Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System (S&T Committee Report)

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

First, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his committee on the report, which is very clear in its message, findings and recommendations. Just over a month ago, we had the Second Reading debate on the Forensic Science Regulator Bill. During that debate the noble Lord referred to the Science and Technology Committee, as its chairman, and the report we are now discussing. He said that the regulator Bill, which he supported and welcomed, was nevertheless a

“missed opportunity for the Government to address other issues in relation to forensic science and its use in the criminal justice system. The quality and delivery of forensic science in England and Wales are inadequate”.—[Official Report, 19/3/21; col. 591.]

The noble Lord has repeated that statement today. What were those other issues and why is the quality and delivery of forensic science in England and Wales inadequate?

During the debate last month, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked what role the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice would play in the governance of the forensic science service, as there was, he said, a lack of leadership. The noble Lord also said that there was an increasingly dysfunctional forensic science market, that the quality of forensic science needed bolstering and that research and development in forensic science was underresourced and lacked co-ordination. He said that the United Kingdom used to be regarded as the world leader in forensic science technologies and innovation, but that we are now regarded as a place where not to look, including in digital forensics, where the demand for digital evidence and the complexity of the requirements continues to grow. Today, the noble Lord has also referred to the impact of budget cuts, reorganisations, cuts to legal aid and exponential growth.

In the Second Reading debate on the regulator Bill, my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, who was also a member of the Science and Technology Committee, referred to the instability of larger providers, the patchiness in availability of specialists and niche providers, and the lack of a strategic overview of future skills and staff requirements—all pretty damning observations, many if not all of which have been repeated in speeches today.

In their response to the debate last month, the Government said that the decision to close the Forensic Science Service in 2012 was taken because it was losing an estimated £2 million a month. As with the ill-fated probation service reorganisation, it looks as though the Government paid scant regard to the effectiveness, stability and suitability of the alternative arrangements that were introduced—hence, we are in the position we are in today, with inadequate forensic science provision in the criminal justice system.

I quote the last paragraph of the summary of the committee’s report:

“Unless these failings are recognised and changes made, public trust in forensic science evidence will continue to be lost and confidence in the justice system will be threatened. Crimes may go unsolved and the number of miscarriages of justice may increase. Furthermore, world leading specialist expertise will be under-used, and England and Wales may never regain its reputation as holding the international benchmark for forensic science. This report follows others that have raised similar concerns, yet the changes that are necessary have not been made, despite acknowledgements that they would be. Forensic science in England and Wales is in trouble. To ensure the delivery of justice, the time for action is now.”


Yet, there seems to be no shortage of bodies, organisations and programmes involved in forensic science services—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, drew attention to. That is possibly part of the problem.

The Government’s July 2019 nine-page response to the report refers to the Forensic Science Regulator, UK Research and Innovation, Home Office Science, the Forensics Policy Steering Group, the Criminal Justice Board, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the forensic science strategy, the National Police Chiefs Council, the Forensics Capability Network, police and crime commissioners, the Legal Aid Agency, local criminal justice boards, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences, the regulator’s advisory council, the Royal Society, the Transforming Forensics programme, the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, the digital investigation and intelligence programme and the College of Policing, in addition to police forces, providers and criminal justice system stakeholders.

The Science and Technology Committee report we are discussing refers to the problems highlighted by noble Lords today and during the Second Reading debate on the Forensic Science Regulator Bill last month. However, as has been said, the report was published exactly two years ago this coming Saturday. The Government’s response to the committee’s report was published in July 2019—one and three quarter years ago. I may be in a minority, but I do not see how the role and effectiveness of this House is enhanced by that kind of delay in discussing one of our own committee’s reports.

The only benefit that the lengthy delay had is that it makes it more difficult for the Government credibly simply to tell us what they intend to do in response to the report, as opposed to what they actually have or have not done, and what specific improvements have already actually been delivered over the last one and three quarter years since they published their response. I will look for the Government to spell out what specific improvements there have actually been in the provision and delivery of forensic science in the light of the recommendations made and problem areas identified by the committee in their report beyond the completion of the passage of the Forensic Science Regulator Bill.

During the debate last month, the Government referred to the presentation of plans to the Criminal Justice Board; setting out four key pillars of a forensic science reform programme; work being progressed with the Ministry of Justice, the regulator’s office and other stakeholders; investing £28.6 million to accelerate innovation and combat crime; providing police forces with specialist support functions; publishing a digital forensic science strategy; developing a workforce strategy; and supporting the Forensic Science Regulator Bill—something they said they would do five years ago. The impression I got from that government response last month is that, over the last two years, there have been no actual specific improvements to the inadequate quality and delivery of forensic science in the criminal justice system as identified and spelled out in the Science and Technology Committee’s report.

If I am wrong in saying that, could the Government, either in their response today or subsequently in writing, spell out what those measurable, specific improvements in the quality and delivery of forensic science have been over the last two years that have addressed issues identified by the committee in their report? If I am basically right in saying what I did, could the Government, either in their response today or subsequently in writing, spell out what measurable specific improvements to the inadequate quality and delivery of forensic science in the criminal justice system identified and spelled out in the Science and Technology Committee’s report they are now committed to introducing, implementing and achieving, and within what specific timescale?

Too much of the Government’s written response in July 2019 and in the debate last month seemed to be about changing the way things are done, rather than a commitment to delivering specific, clearly identifiable and measurable improvements in the quality and delivery of forensic science in England and Wales, which the committee’s report said was inadequate. The Government said in the conclusion of their response in July 2019 at paragraph 24:

“Through implementation of the joint-review of forensic science and its ongoing consideration of their Lordships’ recommendations, the Government expects the provision of forensic science into the criminal justice system to be significantly strengthened. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are jointly responsible for bringing about the collaboration, investment and oversight required to make this happen.”


If the Government are confident that what they intend to do will deliver specific, clearly identifiable and measurable improvements in the quality and delivery of forensic science services, they should set out what those improvements will be, how they will be measured and within what timescale. It is called being accountable. If they cannot, how can we or they judge in the future whether their response to the issues the Science and Technology Committee has said need addressing has actually delivered? Like other noble Lords, I await the Government’s response, including the extent to which they do or do not intend to implement the recommendations in the committee’s report.

Immigration: Skilled Migrants from Commonwealth Countries

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Of the nearly 1,700 refusals, 88% had differences of more than £10,000, and the average difference across all cases was £27,600, so they were not small differences. On people facing destitution, of course people will be cared for while their applications are being considered. Of course, particularly during the Covid pandemic over the past year, it has been very important to be able to give people that bit of respite because of the difficulties that they will face, first, coming here and, secondly, going back, if their applications are refused.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is rather a serious step to refuse people indefinite leave to remain who have been in this country for 10 years or more. The Minister referred to the non-criminal historic tax discrepancies, which are the cause of the trouble. Will she tell us how long ago these tax discrepancies occurred, on the basis of which indefinite leave to remain is being denied? Have they been recent cases or ones of some 10 years ago? Can she assure me that the statements that the Government are now making from the Dispatch Box have been checked by Ministers to ensure that they are accurate and that these people really are being denied indefinite leave to remain for good, strong reasons?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, most applications for settlement were made around 2016. Some of them go back some years. The reason why they were uncovered was because of the sheer volume that HMRC was noticing as a strange pattern of behaviour. It was sufficiently unusual to draw it to the attention of the Home Office. This is not an attempt to deny ILR—this was a deliberate attempt on the applicants’ part to falsify records so that they matched the self-employed earnings previously declared in tier 1 applications.

Undercover Policing Inquiry

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Can the Government give an assurance that, following the conclusion of the Mitting inquiry, any people who were actively spied upon by the police, including individuals who may have been tricked into intimate relationships with undercover officers, will be made aware of what occurred and will not be denied access to justice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that the rationale would not be to deny people access to justice. Clearly, the revelation of any names would be a matter for the chairman of what is an independent inquiry.

Immigration

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The Statement is apparently geared to what the Government describe as “illegal immigration”. In the Commons, the Home Secretary referred to “a broken system”—the Government’s words. After nearly 11 years in office, it is this Government who are responsible for the present system and its consequences, and it is time that the Government accepted their failings.

In 2010, the Government’s policy was to reduce net migration below 100,000. That policy—whether one agreed with it or not—was not implemented. We have never had an explanation from the Government as to why, nor will we have one today, because they will not wish to admit that it would have damaged our economy. It was certainly nothing to do with membership of the EU and free movement, because that was a known factor at the time when the policy was drawn up. That policy was clearly not drawn up with the intention that it would be implemented; it was simply because the Government wanted to attract headlines for sounding tough on reducing the number of people coming to this country. Time will tell whether the real purpose of this Statement falls into the same category.

We have a broken system because, over the last decade, the Government have been more interested in sounding tough to secure headlines than in addressing the broken system over which they now admit they have presided for some years and continue to preside. The Statement says that the Government’s current broken system

“limits our ability to properly support others in genuine need of protection. This is manifestly unfair to those desperately waiting to be resettled in the UK.”

It also refers to the system being overwhelmed, and to the

“persistent failure to enforce our immigration laws”.

Who exactly do the Government think is responsible for that failure which they have now recognised? The Statement also refers to the

“pathway to citizenship to enable over five million people in Hong Kong to come to the UK.”

We welcome this. Five million is somewhat larger than the 16,000 unauthorised arrivals detected in the UK in 2019 and which apparently

“limits our ability to properly support others in genuine need of protection.”

This assumes that none of the 16,000 is also in need of protection because they are fleeing war and persecution or, in the Government’s view, even worthy of protection simply because of the way in which they have reached this country.

The Hong Kong pathway is evidence of the need for safe, legal routes for those in need of refuge. Can the Government say how many of the 5 million eligible people in Hong Kong they expect to come to the UK? The policy statement says that

“an estimated 320,000 people [may] come to the UK over the next five years.”

How was that estimate arrived at and how many is it estimated may come from Hong Kong to the UK after the first five years? Can the Government also confirm that there is no restriction on the numbers of people in Hong Kong who are rightly allowed to come to the UK being able to do so?

The Statement says that, under the Government’s broken system, 109,000 claims are sitting in the asylum queue. No doubt, this is—at least in part—because the Government have allowed the share of applications receiving an initial decision within six months to fall from 87% in 2014 to just 20% in 2019. Why did the Government let that happen? Why are so many appeals successful? Are the Government going to tell us that it is all the fault of “leftie lawyers” or will they at last accept responsibility for the system which they now describe as “broken” and “collapsing”?

The Government have previously told us about pending agreements with France to stop criminal gangs involved in the terrible crime of human trafficking. What has happened to those promised agreements? The Statement is silent on that issue, though the policy statement tells us that, in 2019, 32,000 attempts to enter the UK by unauthorised groups were prevented in northern France.

The Government have previously referred to those who have arrived here through non-recognised routes being returned to the first country in which they could have sought asylum, or to another country. With which countries have the Government reached agreement to take back those seeking asylum who have arrived here through non-recognised routes? Is it their view of the provisions of international law and of the Refugee Convention that refugees fleeing war and persecution have to claim asylum in the first safe country through which they pass, and that they have no right to transit through another country to get to this country to claim asylum? Many would disagree with this stance is correct or right, but is it the Government’s position?

What safe and legal routes currently exist by which refugees, including children, can reach this country, following our departure from the EU and the ending of the Dublin arrangements? This is on top of the earlier abrupt cessation of the Dubs scheme. Is there any limit on the number of refugees who can come to the UK by safe and legal routes? If so, what is it? If there are no, or minimal, safe and legal routes, that is only going to make dangerous and unauthorised entries to this country, including through traffickers—whether by small boat, air, in the back of a lorry or a shipping container—more, not less likely.

The Government claim that, since our departure from the EU, we have control of our borders. Does that mean that implementing what is set out in the Statement is not dependent on reaching agreements with any other countries? Does claiming that we have control of our borders mean that, at all our ports of entry, the level of checks will be such that the likelihood of successful, unauthorised entry into this country is minimal?

Finally, how will success or failure of the policies set out in the Statement be judged? What will be the criteria, yardsticks and statistics against which the Government will make this assessment?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement claims to have taken back control of legal immigration by ending free movement. Not only can EU citizens continue to enter the UK without a visa, using the e-passport gates at UK airports, but rather than taking back control of legal immigration the Government have extended the use of these e-passport gates to a further seven countries. Before, citizens of those countries had to have a valid reason for entry, enough money to sustain them and evidence that they would leave again. As a result, thousands were turned away at the UK border every year. Can the Minister say what checks are now done on these visitors?

The Statement says that people are dying at sea. Is this not because safe and legal routes for genuine asylum seekers are inadequate or non-existent? How many safe and legal routes are open to genuine asylum seekers? Can the Minister explain how vulnerable people in a war zone can apply under such a scheme? What advice does she have for legitimate seekers of sanctuary in those parts of the world with no safe and legal routes to the UK?

The Statement says that the UK’s asylum system should be based on need. Yet the Government propose to set up a two-tier system, based not on need or the validity of someone’s claim but on how they got to the UK. Are the Government aware of Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees? It states:

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees... provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”


Are the Government’s proposals to penalise those who do not use safe and legal routes—routes which do not currently exist and for which the Government have no firm plans or timetable—not in contravention of its international obligations?

The Statement talks about someone illegally entering the UK from France. Can the Minister say on which piece of legislation the Government rely when they claim that asylum seekers who travel through a safe country to get to the UK can only claim asylum in that safe country? Even if they had claimed asylum in an EU country, what mechanism will the Government use to deport them, now that the UK is no longer part of the Dublin regulation?

The Statement claims that the immigration system “is collapsing” under the pressure of asylum applications. In the early 2000s, around 100,000 people a year were claiming asylum in the UK. In 2020, it was 36,000—a reduction of almost two-thirds, despite an increase in the number of people crossing the channel in small boats. Is the reason that the system is collapsing not channel crossings but Home Office mismanagement? Is the reason for the increase in channel crossings not due to the fact that people can no longer claim asylum from outside the UK?

Can the Minister confirm how many of the 42,000 failed asylum seekers who have not left the country are in the process of appealing a Home Office decision, when, on average, 50% of those claims are usually successful? Of those who have exhausted the legal process, why has the Home Office not deported them?

This is not a common-sense approach to controlling immigration. This Statement highlights a catalogue of government failures, along with an illegal proposal to discriminate against those legally seeking sanctuary in the UK and a hollow promise to help the most vulnerable at some unspecified date in the future. The policy has thrown open the UK border to even more countries while slamming the door shut on genuine asylum seekers. I have the greatest respect for the Minister—even though she rises in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

Extradition Act 2003 (Codes of Practice and Transit Code of Practice) Order 2021

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The Government are required to issue codes of practice in respect of the use of police powers in extradition cases under the Extradition Act 2003. These codes of practice update existing police powers codes published in 2011. The update is needed to reflect the use of police powers in relation to updated Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes and the new power of arrest under the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020. The police powers codes do not apply to Scotland.

The transit code of practice, which applies across the United Kingdom, sets out the powers for police during non-UK extradition transit under the 2003 Act: that is, allowing a person who is being extradited between two countries—neither of which are the UK—for the purpose of standing trial or serving a sentence to pass through our territory in custody. A constable can be authorised to escort the person from one form of transportation to another, take the person into custody to facilitate the transit, and to search for any item which the person might use to cause physical injury.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that

“Revised 2003 Act Police Powers Codes were consulted on in 2015”,


and again last year, and that

“The draft Transit Code of Practice was published for consultation in 2015. Some modifications were made following consultation and further modifications were recently made”.


Is the draft transit code of practice just being brought into operation, or has it been in operation since the consultation in 2015? If it is not already in operation, which appears the case despite consultation in 2015, why the delay since 2015?

On the Extradition Act 2003 codes of practice, the letter from the Minister of 22 February 2021 states that, in 2015, draft changes in respect of PACE codes were consulted on and agreed. However, revised codes were not subsequently laid. Why was that?

The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The approach to monitoring of this legislation is for the Home Office to closely monitor the impact of this Order.”


Could the Government explain exactly what that means in practice in relation to both the Extradition Act 2003 codes of practice and the Code of Practice for Non-UK Extradition Transit?

On the Code of Practice for Non-UK Extradition Transit, who has the power to give authority to a constable to take the person into custody to facilitate the transit, and how is the use of that authority under the transit code of practice monitored, and by whom? The letter of 22 February states:

“A decision to grant any request for transit will be discretionary. We would only expect to grant a request if the requesting country and the destination country are ones we would regularly extradite to and where we have international obligations that require us to do so”.


When the order was debated in the Commons, the Minister said:

“we would not allow transit if … the death penalty may be an issue”,

and that

“we do not agree extradition to all countries in the world, given our concerns about human rights.”—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/3/21; col. 6.]

Assuming that also applies to the code on extradition transit, could the Government say how many countries in the world we do not agree extradition to, given our concerns about human rights?

In the light of the Government’s statements to which I just referred, how often is it anticipated that the powers under the transit code of practice will be exercised this year and next year? How many countries are there that we regularly extradite to and where we also have international obligations that require us to do so, as referred to in the letter of 22 February?

On both codes of practice, is the monitoring on a continuous basis or at set intervals? Does the Home Office or any other body produce a written report available to Parliament on the findings of its close monitoring of the order and how the powers are being exercised?

When the order was debated in the Commons, my colleague the shadow Minister referred to the formal response paper to the consultation that has been published by the Home Office. That paper indicated that suggestions had been put forward on the issue of search and seizure provisions and on legal professional privilege material, but then said that these concerns were already adequately reflected in the codes. The shadow Minister asked for some additional assurances, including what the original concerns were and why they would be raised if they had already been addressed. The government Minister said that he would

“provide slightly more detail in writing.”—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/3/21; col. 6.]

I am not sure whether that has been done yet, but could I also have a copy of that response, since I assume that the Government will not be able to take this issue any further forward in their response today?

The shadow Minister also referred to concerns raised about the then unknown future provisions for extradition proceedings with EU member states post Brexit, and asked about the implementation of the new arrangements and their operational efficacy. In short, he asked:

“is extradition now working as frictionlessly as under the previous regime?”—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/3/21; col. 4.]

Since some EU states have a bar on the extradition of their own nationals beyond the European Union and we are now no longer a member of the EU, does that mean that some criminals who would have been extradited under the previous regime can no longer be extradited?

The Minister in the Commons said of the new arrangements:

“On the operational positions with the European Union, our initial feedback is that they appear to be working fairly well.”—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/3/21; col. 5.]


That suggests that extradition is not now working as frictionlessly as under the previous regime. Could the Government, in their response in this House, spell out in rather more detail exactly what the Minister in the Commons meant when he said that the new arrangements were working “fairly well”? What precisely does that mean in practical terms?

We are not opposed to these codes, which are intended to enhance national security and protect our communities—a top priority issue that can be delivered while also protecting our rights and freedoms. However, I hope that the Government will be able to respond, now or subsequently, to the points and questions that I and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have raised and asked.

Forensic Science Regulator Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark on his very clear and well-argued explanation of the case for the Bill. The Member for Bristol North West, Darren Jones, clearly made a very good choice in deciding who to ask to sponsor the Bill in this House.

My noble friend made reference to the breadth of disciplines covered by forensic science today, and the importance of all involved in and with the criminal justice system having confidence in the methodology used, evidence given and conclusions reached by forensic scientists in light of the potentially powerful impact that their findings can have on the outcome of a case. Poor-quality forensics can lead to failed prosecution of criminals and a failure to secure justice for victims. At worst, it could even lead to the conviction of those who are innocent. Worryingly, a Home Office-commissioned review, to which my noble friend referred, identified an increased perception of the risk of unsafe forensic evidence. Hence the importance of an oversight regime that is independent and has the resources, skills, knowledge and powers to ensure that there are not only mandatory quality standards applicable to the providers of forensic science services, but that such standards can be enforced. It is this latter aspect that the Bill is designed to address by putting the existing forensic science regulator post on a statutory basis and giving the regulator powers to enforce a statutory code of practice for forensic science activities relating to the criminal justice system in England and Wales.

The current role of the regulator includes delivering standards and ensuring the quality of providers and processes, but the regulator does not have the power to require compliance with codes of practice, ensure consistency of standards and deliver change, because present regulation operates on a voluntary model basis.

According to a report from our own Science and Technology Committee, the private forensic science market is dominated by three large providers, all of which have experienced some form of instability. The market is also served by a number of smaller private forensic science service providers, some of which employ only one or two people. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that we also need to consider, albeit separately, wider concerns about the state of the forensic science services than are covered by the Bill.

In July 2019, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said that the regulator needed statutory powers because of

“an unstable forensics market which has been on the brink of collapse, and the clear need to uphold quality standards across forensic services”.

My noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark also referred to the view of our own Science and Technology Committee when it said:

“It is hard to understand why … the Forensic Science Regulator still lacks powers they need … The Forensic Science industry is in trouble; such action is now urgent”.


That view was also held by the last regulator, Dr Gillian Tully, who said in her final annual report, published in January:

“Although a last resort, the potential for enforcement action is an important driver for proactive improvement. It will also mean that those who fail to follow robust scientific methodology and the legal requirements on experts can be prevented from continuing to pose a risk to the criminal justice system”.


Previously, the regulator had said that the delay in passing such legislation had

“without doubt resulted in slower progress towards compliance with quality standards, particularly in very small companies and police forces”.

In 2016, the Government said that they would develop proposals to give the forensic science regulator statutory powers. I understand that the Government continue to support this Bill, and I hope they will confirm that in their response today.

Police: Sarah Everard Vigils

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question because it segues quite nicely from the points that I have just made. Yes, most of the events and vigils went peacefully with people socially distancing and the police having no problems at all. I think that the review by Sir Tom Winsor will give us a greater insight into why some things went wrong on Saturday at one particular event.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

On Monday, the Home Secretary told the Commons that the Metropolitan Police Service was “rightly operationally independent.” Given that, what was the purpose of the extensive discussions held by the Home Secretary with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner throughout the weekend on police planning and preparation for the vigil? Was the purpose that the Home Secretary wanted to make sure that the Metropolitan Police would not do anything with which she did not agree?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is absolutely right that the commissioner of the largest police force in the country should keep the Home Secretary up to date, and I know that she speaks with her regularly. That is not so the Home Secretary can dictate what the Metropolitan Police does, but it is very important that the two keep in communication.

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I would first like to express our heartfelt condolences and sympathy to the family and friends of Sarah Everard. Her tragic and appalling death has shocked and shaken us all, as the reaction to it has shown. We know that, much as we might want to think we can fully understand the turmoil and unbridled grief her family and friends are going through, in reality there is no way we can.

The pictures and media reports of what happened on Saturday during the policing of the vigil at Clapham Common have rightly led to many expressions of concern. The Inspectorate of Constabulary is undertaking a lessons-learned investigation and we await its findings. I would appreciate the Minister indicating first when those findings are expected and, secondly, that they will be made public. It also seems that the Home Secretary had discussions with the Metropolitan Police about the vigil and that she subsequently asked for a report on what happened from the commissioner. Will that report be made public?



Can the Government say what the purpose was of the discussions that the Home Secretary had with the Metropolitan Police prior to and about the vigil? The Home Secretary has said that operational issues are a matter for the police, so can we have an assurance that the Home Secretary did not seek to influence the commissioner on what the operational decisions on the policing of the vigil should be? Is there a record of those discussions, and will it be made public?

The tragic death of Sarah Everard and the apparent circumstances surrounding it have highlighted the fears felt extensively by women and girls over their personal safety, and the extent of the harassment, abuse and violence, including fatal violence, that they face on an all too regular basis from men. To say that a solution is for women to stay indoors and be more careful is completely unacceptable. The solution lies in men changing cultures and attitudes towards women and leading that change. It is not women who should change their behaviour. It is men and wider society that must change.

It is clear that the Government have failed in their role of creating an environment in which women and girls do not walk around in fear outside and live in fear inside. The Statement by the Home Secretary goes to some lengths to set out what the Government believe that they have done, and what they propose to do, to ensure that women and girls can feel safe. It is a very defensive part of the Statement. That the Government felt it necessary to put it in the Statement at such length says it all.

Interestingly, the Statement makes no reference to the reduction in the number of front-line police officers over the last decade, which the Government are now trying to reverse, no reference to the failed and damaging reorganisation of the probation service, which has had to be reversed, and no reference to the impact of the cuts made in our criminal justice system as far as our courts are concerned.

The Statement does make reference to the Domestic Abuse Bill. It is a good Bill, but the Government know that there is more that they could and should be doing to ensure that all women can safely leave abuse and access refuge services, that women feel safe to report abuse to the police, that disabled women have protection when intimate caring relationships turn abusive, and plenty more that this House has asked for. In particular, yesterday this House voted to ensure the registering, monitoring and supervision of serial abusers and stalkers—in essence, dangerous and predatory men—and to require a strategy on perpetrators. What will the Government now do about delivering that? They have come forward with plans to increase CCTV and street lighting, and to put more police in bars. That will make hardly a dent in the real problems. The real issue —as we are told by women who are shouted at while they are out running, who are followed on public transport, who are unsafe as they walk home—is not the lighting on the street but the perpetrators and harassers on the street.

We have put forward a 10-point plan on what now must happen. We must particularly address the low level of rape charges and convictions, and the need for new laws to stop harassment. Will the Government use the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to tackle these issues? At the moment, the Bill seems more concerned with statues than with women. Are the Government now prepared to work with us and others in a collaborative way, to put forward and promote measures that will fully address the concerns that so many women and girls feel about their personal safety in this country today?

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my heart goes out to the friends and family of Sarah Everard. I cannot imagine the pain and grief that they feel at this time. It also goes out to all women and girls whose fear of being attacked has, understandably, increased as a result of these terrible events. I also say to each and every decent and honest police officer—some of whom have contacted me, shocked and concerned about how recent events have made their job of protecting and reassuring the public more difficult, not just because of the allegations made against someone in their own ranks but because of the serious mishandling of the vigil on Clapham Common by their own senior officers—that I understand how they feel.

I was an advanced public-order-trained police officer—a senior officer trained to the highest level to deal with situations such as that faced by the police on Saturday—and I have been in charge of policing numerous high-profile events. What went wrong? I say first to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that I make no criticism of the officers on the ground carrying out the orders of their senior officers. I am not an armchair critic of operational police officers making difficult decisions in real time on the ground. However, I am a critic of the senior police officers who set and devised such a disastrous strategy and then implemented it from the calm of the control room.

One of the first lessons that you are taught as a senior public order officer is not to ban gatherings. Organisers can work with you to implement restrictions; they can provide stewards to marshal those attending, and they can make public appeals that this should be a peaceful, socially distanced, candlelit vigil. Instead, the organisers were forced to withdraw, local authority Covid marshals could not be deployed, and the police were set against the public. Those seeking confrontation with the police, and who have nothing to do with women’s safety, potentially saw an opportunity, and the chances of being able to safely and peacefully police this vigil faded into the distance.

The appalling scenes that we saw on Clapham Common on Saturday were the inevitable result of decisions made by the police long before they forcibly broke up those who had gathered, albeit irresponsibly close together in large numbers. The decisions that the police made were even more unbelievable when you consider the circumstances that gave rise to the vigil in the first place.

The Home Secretary has said that she discussed the policing of the vigil with the commissioner on Friday. What advice did she give to the police about the way that it should be handled? I can understand someone with no training and no experience suggesting a zero-tolerance approach to the vigil, but not highly trained and experienced senior police officers. I appreciate that the Minister cannot account for the actions of the Mayor of London, but he should be asked the same question. That is why the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, has written to them both asking exactly this question.

What about the response? No, Home Secretary, the scenes at Clapham Common were not “upsetting”; they were totally unacceptable. A so-called independent review has been commissioned from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, which has just published a report that concludes that the police must find the correct balance between the rights of protestors and the rights of others, and that:

“The balance may tip too readily in favour of protestors”.

Does the Minister seriously think that HMICFRS is the right body to conduct this review, in the light of its report, published only five days ago? I know that the Minister agrees with me that knee-jerk reactions are not the best way to find lasting solutions to serious problems.

We have seen too many media reports showing perfectly lit CCTV footage of women being attacked to believe that more lighting and CCTV are the answer. Because of government cuts to local authority budgets, many councils have had to switch off their cameras or have given up live monitoring because they can no longer afford to maintain an effective CCTV system. Putting plain-clothed police officers in the pubs and clubs to identify vulnerable women and potential perpetrators would not have saved Sarah Everard. Asking a group of people who are themselves the focus of criticism what immediate action should be taken is unlikely to come up with the right answer.

What should we do? We need not just to record offences motivated by sex or gender but to make misogyny a real hate crime, where victims are given enhanced support and courts treat misogyny as an aggravating factor. We must teach young people how to treat each other with dignity and respect. We need a culture change that rejects the authoritarian populism that leads to misogyny, xenophobia and intolerance of diversity. And we need an investigation into whether a Metropolitan Police officer being accused of the kidnap and murder of a woman, another Metropolitan Police officer being accused of sharing sick graphics and jokes at the scene of her murder, and other Metropolitan Police officers being accused of taking selfies with the body of a murdered woman, are signs of serious problems with the culture in the Metropolitan Police. One serving Metropolitan Police officer I know and trust told me in a message on Friday that he is “counting down the years until I can retire and get out of this poisonous organisation.”

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 15th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as we have heard, the first of these amendments

“would provide migrant victims of abuse”

who do not have secure immigration status

“with temporary leave to remain and access to public funds … so they can access support services”,

such as refuge places,

“while they flee abuse and apply to resolve their immigration status.”

Less than 6% of refuge beds are available to women without recourse to public funds, for example. It would extend the domestic violence rule and destitute domestic violence concession to a few thousand more migrant survivors of abuse who are not covered by the existing provisions, which cover only a limited group of survivors on certain spousal and partner visas. It would also extend the period covered from three months to six to allow sufficient time for their immigration status to be regularised.

With the greatest respect to the Minister, the phrase

“we require a more complete and reliable evidence base”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 99.]

is being a little overused in the course of the Bill; she has already deployed this argument in relation to community support services. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester said in Committee, the evidence

“has already been submitted by key specialist organisations”

in

“response to the Home Office’s migrant victims of domestic abuse review in September 2020.”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 80.]

The government pilot announced at Second Reading in the other place covers only about 500 women for a period of 12 weeks. I am always sceptical of pilots announced in the face of amendments designed to make permanent changes.

Amendment 87 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, receive equal protection and support; this would include the migrant victims of domestic abuse in Amendment 70.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned the Istanbul convention. I was particularly struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who was a member of the coalition Government that signed the convention in 2012. He also mentioned the Private Member’s Bill, now an Act, that was passed by Parliament in 2017. Getting 135 MPs to turn up on a Friday when their allowance, unlike ours, does not depend on their attendance—and they were giving up valuable time in their constituencies—showed the strength of feeling on this issue.

This amendment cites Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Article 4 requires parties to

“take the necessary legislative and other measures to promote and protect the right for everyone, particularly women, to live free from violence in both the public and the private sphere.”

I mentioned this in the debate on the previous group. Article 4(3) states:

“The implementation of the provisions of this Convention by the Parties, in particular measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground”.

It then goes on to list a whole range of factors in the convention, specifically listing the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and “migrant or refugee status”.

We support Amendments 70 and 87, and expect Divisions on both of them. We will support their movers when it comes to the votes.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I seek to be relatively brief. Amendment 70, moved so compellingly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, would extend the destitution domestic violence concession to all migrant victims of abuse, providing them with

“temporary leave to remain and access to public funds, for a period of no less than six months … while they flee abuse and apply to resolve their immigration status.”

Amendment 87, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, spoke so powerfully, would ensure that

“all victims of domestic abuse are protected, regardless of their status, in line with Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.”

Amendment 70 addresses a major gap in the Bill—namely, the lack of provision for migrant women in particular. They are probably one of the most vulnerable groups suffering domestic abuse. Despite that, they do not get the same level of support as other domestic abuse survivors, with the suspicion being that migrant women in this position are all too often regarded as immigration cases rather than victims of domestic abuse—making it even more likely that abuse of migrant women will take place and simply continue.

This is because the reality is that migrant women who do not have established immigration status find it difficult, if not impossible, to access refuges and other essential support services to escape abuse. Also, their abusers know that they do not have funds of their own—their abusers make sure of that—and have no recourse to the public funds necessary to access that support because of their lack of status. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, reminded us, less than 6% of refuge beds are available to women without recourse to public funds because refuges cannot carry out their vital work without income.

I await the Government’s response, particularly to see whether it still seeks to put off making any meaningful specific commitment to address the plight of migrant women suffering domestic abuse, and whether the response also suggests that, at heart, the Government still regard migrant women without established immigration status who suffer domestic abuse as primarily an immigration issue rather than a domestic one.

In Committee, the Government spoke about a pilot exercise. Again, the right reverend Prelate highlighted the inadequacy of that exercise and the fact that it does not actually commit the Government to doing anything.

The domestic abuse commissioner-designate supports this amendment, and the evidence in support of it is already there in the public domain. The terms of this Domestic Abuse Bill have been debated and discussed for a number of years, going back to when Theresa May was Home Secretary. No doubt as a result of that discussion and consideration, the Bill marks real progress in a number of areas.

However, the fact that the Government still say that they do not know enough about the plight of migrant women faced with domestic abuse to agree to this amendment says a great deal about their attitude to, and the priority they give to, this particular highly vulnerable group. The time to act is now. Action should not be delayed or kicked into the long grass any longer.

We support Amendment 70. We will also support Amendment 87, which seeks to ensure that

“all victims of domestic abuse are protected, regardless of their status”,

if it is taken to a vote.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Lady Helic for their continued commitment to providing support for migrant victims of domestic abuse. I want to take this opportunity also to thank the International Agreements Committee, which is represented so well this afternoon.

As I highlighted in Committee, I know that we all share the view that anyone who has suffered domestic abuse, regardless of their immigration status, should be treated first and foremost as a victim. Although the Government appreciate the sentiment behind these amendments, we still do not think that they are an appropriate way forward.

Amendment 70 seeks to provide at least six months’ leave and access to public funds to all migrant victims of domestic abuse, as well as providing them with a route to apply for leave to remain. Amendment 87 seeks equally effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, while also referring to Article 4(3) of the Istanbul convention.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

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

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and other noble Lords who have spoken so knowledgeably, as probably became apparent in Committee, children and babies are not my area of expertise, apart from being a mother and a grandmother myself—so that is one small qualification greater than the noble Lord, Lord Russell. In Committee, I learned a lot of shocking facts about the damage that babies can suffer even before birth as a result of domestic abuse. I was shocked to learn that nearly a quarter of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about the role of foetal alcohol disorder: another issue that can just make the situation even more terrible.

Pregnancy can bring a great strain into a relationship for many reasons—financial strain for one and impending change for another. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, gave several examples of such strains. Much attention is, deservedly, given to the mother during and after pregnancy, but, until recently, the father had been regarded as more peripheral, less involved, a bit of a spare part. This has changed in recent years, I know, but there is still plenty of opportunity for resentment to develop.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, new fatherhood can be a great motivator for change. That is why this time would be an ideal opportunity to lavish some attention on the father and big up his role and importance. It is an ideal time for perpetrator strategies to be put in place. Can the Minister update the House on how this opportunity to implement perpetrator strategies could be exploited within the existing remit of the health service?

I am not sure we need to change the law for that—and for the other good practice mentioned in this suite of amendments—to happen, although the noble Lord, Lord McColl, believes that a baby in utero does not qualify as a victim. Can the Minister confirm exactly what the Government’s view is?

Amendment 78 requires the Secretary of State to supply the funding for trauma-informed and attachment-focused therapeutic work for the parents of all little victims. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, emphasised the importance of early intervention.

Amendments 8 and 9 seek to ensure that babies in utero will be covered in the Bill’s provisions. The amendments’ supporters made a strong case for that in Committee, citing harrowing examples of the potentially lifelong damage which can be done before a child is even born. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances that these victims—in utero as well as post birth—will be covered by the Bill’s provisions. Several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, talked about the baby blind spot. We must consider the baby’s needs, and I hope that the baby blind spot does not apply to this Government.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, when, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, these issues were debated in Committee, the Government argued that the need for statutory agencies to recognise and respond to the impact of domestic abuse on children of all ages is already embedded in the Bill and the associated statutory guidance. The Government said that they recognised that pregnancy can be a trigger for domestic abuse and that existing abuse may get worse during pregnancy or after giving birth.

The Government went on to say in Committee that the statutory guidance made clear that local authorities, with their partners, had a responsibility to develop clear local protocols for assessment, and that these protocols should reflect where assessments require particular care and include unborn children where there are concerns. Further, the Government said that if there are concerns relating to an unborn child, consideration should be given to whether to hold a child protection conference prior to that child’s birth, with decisions regarding the child’s future safety, health and development made at that conference.

The Government concluded their response in Committee by saying they were committed to protecting all children, including the very youngest, from the heinous crime of domestic abuse. There have since been further discussions. We agree that pregnant women, unborn children and young children need access to support and protection. I look forward to the Government, in their response, giving further meaningful assurances that this will be the case.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Stroud for affording us the further opportunity to debate the impact of domestic abuse on very young children and unborn babies. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made an important point about alcohol as a trigger for domestic abuse and the effect of alcohol on an unborn child, which is part and parcel of this. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, made a point about preventive measures being so important in our aim of protecting victims or potential victims of domestic abuse.

Amendment 7 to Clause 3 seeks to recognise unborn babies exposed to domestic abuse in utero as victims of domestic abuse. Amendments 8 and 9 to Clause 7 seek to explicitly provide for the domestic abuse commissioner to encourage good practice and provide protection and support to children under the age of two, including unborn babies, affected by domestic abuse. Amendment 78 seeks to make provision for publicly funded therapeutic services for expectant parents and parents of children under the age of two who are victims of domestic abuse. Finally, Amendment 90 seeks to make explicit reference to unborn babies and children under two in the statutory guidance to be issued under Clause 73.

Under Clause 3, children of all ages, from birth to the day that they turn 18, are considered victims of domestic abuse in their own right if they see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse and are related either to the targeted victim of the abuse or to the perpetrator. As such, all children will benefit from the provisions in the Bill. For example, Part 2 expressly recognises the impact of domestic abuse on children in the statutory functions of the domestic abuse commissioner. Part 4 of the Bill places a new duty on tier 1 local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children within safe accommodation. This would include the kind of support referred to in Amendment 78. In addition, Clause 73(2) provides that the Secretary of State must issue guidance on the

“kinds of behaviour that amount to domestic abuse”

and on the effect of domestic abuse on all children.

Separate to the provisions in the Bill, there are important existing measures in the Children Act 1989 to protect children at risk of harm. These include Section 8 of that Act, which makes provisions for child arrangement orders regulating arrangements relating to when a child is to live, spend time with or otherwise have contact with any other person, and whom. Section 17 sets out the provision of services for children in need, their families and others. Part V sets out measures for the protection of children, including in Section 43 on child assessment orders; Section 44 on orders for the emergency protection of children; and Section 47, which sets out the local authority’s duty to investigate when it suspects that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has outlined, this is a modest amendment which gives the commissioner a bit more leeway when it comes to appointments to the advisory board. More than this, it reflects the autonomy that we feel she should have. That is why we have picked this particular amendment as something that represents that.

Circumstances will change, as will the person who inhabits the role of commissioner. New disciplines and new ways of tackling the scourge of domestic abuse will emerge. In the Bill, the commissioner has some discretion on whom she appoints to her advisory board, which must have

“not fewer than six and not more than ten members”.

But what if she—or, in the future he—discovers someone else who could make an invaluable contribution but she already has the maximum number of 10 specified in the Bill? Does she take them on in different ways or co-opt them? Are they representatives? As several noble Lords have said, it is not necessarily a representative role that she needs; it is advice. She is there to advise, so why would we hamper her in that way?

I hope the Minister can explain the logic behind what seems to many noble Lords to be an arbitrary figure. If he cannot, can he please accede to this modest amendment.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Amendment 11 would remove the upper limit of “not more than ten” for members of the domestic abuse commissioner’s advisory board. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked

“why put an upper limit in legislation?”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1706.]

This question was supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who clearly also felt that a domestic abuse commissioner should be sufficiently trusted to decide for her or himself how many people they need on their own advisory board over the lower limit of six provided for in the Bill.

Although it was a straightforward question, reading in Hansard the Government’s response in Committee still leaves one unclear as to the answer. We were told by the Government that no more than 10 members would

“ensure that the board remains focused and provides clear advice to the commissioner.”

What is the Government’s evidence that 11 or 12 members, for example, would lead to an advisory board that is unfocused and provides confusing advice to the commissioner? No evidence at all was provided.

The Government then told us that a maximum membership of 10 was

“appropriate to ensure that the board can operate effectively and efficiently.”

Once again, not one piece of evidence was advanced as to why 11 or 12 would result in an advisory board that did not operate effectively or efficiently.

Unless it is a government desire to control as much as possible from the centre, what is the reason for the Government pulling the purely arbitrary figure of a maximum of 10 out of the hat, with the consequence that the limit on the size of the domestic abuse commissioner’s advisory board is a fixed, rigid and permanent number, laid down in law with not even an iota of flexibility?

Later on in their response, the Government said that they could

“leave it to the good judgement of the commissioner to appoint suitably qualified individuals”.

So the Government have confidence in the commissioner appointing suitably qualified individuals to her own advisory board, but not the confidence to let the commissioner decide how many such suitably qualified individuals she needs on her advisory board, over and above the minimum of six.

The Government also told us that they needed to

“avoid creating an unwieldy board which cannot then provide effective support to the commissioner.”

So the Government have so little confidence in the domestic abuse commissioner that they think that she, or a successor, would otherwise create an unwieldy advisory board unable to provide them with effective support.

However, the Government’s argument in Committee then did a complete U-turn. Having told us that there must be a rigid and fixed maximum number on the advisory board laid down by law, they then told us that the maximum membership of 10

“does not preclude the commissioner from also seeking advice from other sources”,

that

“the commissioner will be required to establish a victims and survivors advisory group to ensure that it engages directly with victims and survivors in its work”,

and, finally, that the commissioner

“may also establish any other groups as she sees fit.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1711.]

So while the Government cannot trust the commissioner not to overdo it on the maximum membership of her own advisory board, they presumably trust the commissioner not to overdo seeking advice from other sources, not to overdo establishing a victims and survivors advisory group, and not to overdo establishing however many other groups she sees fit. The necessity for a fixed, rigid, permanent, statutory, government-determined maximum number, to be imposed on the commissioner for her and her successors’ own advisory board, just does not add up. That is why the Government could give no coherent, credible, evidence-backed explanation in Committee of the need for a statutory maximum, or why that maximum should be 10. The Government really ought to have a rethink on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Burt and the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove, Lady Meacher and Lady Watkins, for their careful and thoughtful introduction to, and support for, both the amendments. I also thank the Minister for his comments at the end of Committee on the Bill, but, as others have said, it is certainly easier for the Government to work with Amendment 13, because the responsibility falls on the commissioner to work with the NHS—whether it is CCGs or hospital trusts.

The key point for me is that there is already the ability to choose your hospital, which we do through NHS e-referral services. For these children, fleeing domestic abuse and probably being moved on at extremely short notice, the real crisis is that they will plummet to the bottom of a long waiting list at exactly the crisis moment when they will need support.

I urge the Minister to consider that particular problem. I appreciate all the arrangements that the Government have made. We shall see what is in the NHS Bill, as and when this is published, but this very small, particular group of children need very particular support. This is absolutely the case for children applying to child and adolescent mental health services, where we know that there is already an extreme shortage of access to these services. The one thing that is true about children fleeing domestic abuse is that they are likely to be traumatised. Delaying their treatment further will give them very serious problems.

On the schools issue, I think it is an excellent notion to use the same duties as for looked-after children. I also want to make the point that I made about NHS services in Committee. Military children should also be prioritised for school places when they move. This should apply also to children fleeing domestic abuse.

In certain areas where schools are full, a six to eight-month gap to find a school place is not uncommon. This exacerbates the problem of the children not getting any part of their lives back to normal. I appreciate that processes and protocols take time, but there must be some interim measures to help these children. There is no doubt that this Government understand the importance of getting children back into school. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has said, the impact of Covid and the pressure on schools to reopen as quickly as is safe is completely understandable. These children’s lives are being traumatised by the pandemic—although perhaps not as severely as those of elderly adults. They need a transformation. They need access to school and medical services.

So I urge the Minister to agree to these amendments and ensure that the processes which need to be set up behind the scenes between the commissioner, NHS services and the DfE can happen.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 13, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, would require NHS bodies to co-operate to allow children who have had to move due to domestic abuse to receive any NHS treatment for which they had been referred no later than if they had not moved. Amendment 76 would extend the duty on local authorities to provide school places for looked-after children to children who are forced to change schools as a result of domestic abuse.

In Committee, the Government’s response to Amendment 13 was the same as it had been in the Commons: namely, that access to the NHS is based on clinical priority and that a child’s need to access and receive health services is assessed and services provided according to clinical need. The response overlooked the point that, in the case of children forced to relocate because of domestic abuse, if the forced move is from an area where the wait following referral could be 18 months to two years to another area where the wait is for a similar period, a clinician might not see that vulnerable child for a lengthy period—literally years—and that any decisions would not be being made by clinicians.

Nor was there any response to another point made in the debate in Committee: namely, that, since the Armed Forces covenant protects service people’s waiting list position if they are redeployed and the family moves home to a new area, why could a similar principle not be applied to children who have to move home to another area due to domestic abuse?

In Committee in this House the Government said:

“When patients move home and change hospitals, the NHS should take previous waiting time into account and ensure, wherever possible, that these patients are not put at a disadvantage as a result … Where the systems or processes of the NHS are an impediment to equitable treatment for this group, it will be important for the NHS to work to ensure that such impediments are removed, and we will support and encourage that.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; cols. 1727-28.]


In Committee, the Government made no attempt to say whether they either agreed or disagreed that there was a problem of extended delays in waiting times, or whether vulnerable children who had to be relocated due to domestic abuse do or do not receive NHS treatment for which they have been referred no later than if they had not moved.

Could the Minister, in his response today, give us the figures setting out the extent to which children having to relocate due to domestic abuse do or do not receive NHS treatment for which they have been referred no later than if they had not moved? Presumably the Government would not have rejected this amendment in Committee without knowing what the figures were, and thus the extent of the problem and its consequences for the vulnerable children concerned.

Likewise, on the issue of the provision of school places for children who are forced to move location and change their school as a result of domestic abuse, can the Government, if they are not prepared to act on this amendment, provide figures showing the extent to which they consider that there is or is not a problem in respect of the provision of school place for these vulnerable children who need all the support they can get? Like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I look forward to the Government’s response and hope that it will be a positive one.