowered. That, basically, is what the Government are trying to do: to draw back from a process-driven way of working to a point where the ordinary citizen feels that he or she is able to go and question what is being applied in their name.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the new police and crime commissioners. They will be listed through the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. The reference is currently in paragraph 135 of Schedule 16 to that Bill, so it will follow through. The Office for Budget Responsibility has been listed through the Act that created it, so that is already there as well. The Criminal Cases Review Commission is not listed for the existing race or gender duties; we considered it but we were not convinced that it had sufficient impact on the equality list that we have at the moment. Police authorities are listed, and will remain so until the new police and crime commissioners are established.

To answer my noble friend Lord Shipley, public bodies will need to give reasons under their decisions, and guidance will come from the EHRC on how individuals will be able to utilise their powers to challenge local authorities. A body of case law has developed under the existing duties, and the EHRC’s guidance and copy of this practice will be able to reflect that.

I say to my noble friend Lord Waddington that the equality duty applies to protecting the characteristics of religion and/or belief. I agree with the noble Lord that we must not get to a place where some citizens feel that they are not part and parcel of the society that we live in and that they cannot freely practise their form of belief or religion, as long as it does not have a negative impact on those around them. I will take back the points that he raised; he is not the only one who has raised them, and they are real concerns. It is important that we take away differing views—some of us may not agree with all of them—so that we can ensure that everyone is signed in to the equal opportunities agenda, which is very much what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is trying to do. We must move away from the process-driven place that we have developed.

I for one have seen legislation that has responded to the needs of people like me who had to fight very hard to ensure that discrimination was a thing of the past. However, I do not want to be part of a process that adds bureaucracy and adds to the burdens of local authorities and organisations so that, instead of them developing and being responsible for what they are delivering, we add to a process that often segregates and creates divisions. That is something that all of us here would sign up to.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—my answers are random because I am receiving briefing notes from the Box—the Government’s Equalities Office is currently developing a toolkit to help citizens, volunteers and third sector bodies and to hold public bodies to account. I am sure that we will still have a part to play in the process of developing those tools. Debate is incredibly important for this issue, because it is something that everyone has to be fully committed and signed up to.

The noble Lord raised the issue of the relationship of the general equalities duty to the specific equalities duty. We must make sure that the support of the specific duties over the general duties is there through the specific duties. That is the only way that we are going to be able to measure whether public bodies are responding. We want them to be able to respond to their own local community needs rather than for us to superimpose from the centre what we think local communities actually need. I am sure that the socioeconomic duty would have placed a great burden on local authorities. This way, we are tying to make them responsive to the local communities that they are servicing. Hopefully, when they take that responsibility, they will see the challenge and be able to respond accordingly without having to think that there are boxes to be ticked, which often reflect only parts of an individual’s needs, in contrast to the holistic approach that local authorities and local public organisations should be taking on board.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about some of the bodies on the list. While they are in the transitional period, they need to be able to respond and to be certain that they are adhering to the equality duties that are set out in the Act.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Let us take primary care trusts as an example, which face abolition. Already clusters are being created. Staff are haemorrhaging; one can understand that. Unless I have misread the order and the listing in Schedule 1—some of those bodies are not new and have already been listed, but some are being listed for the first time—it seems to be extraordinary that poor PCTs are presumably going to get a guidance from the Department of Health saying, “You are now listed. Your job is to implement the equality requirements”, at the same time as they are going out of business. I do not know why they are being asked to do this.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, while inspiration flies in from behind me, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there will still be a transitional period during which PCTs cannot abdicate their duty to meet those requirements. The noble Lord will take on board that there are always transitional bodies.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am sorry to belabour this point. PCTs are being merged into clusters. They have virtually gone as entities so the morale among people working in them is very low. To have a note from the Department of Health saying, “Despite all that, you now have to implement this”, does not seem to be sensible or consistent with what the Government are saying about regulation. I simply do not understand it.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, since inspiration has just arrived, my note tells me clearly that PCTs are already listed for the existing duties, so this is no great extra burden while they are still in existence. In fact the burden will be reduced because we are taking it away from being a process-driven requirement to being one where PCTs, like all other listed bodies, will be responding to the specific and general duties within the Equality Act 2010. I feel that the noble Lord is not overly satisfied but I commend this order to the Committee.

Licensing Act 2003 (Royal Wedding Licensing Hours) Order 2011

Debate between Baroness Verma and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this draft order. It has my full support. It has been an interesting exercise to go through the consultation; the majority of people who responded to it are against the measure, which shows us that it is not always the case that those who respond to consultations reflect the majority view. I am sure that when she made her decision the Secretary of State took account of the majority view in the population as a whole that it is right to extend the licensing hours as is proposed.

However, I ask for one piece of clarification. In the consultation, a specific request was made that we should be absolutely clear what “regulated entertainment” meant and that a lot of publicity should be given to the fact that live music and dancing would be part and parcel of this order, to avoid any confusion. In the draft order as published, it is not clear to someone who is not familiar with the law whether live music and dancing are part of that or not. I think that it is clear that they are, but I hope that the Minister will explain that that is the case and the general public will have the right, in the extended licensing hours, to have live music and dancing.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for her helpful explanation. We welcome and support this order. I accept that the royal wedding is an exceptional occasion and merits a small relaxation of licensing hours. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I note that the majority of respondents to the consultation seem to be opposed to it. I agree with him that people who consult do not always reflect the views of the general public or of Parliament. I am glad the Government have decided to press ahead with these proposals.

A couple of points were raised when this was debated in the other place. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on those. First, I understand that the order only applies to 29 and 30 April. Was consideration given to extending the order over the bank holiday weekend for a three-day period? Secondly, has any thought been given to the provision in the Licensing Act 2003 that allows certain areas to apply different hours on different days during the period covered? In other words, could local authorities be given further discretion at a local level? Finally, in the Explanatory Memorandum it is estimated that the additional policing of the order will cost between £45,000 and £170,000. Presumably there will be additional costs to local authorities. Has her department considered those costs? These are points of detail on which I would welcome a response, but overall we welcome this order.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for this short debate. I am pleased that it has been received with such enthusiasm as we will all merrily enjoy this wonderful event. In response to my noble friend, if premises normally have dancing or serve food, this order will apply to those activities and those premises will have no difficulty in extending them.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about a three-day period. We were mindful that we could have extended it but there were concerns during the consultation that there may be raised levels of crime and disorder. The key days are 29 April and 30 April. Two days was considered an appropriate period of time for a celebration. In response to his question about additional costs, had we not extended the licensing period, those premises would have extended it so the costs would have been there anyway. I am sure that licensed premises wishing to use this order will have taken that into account and will be responsible. This is one of those events where the country will rise to the occasion and join in the celebration and I am sure that most will be mindful that we do not end up with disorder and increased levels of crime. We have saved licensees the cost of this extension so there is an overall saving for those wishing to use it. All noble Lords have joined in with great enthusiasm and I am hoping that the country will do the same. On that note, I commend this order to the House.