Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I too welcome this Bill and congratulate my noble friend on her excellent introduction. I know how much she cares about this important issue, and, like others, I believe this legislation is urgently needed, especially as ongoing lockdowns have aggravated domestic violence and abuse. I welcome the many measures focusing on protecting women, who are the majority of reported victims.

This is a good Bill as it stands, and it could be improved further. I welcome the inclusion of children as victims of domestic abuse in the Bill and respect my noble friend’s plea not to make the best the enemy of the good. But I will mention two important issues in my short time today, which could be addressed now, rather than having to wait for future opportunities.

First, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I call on the Government to ensure that the abuse of people over the age of 75 is taken more seriously. The ONS still fails even to collect relevant data, despite clear research evidence that abuse affects many over-75s. As more older people live either alone or in frailty, the opportunity for unrecorded abuse increases. They need protection, and including carers in the Bill as connected persons is important.

The second issue relates to divorce rather than cohabitation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, says, there are major risks in post-separation abuse, with one partner applying pressure on the other during emotionally charged divorce proceedings. Many colleagues have mentioned women needing to be protected against economic abuse or coercive control; this is right. However, I wish to highlight the prevalent problem of parental alienation, which entails psychological or emotional abuse impacting on many fathers and their children. This Bill fails to explicitly recognise parental alienation, which inflicts long-term damage on children, who are frequently innocent bystanders witnessing or being part of parental conflict.

Meaningful relationships with both parents are widely recognised as in the best interests of children, but parental contact can be overridden by false accusations used to punish the other parent. Unfortunately, I have personal experience of this, in one case with a cousin and in another with a friend whose spouse raised false allegations during divorce. There is no penalty or legal recourse against such unfounded allegations, which were deliberately designed to sever the children’s paternal relationship. This psychological manipulation damaged the father’s health and the children internalised the impact, which manifested later as self-harm, eating disorders, academic decline and depression.

Parental alienation is defined by CAFCASS; Dr Adrienne Barnett from its research advisory committee states that such alienation should be called out for what it is: domestic abuse. However, it is not yet explicitly recognised in law, so we have an opportunity to address it in this Bill. Recognising parental alienation in law as an improper act can help with prevention and redress, and reduce the instances of this kind of abuse by proxy in which children are weaponised against one of their parents. I recognise it as a sensitive and difficult area, and of course we must protect children against violent or criminal behaviour with a dangerous parent, but psychological experts in parental alienation can help identify and differentiate between unfounded allegations and unsafe contact, moving the debate into the field of medical expertise rather than that of the courts. I wonder whether my noble friend would be willing to meet with me and other interested colleagues to discuss this and see whether we may specifically include parental alienation in this Bill.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

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

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

My Lords, first, I want to apologise for my intervention on Amendment 1, which was quite inappropriate. I stupidly misunderstood, and I apologise.

I support Amendments 2 and 4. False allegations, of the severity of which the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has spoken, are abusive to the other parent, who is the victim—and, of course, they have extremely adverse effects on the children. As a former family judge, I found those cases not only very serious but distressing. In some, it was impossible to achieve an outcome of a relationship between the child and the parent whom the child had been taught to loathe, despise and have nothing to do with. It was very distressing.

It is important, however, to recognise that these are a minority of cases. It is equally important to recognise, as the noble Baroness said, that they can be used as a defence against genuine allegations of domestic abuse. I got an email this morning setting out how a woman had clearly been abused but the man kept telling the court that it was parental alienation and he was not prepared to accept that he had been guilty of abuse.

In the majority of cases, the reason for non-contact or limited contact between a parent and their child should be the implications of domestic abuse. It is important, however, to leave discretion over contact and looking at parental alienation to the judges. The judicial college might consider whether for some judges, at some levels—not the High Court—there is adequate judicial training in this complicated subject. A little more time might be spent teaching magistrates, district judges and circuit judges a little more about it.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill, which is designed to help victims of domestic abuse across the country with comprehensive measures that introduce enhanced protections against, and recognition of the suffering of victims of, many forms of abusive behaviour. I support the aims of the Bill and, alongside many victims, eagerly await its introduction.

I rise to speak to Amendments 2 and 4, to which I have added my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I thank my noble friends on the Front Bench for engaging with us on this issue. I hope we may continue discussions before Report.

The Bill’s first four clauses provide a broad definition of domestic abuse and concentrate on behaviour rather than definitions or syndromes. These amendments were excellently introduced by my noble friend Lady Meyer. The whole Committee must have been moved by her explanation of the way this issue has impacted on her. Clause 1(3) identifies psychological, emotional and other abuse but does not mention the behaviour described in these amendments, which we call alienation or, specifically here, parental alienation. If children are used as a weapon by an abusive parent against another parent and the wider family, this is surely domestic abuse and belongs in the Bill.

A network of leading international and UK experts in several professional fields, after consultation with other professionals and stakeholders involved with parental alienation and child psychological abuse, have produced a paper which we are happy to share with interested noble Lords. It concludes that parental alienation is most readily described as a range of behaviours and is not a syndrome, as some people like to call it. It is both child abuse and domestic abuse, but not a diagnostic label, which supports our aims of identifying it in the Bill.

Parental alienation has been confirmed by Cafcass as being both child abuse and domestic abuse, involving clear coercing and controlling behaviour. Fathers, mothers and other family members can be perpetrators and victims, but the children are always the victims. In its helpful briefing to Peers, Cafcass explains that parental alienation is a description of an array of behaviours, processes and outcomes when a child’s resistance or hostility towards one parent is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation through a range of abusive behaviours by the other parent.

I recognise that there is controversy surrounding this issue, which saddens me. My noble friend Lady Meyer dealt with a number of the issues that have concerned us, including what appears rather a one-sided assessment of the case against parental alienation. Of course, it is possible that abusive fathers will use this in the context of family courts to commit further abuse against a mother trying to protect her children, but the Bill is about domestic abuse; fears of allegations being falsely made are inherent in much legislation yet surely cannot be a reason to decline to legislate.

Responsible legislators must not be biased in favour of one group or another but should be mindful of the broad sweep of issues that need to be considered. Even if there are egregious examples of women being abused by this kind of alienation, there are many men, and children and wider families, who also need protection against this abuse. It is important that each allegation is carefully examined by the court at an early stage. Sometimes, there is both psychological abuse by alienation and physical or sexual abuse in the same family. But there is a lack of reliable evidence—as opposed to anecdotes by parents who may regard court decisions wrong—that men or women are more likely to raise false allegations, or that courts systemically prefer fathers or mothers. Therefore, what is relevant, and beneficial to the Bill, is to require proper exploration of alienating behaviours, so that these can be observed by mental health professionals, together with family judges and lawyers across the UK in identifying cases where parental alienation or alienating behaviours have occurred.

I agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that it would be helpful to have enhanced judicial training to identify and understand these behaviours, but it is essential that qualified professionals assist the court with assessing whether there is this type of abuse and identifying problems of alienation at an early stage, before the psychological impact becomes ingrained in children and does dreadful long-term damage, which has been described as being associated with this issue. I hope we may discuss this further with other noble Lords and the ministerial team to make progress on this matter for Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

3: Clause 1, page 2, line 1, at end insert—
“(f) unreasonable prevention or threat of prevention of dissolution of a religious Jewish marriage via a religious bill of divorce (a “get”);”Member’s explanatory statement
This specifically itemises one spouse unreasonably preventing the dissolution of a Jewish religious marriage with a ‘get’ as being within the scope of the Bill by bringing it under the definition of abusive behaviour.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak also to my other amendments in this group—Amendments 5, 168, 169 and 170, which all relate to the same issue.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Palmer, who have added their names to the amendments, providing cross-party support. I also thank my noble friends the Ministers, who have been so generous with their time in meeting Peers to discuss the amendments and other issues relating to the Bill, and indeed for their passion for, and dedication to, improving the support and recognition of victims of domestic abuse.

This set of amendments is designed to address a specific type of abuse that mostly affects religious Jewish women, and I declare an interest as one. This issue has long been of concern to me and to many other religious Jews in this country and worldwide. Our aim with the amendments is to help victims who are unable to leave a failed marriage because their spouse unreasonably decides to prevent them moving on with their life in accordance with Jewish religious law.

I stress at the outset that the amendments are specifically designed to refer only to Jewish religious divorce, with no intention of impacting on procedures relevant to any other religion. Jewish law, of course, governs Judaism, and there is no intention to undermine the role of the Jewish courts. The amendments are intended to offer a means of helping those impacted by a particular type of abuse that can arise in some cases in this country under Jewish laws of divorce.

I also stress that the majority of Jewish divorces proceed smoothly and British Jewish wives can move on with their lives once their civil divorce is finalised. However, sadly, there are some instances where a husband, sometimes demanding money to improve a divorce settlement agreed in the civil courts, sometimes driven by a desire to punish or control their ex-wife and sometimes to continue emotional abuse that existed in the marriage, unreasonably refuses to grant the get—the Jewish bill of divorce—leaving the wife married to him in the eyes of Jewish law, even if she wishes to be free.

The amendments seek to protect and support Jewish women—it is, I am afraid, usually women—whose husbands do not willingly sign the Jewish divorce document, the get. A get can be secured only if a man initiates it and the woman agrees—it cannot be initiated by the woman—so it is intrinsically biased in favour of the husband and is, sadly, open to abuse. This is a Jewish legal document that must be approved by the rabbinical court, known as the beth din, which literally means “House of Judgment”, and it allows a couple to divorce by mutual consent. However, a get is legally valid in Jewish religious law only if approved by the beth din, and this normally requires the rabbinical judges to be satisfied that it has been agreed voluntarily.

Those worst affected by an unreasonable refusal to grant a Jewish religious divorce can effectively be kept chained in the marriage for decades as their husbands prevent them being able to marry anyone else or have children accepted under Jewish religious law. As noble Lords can imagine, this situation causes immense distress to the women, who are known as agunot, which can be translated as “chained wives”.

Of course, ultimately, it is up to the religious authorities to make decisions about religious Jewish divorce, and there is an entire legal framework governing all aspects of Jewish life which dates back to biblical law. These amendments cannot interfere with the rulings of the religious courts. Nevertheless, with this Bill being such a huge advance for our country and offering our citizens better protection and support against abuse, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will agree that these victims should also be entitled to the protection that will be available. The amendments specifically aim to address the plight of the abuse victims in such circumstances so that these citizens, who are subjected to such unreasonable, coercive and controlling behaviour, can access practical and emotional support, as provided under the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, and I appreciate the excellent contributions from across the House and the very thoughtful way in which this issue is being dealt with. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her excellent response and my noble friend who is not responding for what appears to be an excellent briefing provided to my noble friend on the Front Bench.

I respect the Minister’s concerns about the inclusion of these provisions, and I thank her for her offer to continue discussion and consideration of how this important issue could be included in the statutory guidance at the very least. I take the point that it concerns a small number of people, but it has a dreadful effect on them. I also welcome her confirmation that the review of coercive and controlling behaviour, associated with the Serious Crime Act 2015, will be published before Report. Obviously, I will study that when it is released, and perhaps we can build on it in some way going forward.

Of course, I have sympathy with, and am sensitive to, my noble friend Lord Moylan rightly pointing out the potential dangers of reading across from these amendments to other religious reasons for objecting to a divorce. That is why the amendments consistently specify “religious Jewish” divorce and “unreasonable” refusal to agree to the dissolution of a Jewish marriage.

Most of the most difficult cases are instances of an individual wilfully refusing, or threatening to refuse, a get on the grounds of seeking to abuse their wife by continuing to control her life—or even to coerce her to fulfil unreasonable or extortionate demands, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. Jewish law specifically facilitates divorce, but it puts the power in husbands’ hands. However, if objections are reasonable, rather than abusive, they would not be covered by these amendments, which were specifically designed for the problem of women in this country not being able to move on with their life due to religious Jewish hold-ups.

I thank everyone—all colleagues across the House, my noble friends and the department—who has respectfully and carefully considered these amendments. I hope that we may continue the discussion because it is such an important issue to many noble Lords, it seems. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I make special mention of the many domestic abuse organisations and charities that have provided much current information regarding the amendments required to the Bill. We must clearly acknowledge the support they give daily. Our recognition must go to all victims and campaigners who have pushed through family law reform for victims of sexual and domestic violence, through their own pain, suffering and loss. I welcome the important issues raised by noble Lords in this group of amendments and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the way she introduced her group of amendments. I fully support Amendments 6, 8, 9, 10 and 14, relating to forced marriages and people in domestic service. Her highlighting of the gap in Clause 3 relating to people who are personally connected in this way is a really important contribution to this debate and, potentially, to the Bill.

I have added my name to Amendments 7 and 12, so excellently explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. I would also like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in her Amendment 11. Each of these amendments relates to including the providers of care in the Bill, be it for disabled people or for elderly people who need care.

The definition of domestic abuse could be widened to consider abuse perpetrated by those who are in trusted positions providing either paid or unpaid care. We have heard terrible examples of people being abused by those in positions of trust, whether friends or neighbours, though it can also be family members, and it can also relate to financial abuse. I ask the Minister to ensure that the particular position of disabled people and the elderly who rely on carers is fully taken into account in the Bill.

I wonder whether independent domestic violence advocates might be funded to reach out to more patients in hospitals or in other settings who are over a certain age or disabled in some way. I also wonder whether there could be better training for healthcare practitioners to be able to identify domestic abuse when they are involved with, assessing or looking after older or disabled people in hospital or other settings who might be suffering silently from various forms of abuse.

I welcome the expansion of the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill and the specific inclusion of statutory inquiries into suspected financial abuse, as set out in the Care Act 2014. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure us about the intention to include these groups and I look forward to her reply. Once again, I congratulate those who have laid these amendments, which are important for us to discuss in Committee.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 13, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Paddick, does not seek to broaden or narrow the amendment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has spoken, but rather to understand what is meant by “live independently” in the context of carers. The term “independent living” is a familiar one, but I do not know whether that is quite what is intended here. Needing support to live in one’s home, which I regard as hugely important, does not to me feel like independence. The relationship is very much about dependence, or trust, which was the term used by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. That is the extent of the reason for Amendment 13, but I am glad to be able to comment on some of the other amendments in this group.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, have identified a number of significant situations. The noble and learned Baroness described situations, in the plural, as she carefully explained, relating to forced marriage, which came over vividly. She has an amendment about guardians, a term that has expanded beyond its original technical meaning. She and I have often been involved in discussions about the needs of children who have been trafficked where guardianship has featured. I would never challenge the noble and learned Baroness and I have not done my homework, so I hope that she will forgive me, but I wonder whether a guardian has parental responsibility and, if so, whether that would cover the situation.

The noble and learned Baroness and I have also been involved in many debates about domestic servitude and I would be interested to know what is sought to be achieved by, and the consequences of, Amendment 9 beyond identifying behaviour already criminalised under the Modern Slavery Act. Is it something about protection or prevention?

In Amendment 14, the noble and learned Baroness points out a lifestyle that may not be covered. Its significance lies in Clause 3, which relates to children as what I wrote down as “collateral damage”, a term that I am slightly embarrassed to use, but noble Lords will understand what I mean. I had at one point wondered about lodgers who are in the same household, but I decided not to pursue that. I was going to ask the noble and learned Baroness what she envisaged as a consequence of that amendment, but I think that she has explained it. It is certainly partly the need for greater awareness on the part of the authorities to the situation of those in domestic servitude to whom she has referred.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

In place of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I once again congratulate the Government on bringing forward this important Bill and on the constructive and helpful manner in which my noble friends the Ministers have all engaged with so many noble Lords to try to ensure that this legislation achieves its aim of protecting victims of domestic abuse.

I am speaking to Amendments 130 and 130A because I share the concerns expressed by other noble Lords that they may unintentionally undermine the aims of the Bill. I recognise the rationale and thinking behind them and the desire to protect children, who can be innocent victims in these awful cases, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and so many others that contact with both parents is normally in the long-term interests of children. That is why I supported amendments at an earlier stage to ensure that parental alienation is taken seriously, rather than being left to statutory guidance or, as these amendments might suggest, removed from the guidance as well.

The current legal position reflects huge amounts of evidence that children benefit from contact with both parents and that significant psychological damage can be caused by loss of such contact. I therefore have serious concerns that removing the presumption of contact could cause more harm to more children than this amendment is designed to prevent. Of course, there will be dreadful cases in which an abusive parent will perpetrate harm on the children, but that is extremely rare. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others have explained, the family courts already have the power, under the Children Act 1989, to decide against contact in individual cases where it is judged to be appropriate for that case. The Act presumes only that contact with both parents will be in the child’s interests unless the contrary is shown. Should the contrary indeed be shown, rather than merely alleged, and should abuse be proven, then those are clearly the exceptional cases in which a court would hardly be likely to grant access.

Do we not have a principle of ensuring that someone is proven guilty before being deprived of such important rights? Amendment 130 would require that, even where there are allegations of domestic abuse, whether it is against the child or a parent, the deprivation of access to children would still hold. That clearly invites the risk of unfounded allegations being made by one parent who wishes to prevent their ex-partner seeing the children, potentially as a way in which to punish the other parent or for other reasons. That could lead to the other parent being accused, for example, of emotional or psychological abuse, for which there may be no visible signs and which, indeed, may subsequently be disproved. However, the amendment would mean that the courts would deny access to the person who is accused before any judicial opportunity to find that parent innocent.

I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who mentioned parental alienation, which we discussed in an earlier group, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others: these cases can be hugely complex. We have to trust the courts to apply the expertise necessary in such cases, which are the vast majority. The presumption of contact seems to have so much weight of evidence behind it that it would be extremely unwise and damaging to many children if the amendment, and Amendment 130A, were accepted.

We do not want the Bill to damage children in a misguided attempt to help them. It does not seem to fit with natural justice to impose automatic sanctions without the normal judicial oversight or a conviction to substantiate claims. I recognise the intention of these amendments and I share the desire to prevent any children being severely harmed or even unwittingly put into the hands of an abuser who may kill them. However, I hope that Amendments 130 and 130A will not form part of the Bill because the alternative, whereby children are denied access to their parent, and the other parent is denied access to their children, on the basis of unsubstantiated and potentially false claims, could lead to substantial harm and, indeed, the suicide of a parent or children, who often suffer terribly if they are unable to have contact with a parent.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

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

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 149, as so excellently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who I warmly congratulate on all her work in this area. Amendment 149 relates to the abuse perpetrated after people have separated. I too thank Surviving Economic Abuse for its excellent work and briefing.

Economic abuse after separation can particularly affect older women, many of whom have been financially dependent on a partner who traditionally managed the family’s finances and then, after they have stopped living together, continues to try to withhold money or run up debts in the woman’s name, without her realising it in time. I also support Amendment 157, spoken to so well by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which relates to the problem of abuse suffered by older people generally. They can suffer many different types of abuse. Further, I add my support to Amendment 171, which looks at carers and the abuse that can be perpetrated against elderly or disabled victims; this need to be covered as well.

As my noble friend Lord Cormack has said, the Domestic Abuse Bill is a ground-breaking, landmark piece of legislation. It contains some important measures to ensure that the statutory definition of domestic abuse is really wide-ranging. Amendment 149 seeks to ensure that this legislation is clearly consistent with other legislation. The Domestic Abuse Bill is an ideal avenue to address inconsistency with the Serious Crime Act 2015, and to extend the current offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in Section 6 of that Act to ensure that it covers abuse post separation.

Currently, Section 76 limits this offence to those situations where the perpetrator and victim are either in an intimate relationship with each other or living together as either members of the same family or having previously been an intimate relationship. Under the 2015 Act, the two people have to meet the definition of being personally connected, but this would exclude two individuals who are no longer in an intimate relationship or living together.

Without the changes in these amendments, abusive behaviours such as economic abuse by one partner towards the other cannot necessarily fall within the existing offence of controlling or coercive behaviour. This is a crucial gap in the law, which Amendment 149 seeks to close by unequivocally making the 2015 Act and the definitions in this Bill consistent, so that abuse perpetrated when people are not living together can still be counted as a criminal offence. Indeed, if this amendment is accepted, my own Amendment 168, debated on the first day in Committee, will automatically be covered.

Existing legislation on stalking and harassment is not suitable to address post-separation abuse, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify to the Committee that the Government support the aims of this amendment and, if they do not accept these words, may come forward with their own wording on Report that can ensure that the coercive control offence will be brought into the criminal law in line with the statutory definition of domestic abuse to remove the current anomaly, so that victims need wait no longer for this much-needed protection. Whether this is about controlling or coercive behaviour, alienating behaviour or other forms of abuse, the criminal law will then be able to catch up with the more enlightened understanding of domestic abuse enshrined in the Bill.

[Viscount Goschen (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I, too, offer my support for Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I also heard compelling arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for their Amendment 157.

With regard to Amendment 149, we have heard some very compelling arguments this evening. Indeed, there has been unanimity thus far, and I expect that to continue. This proposal was the primary subject of my remarks at Second Reading. As we have heard, the protection afforded by Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act is limited by the residency requirement it contains. I completely agree with earlier speakers—indeed, it is self-evident—that victims can still be extremely vulnerable to abuse from their former partners even if they are not living together under the same roof. Research from bodies including the University of Sussex has reinforced the nature of this threat. They are concerned, quite rightly in my view, that this discrepancy creates a perverse disincentive for victims physically to leave their former partners.

Fortunately we have the solution to this problem staring at us from the Domestic Abuse Bill before us this evening. The enhanced definition of connected persons in Clause 2 does not have this residency requirement, as we have heard. Therefore, it seems entirely logical to harmonise the law between these two statutes. The clearer the law, the better, and there is no room for two competing definitions on the statute book. We need to choose the most effective one, and in my view that is the one contained in Clause 2. This is really extremely difficult to argue against, given that the Government have come forward with a new definition that is based on the lessons learned in the intervening five years. Why this should not be applied in these circumstances would be a difficult argument to make. So the issue is really as straightforward as that and, not surprisingly, the amendment has had a great deal of support to date both inside the House and externally, and I add my support.

The Bill has the potential to do so much good, and the Government should be warmly applauded for having brought it forward. Making the change proposed in this amendment would add further to those benefits. As I mentioned at Second Reading, we are fortunate enough to have a Minister with us this evening who is an expert in this field, and I very much look forward to my noble friend’s response after she has heard the arguments put forward this evening.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(f) unreasonable prevention or threat of prevention of dissolution of a religious Jewish marriage via a religious bill of divorce (a “get”);”Member’s explanatory statement
This specifically itemises one spouse unreasonably preventing the dissolution of a Jewish religious marriage with a “get” as being within the scope of the Bill by bringing it under the definition of abusive behaviour.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Palmer. I am grateful for their cross-party support.

These amendments relate to a particular form of abuse which has long been of concern to me as a British citizen of Jewish faith, whereby a spouse—usually the husband—unreasonably prevents the dissolution of his Jewish religious marriage and denies his wife the freedom to move on with her life. We seek to ensure that such behaviour is recognised as a defined form of abuse under this Bill, so that the wife can receive the support and help provided for victims.

I should stress that the majority of Jewish divorces proceed in accordance with religious laws, especially once the civil divorce settlement is agreed, but there are instances in which a husband deliberately refuses. Sometimes this is to extort money from the wife or her family; sometimes it is to wield power and control out of bitterness or spite; sometimes it is out of a vengeful desire to inflict long-term suffering on the ex-wife. The objective here is to support the victim, who is being treated as a chattel rather than as a person and denied her basic rights. There are cases where a woman has been civilly divorced from her husband for more than 20 years, yet the husband has consistently refused to engage with the religious authorities and to grant her a get. She is unable to remarry or to have further children. She is a prisoner in the marriage.

There is no intention here to undermine the role of the Jewish courts, which govern Jewish religious laws and which require the husband to voluntarily sign an official Jewish bill of divorce document, called a get. This can only be initiated by the husband in order to dissolve their Jewish marriage.

There is an entire legal framework governing all aspects of Jewish life, dating back to Biblical times. Although the present-day Jewish courts, known as batte din, and the judges, or dayanim, have been seeking ways to facilitate a process that can free the woman by means of persuasion or negotiation, this process is clearly open to abuse. The wife remains chained in the marriage and, if she wishes to stand by her faith, she cannot date or remarry another man unless she has been given the get. If she were to do so, any children would be considered illegitimate and would not be fully accepted under Jewish religious law.

We hope that these changes will assist rabbinic courts, so that fewer men will play these kinds of cruel games. Sadly, these have been used by men as leverage to control their ex-wives or demand a ransom for their freedom. We recognise that civil divorce is not a substitute for a get, without which, no matter how long the couple have been separated, they are still not considered religiously divorced. This legislation hopes to provide—and these amendments seek to achieve—a wake-up call for Jewish husbands, so that they recognise that it is socially unacceptable to refuse to religiously divorce their wives. Extortionate demands are not acceptable. It should be done in a timely way. It should be as inappropriate in this day and age for a Jewish man to refuse his wife a get as it is for a man to inappropriately fondle a woman or make lewd comments about her looks. We are seeking mindset change.

I hugely regret that this remains an issue for the rabbinic authorities, who have been unable sufficiently to overcome the problem that this causes for women. I understand and fully respect that these are difficult points of Torah, Talmudic and Mishnaic law, which I do not claim to have detailed legal knowledge of. I bow to the legislators in this country on Jewish matters, but I believe that we have a duty to ensure that these Jewish women are protected. They are entitled to the same protections as other victims of abuse.

Fantastic charities such as Jewish Women’s Aid and GETToutUK have been helpful, and many legal and other experts have pleaded for change. I hope that these amendments will further encourage recalcitrant husbands to free their former wives and that society will recognise their victimhood. Such behaviour is not only unreasonable and abusive; it is immoral. These amendments seek to establish that decent behaviour cannot encompass this type of abuse. Legislation cannot force a man to give a get. The religious courts want men voluntarily to attend and grant it. We are sensitive to concerns that a coerced get may be considered invalid, leaving the wife permanently held hostage in the unwanted marriage. We hope that this mindset change in the national community will be forthcoming as we move forward with this legislation.

The later amendments in this group, Amendments 74, 79 and 80, are designed to clarify that the Serious Crime Act 2015 definition of controlling or coercive behaviour covers a situation where a Jewish couple is separated or divorced under secular law and no longer cohabiting, but the religious marriage is not yet dissolved and the husband persistently refuses to give a get. The amendments seek to confirm the previous belief, not yet tested in court, that such a husband could be prosecuted for the crime of controlling or coercive behaviour and face criminal sanctions, even if the couple are no longer living together. However, I am pleased to tell the House that I will not need to move these amendments as Amendment 45 in a later group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, has the support of the Minister and of my noble friends Lady Bertin and Lady Sanderson. That amendment would explicitly establish that post-separation abuse is covered by the 2015 Act, and that an unreasonable get refusal would potentially be a serious crime.

Since this issue was raised in Committee, I have been hugely grateful to my noble friends the Ministers who have continued to engage with us. I thank them and their departmental officials, and also the domestic abuse commissioner and her team, who have been so supportive and understanding of this situation. Indeed, perhaps I may put on record how grateful I am to be living in a country where issues of this nature, which affect a particular religion, can be engaged with so seriously and sensitively by our Government, the Civil Service and other officials.

The domestic abuse commissioner has stated that she welcomes these proposed amendments to the Bill and that she recognises that this would be a form of coercive behaviour on the grounds of psychological or economic abuse or coercion. She has requested and recommended that this issue be included in statutory guidance under the heading of “wider spiritual abuse”.

Since this issue was raised in Committee, we have listened carefully to the debate and we would like to thank again the domestic abuse commissioner and the Ministers. Although I stressed clearly that these amendments are designed to relate solely to Jewish religious divorces, with no intention to impact on any other religious groups, we understand that there were concerns of a read-across to other religions.

Having listened carefully to the debate in Committee, I have also been grateful for ministerial assurances that unreasonable and persistent refusal to give a wife a get is already covered by the broad definitions of abuse in the Bill, and I have received assurances that this will be explicitly mentioned in the statutory guidance. I would be grateful if my noble friend would confirm this and, on that basis, I would therefore accept that this issue need not be in the Bill and I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to move Amendment 1.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have signed all the amendments in this group, which have been signed by noble Lords from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and the Cross Benches—not very usual. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said so very clearly, all these amendments relate to a spouse—usually the husband—unreasonably preventing the dissolution of a Jewish religious marriage.

My thanks go to Government Ministers for engaging with us and for seeking a UK legal solution to this medieval enigma. I would have preferred for these amendments, clear as they are, to be in the Bill. However, I have to accept, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for the moment, that the problem lies with current interpretations of the rules of Jewish marriage, and not with a parliamentary solution. There is no doubt that chained women and their children, after a civil divorce, are being unreasonably discriminated against for life. I accept that the Government have been sympathetic and have sought by practical means of guidance issued to help those affected, such as with Amendment 45, which I understand will be supported by the Government.

I am grateful for this assistance, but it is not enough. Even if we do not vote on these amendments today, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I will continue to call for a more sympathetic approach from the Beth Din religious authorities. They rely on the Catch-22 absurdity that a Jewish divorce is not recognised if the recalcitrant husband is seen to be “coerced” into giving a get, resulting in the divorce not being recognised in Jewish law. Thus the agunah, or chained woman, is prohibited from having intimate relations with a man other than her husband and cannot remarry in an orthodox ceremony. In a really unacceptable denial of rights, the children will have severe restrictions placed upon them. Children should not suffer in this way, whatever the reason. This is unacceptable in 2021.

However, these same restrictions on coercion do not stop coercion of the wife being blackmailed, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, into giving a get, be it by payment of money, loss of family home or access to the children of the marriage. All the amendments in this group seek to provide a remedy and I welcome the moves in the Bill and in the guidance. However, what we do not want is to worsen the situation by creating the very perceived coercion which these despicable men rely on.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, referred to the approach in Holland, and said that the Jewish religious authorities ought to look at the approach there. It is not for the Government to identify what might or might not be an appropriate solution to this problem from the point of view of Jewish religious law. It is fair to say, as the noble Lord mentioned, that there are different answers or proposed answers to a very long-standing question. It is undeniable, as again he said, that there are causes which are traumatic indeed. The intent of this amendment has broad support across the House. We have heard a number of very powerful speeches supporting the proposals, and not only do the Liberal Democrat Benches support them but the Opposition do as well. I was a little worried for a moment about whether that support would be forthcoming, but it was. The Government are also in sympathy with the underlying aims of these amendments, and I was very pleased to hear from my noble friend that, in light of our discussions and the progress made on the statutory guidance, and the very clear—and I hope unambiguous—statements made from the Dispatch Box today, she will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks, and am truly humbled by the widespread support across the House for the sentiments and intent of these amendments. Every noble Lord who spoke supported this group of amendments. I hope that, on International Women’s Day, this will help promote a mindset change among Jewish men, or men of any faith, that the position of power they may find themselves in should not be exercised against the interests of their wives. I accept that the broad definitions do cover get refusal, and I appreciate my noble friend’s unambiguous statements to that effect. On the basis of the assurances that I have most gratefully received, I will not be moving my Amendments 3, 74, 79 and 80, and I thank my noble friend and the department for all their engagement. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support this amendment in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. I thank her for all the work she has done to try to minimise the amount of involvement in the Bill necessary to make us all aware of this important issue. The amendment is designed to explicitly ensure that parental alienation is properly defined in the Bill. We have, of course, had indications today that it may be in statutory guidance, and that may be sufficient to ensure that the rights of children to see parents when it is appropriate to do so are adhered to. The amendment is not gender biased. It recognises that either parent, mother or father, may deliberately behave in such a way as to damage the relationship between a child and the other parent.

Parental Alienation UK has outlined a range of behaviours from one parent to another and I want to focus on one: when a parent makes false allegations of abuse, fitness to parent, substance abuse or mental health problems. I have worked with people with severe, enduring mental health problems where, when they have been severely ill and psychotic, it has been inappropriate for them to see their children. However, it is absolutely clear that, with modern treatment and access to supervised contact, most parents at some point should be able to see their children. That is not because of the rights of the parents. It is about the child’s right to know that the parent loves them and wants to see them, even if they are not in a position to look after them on a permanent basis. I believe that, as soon as is practicable, supervised access should be organised for children if they want to see the parent—the one they do not live with—if that parent is well enough to see them.

It is important that children know that both their parents want to stay in contact. If this is the case, the child is in a position, when they become an adult, to decide for themselves how much contact to maintain with each parent. I have heard other noble Lords oppose the amendment and I equally believe that no child should be made to see a parent without supervision if the court has decided that this would be inappropriate. I completely agree that we should recognise the vital role of Cafcass in this situation, but it is demeaning if the other parent of your child destroys letters, mementoes and gifts that you have sent, perhaps while you are too ill to see the child. These kinds of behaviour should be deliberately excluded and parents should be encouraged to try to work together through mediation. It should obviously be for the courts to decide and to determine whether parental alienation is occurring and to make decisions for access between a child and a parent, based always on the best interests of the child.

I believe that those who do not agree with this amendment have the same focus as I and others who are supporting it: to try to ensure that children grow up knowing that they have been loved, where this is so, and that they have been able, where it is safe to do so, to be in contact with both parents. I understand that the amendment may be better written within the statutory guidance and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s opinion on this matter.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Meyer for the work that she has done and, as my noble friend Lord Cormack said, the effort that she has put in to trying to make sure that the suffering that she has been through is not repeated or, should it be, that the victims have proper protection under the law.

I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asserted: that the deliberately broad definitions in the Bill, which I know my noble friend has explained to the House, are ground-breaking and deliberately so and provide the widest possible access to justice for victims by having broad definitions under which others can fall. Will “controlling or coercive behaviour” in Clause 1(3)(c),

“psychological, emotional or other abuse”

in Clause 1(3)(e), and “conduct directed” at their child in Clause 1(5) cover situations where a parent deliberately damages the relationship between their child and the other parent in order to alienate that child?

For example, a father of African origin wrote to me about his partner, who had been turning their four year-old child against him since they had decided to divorce. The child, previously loving, suddenly did not wish to spend time with him. He said: “My ex made several unfounded allegations of domestic abuse to stop me from seeing my child. Not a single allegation was proven, or true, but she constantly and unjustifiably obstructed my contact with my child. I recall that a year ago my child refused to have a bath that I had run for him. He said his mother told him, ‘Daddy puts witchcraft in the tub’.” He said that the alienation built up over time so that the child now refuses to see him. Can my noble friend confirm that that father would have protection under the Bill?

I have personal experience of other situations where parents were cut out from the lives of their children. The children were being manipulated or weaponised and the wider family cut off from grandchildren and nieces and nephews. I would never want a child to be forced to be with an abusive parent. However, the ex-partner of a friend of mine, who met a new partner from Australia and wanted to move there, decided to try to break the children away from their parent. In that instance, they were told: “Daddy does not love you, because you look like me and Daddy hates me. If you see Daddy, I will get sad. If you see Daddy, he will kidnap you, because he does not want me to be with you any more. If you say that you hate Daddy and you don’t want to see him, I will buy you a bike or take you on holiday.” This is something that has really happened. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that victims of such alienation will automatically be covered under the broad definitions, so that we will not need to press this amendment to a vote.

I hope that the controversy that seems to have been caused by the term “parental alienation”, which has driven the different wording of this amendment, can be settled by being tested in court. I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she says that the child needs to be listened to and assessed by professionals. The key is for the courts to be aware that alienation such as in these examples may happen and, sadly, is not a rare occurrence. As my noble friend Lady Meyer said, we have had well over a thousand signatures in a short space of time from parents who themselves have suffered this form of abuse. If the courts are looking for this situation and can bring in experts to assess whether what the child is saying has been driven by fear instilled in them by the other parent unnecessarily, unreasonably, or deliberately to rupture the relationship with that parent, the justice system will be able to differentiate between the genuine cases, where a domestic abuser or abuser of children should not have unsupervised contact with their own child, and cases such as have been described.

Cases have been clearly identified in academic studies and evidence where parents who would otherwise be able to enjoy a relationship with their child are denied that opportunity and the child is denied access to that parent and their family. That can cause lifelong mental and emotional damage to the child and, indeed, to the parent. In some cases, the distress of being broken away from one’s children or grandchildren has caused suicide. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to confirm that this is indeed covered by the Bill and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. That speech was so well articulated, passionate and thought-provoking. I also echo and “Hear, hear” her comments on the exemplary work of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, on this issue.

I have previously expressed concern that the Bill expands the definition of domestic abuse too widely because I worry that some categorisations of abuse, such as emotional and psychological, are too subjective and broad to guarantee justice. Every time I look, a new category of abuse has been added. We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, that we now have “spiritual” abuse. Even the focus on domestic abuse is endangered as we stretch what constitutes “domestic” far wider than I think is helpful. My concern is that too much is being thrown at the Bill, meaning agencies and the police will not be able to see the wood for the trees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins. I declare an interest as vice-president of Livability.

I very much support the intent in this group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who presented the case so ably at the beginning of this debate. As the parent of a child with a severe learning and physical disability, I know from personal experience the potential risks associated with those who are responsible for the care of disabled persons. In addition, having established a charity responsible for providing care for adults with learning disabilities in the north-east of England called At Home in the Community, I know how sensitive and tense the relationships can be between parents and a disabled son or daughter, between carers and the disabled person and between carers and parents. The frustrations of providing care for a disabled person whose behaviour can be immensely challenging and demanding can boil over, no matter how much they are loved. They can become the innocent third party in abusive relationships and suffer abuse themselves as a consequence.

Sadly, multiple reports over the years have shown that disabled people are much more likely to suffer abuse for longer periods of time. Many individuals are unable to communicate verbally, so identifying abuse can be difficult. Often unable to protect themselves, they can become very isolated and introverted. The vulnerability of their situation can lead to reliance and dependency on the very person being abusive. We had a case within a managed care home of abuse by a hitherto trusted member of staff who manipulated residents over a number of months before detection.

For many residents of care homes, the home they live in is their home. We had cases of individuals whose parents had both sadly died, so their carers and fellow residents were their family. Support in the care sector, whether in a family home or residential care home, relies on the dedication and integrity of mostly—one has to say sadly—low-paid care staff, most of whom are brilliant and support their vulnerable people marvellously. Sadly, however, some do abuse. Drawing attention to this and making provision for it in the Bill is an important step in mitigating it and preventing it from continuing. I hope that the Minister supports this amendment.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Shinkwin and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who have spoken in favour of these amendments. They seek to ensure that domestic abuse, as defined in Clause 2(1), covers those people who are disabled—and often, perhaps, elderly—as well as all other groups.

Such citizens can be in a deeply intimate yet non-sexual relationship, due to their need for someone to care for them, perhaps in their home. They need someone to care for them just to survive, and so that they can live their life as independently as possible. If these people are abused by someone who helps them in their own home, why would they not be covered in exactly the same way as other groups, including spouses, friends, partners and their children, who currently meet the definition in the Bill?

In this country, there is sometimes a cultural disinclination to talk about or engage closely with the issue of people who need care or who live with disabilities. This may even explain why social care reform is constantly pushed into the proverbial long grass. Yes, this can be a complex subject, and not everybody wants to discuss it, but why would someone who is cared for by another, who may be paid or unpaid, not be entitled to the same protection as a spouse who is abused by their partner? If the Government wish to support people who live in their own home, especially as we have an ageing population, and to be in the community, which disabled or elderly people usually want, developing a strong system of protection for cases of abuse is essential. This landmark Bill is an ideal place to start.

The vast majority of carers are angels. They are heroes, who carry out their demanding and often draining role with compassion, dedication and sensitivity. However, as other noble Lords have explained, there are distressing examples of when they have abused highly vulnerable adults in their care.

I support the rights of disabled people, as I know the Minister does. I know that she cares passionately about this group of wonderful individuals in our society, but I find it difficult to understand why the Government are resisting the inclusion of disabled people within the protections of a Domestic Abuse Bill. Such situations should be placed squarely in the remit covered by this ground-breaking Bill. Is it not time to tackle all cultures of domestic abuse and offer widespread remedies to all citizens? Surely this group should be part of that.

[Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I know from my personal family and professional experience of people with learning disabilities that domestic violence can involve both paid and informal carers, including family members. I will not repeat the excellent points made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I am very pleased to support my noble friend Lady Campbell and to follow such powerful speeches.

The weakness in the Government’s position is that it underestimates the important similarities between carer relationships and those already in the Bill. It perhaps assumes that local authorities or the CQC will have sight of all carer arrangements, particularly for informal care, but this is just not true. I quote the January Stay Safe East report on discrimination, which says:

“The current definition of domestic abuse has a discriminatory impact on disabled victims of domestic abuse by non-family carers, who have no access to an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser, refuges or other domestic abuse services or to the network of therapeutic and other services open to other domestic abuse victims.”


The exclusion of carers from the definition of “personally connected” not only is blind to the reality of the closeness and complexity of carer relationships but would be discriminatory to disabled people on the receiving end of domestic abuse from carers, because they would be excluded from services. The exclusion fails to recognise that the significant relationships of disabled people may be different from those of non-disabled people. This also applies to people with learning disabilities.

My remaining point has already been made, so I will not take up time with it.