Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Finn Excerpts

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the opportunity to talk about the role of psychotherapists. As I will be discussing regulatory issues, I declare my membership of the GMC.

I have no doubt about the value of psychotherapists and the beneficial impact of their work for so many people. But there are potential risks, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to eloquently when we last debated the amendment. Also, in a Lords debate on 2 March last year, he said:

“We have heard harrowing accounts of victims, often young, brainwashed by unscrupulous and controlling individuals. These charlatans play on their clients’ suffering, deluding them into a false belief in their treatment, often conjuring up in them fake memories about their early years and inducing unhealthy long-term dependence on the therapist and rejection of families and friends.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 477.]


That was reinforced by the case the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, just referred to.

Patients and clients can be vulnerable, and an insensitive, critical or sexually exploitative therapist could increase the risk of the patient having a poor—and potentially damaging—outcome from their therapy. The big problem is that the terms “psychotherapist” and “counsellor” are not protected. Any one of us could call ourselves one of those titles and advertise our services to unsuspecting and sometimes vulnerable people. I have long had worries about this, going back to when I was a Health Minister, some 20 years ago.

In 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, introduced a Private Member’s Bill to provide for the regulation of psychotherapists and make provisions to enable the registration of the profession. Since then, we have established workstreams to look into regulation, but, unfortunately, the profession found it difficult to reach a common cause, principally because there were so many different, and sometimes conflicting, schools of thought.

That, I am afraid, was the start of a long and unhappy journey. In 2007, the then Government published a White Paper which included plans to introduce statutory regulation for psychotherapists and counsellors. But, unfortunately, by 2010, this did not import into statute, even though, by then, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, had done a sterling job in pulling the different psychotherapy schools together and getting agreement on the way forward. We then had the coalition Government in 2010, which announced a new approach to regulation and a belief that centralised statutory regulation was not always the most effective or efficient way of ensuring high-quality care. That, essentially, is where it stayed.

The debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, last March, induced the following response from the Health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell:

“The Government are committed to a proportionate system of safeguards for the professionals who work in the health and care system … Where practitioners pose a direct risk of harm to the health and well-being of patients, legal avenues will and must be explored … However, more rules are not always the answer to every problem. While statutory regulation is sometimes necessary where significant risks to users of services cannot be mitigated … it is not always the most proportionate or effective means of assuring the safe and effective care of service users.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 480.]


He also referred to the more than 50,000 talking service professionals on the registers accredited by the Professional Standards Authority. That is welcome, but it is not statutory regulation, nor is it protection of title, which means any of us could, if we wanted to, continue to call ourselves a psychotherapist or counsellor.

The big problem here is that the Government are basing this on a risk assessment for which there is little evidence. There is a real lack of hard research in this area. I am grateful to the Library for unearthing a 2019 article, published in Frontiers in Psychology, which provided a potential explanation of why there may currently be a lack of quantitative research. It said:

“Although the broad topic of negative outcomes has been extensively discussed, empirical research on patient safety, directly examining the causes and prevention of harm, is not well established. Because harm … is relatively rare, and not amenable to experimental manipulation, such research is difficult.”


In 2017, the Brighton Therapy Partnership, a continued professional development and training organisation for counsellors and psychotherapists, said:

“There is very little research into the harm that properly executed therapy can cause. This is an unusual anomaly for a medical field, as in every other area research is abundant into both efficacy and failure of all treatment options.”


When the Government say, as I have no doubt the Minister will today, that it is not proportionate to regulate psychotherapists, there is an absence of evidence to base that on. In the meantime, in the absence of statutory regulation, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is essential. I hope he is prepared to support this all the way in the Bill. There is a dangerous gap, and some action needs to be taken.

[Baroness Finn (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the other noble Lords who have signed it. It seeks to create a new offence of

“Controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services”.


First, I commend the apposite wording—in particular, “persons providing … services,” since these abusive individuals are rarely actually psychotherapists, counsellors or registered practitioners of any kind, but individuals purporting to offer such services. That these charlatans are able to operate beyond the law and act on vulnerable people should be revisited, even if it is not the specific subject of this Bill.

The Domestic Abuse Bill will update our laws to recognise the breadth, and, unfortunately, the subtlety, of the crime. It will now include, among other things, the offence of coercive control. However, while the Bill recognises that such insidious behaviour is punishable within a household, it clearly exists outside the household too. This amendment seeks to address that omission, but it also speaks to the notion of what constitutes “domestic,” namely, the definition of the “connected” person. If one reads the language of the Bill and hears the heartbreaking stories of this abusive practice, there is surely no doubt that this proposed new clause belongs in the Bill.

We are talking about situations where bogus therapists attempt to alienate their subjects from their families and breed dependence on them, the so-called counsellors. False memories are concocted and sown, with happy childhoods replaced with nightmares of abuse that never happened. The symptoms follow a familiar pattern: the self-styled development coach preys on their vulnerable clients and tears them away from their families, to the extent that they break off all contact and become estranged. There are countless such cases. The goal of such therapy is coercion and control, to debilitate and disable—abuse, if ever there was.

The Bill currently defines “connected” persons using the language of intimate personal relationships, among other things. This captures the nature of what occurs in these bogus sessions. Families, friends and loved ones are wilfully alienated by the abuser, who then offers him or herself as a replacement. A dependence is created, and contact and communication of any kind with family and friends are discouraged. This is intimate, yet clearly abusive—exactly the subject of this Bill and exactly why I hope the Government will accept this amendment.

I began by lamenting the lack of legal protection and redress for those who might be duped by unqualified counsellors and psychotherapists, and I believe that this is definitely worthy of more debate and attention from the Government. But what we are talking about now is including such controlling and coercive behaviour by those who cruelly abuse their professional trust. The consequences for the individuals concerned and their families are profound and long-lasting. What goes on in these cases is intuitively and evidentially abuse. It is clearly coercive and controlling, and it is clearly done in the context of the intimate relationships captured by “connected” persons. For all these reasons, I would argue that the new offence belongs in this Bill. I strongly support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finn (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and other noble Lords who have signed it. I thank them for bringing this to the attention of the Committee and I wholeheartedly support this amendment on post-separation abuse, including economic abuse. It is tragic that so many women continue to be abused even after separation. They have done the right thing—left, escaped, moved or fled—but somehow the plague of abuse continues in other forms. It does not require physical contact, and for some victims this form of abuse only starts after they have left. It is another barrier to escape when they have surely suffered enough. It is widespread: one in four women reports experiencing economic abuse after separation. Most alarmingly, it is post-separation when women are at heightened risk of homicide.

Perhaps most tragically of all, the current law offers inadequate protection, and this amendment would begin to correct that. Currently, we are in the absurd position that many post-separation offences would be a crime only if they occurred before separation. In the words of one Crown Court judge:

“If you have had the strength to leave—we are suddenly not supporting those people? They have got the legislation wrong.”


There are a few important legislative issues to consider. The first is that the Serious Crime Act definition of coercive control does not cover post-separation abuse. Therefore, once this Bill passes, there will be an anomaly in the law, both within English statute and across the United Kingdom, since it is covered in Scotland. The amendment in the other place was withdrawn because of an ongoing government review into the offence of coercive behaviour. This would seem a compelling reason, but I do not think it reason enough to ignore this amendment. The review in question does not look specifically at economic abuse and, since it is concerned only with the current application of the law, which does not recognise economic abuse, it is unlikely to do the issue any justice. Therefore, the review should not stand as a barrier to the acceptance of this amendment.

Finally, it has been argued that victims of abuse can be protected under existing legislation concerning stalking, since statutory guidance has been updated to include economic abuse. But, practically speaking, this is unlikely to be effective. The guidance given to police officers when drawing up stalking protection orders does not include economic abuse provision. Indeed, it is not clear how it could. I therefore believe there is a clear and compelling case for accepting this amendment. The evidence that economic abuse is a crime has been accepted by all, as evidenced by the debate and continued passage of this Bill. It is now a question of offering every possible legal protection, consistently and universally, for the very brave victims of this awful crime. This amendment does that and has my unqualified support.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who is next on the list, has already spoken and inadvertently appears a second time. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has withdrawn. I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.