Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Morris of Aberavon Excerpts

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

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 10 and 14 tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It seems there is significant agreement on the need for these amendments, so I will keep my remarks relatively brief.

Amendments 10 and 14 are reasonable amendments that seek to clarify the wide variety of domestic situations in which abuse can occur. Numbers of people up and down the country are now accustomed to doing things such as renting out spare rooms and having people not related to them living in their household. Amendment 10 rightly recognises that when a perpetrator and victim live together in a domestic situation, the abuse should be considered domestic whether or not they are biologically related or in a romantic relationship.

Amendment 14 recognises that it should be considered domestic abuse when the perpetrator has regular contact with the home or lives in the home despite not having legal guardianship or a biological relationship with the child, as we have heard. Both amendments are about ensuring that the Bill is thorough in recognising what constitutes domestic abuse and in identifying the victims and perpetrators, to ensure that we can identify and intervene in the wide range of domestic abuse scenarios.

Amendment 10 relates to the legal definition of “personally connected” when assessing the relationship between a perpetrator and victim. The suggested insertion of the line,

“they are ordinarily resident in the same household”,

recognises that “personally connected” should capture those living in domestic situations who may not otherwise be in a romantic relationship or biologically related. As the definition of domestic abuse is set out in Clause 1, abusive behaviours, such as

“physical or sexual abuse … violent or threatening behaviour … controlling or coercive behaviour … economic abuse … psychological, emotional or other abuse”,

are all able to and do occur in domestic situations where the perpetrator and victim live in the same household, but are not in a romantic relationship. As such, I argue that those who live together should be considered personally connected, in the context of the Bill.

Amendment 14 relates to how we define abuse as domestic in relation to a child and recognises that children can be victims of domestic abuse where their perpetrator is not the legal parent, the guardian or biologically related. The suggested insertion of the line,

“the person lives in the same household as the child or regularly visits the household”,

broadens the scope of the different environments in which a child can be personally related to their abuser.

Children can be and are victims of domestic abuse, even where there is no legal guardianship or relation to the perpetrator, as this amendment suggests, when the perpetrator lives in the same domestic situation or is a regular visitor to the home. An obvious example, and why this amendment is necessary, is the case of a new partner to the parent or the child who regularly comes into contact with the child and may spend prolonged or regular contact in the home, or even live in the home, without legal guardianship. Abuse in this situation is self-evidently domestic, despite the abuser not having legal guardianship of the child. Child abuse is 40 times more likely when single parents find new partners. According to a study of children living in homes with unrelated adults, children are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries, compared with children living with two biological parents.

In conclusion, both Amendments 10 and 14 are sensible and reasonable, and strengthen the Bill in its aims to promote awareness, and better protect and support victims of domestic abuse and their children. I hope that we find a way to take these amendments forward.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I speak briefly on Amendments 6 and 7, which I support. Unfortunately, I was cut off from making further comments at Second Reading as I would have exceeded the time limit. I seek clarification on Clause 2(1), which I would have mentioned then. On the face of it, it appears to cover most, I hope all, the eventualities of which we can conceive. But I must express concern when the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—who knows more about these matters than anyone else in your Lordships’ House—seeks to amend the Bill, and I endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. They seek to add to the definition of “personally connected” in the Clause, with the words “guardian of the other” and

“lives in the same household as the child”.

An amendment that goes in the same direction adds the definition that one person is a “provider of care” for the other.

In my Second Reading speech, I would have referred to my recollection, as a very young man, a long time ago, of occasionally appearing in undefended divorce cases. To claim a divorce for your client, one had to satisfy the judge of, first, the grounds for the divorce, which did not usually take up much judicial time, and, secondly, the arrangements for the “child of the family”. That was taken seriously. The child of the family did not need a blood relationship. I found no difficulty with this extended relationship from the make-up of my own family.

Of course divorce law has changed considerably since that time, but on the face of it, if you couple the definition in Clause 2 and the words “parental responsibility”, having the same meaning as in Section 3 of the Children Act 1989, which I have reconsidered, it should be sufficiently all-embracing. Obviously the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is concerned, and the Minister should dwell deeply and give us clarification.

The mischief we are trying to cover adequately is the definition of parent and child and the words “parental responsibility”. My short point is, having regard to the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is the Minister satisfied that Clause 2 is sufficiently all-embracing? I would be surprised if it is not, but I am not a family lawyer. I have been only a criminal lawyer for most of the past 40 years. I hope the Minister will give the Committee the assurances which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and all of us would like to have.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I suspect most members of the public think of the typical case of domestic abuse as being that of an overbearing man who physically bullies his wife or partner and often the children of the household as well. This Bill enlarges that paradigm at Clause 1(3) by skilfully categorising the very different forms that abusive behaviour can take—all those forms, I suggest, being bullying behaviour. The Bill also rightly recognises that although most victims are women, a sizeable minority —about a third—are men, and the Bill is rightly gender-neutral for that reason.

However, I still believe, as I said at Second Reading, that in treating domestic abuse as limited by the definition of personal connection in Clause 2(1), the Bill has been too narrowly drawn so that it does not capture many of the relationships that give rise to abusive behaviour within a domestic context. I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that by this narrow classification, we risk unnecessarily and unwisely excluding numbers of victims and potential victims who are no less vulnerable and no less exposed to domestic abuse than those who fall within the proposed definition. It follows that I do not accept the Government’s response in the House of Commons to an amendment on carers, when the Minister, Victoria Atkins, MP, said that the Government had,

“tried to guard against addressing all forms of exploitative behaviour in the Bill”—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, 9/6/20; col. 109.]

and so dilute the understanding of domestic abuse as being focused around what she described as “a significant personal relationship”. I fully accept the sincerity of that approach, but it fails to grapple with the reality that domestic abuse happens far more widely than the paradigm cases would suggest. I therefore invite the Minister to move from that position.

With some caveats, I broadly support all the amendments in this group. I see no reason, for example, not to include in the Bill abusive behaviour by guardians towards their wards, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has argued in support of Amendment 1, or abusive behaviour by carers of persons with disabilities towards the people for whom they are supposed to be caring. I also agree that it should not matter whether the care is paid or unpaid, nor whether the carer and the victim live in the same household. I also agree that the type of care involved should be broadly defined to include emotional or psychological care as well as physical care. I also strongly support Amendment 8 dealing with forced marriages, but I wonder whether its proposers and the Government may wish to consider the amendment further, certainly to ensure that it protects anyone at risk of being forced into marriage by the potential spouse rather than by someone else, as in the amendment as presently drafted.

Amendment 9, relating to abuse by domestic employers towards those in domestic servitude, makes reference, as I read it, particularly to those held in servitude contrary to the Modern Slavery Act or Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is clearly what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, intended. However, it may be that the definition should be clarified or enlarged, so as to ensure that it includes all those who are coerced into working in their employer’s households in inhumane conditions, for vastly excessive hours and for hopelessly inadequate wages—if indeed they are paid at all. These victims have often been brought here from abroad as members of their employer’s households, and they are often frightened that, outside those households, they have no way of staying here legally and no means of support.