Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom is a three-legged stool. Each of the legs—the judiciary, the Government and Parliament—waxes and wanes a bit in its thickness as power shifts in small ways, a subject of much work and comment by my noble and learned predecessor, Lord Judge. However, each leg is required to operate independently to ensure that balance at the core of our democracy. It would not do for one of the legs to instruct another on how to operate or how to look at a particular issue. By way of example, it would be quite wrong if the House of Lords sought to instruct the judiciary on whether to hear a particular case.

I hope that the Prime Minister, sitting atop, as he does, the government leg of the stool, will reflect on those simple thoughts as he thinks back to his words of 18 January at the Downing Street press conference, concerning our role and this Bill. The duties of this House are inextricably linked with a series of conventions by which we, an unelected Chamber, cohabit with our elected neighbour. Among these conventions, the Salisbury/Addison convention is especially pertinent today and to the Bill in general. It has a number of parts but, simplifying matters for reasons of time, one is that a government Bill with manifesto characteristics will be given a Second Reading in this House. One can see that the convention has a number of people concerned about it and, as your Lordships know, I am currently preparing a series of papers on this convention. For my part, I feel that the convention is engaged here. Accordingly, I will not be supporting the amendment to the Second Reading Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord German.

The convention also has elements concerning the speed with which this House will consider things. The House is already assisting the speed of consideration of this Bill. We have changed our business around and freed up today for Second Reading. Three days have been set aside for Committee, which, given the likely number of amendments that will be tabled, will work only if the House sits late—to at least midnight on probably two of those three days. However, I am sure that on those days, and nights, the Benches will be full and the quality of the debate will remain high, with our natural respectful tone. I expect that this House will send back various matters to the other place for its consideration—for it to think again—as is our role. I imagine that we will then enter a ping-pong phase.

Conventions will apply if agreement cannot be reached, but the elected House, at the end of the full due process, has the right to pass law, whether that be good law or bad law. In the meantime, this House will engage in our full processes, uncowed by any creaks and groans in the other legs of the stool.

Citizens’ Rights (European Affairs Committee Report)

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[The Earl of Kinnoull]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Affairs Committee Citizens’ Rights (1st Report, Session 2021-22, HL Paper 46).

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name and will introduce two pieces of work by the European Affairs Committee. Between May and June 2021, the committee conducted an inquiry into the rights of around 6 million EU citizens resident in the UK and around 1.2 million UK citizens resident in various EU countries. We published our report on 23 July 2021 and the Government responded on 19 November. Scheduling pressures meant that, by late 2022, we had still not been able to hold a debate on it. The committee therefore decided to undertake an updating process and contacted all the original witnesses to ask their views. They all responded and, in May 2023, the committee held an additional oral evidence session. It then sent a lengthy follow-up letter to the Government on 25 May 2023 and the Government responded on 2 August.

I pay warm tribute to the staff of the original report—Simon Pook, Dominic Walsh, Tim Mitchell, Sam Lomas and Louise Shewey—as well as to those on the more recent letter, Jarek Wisniewski, Jack Sheldon, Tabitha Brown and Elyssa Shea, with Tim Mitchell and Louise Shewey reprising their original roles. The skill and dedication of all concerned has produced two compelling documents.

At a high level, our July 2021 report applauded the Home Office’s achievement in processing more than 5.4 million settlement scheme applications of the 6 million received by 30 June 2021, the initial deadline for receipt. The report also praised the scheme’s principle of looking for reasons to grant new residence status for EU citizens rather than to refuse it. However, the report detailed various issues still to be resolved in both the settlement scheme and the systems operated by EU member states. Our update work looked at these areas again.

As of 30 June 2023, the settlement scheme had received 7.4 million applications. Thus, 1.4 million applications had been received since the 2021 deadline, showing just how live an issue this remains. It is therefore imperative that matters relating to these rights continue to receive the closest attention, being integral to the overall relationship between the UK and the EU.

Coming to the UK settlement scheme first, I start with the process of moving from pre-settled to settled status. Our original report foresaw the challenges ahead for the millions needing to apply to transfer from pre-settled status to settled status to secure their rights permanently. The committee noted that,

“although the Home Office planned to send individual reminders, the effectiveness of these would rely on holders of pre-settled status keeping their contact details up to date”.

In December 2022, following a judicial review brought by the IMA, the High Court ruled that the design of the settlement scheme was unlawful, particularly with regard to the Government’s approach to those granted pre-settled status.

The committee wrote to the Government in January, and again in our long letter in May, for clarification on the steps being taken to implement the High Court’s decision. The Home Secretary’s response on 2 August noted that the Government are

“working to implement the December 2022 High Court judgment as quickly as possible and in such a way that it will continue to be easy for EU citizens to evidence their WA rights in practice”.

The Home Office had in fact published some further details regarding the settlement scheme on its website a couple of weeks earlier, on 17 July, which was not referred to in the letter of 2 August to the committee. These July details stated that it would take steps to convert automatically

“as many eligible pre-settled status holders as possible to settled status … without them needing to make an application”.

In response to all of this, the IMA said that

“while we broadly welcome the commitment from the Home Office that no-one will lose their pre-settled status for failing to make a second application, we remain concerned about the lack of detail about how the plans will work in practice”.

Thus nine months or so on, there is still a woeful lack of clarity affecting an estimated 2 million people about how the Government intend to implement the High Court judgment of December 2022. Does the Minister accept that? When will the Government provide the vital clarity about how the automatic conversion of pre-settled to settled status will operate in practice?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

Another problem area concerns backlogs and delays in the application of the settlement scheme. Since the 30 June 2021 deadline, there has continued to be a steady flow of fresh applications to the scheme. We are concerned that a backlog has developed in processing these applications and issuing certificates of application. From published data and the Home Secretary’s response, we know that in the period December 2022 to June 2023 the number of applications not concluded fell from an aggregate of 180,000 to an aggregate of 150,000 or so. We also know that between March and June 2023 the monthly number of new applications averaged just over 50,000. Broadly speaking, that would imply a pipeline of three months or so, with difficult cases no doubt taking far longer. Given these figures, can the Minister say by when the Government expect to clear the backlog in processing these applications?

The problem of digital status also persists. The committee and its predecessors have repeatedly and consistently raised concerns regarding the digital-only character of the EU settlement scheme. In our 2021 report, we noted that the absence of a physical document created the risk that many EU citizens, including the elderly and those who are digitally challenged, may struggle to prove their rights. We recommended that the Government offer holders of settled or pre-settled status the additional option of requesting and paying for physical documents, which would complement rather than replace their existing digital status. The evidence that we have considered in our follow-up research suggests that our concerns about this aspect of the design of the EU settlement scheme were well founded.

The quality of the digital system has also become an issue, which I now come to: the database error debacle. In January 2023, it was revealed that the incorrect status had been displayed online for approximately 146,000 people for an extended period. For settlement scheme applicants whose applications to the scheme were refused between June 2021 and April 2022, the online database displayed their application as “pending” instead of “refused” until 18 January 2023.

In her response letter of 2 August, the Home Secretary explained that these individuals received an email or postal notification of the decision when it was made, but that this was not reflected in an applicant’s digital status, which is used by some government departments when making decisions about access to benefits and services. She says that this

“was not due to a database error”,

but rather reflected that

“the digital status system did not have the capability to reflect that an administrative review or appeal was pending”,

and that it was necessary to ensure that such individuals

“continued to have temporary protection of their rights”.

I repeat all this hard to understand justification into Hansard so that others can form a view as I have. Systems that do not have necessary capabilities are by definition not good. Will the Minister say when the Government became aware that the online database reflected incorrect statuses?

The 146,000 concerned all had conflicting government news from two sources and, for at least some, one of the sources was not digital but a letter. There is an inconsistency between the Government’s defence of the digital systems for proof of status and their argument that users should not have relied on the information displayed on the digital system when accessing benefits or healthcare. For those who received a letter, which the Government maintain they should have relied on, this inconsistency is even worse. Can the Minister say why, given that the Government acknowledge that this situation arose out of system design problems and that it went on unstemmed for so long, the Secretary of State’s full powers of discretion to waive benefit debts has not been used, including in respect of universal credit?

Our 2021 report identified a mixed picture of how the rights of UK citizens were being upheld in EU member states. The evidence that we received in the follow-up indicates that this assessment still holds true. Although residence schemes appear to be operating relatively smoothly in the majority of EU member states, we have been aware of significant problems in others.

In her response letter, the Home Secretary informed the committee about

“regular discussions with the Commission … to raise and resolve issues”.

I welcome the Government’s engagement with the Commission on these matters and urge them to continue to raise such issues as they arise, including in relation to processes for upgrading to permanent residence. The key point is that there remain plenty of individual cases to be resolved. We are, however, very concerned to hear that resources to support UK citizens in the EU on citizens’ rights issues have been scaled back substantially since we conducted our 2021 inquiry. Several stakeholders were critical of the Government’s decision to close the UK nationals support fund, which provided funding to non-governmental organisations in some EU member states to support residence applications from UK citizens. Here, a little money has gone a long way in the past. Will the Minister provide an update on the resources available to UK embassies in EU member states to support UK citizens facing citizens’ rights issues? What government funding is currently available to non-governmental bodies that support EU-based UK nationals on citizens’ rights issues?

I have spoken for a long time and touched on only some of the key issues from this important work. I very much look forward to the debate ahead. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to four sets of people. First, I am deeply grateful to the Minister for the richness of what he said—it was very interesting—and his promise to continue to write. As I think he will have seen, we are all extremely passionate here about doing the right thing for people who live in our community, and I felt that he went a long way to answering some of our questions. I am very grateful for that indeed, and for his kind words.

Secondly, I thank everyone who took part. It was a high-level and extremely interesting debate. Thirdly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield. Because of my change in role, he took over at a very difficult moment, when we were trying to draw the strands of this together and created an excellent letter with the committee which has been the foundation of our debate this afternoon. I am eternally grateful to him for doing that, because it is a jolly difficult job, and he is a very busy man. He did it with his usual good humour, and I owe him lots of drinks.

My final thanks go to my noble friend Lord Ricketts, who, I must say, arrived with tremendous energy and engagement on top of his great scholarship in this area. Looking now from the sidelines, I am deeply impressed with the way in which he is grappling with all the great complexities of European affairs.

I will not go through all the other points—lots of good ones were made—other than to say that the speech that in many ways I wish I had made was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. She focused on the situation for UK nationals in the European Union, and much of what we have been saying is about European Union nationals in the UK. The IMA serves the 6 million people here so well; it is very good indeed. We had lots of chats with it before it came for the evidence session. We do not really have an equivalent servicing our people in Europe. In probably a rather coded way, we are saying that a little bit of government money there could make a big difference. I hope that element will come out in the Minister’s letter to us all.

Motion agreed.

School Trips to the United Kingdom

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I do not have the figures for Ireland, unsurprisingly. Clearly, one may conjecture that, because Ireland is not a member of the Schengen area, there is therefore some frictional inspection of travel documentation for visitors to the Republic by school groups. It will not surprise the noble Lord to learn that I cannot presently explain any difference in statistics until I look at them, so I will have to look into that and write to him in respect of it.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, can I go back to the issue of British schoolchildren visiting Europe? The excellent Taith scheme in Wales has helped many thousands of children to go there, and one thing that could happen to the Turing scheme is that it is expanded so that British schoolchildren can be funded to visit Europe, which the European Affairs Committee feels would culturally be of great benefit and advantage. Can the Minister comment?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I said a moment ago, I am not privy to the funding arrangements for the Turing scheme. It seems to me that what the noble Earl suggests is a sensible course, and I will certainly take it away and discuss it with my colleagues from the Department for Education.

Ports and Airports: Queues

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I do not know about that; I will look into it. As far as I know, the airport layout is a matter for the owner of the airport. If one pays for some sort of particular access to the border gates, that is something that the airport will do. It is certainly not the case that you can pay Border Force for quicker access across the border.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that at least some of the problems are caused by people with pre-settled and settled status under the EU settlement scheme and that they are exacerbated because there is no physical proof of that; there is only electronic proof, which causes problems with the borders? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence and we hope to report on that relatively soon. Does he accept that that is part of the problem?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It should not be a problem, in that holders of EU settled status obviously are entitled to an EU passport, which is capable of being read by our e-gates. Of itself, the existence of EU status is not an issue. The issue arises in only those cases where those people who are entitled to EU settled status do not hold a valid EU passport—and that is a small cohort, but one which we are looking into.

EU Settlement Scheme

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can confirm that work is proceeding to implement the judgment. As the noble Baroness will have noticed, the High Court accepted, in paragraphs 188 and 191 of its judgment, that

“before and after the conclusion of the WA”—

the withdrawal agreement—officials in the European Commission

“understood, and … accepted, the United Kingdom’s intention to require”

pre-settled status-holders

“to apply for settled status”.

In the High Court’s view, this was embarrassing for the Commission, but it did not alter the fact, as was contended by the Commission, that the text of the withdrawal agreement did not require such a further application for pre-settled status, and therefore the High Court found as it did. The Government will certainly implement its findings.

I add that the EU settlement scheme has been a great success, with over 7 million applications received and 6.9 million applications concluded as of 31 December 2022.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the High Court judgment was very much in line with the recommendations and spirit of the multiple reports on citizens’ rights of the European Union Committee and the European Affairs Committee. In the reset of the scheme, will the Government make provision for another of our strong recommendations, made multiple times in these many reports, for the option of physical proof of status?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Earl rightly observes, the High Court judgment upheld both limbs of the IMA challenge: first, that the withdrawal agreement residence right of a holder of pre-settled status does not expire for failure to make a second application to the EUSS; and, secondly, that a pre-settled status holder acquires the right to permanent residence under the withdrawal agreement automatically once the conditions for it are met. The intention has always been to provide digital proof of status, and that remains the department’s view.

National Security Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Lords Chamber

Amendment 92A not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

I cannot call Amendment 92B, as it is an amendment to Amendment 92A.

Amendment 93

Moved by

Public Order Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

My Lords, I must inform the Committee that if Amendment 12 is agreed, I will not be able to call Amendment 13 by reason of pre-emption.

Amendment 12

Moved by

Ukrainian Asylum Seekers and Refugees

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)]

I was about to explain to noble Lords our policy on children who have parental consent or that of a legal guardian as accepted by the Ukrainian Government. I hope to announce a policy change in the days to come. Regarding the children the noble Lord is referring to, it is very much government policy to help the agencies helping children on the ground in Poland, Moldova—where I have been—and Romania.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, one possible result of the Ukraine family scheme is the delivery of a physical biometric residence permit to the successful applicant in the post. This is a free process and I thoroughly applaud it. What plans do the Government have to extend that to the EU settlement scheme?

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Con)]

I am not aware of any plans the Government have to extend that to the EU settlement scheme.

UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Arrangement

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the US country report last year on Rwanda. Our own country policy and information team carried out an assessment on safety in Rwanda before we entered an agreement. That report is expected to be completed in the near future. I cannot remember the other questions that the noble Baroness asked because it was quite a long question.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, Section 25 of the CRaG Act defines the meaning of “treaty” and says that it is a “written agreement … between States”, as long as it is “binding under international law”. Given that the Minister has said that this is a written agreement between states, is she suggesting that the agreement with Rwanda is not binding in international law?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it is an agreement which both parties have agreed to be bound by. I will leave it to greater heads to unpick the meaning of that.

I have now remembered one of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which was, “why not a treaty?” I do not know why, but it seems that it was appropriate to have an MoU. I am very happy to write to noble Lords with further detail on that. I hope that they will appreciate that I have not had much notice of this Question and am not going to be blag my way through it; I will write to the noble Baroness.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, explained, Amendment 177A requires the Government to undertake an investigation into

“the impact of access to online pornography by children on domestic abuse”

and to review the commencement of Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which all noble Lords spoke about.

We share the concerns raised in both Houses by parents and those advocating on behalf of children’s safety online that a large amount of pornography is available on the internet, often for free, with little or no protection to ensure that those accessing it are old enough to do so. In turn, this is changing the way that young people understand healthy relationships, sex and consent.

In October 2019, the Government announced that they will not commence Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. We propose to repeal those provisions and instead deliver more comprehensive protections for children through our proposals for a wider online harms regulatory framework. Protecting children is at the heart of our plans to transform the online experience for people in the UK, and the strongest protections in our forthcoming online harms framework will be for children.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office have now published the full government response to the online harms White Paper consultation, which sets out the new expectations on companies to keep users safe online. These new laws will mean that companies must tackle illegal content on their platforms and protect children from harmful content and activity online. Major platforms will need to be clear about what content is acceptable on their services and enforce the rules consistently.

I am pleased that Britain is setting the global standards for safety online, with the most comprehensive approach yet to online regulation. Ofcom will be named in legislation as the regulator, with the power to fine companies failing in their duty of care up to £18 million or 10% of annual global turnover. It will also have the power to block non-compliant services from being accessed in the UK.

The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, asked whether the provisions in the online harms framework will be as robust as those in the Digital Economy Act. Through the online harms framework, we will be able to go further than the Digital Economy Act’s focus on online pornography on commercial adult sites. We will be able to protect children from a broader range of harmful content and activity across a wider range of services. The online safety duty of care will not just be for sites with user-generated content; it will also be for sites that facilitate online user interaction, including video and image sharing, commenting and live-streaming.

The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Ponsonby, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord McColl all asked why, given that the online harms regime is years away, the Government cannot commence the Digital Economy Act as an interim measure. It is important that we take the time to deliver the most comprehensive approach for protecting children online, which will ensure that robust protections are in place for generations of young people to come. Through the online harms framework, we will be able to go further than the Digital Economy Act’s focus on online pornography on commercial adult sites, as I said. We will be able to protect children from a broader range of harmful content.

One of the criticisms of the Digital Economy Act was that its scope did not cover social media companies, where a considerable quantity of pornographic material is accessible to children. The Government’s new approach will include social media companies and sites where user-generated content can be widely shared, including the most visited commercial pornography sites. Taken together, we expect this to bring into scope more online pornography that children can currently access than the narrower scope of the Digital Economy Act. We will set out, in secondary legislation, priority categories of legal but harmful content and activity posing the greatest risk to children, which will include online pornography.

The Government expect that the regulator will take a robust approach to sites that pose the highest risk of harm to children. That may include recommending the use of age assurance or verification technologies where the risk is highest, including for sites hosting online pornography. Companies would need to put in place these technologies or demonstrate that the approach they are taking delivers the same level of protection for children. We are working closely with stakeholders across the industry to establish the right conditions for the market to deliver age assurance and age verification technical solutions ahead of the legislative requirements coming into force. The online safety Bill will be ready this year; in the meantime, we are already working closely with Ofcom to ensure that the implementation period that will be necessary following passage of the legislation will be as short as possible.

On the point about the Government sitting on the research, we were not seeking to suppress its results. Given the number of comments from noble Lords about the letter, I had better write again on the points there were clearly not satisfactory to them. My ministerial colleagues in the DDCMS will continue to engage with parliamentarians as we prepare for the vital legislation. I hope I have provided reassurance that Amendment 177A is not necessary and that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

I have received no requests to speak after the Minister and, accordingly, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their powerful speeches. I listened very carefully to the Minister, but I have to say that I have a very heavy heart tonight. I am so disappointed by her response. I do not accept for one moment the argument that we should simply wait for the online harms Bill: that is too long. The Government must recognise, for all the reasons outlined by noble Lords in their powerful speeches during the debate, that this approach is not remotely credible.

On the non-implementation of Part 3 and the proposed delay of another three years or so, just think about the harm and damage that will be done to children and their future. This is simply not acceptable when the House has already passed legislation that could easily be implemented now and could, as a minimum, be used in the interim between now and the proposed online harms Bill, for which I cannot wait. When that Bill has been passed and is ready for implementation, so be it. I thank the noble Baroness for what she said will happen in that Bill; I will fully support it and I look forward to it.

There is one thing worse than not taking action to prevent the indoctrination of children and young people into thinking that violence is a normal and natural part of sexual relationships, and that is having the capacity to address the problem, as we do now through Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, and not bothering to use it. This is deeply concerning and disturbing. It is tragic that, having led on the issue from 2015, the Government should now have performed such a radical turnaround and be dragging their feet. We have to wait three years or more for any action to be taken.

In spite of the Minister’s official response, it is my sincere hope—yes, I am an optimist—that the Government will study the speeches in this debate carefully over the next few days and review their position. I am very happy to meet the Minister, along with other interested Peers, to discuss this matter further. It is important that we do so, and if progress is not made over the next couple of weeks, I will certainly bring this amendment back on Report. With a heavy heart, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 177B not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 178. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister’s reply should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any of the amendments in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Clause 73: Power of Secretary of State to issue guidance about domestic abuse, etc

Amendment 178

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Featherstone (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 180, to which I have added my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and I could not agree more with everything she said. She has far greater knowledge and wisdom in this matter than I but I feel strongly that prevention and reaching children at an early age is vital, otherwise everything else in the Bill will just deal with what is, as opposed to prevention for the future.

We know that changes in behaviour, health, the ability to learn, attitude and appearance in a child can often mean that they may be witnessing domestic abuse. Schools need to be able to recognise and address that. Of course, our teachers are already aware of, and on the lookout for, behavioural signs of things not being right at home. However, Amendment 180 would ensure the provision of services to every primary school to support it in identifying, treating, supporting, and helping children who are showing signs of witnessing abuse.

Refuge states:

“All children living with abuse are under stress”,


and advises that stress can lead to withdrawal, aggression or bullying, tantrums, vandalism, problems in school, including truancy, speech problems and difficulty with learning, attention-seeking, nightmares or insomnia, bed-wetting, anxiety, depression, fear of abandonment, feelings of inferiority, drug or alcohol abuse—hopefully not at primary school—eating disorders or constant colds, along with headaches, mouth ulcers, asthma and eczema. So many things affect children but our primary schools need support to be provided to address the issue properly and, where appropriate, involving parents is vital. That can be of great benefit—not always—but parents suffering domestic abuse, or perpetrating it, do not always realise the effect that it has on their children. Not all children show such obvious signs of stress; some have adopted coping mechanisms or hide it.

Obviously, primary schools need support in identifying children who are suffering, as well as those who are demonstrating less obvious signs of what is occurring at home. A child could be jumpy, or be avoiding situations or people. They may be withdrawn or simply have a stomach-ache. They may react badly to something that reminds them of what is going on at home. As this amendment suggests, support is needed to identify and treat children who are unusually aggressive or manipulative.

To see the many terrible effects that witnessing domestic abuse has on children, just do a Google search for Refuge, the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, the NSPCC or others. The information out there is crystal clear in demonstrating how necessary this amendment is, and how damning to the future well-being of children non-attention and leaving the issue unaddressed is. A great proportion of the children, if given proper help, are resilient. The sooner this problem is addressed, the better.

Amendment 180 would deliver

“the provision of services … to identify and treat children”

coming from homes where domestic abuse is occurring. It is necessary and right to put that protection and provision into the Bill as early as is humanly possible.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is having connection problems and so I call the noble Lord, Lord Farmer.

[Lord Farmer (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 183 in my name. As I said in my explanatory statement, my amendment,

“would require the Government to provide information on the evidence-based differences between the motivational drivers of different types of abuse.”

Clause 73(2)(a) covers the range of behaviours that amount to abuse. We have, thankfully, moved a long way from thinking purely in terms of physical violence and there is welcome recognition that non-violent abusive strategies inflict profound psychological harms. These include but are by no means limited to: imposing isolation; stalking; subjecting partners to public and private humiliations; taking over all control of finances, social life and family matters; and often forcing compliance with those and other abuses by threatening, if not actually perpetrating, violence. I would expect those issues and many others to be covered in the guidance under subsection (2)(a).

However, what also needs to be included—hence my proposed new paragraph (c)—are distinctions between the different types of violence, which are essential for planning nuanced and effective interventions. Indeed, many social scientists consider that it is no longer scientifically or ethically acceptable to refer to domestic violence without making the type of partner violence clear.

Four types of relationship violence have been extensively recognised in research: coercive controlling violence—also known, more evocatively, as intimate terrorism; violent resistance; situational couple violence; and separation-instigated violence. While every form of abuse is completely unacceptable and the responsibility always lies with the perpetrator, it is essential to hold a relationship-based understanding of domestic-abuse intention along with the fact that abuse is a criminal act. We need to recognise the drivers of abuse as well as ensuring that the police and courts have all the powers they need to hold perpetrators to account.

A relationship-based understanding challenges the notion that abuse always stems from a power dynamic within couples, which typically means the male partner is seeking to control the female. In other jurisdictions such as the United States, policymakers have taken on board research from, for instance, Professor Michael Johnson, Professor Nicola Graham-Kevan and Professor Nicky Stanley, which has exposed the diversity of underlying motives. They emphasise that while male domination and coercive control are important elements of intimate terrorism, which occurs in 2% to 4% of heterosexual couples, and in what Stanley refers to as a sizeable minority of same-sex relationships, situational violence is the far more prevalent form, occurring in 12% to 14% of heterosexual couples and termed “common” by Stanley in same-sex relationships.

In situational couple violence, the violence is situationally provoked as the tensions or emotions of the circumstances that a couple find themselves in lead one or both of the partners to resort to violence. Conflict leads to arguments, which escalate to verbal aggression and ultimately to physical violence. It can also be perpetrated, say, after a bad football result and a lengthy drinking session. Johnson argues that the perpetration of situational couple violence is roughly gender-symmetric, and as likely to occur in same-sex as in heterosexual relationships. Typically, rather than a power imbalance, it occurs when one or both partners are struggling to control their emotions. However, even when violence is mutual, women often fare worse because they are physically weaker. It is terrifying to be a child in the middle of a physical fight between their parents. Through its threats to the child’s caregivers, all violence and abuse between parents profoundly threatens a child’s sense of safety.

A typology of violence does not downplay any one form of violence—it all has to stop—but understanding what is driving it will help that to happen. However, treating all violence as the same freezes out the possibility that some partners, where there has been situational violence, can safely stay together with specialist relationship and other support. The viability of providing specialist relationship support for couples where there is situational violence has been thoroughly researched by trusted providers such as Tavistock Relationships. Again, without victim-blaming or perpetrator-absolving, it points out:

“It is extremely rare for services to identify and respond to the dynamic processes within the couple relationship and other important contributory factors that influence the prevalence of inter-personal violence.”


There is UK evidence that the relationship-focused parenting intervention Parents as Partners reduces violent problem-solving. This and other approaches, such as Sandra Stith’s joint couples therapy in the US, give couples the opportunity to work together on their difficulties and help them to establish better ways of dealing with stressors in their relationships. This is never about forcing victims to stay with violent partners; blame lies solely with the perpetrator.