Baroness Burt of Solihull
Main Page: Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Burt of Solihull's debates with the Home Office
Wednesday 10th February 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-VI(Rev) Revised sixth marshalled list for Committee - (8 Feb 2021)
“Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse
(1) This section applies where there are two or more joint tenants under a secure or assured tenancy and the landlord is a local housing authority or a private registered provider of social housing.(2) If one joint tenant (“A”) has experienced domestic abuse from another joint tenant (“B”) then A may apply to the county court for an order that B is removed as a joint tenant.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) it is sufficient that the domestic abuse was directed at A or to anyone who might reasonably be expected to reside with A.(4) On such an application, the court must take the following approach—(a) the court must be satisfied that the tenancy is affordable for A, or will be so within a reasonable period of time;(b) if the court is so satisfied, then—(i) if B has been convicted of an offence related to domestic abuse against A or anyone who might reasonably be expected to reside with A, the court must make an order under this section;(ii) if B has been given a domestic abuse protection notice under section 20, or a domestic abuse protection order has been made against B under section 26, or B is currently subject to an injunction or restraining order in relation to A, or a person who might be reasonably expected to reside with A, the court may make an order under this section;(iii) if the application does not fall within sub-paragraph (i) or (ii), then the court may make such an order if it thinks it fit to do so;(c) for the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(ii), the court must adopt the following approach—(i) if B does not oppose the making of such an order, then the court must make it;(ii) if B does oppose the making of such an order then it is for B to satisfy the court that, as at the date of the hearing, there are exceptional circumstances which mean that the only way to do justice between A and B is for the order to be refused.(5) Where A has made such an application to the court, any notice to quit served by B shall be of no effect until determination of A’s application or any subsequent appeal.(6) Notwithstanding any rule of common law to the contrary, the effect of an order under this section is that the tenancy continues for all purposes as if B had never been a joint tenant. (7) For the purposes of this section, an offence related to domestic abuse includes, as against A or anyone who might be reasonably expected to reside with A, an offence of violence, threats of violence, criminal damage to property, rape, other offences of sexual violence or harassment, coercive control, breach of injunction, breach of restraining order, or breach of domestic abuse protection order.(8) In section 88(2) of the Housing Act 1985, after “section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Actusb 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.)” insert “, or section (Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021,”.(9) In section 91(3)(b) of the Housing Act 1985, after sub-paragraph (iv), insert—“(v) section (Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;”.(10) In section 99B(2)(e) of the Housing Act 1985 (persons qualifying for compensation for improvements), after sub-paragraph (iv) insert—“(v) section (Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;”.”
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for supporting this amendment and making it cross-party. There are few things in the unjust world of domestic abuse that make me more angry than a perpetrator driving the victim and their children out of the family home. This amendment seeks to address this injustice for joint tenancies in a secure or assured tenancy, where the landlord is a local authority or a private registered social landlord—I would make it wider if it were possible under the law as it stands.
As things stand, it is very difficult and costly for a victim in a jointly tenanted home to get the tenancy transferred to them if the perpetrator does not agree. For the purposes of simplicity, I am going to use the pronoun “he” for the perpetrator and “she” for the victim, but of course there are circumstances where it is the other way round. They could also be a same-sex couple.
Until the perpetrator’s name can be removed from the tenancy agreement, the victim will never achieve the security she needs. She cannot change the locks or restrict his access. She can seek a temporary court order to remove him from the property but when that expires, he has the right to return. The perpetrator can give notice to end the tenancy without the survivor’s consent or even knowledge, even though he no longer resides there. Unless he signs away his interest in the tenancy, her only recourse as things stand is to embark on costly court proceedings, which are complex and tortuous. Social housing providers, much as they might wish, have no legal mechanism to evict perpetrators and support survivors to stay in the tenancy. A number of creative methods have been tried, but these use legal mechanisms for which they were not designed.
For all those reasons, all too often the victim ends up fleeing the family home, leaving the perpetrator ensconced while she ends up homeless, often in a refuge with no resources to enable her to start again except emergency assistance from the state. It makes my blood boil even thinking about it.
This new clause aims to resolve the problem, at least as far as secured and assured social tenancies are concerned. Three family law and housing experts, Giles Peaker, Justin Bates and Jenny Beck, developed the solution which I am proud to lay before the Committee today. It provides a simplified mechanism for transferring a joint tenancy into the hands of the victim as a sole tenancy. It utilises other mechanisms in the Bill, domestic abuse protection orders and notices, as well as existing mechanisms such as restraining orders, occupation orders and non-molestation orders, which can remove the perpetrator from the home temporarily. The breathing space created when the perpetrator is out of the home can be used to transfer the tenancy permanently to the victim, so when the order expires, he is no longer legally able to return.
Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause describes the conditions under which a domestic abuse transfer of tenancy order can be granted by the court. The new sole tenant must be able to afford the rent or have expectations of being able to do so in a reasonable amount of time. The court must make the order if the perpetrator is subsequently convicted of domestic abuse. It may make an order if a domestic abuse protection order or notice, injunction or restraining order has been issued. Even if none of these conditions applies, or the victim has already fled the property, the court may still make the order. If the perpetrator does not object to the order the court must make the order. If he objects, the onus is on him to make the case that there are exceptional circumstances why he should stay.
That is the gist of it. No doubt other noble Lords will have points to make which are more learned and informed than someone with no legal training like me, but I must say that it looks to me like an elegant and equitable solution. No doubt the Minister may have some legal reservations, but all I ask at this stage is for him to take it away, think about it and come back at Report—with, I hope, an even more elegant solution of the Government’s making. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, which now has support from all four corners of the House. I add a brief footnote to the compelling case just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. This is a rather modest amendment, as it covers only the transfer of a tenancy where the victim is a joint tenant. A more radical but perfectly defensible amendment would have proposed the transfer of the tenancy where the perpetrator was the sole tenant and the victim was living lawfully in the property as a spouse or partner, but not as a joint tenant. I should have been happy to sponsor such an amendment—with adequate safeguards, of course.
Once again, we find that Scotland has stolen a march on England with its amendment to its domestic abuse Bill. That amendment enables either the social landlord or the survivor/tenant to do just what I have said: to seek a transfer of tenancy through a court order. It can transfer a sole tenancy in the perpetrator’s name into a sole tenancy in the survivor’s name. Our amendment is more modest and proposes that the survivor can apply for a transfer of tenancy through the county court only if it is a joint secured or assured social tenancy, shared with the perpetrator. Of course, in those circumstances, the tenant is already known to and approved by the landlord.
The amendment is one of the domestic abuse commissioner’s top recommendations. At a round table last month with the Chartered Institute of Housing, Shelter, the National Housing Federation and the National Federation of ALMOs, there was unanimous support for this initiative. Since the A New Deal for Renting consultation in 2019, the organisation Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, to which I am grateful for its briefing, has regularly met the department about joint tenancies and discussed the amendment. The organisation has sought to address the concerns expressed in the letter that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Williams, sent to us, which stated that
“there are good practical and principled reasons for the rules which seek to balance the rights and interests of each tenant and the landlord.”
I shall quickly go through those rights and interests. Those of the social landlord would be basically unchanged because the nature of the tenancy agreement would stay the same. The rights of the tenant-survivor would also stay the same by their retaining the right to continue to live safely in their home. The rights of the perpetrator would, of course, be affected, and I agree that we should be cautious about making anyone homeless. However, in the circumstances to which the Bill applies, we have to strike a balance. If the perpetrator leaves, he may indeed face homelessness, probably as a single person. But if he does not, the innocent party and any children would also face either homelessness or continuing harm by staying put.
The amendment provides that where there is such a dispute and this balance has to be struck, the matter should be resolved by the county courts, which would hear both sides of the case before reaching a judgment. If a perpetrator loses but remains in the property, the normal eviction process would take place. However, in many cases, he may already have left due to a domestic abuse protection order, a restraining order or an occupation order, or he may have done so voluntarily. Under the amendment, the courts would have to define affordability, but this is something they already do, and it would be based on the survivor’s income and access to benefits to cover the rent.
There are further injustices in the present position, which were touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. At the moment, the perpetrator can leave the property and then unilaterally end the joint tenancy. That cannot be right. He can stop the survivor accessing housing benefit because his income is taken into account, but he will not be paying. As we have heard, the survivor cannot change the locks without the perpetrator’s consent. Without the amendment, if the perpetrator does not leave, the survivor has to resort to costly legal proceedings. That cannot be right, either, because it can take up to two years to complete the process and, depending on legal aid, can cost up to £10,000.
I therefore hope, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has just said, that the Minister will listen sympathetically to the case made this afternoon and indicate that there is some flexibility in the position that the Government have adopted so far.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, we certainly will. I hope equally that the noble Lord listened to the points where I outlined some of the complexities, which have to be considered in the law. But we certainly want to continue to engage on this and arrive at the right place.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made extremely knowledgeable contributions. I thought that there would be experts on the Benches on all sides of the House, and I have certainly not been disappointed this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, talked about the balance that must be struck and the role of the courts in that; the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, used their professional experience and knowledge of human rights law; and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, had two bites of the cherry—and very welcome they were too, because he embodies the spirit of what we seek to achieve.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Lib Dem group strongly supports this group of amendments—noble Lords might have already guessed that from the number of Liberal Democrat speakers we have had already this afternoon—so I shall try to be brief. It is a hugely important group of amendments because it takes us off the back foot in dealing with perpetrators and gives us a chance of keeping track of them, preventing further offending and helping them to change their behaviour for good. We have heard several harrowing examples, and several noble Lords have made the point in respect of Amendment 167 that it is the perpetrator who must change, not the victim.
Amendment 164 strengthens the ability of the law to register and track serial stalkers and domestic abusers so that they can be registered on ViSOR, the violent and sex offender register, and be subject to supervision, monitoring and management through MAPPA. I add my thanks to Laura Richards, founder of the Paladin group, for her excellent briefing. Domestic abuse and stalking are the only areas of offending where serial abusers are not routinely and proactively identified and managed by police, probation and the prison service across the UK. This has serious consequences for the safety of women and children. There are many pockets of excellent good practice across the country but no systematic approach and no systematic tracking—a failure of systems so tellingly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. Her story of Cheryl Gabriel-Hooper will stay with me for a long time.
My noble friend Lady Brinton strongly argues that we desperately need a strong, national, co-ordinated approach, and cited several harrowing examples, including her own, to prove her case. She calls this “murder in slow motion” and talks about under-reporting and inaccurate reporting on the MAPPA database, as have several other noble Lords. As things stand, the stalker or abuser can remain one step ahead, free to pick his next unwitting victim with a head start on the police, whose response between different forces is patchy. This is not good enough: now is the time and this is the place to lay down legislation to get on the front foot—legislation based on facts, not ideology, as urged by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Amendment 167, to which I have added my name, requires the formation of a national perpetrator strategy. I understand that the Government instituted the first ever fund for perpetrator work last October, but I gather that there are big teething problems. Will the Minister update the Committee on this, and particularly the fact that part of the fund allocated for research must be spent by the end of this financial year, but the research bodies have only just been informed of their grants and have not even received the go-ahead to start spending? Can the Minister confirm that this deadline will be extended?
I and many other noble Lords are very grateful to the Drive Project for its briefing. It shocks me to learn that Drive, whose work has already been commended, including by my noble friend Lord Strasburger, says that only 1% of perpetrators get a specialist intervention that might help prevent further abuse, yet research shows that one perpetrator in four is a repeat offender, and some have up to six victims. It is a vicious cycle. Drive’s work has shown how perpetrator interventions can stop this cycle, which not only blights whole families, but spreads like a canker down the generations.
We invest huge amounts of money in dealing with the damage perpetrators have wrought, but that is next to nothing compared to stopping the vicious cycle and enabling perpetrators to turn their and their families’ lives around. Investment now will benefit untold numbers of people, not just those directly affected today. Let us pass this amendment, and reap the rewards today and into the future.
Amendment 177B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is very similar to Amendment 167 but is more generous to the Government, giving them two years to establish a comprehensive perpetrator strategy. If the Government will commit to two years today, that is a done deal as far as I am concerned.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, like others, I thank Laura Richards for her excellent briefing, which has been a precursor to an excellent debate on these amendments. I fully support Amendment 164, proposed by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, with my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Brinton, as I do Amendment 167 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, which I was delighted to sign, and Amendment 177B tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
With these three amendments the Government have effectively been given a whole range of options to choose from. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath’s Amendment 177B would require the Government to lay before Parliament a national perpetrator strategy within two years of the Bill passing into law. I agree with my noble friend Lady Royall that my noble friend Lord Hunt is probably being a bit too generous to the Government in allowing them two years. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, would require a comprehensive strategy focusing on prevention and how to deal with perpetrators within one year of the passing of this Bill into law. The lead amendment in this group from my noble friend Lord Hunt sets out a comprehensive framework in which to deal with perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalkers, and would require a report to be laid before Parliament within six months of the Bill being enacted.
It was good to hear my noble friend set out a range of organisations that support this multiagency approach. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon for her years of work on this issue. She has raised these matters again and again, and we are all very grateful to her for that.
We have heard previously that domestic abuse, coercive control and stalking are escalating crime: the behaviours can persist over many years and escalate, and more crimes of increasing levels of abuse and harm are committed. This amendment raises the need for joined- up, multiagency working in tackling and managing perpetrators in the community. My noble friend Lord Hunt highlighted two horrific cases where a proper, all-encompassing approach is needed to deal with these perpetrators.
I recalled, while listening to this debate, the day I spent at the domestic violence unit of the Metropolitan Police in the Royal Borough of Greenwich—I still recall the horrific acts of violence I was apprised of. I was so impressed with the officers in the unit and the way they worked closely with the local authority. It is quite clear that, by working together, the council and the police officers of the unit were helping victims and saving them from further abuse and, in some cases, the risk of being murdered.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, who spoke about this multiagency approach and referred to research by Durham University and London Metropolitan University. It was good to see that violence inflicted on victims reduced when that work took place. I also endorse her comments on internet companies and platforms. I know we will come to this in another Bill, but these companies, which are making a lot of money, really need to step up to ensure that their tools are not used to aid abusers. We need to deal with that very soon.
As many noble Lords mentioned, we need a culture change. We need to get to a situation where these offences are viewed as totally unacceptable and as the disgusting, evil acts they are. That culture change is what this strategy is all about. We must break the cycle where children witness abuse—I think the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned this—and risk becoming the abused or abusers many years later. To do that, we need effective action.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, mentioned drink-driving, I remembered watching a programme featuring Barbara Castle, who got death threats for introducing the breathalyser. She appeared on a programme called “The World This Weekend”, where the journalist said to her that it was a rotten idea to bring in the breathalyser. He said, “You’re only a woman; you do not drive; what do you know about it?” Thankfully, things have changed, but I hope we get to a point where these disgusting offences are viewed as we view drink-drivers today, who now face bans and fines, risk imprisonment in serious cases and at best are viewed as completely reckless, irresponsible, stupid idiots. That is the sort of culture we need here: let us get to a place where we can have that, because women’s lives will be saved, we will have better men and better, happier relationships, and we will not have children witnessing abuse and becoming abusers or victims in later life. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, also referred to that in her contribution.
My noble friend Lord Rooker talked again about breaking silos in government. He was a Minister for many years in the previous Labour Government and knows all about how government works. I very much agree with him. I have a similar problem campaigning to get these GP letters banned: I am tackling the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I have four departments trying to get it sorted out, but I hope that we will finally get somewhere on that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, said we need to get the outcomes right. I fully support that.
It is always a privilege to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. Her story about Cheryl Hooper was harrowing, but sadly not unique. As I said, when I went to the domestic violence unit at Greenwich they gave me a number of redacted statements to read. What struck me in reading about these awful events was that they were not some story, but were happening to real people—the most appalling things being done by one human being to another. It was dreadful. All these things started off with, “I met someone; we were happy; then the abuse escalated.” It gets to the point where people are at real risk of losing their lives.
I did not agree with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Of course perpetrators can be rehabilitated—we want people to be rehabilitated —but what we are proposing is about protecting victims and developing a strategy to control perpetrators, help victims and save lives, and to stop the years of abuse that victims can suffer. Some may not be killed, but can undergo years of abuse and a terrible life. We must stop that.
I also do not agree that there is some suggestion or implication in the briefings or from noble Lords’ comments that this offence is committed only by working-class people. I think I have been here for most of the debates and I have not seen that. I do not believe it either. I come from a working-class background, having grown up on a council estate near Elephant and Castle, and I just do not believe that is the case. I have also been told by the police that, when they get the perpetrators in, they are from all walks of life—they can be very rich people with well-paid jobs who are doing very well, such as lawyers. All sorts of people across the spectrum can be victims or perpetrators. That is one of the things about this offence; it does not affect any one group, and we need to ensure we get that right.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, about the determining factor with children; we must stop that. We can all point to things that have happened. The one thing that was a real shame was disbanding the Sure Start programme from 2010 onwards. That was a mistake. The centres are the family hubs that he talks about.
This has been a good debate and I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response. I hope at the next stage of this Bill we can come forward with the strategy to put in it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. Once again, she has identified an area which is absolutely right for an addition to the Bill. I would be very interested to know whether the Minister has had a chance to study how these provisions have operated in Scotland and Wales. If they have operated effectively there, as it would appear, it seems timely of us to introduce them at this stage of the Bill, or certainly on Report.
As other noble Lords have rightly identified, how we can better protect older adults, particularly those receiving social care in their own homes—we know that that number will grow over the next 20 to 30 years —is worthy of attention. This is a good opportunity to tackle abuse and raise awareness of potential abuse among older people. I have no hesitation in commending Amendments 165 and 166 to my noble friend and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and her co-authors on bringing them forward and allowing us the opportunity to support them today.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, these two small but important amendments are perfect examples of what I have been banging on about throughout the Bill and what my noble friend Lady Brinton kindly alluded to: the need for a joined-up approach on the part of all services to work together to help victims, particularly, in this instance, older people. Amendment 165 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and other noble Lords requires local authorities’ staff who suspect abuse to notify social services or the police. I am grateful to her and to Hourglass for all the work that they do. As she said, Hourglass says that 40% of the calls it received in 2019 related to financial abuse—the most common type of abuse reported—but it often goes hand in hand with physical and psychological abuse. When victims reach out for financial support, those in the local authority must be trained not just to process the claim or recognise the signs of abuse, but to report it to a relevant social worker or the police.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, illuminated the Committee with her telling description of how real-life long-term relationships can escalate, a point echoed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who linked back to the day-to-day regarding the need for training professionals.
Amendment 166, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, tackles the issue of when a social worker is refused entry to premises and suspects that domestic abuse is being perpetrated. As we have heard, at present the social worker would need to ask the police to obtain a magistrate’s order, but there are several benefits of their being able to obtain entry themselves, not least not having to further burden an already overstretched police force. Research by King’s College, which has already been mentioned, identified that this could prevent escalation to the point where a more drastic intervention by police was needed and speed up the process of safeguarding inquiries. This power has already been trialled. As several noble Lords have mentioned, it was introduced in Scotland in 2008 and in Wales in 2016. It seems to work well and creates a greater expectation of compliance, which may obviate the necessity of obtaining an order at all. Obstruction of entry is rare but, on the occasions when it is needed, this no-messing early intervention can save lives.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 165, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would require that where a local authority employee
“suspects in the course of carrying out a financial assessment for adult social care that a person is the victim of domestic abuse, the employee reports the suspected abuse to a relevant social worker or the police.”
Amendment 166 would allow “A magistrates court” to
“make an order permitting a registered social worker to enter premises specified … by force for the purposes of identifying and supporting victims of domestic abuse”.
I will be interested to hear the government response on the specifics of these amendments. We definitely support the general aim of making sure that older victims are focused on and protected and, like so many noble Lords, we recognise the truly immense contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has made in drawing attention to and highlighting older victims of abuse. After all, the Bill will achieve its aim only if it works for all victims. Older victims are too often invisible—metaphorically speaking—can suffer different forms of abuse, and are at increased risk of adult family abuse. Amendment 165 raises the importance of staff being taught to recognise the signs of abuse and who to raise their concerns with when they see it. The amendment refers to an employee possibly reporting suspected domestic abuse direct to the police, an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I am not sure whether that would be only with the victim’s consent. The amendment also raises the importance of joined-up working so that, where abuse is suspected, it gets acted on and victims are offered support.
The Local Government Association has raised the need for clarity on information sharing between agencies. In its consultation response on the Bill, it said:
“There is still not a clear and consistent understanding about what information professionals can share within agencies and across agencies … Given the changes introduced through the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), the LGA thinks it is crucial for the Government to issue guidance on how”
those changes affect
“safeguarding and information sharing arrangements, particularly the impact on domestic abuse victims.”
Like other noble Lords, I await with interest the Minister’s response to both amendments on behalf of the Government.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who so eloquently and movingly spoke on this amendment. I am starkly aware that this afternoon is the first time that we have heard these figures on domestic abuse against disabled people. Disabled women are three times more likely to be abused by family members. This is deeply shocking and makes us pause for thought.
I am aware of the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as an active and practising magistrate. My question to him and the Minister relates to this point. If we pass this amendment, which appears attractive in the way it has been moved and reads, and repeal provisions in the legislation for the so-called carers’ defence to the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate or family relationships, should cases be brought to court under the legislation, practitioners would be scrabbling around for other legislation, such as the Mental Capacity Act and other Acts to which noble Lords have referred. There is a certain neatness and ease of reference from keeping the defence in its place, although I hope that it does not have cause to be used.
I am conscious of the huge shortage of carers in the country at the moment, particularly those looking after vulnerable and disabled people. They have a sensitive and caring role to play, so the background to this amendment is particularly sensitive. With those few remarks, I would be interested to know, from the Minister, what the position would be if we removed this defence and, from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, whether he thinks that it would cause a difficulty for practitioners.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for raising this. Amendment 171 seeks to repeal the so-called carers’ defence in coercive and controlling relationships. I am grateful to Stay Safe East for its excellent briefing. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, highlighted the frequency of disabled people being abused compared to non-disabled. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, was shocked by these figures and so was I.
As we have heard, the so-called carers’ defence clause reposes in the 2015 Serious Crime Act. This defence can be employed by the carer if she can prove that she believed that she was acting in the victim’s “best interests” and that
“the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable”.
Stay Safe East maintains that this Act discriminates both directly and indirectly against disabled victims. It says:
“The purpose of legislation on domestic abuse is to protect survivors, rather than to defend the rights of abusers or alleged abusers.”
It is already hard enough to get a case involving a disabled victim to court, as so many difficulties and barriers stand in the way. To abuse a disabled person in the cause of their own “interests” surely must be one of the most patronising and demeaning excuses for perpetrating coercive control of the victim. It piles insult on injury, can prolong the abuse and ultimately denies justice to the victim. I do not need to add to the cogent and clear description, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, of what this form of coercive control looks like and how it makes the disabled victim feel. Let us shut that loophole and give disabled victims justice and their dignity back.
A carer can already claim the “best interests” defence without our having to enshrine it in law. I listened carefully to the remarks of the Minister on Monday and she seems to have prejudged the amendment without listening to the arguments, which is most unusual for her. In response, I say that the arguments that she uses can be used in favour of the amendment. She said:
“As is the case with all legal defences, it is for the courts and juries to decide merit on a case by case basis”.—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 123.]
Why not take this patronising defence out of English law and let the courts decide, as she suggests?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I start by commending the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, because she spotted something that nobody else noticed on Monday evening, which is that I spoke in response to this amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, had not moved it at all. That might be why I sounded as if I had prejudged a bit. I will reiterate some points on this occasion, but I apologise for being a bit previous with my comments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, Amendment 171 addresses the so-called carers’ defence within the controlling or coercive behaviour offence. Subsections (8) to (10) of Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 allow for this limited “best interests” defence, where the accused can demonstrate that they were acting in the best interests of the victim. The defence is not available in situations where the victim fears that violence will be used against them. I must be clear on that. For this defence to apply, the accused would also need to demonstrate to the court that their behaviour was reasonable in all the circumstances.
The defence was designed to cover cases where the accused is genuinely acting in the best interests of the victim. The first example that comes to my mind is a situation where the accused is looking after an elderly partner or parent with Alzheimer’s disease and must ensure that that person does not leave the house for their own safety. In these circumstances, it is entirely possible that the accused’s behaviour, while it might be considered controlling in a different context, is reasonable given the nature of their caring responsibilities.
As we have heard today, proponents of this amendment fear that it may enable the abuse of disabled people. However, there is a real risk that, without such a defence—and bearing in mind the example that I have just given—a person may be wrongfully prosecuted for and convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour, when in fact they were acting in a person’s best interests.
Ultimately—and I am repeating my words from the other night—it is for courts and juries to decide merit on a case-by-case basis, whether or not the threshold for the defence has been met. It should also be noted that similar or equivalent offences in Scotland, such as Section 6 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, and the proposed new domestic abuse offence in Northern Ireland, in Clause 12 of the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill, which has recently completed its passage through the Northern Ireland Assembly, also contain a similar defence.
I hope that, in the light of my explanation—for the second time—of the necessity of this defence, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
“Code of practice: employer’s duty of care
(1) In this section—(a) “worker” means an individual who has entered into or works under a contract of employment or any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual; and(b) “employer” means the person to whom the worker undertakes to perform the work or services in question.(2) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice (a “code”) containing provision designed to ensure that persons affected by domestic abuse who are workers receive appropriate care and support from their employer in relation to their work.(3) A code may include provision requiring an employer to make reasonable adjustments for the purpose of ensuring that persons affected by domestic abuse are not, by reason of being so affected, placed at a substantial disadvantage in relation to their work in comparison with persons who are not so affected.(4) The Secretary of State may revoke or amend a code.(5) Before issuing, revoking or amending a code the Secretary of State must—(a) issue proposals, and(b) consult the Commissioner and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.(6) Failure to comply with a provision of a code does not of itself make a person liable to civil or criminal proceedings; but a code shall be—(a) admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings, and(b) taken into account by a court or tribunal in any case in which it appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant, including (in particular) any case in which a question arises as to whether an employer is in breach of a duty of care owed to a worker.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice containing provision designed to ensure that persons affected by domestic abuse who are workers receive appropriate care and support from their employer.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 174 standing in my name spells out the duty of care that any reasonable employer might expect to undertake in looking after an employee suffering from domestic abuse in a code of practice which the Secretary of State must issue.
Work is often the only respite for a victim from abuses that they are suffering at home and the only opportunity they might get to contact help agencies. Work provides, as well as financial reward and escape, a sense of purpose and self-worth which can be severely undermined at home. Workers are more productive and effective when they can bring their whole selves to work. Employers have a duty of care which they would be expected to exercise in other circumstances, such as sickness or bereavement, and give time off accordingly.
This amendment is not stipulating any additional cost requirement in terms of time off. It is laying down the expectation on the part of workers that, in these circumstances, the employer will make reasonable adjustments and not disadvantage them further because what they are going through may not enable them to achieve peak performance—just as if they were ill or had been bereaved, and so on. It does not seek to criminalise or penalise any employer who does not comply with the code, although it can be taken into consideration in any subsequent court case where they have not exercised their duty of care.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and I join those who have already wished the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, a happy birthday. She has had a busy birthday in your Lordships’ House today. I hope that we will finish in time for her to celebrate before the day is over. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for setting out their amendments in the way they did. They bring us on to the role that employers can and should play in supporting employees who are victims of domestic abuse.
The Government agree that employers can play an important role, and that there is more that can be done in this area by working with them to help lift the lid on this often-hidden crime. However, as noble Lords have noted, this is a sensitive area and it is vital to ensure that we have the right approach. That is why, in June last year, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy launched a review into support in the workplace for victims of domestic abuse. This comprised a call for evidence, a literature review and discussions with interested parties and groups to explore the issues in greater depth. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull noted, we published the report from this review last month, on 14 January.
The findings in this report show that, for people experiencing domestic abuse, the workplace can be a place of safety and respite. As my noble friend Lady Newlove said, it is somewhere where they might have a trusted mentor or confidant. They can make the arrangements that they need there and perhaps use a work telephone to contact refuges or other services, which can help them escape their abuser. The review also highlighted the importance of employers responding with empathy and sensitivity to disclosures of domestic abuse, asking the right questions and ensuring that the workplace is a safe place for people to come forward.
The evidence provided to the Government made it clear that victims may also need flexibility to engage with services such as refuges, healthcare, the police and the courts, during their regular working hours. Sometimes that might mean changes to their working location or the type of work that they do in order to ensure their safety. We expect employers to respond with empathy and flexibility to such requests. No victim should need to worry about their employment while they are seeking to leave an abusive situation.
Where victims of domestic abuse need to change their working patterns or locations, they may be able to make use of the existing right to request flexible working, which noble Lords noted. Our review into how employers can support victims of domestic abuse generated some valuable insights, which will be considered when we take forward the commitment that we made in our manifesto to consult on making flexible working the default.
The Government recognise that there is much merit in providing guidance and support to employers on how to support victims of domestic abuse. The review that I mentioned found that, while employers want to support their staff, they may lack the awareness, understanding and capacity to do so. My noble friend Lady Newlove gave an example of an employer who, sadly, got it wrong. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, companies are made up of people; this is first and foremost a human interaction. People want to get it right, but they need to be given the right advice on how to do so. It is also clear that domestic abuse can bring difficult challenges for employers, for example where victims and perpetrators work together in the same place.
The Government want to ensure that employers have the tools and support that they need to support their staff. As set out in our report, therefore, we will work with representatives of victims, employers and workers alike to bring forward proposals in this area. We welcome the positive action that we have already seen across the country. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, mentioned Vodafone, which is one of many employers, including Lloyds and many more, which are showing the way by adopting policies that support victims in the workplace and by raising awareness of domestic abuse as a workplace issue. We will continue to encourage employers to follow suit wherever possible.
In doing that, we recognise and value the good work being done by a variety of organisations, some of which have been mentioned in our debate, to provide support and guidance for employers: for example, the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, Hestia, Public Health England, Business in the Community, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development all provide resources for employers free of charge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, said, they are all over this, and trade unions are doing important work in this area, as well.
Through our review, the Government have set out a clear course of action to help employers to support victims of domestic abuse. It creates a firm basis on which to make progress. Given that commitment and the findings of the report from last month which I mentioned, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief but very important debate today. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, made the point that paid leave is guidance only. That is a very helpful thing; at this incremental stage we are seeking to win over employers rather than beat them down and require them to pay employees who are suffering from domestic violence.
I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, put it very elegantly when she said that we have a code to make the work environment safe and happy, so the code we are talking about would create a good emotional work environment to go with the good physical one. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made many very good points. He said that domestic abuse is a work issue. It crosses over. As I said in my earlier remarks, you have to be able to bring your whole self to work; you cannot just leave the sad and difficult bits at home.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised the need for flexible working in these difficult circumstances. I was pleased by the Minister’s comment that the Government will be bringing forward proposals and are consulting on making flexible working the default. I will be delighted when that day comes and I hope it will not be too far away. My noble friend Lady Hamwee said that these two amendments have identified a gap that should be filled.
I am delighted with the cautious comments of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, saying that the Government are working with bodies to bring forward proposals. I hope that progress will be forthcoming and less than glacial. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“School admissions code: duty of Secretary of State
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months after this section comes into force, secure that the school admissions code issued for England under section 84 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 (“1998 Act”) contains such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary to achieve the objective set out in subsection (5).(2) The Secretary of State must secure that the Commissioner is consulted about any proposed provision under subsection (1).(3) The Welsh Ministers must, within six months after this section comes into force, secure that the Welsh Government school admissions code issued under section 84 of the 1998 Act contains such provision as the Welsh Ministers consider necessary to achieve the objective set out in subsection (5).(4) The Welsh Ministers must secure that the Commissioner is consulted about any proposed provision under subsection (3).(5) The objective is that—(a) oversubscription criteria for admission to any school to which the school admissions code applies give the same priority to children falling within subsection (6) as to looked-after children (within the meaning of section 22(1) of the Children Act 1989), and(b) the Code contains appropriate guidance about admission of children who have moved home to avoid domestic abuse or who are otherwise affected by domestic abuse.(6) A child falls within this subsection if the child—(a) is in the care of, or provided with accommodation by, a body exercising a function which, if the body were a local authority, would be a social services function of the kind mentioned in section 22(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989, or(b) has moved home as a result of being affected by domestic abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment 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.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 175 does the equivalent for school places as my Amendment 52 does for NHS waiting lists. Both look to ensure that children fleeing with a parent from their abuser should not be further disadvantaged in terms of health and education. Specifically, Amendment 175 requires the school admissions code for England to be changed to give children fleeing domestic abuse in a refuge or other similar accommodation, or who have moved home because of domestic abuse, the same priority as looked-after children when there is a waiting list for school places. The equivalent actions should be afforded in Wales and an equivalent amendment provides for that.
I know that in some areas there is huge demand for places in popular schools. Nevertheless, after all they have been through, if these children need to be settled in school, they should not be disadvantaged even further by going to the back of the queue. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for taking part in this short but important debate. We firmly believe that all vulnerable children, including those who have been affected by domestic abuse and are currently receiving care or who have had to move home as a result of domestic abuse, should be able to access a school place quickly. We believe that any gaps in their education must be kept to an absolute minimum.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, previously raised the issue of NHS waiting lists where children are compelled to move area as a result of domestic abuse. Amendment 175 seeks to address the issue of changing schools by focusing on the application process for a school place in the normal admissions round—for instance, at the start of reception or year 7. However, children fleeing domestic abuse are more likely to be applying at other times, which, in the current drafting—with the usual caveats about this being a Committee amendment—Amendment 175 does not currently provide for.
The Department for Education has recently consulted on changes to the School Admissions Code to improve the in-year admissions process and fair access protocols to ensure that vulnerable children, specifically including children on a child in need plan or a child protection plan, and those in refuges or safe accommodation, can secure a school place quickly and keep the disruption to their education to an absolute minimum. The new School Admissions Code will provide detailed requirements and guidance for all, particularly vulnerable children moving in-year. The Department for Education proposes to publish this new guidance on fair access protocols, which provide a safety net for the most vulnerable children moving in-year.
We think that these changes and this action, rather than giving joint-highest admission priority alongside looked-after children for the main admission round, will have the greatest impact in achieving what I think lies behind the amendment: ensuring that all vulnerable children can access a school place as quickly as possible, including those who have been affected by domestic abuse. Given the work being undertaken in this area, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for rounding out some of the information as to why we need this small amendment. The average waiting time of four to six months for a child who has fled with a parent from domestic abuse is not acceptable. He outlined very clearly all the reasons why that is the case.
I was quite pleased with what the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said regarding the new School Admissions Code on fair access protocols. I think he is reasonably confident that this will have the required effect; I very much hope so too. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I might as well start by saying that as Baroness Fox of Buckley in North Wales, and with close family and friends who work in the area of domestic abuse, there is some tying up that we can bring together in my last contribution to this Committee stage.
All the amendments in this group, apart from the Welsh one, are about preventive measures that focus on children. Although I am not a fan of cycle of abuse theories, which I think are too fatalistic and deny agency, I want to address the broader question of education as a solution and raise some reservations before we get to Report. Of course, I am not in any way opposed to the resources and specialised service provision that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested, but I am more concerned about the way that sex and relationships education, or just education in general, is used as the solution. I think that can be problematic.
Indeed, the Minister earlier today—goodness know when; she probably will not remember because it has been a long day—made a point that summed up what a lot of people have been saying: that we need to teach pupils what healthy relationships look like. I thought, “Well, good luck with that.” I do not know whether the Government know the secret of healthy relationships or whether they have a blueprint for success. If so, I hope they will share it. But, in all seriousness, I do not know how appropriate it is for the state to suggest, let alone teach, that there is an agreed or right way of conducting one’s intimate, personal private life. This might be asking too much of teachers—I declare my interest as a former teacher. Practically every single social problem has been outsourced to schools at some time or another, with the thought that schools will solve it and, in some instances, with queueing curriculum priorities.
When it comes to relationships, there is a real problem. If you teach maths or physics, you might have the right answers. Even I, as a former English teacher, would say that teaching the moral complexity of a Shakespeare tragedy would be a doddle in comparison with teaching what a good relationship is. There just is not a right or wrong way to do it.
We have to be careful as we tread the line between socialisation and a coercive, even, kind of social engineering. I always worry when adults talk about the need to talk to children about how they should behave, because it is always easier to win an argument with them and manipulate young minds than to win an argument with adults. That makes me nervous as well.
Because this is the end of this stage of the Bill and some of the issues that have been raised are worth reflecting on in relation to the whole Bill, I would like us to think of the perils involved in how we view relationships and decide what a healthy relationship is. I do not know about other noble Lords but, for me, other people’s relationships are always a bit of a mystery. I know couples who, as far as I can see, spend all their time squabbling, arguing and fighting, and sometimes even shouting. To an outsider, that might look like an unhealthy relationship, but I know that they are families full of love and it is just the way that they express themselves.
I know some religiously conservative couples who have adopted a traditional approach to relationships in terms of gender: maybe a wife who is financially dependent on her husband has adopted a subservient demeanour or is very modest, and perhaps the man is the man about the house and strikes a certain macho pose. On the surface, according to some of what we have heard in Committee, those relationships might look problematic and there might even be signs where one might spot abuse, yet, in reality, these are consenting relationships between religiously conservative people and they are healthy and happy. I just make the point that, although these might not be my chosen types of relationships, it is not my business, and it should not be the business of the state either. Conversely, I know couples who have open relationships, where one or both of the partners are promiscuous. That is definitely not my thing but, in a free society, that is up to them. My point is that every relationship has its own dynamic. It is negotiated by the participants involved and that is their choice.
Let us then think about teaching children. If we teach pupils that those versions of relationships—the various distortions that I have cited—are toxic, and that their dad being macho might mean that he is abusive and that their modest, subservient mum is a victim, or that the fact that their divorcing parents are for ever fighting means that that is a sign of abuse, we risk alienating children from their parents.
Possibly, if we looked at it from a different angle and said that the teaching model should not be to say those relationships are wrong but, rather, it should be to describe unhealthy relationships with graphic images of violence and horrifying narratives of abuse, some of which we have heard during Committee, then I fear that we will feed the young with a diet of alarmist scaremongering that will put them off intimacy and relationships, which in most instances are the wonder of life—full of love and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked powerfully about the dangers of filling young minds with ugly visions when he was referring to pornography. I also do not want us to corrupt young minds by telling them that relationships are so damaging that they have to be scared all the time. In other words, the whole area feels like a moral minefield. We have to be careful when asking schools to be involved in this or saying that education will solve it that we do not fuel battles between parents and the state about which family values should be imparted and what model relationships should look like. We have to question whether that is what we want from this Bill.
My appeal to anyone, anywhere in the world, who is watching and who might be worried about the well-being of children and about them coping with the stresses of family life is that we demand that the Government open the schools as soon as possible, because that would really help. I thank noble Lords for their patience.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will start by talking to my Amendment 184. I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey of Darwen and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support and for their excellent and knowledgeable contributions. Amendment 184 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish separate statutory guidance on teenage relationship abuse. The amendment not only covers teenagers who experience domestic abuse but extends to those who perpetrate abuse within their own teenage relationships.
The Minister may say that this duty has no place in the Bill because of the statutory definition that domestic abuse occurs between two adults over the age of 16, but that definition does not stop it making provisions for people of all ages who are affected by domestic abuse. There is no suggestion that the age for domestic abuse or for criminalising anyone should be lowered. The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance that acknowledges that teenage domestic abuse is a reality and that special referral pathways are needed to stop teenager abusers and abused turning into their adult versions.
To miss out these youngsters would be to miss out a vulnerable, troubled and abused section of our young people, who are unseen, unheard of and, as a result, unsupported. Research by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that one in four young girls between the age of 13 and 17 reported some form of physical relationship abuse. That is pretty much the same as in the adult population. We need to ensure that help is available for our children now. What is the point of waiting until they are 16 to start trying to pick up the pieces?
The Government’s Working Together to Safeguard Children report makes no mention whatever of teenage relationship abuse. This oversight has led to policies and referral pathways that do not meet needs. Recent research by the Children’s Society found that only 21% of local authorities had a policy or protocol in place responding to under-16s, and policies and protocols really matter. It worries me that we have introduced compulsory relationship and sex education lessons in schools yet abuse among teenagers remains pervasive. If no services are available to tackle teenage relationship abuse now, we will see teenagers with a problem grow into adults with a problem.
Talking about the other amendments, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who made some thoughtful observations on devolution on government Amendments 178 and 188. Amendment 180 is in the names of my noble friend Lady Featherstone and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—as well as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who, regrettably, was unable to join us—and they too made knowledgeable and interesting contributions, which, in the interests of the time of night, I will not go into now. On Amendment 183, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, talked about evidence-based motivational drivers of abuse in his usual clear and authoritative manner.
I feel as though I have been through a bit of a masterclass this evening, but, the hour being late, I do not want to detain the House by elaborating further. As such, I will leave my last contribution of this stage for now.