Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Wilcox of Newport Excerpts

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

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation—and, I hope, an appropriate degree of sensitivity—to make some brief comments on a subject on which I have no great expertise. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the Minister, for the time he gave me to discuss this topic last week.

The stories recounted by noble Lords can inspire only sympathy for the women caught in this terrible trap; that is completely understandable. However, I have a concern and a question. Although it has been stated several times that the amendments relate only to Jewish marriage and can have no consequences for other belief systems I am concerned that, without some additional wording, the general principle underlying them—that one has an obligation to collaborate in a divorce—might leak out into other systems. such as those in which one spouse may have a conscientious objection to the principle of divorce. I am thinking principally of Roman Catholics, but also of other denominations. If it were to be taken, either by analogy or by legal persuasion, that that principle made it a criminal offence not to collaborate in or expedite a divorce to which one party had a conscientious objection, that would be a matter that needed careful consideration.

Although I have every sympathy with the amendments, I believe that they need additional wording and protection, at the very minimum, to ensure that the consequences I have hinted at are not brought about in legal reality. I very much wish to hear what my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lady Altmann, who moved the amendment, have to say about that, so that we can be confident that the measures are as precisely focused as she intends.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as noted in the register. We very much want the Bill to recognise the realities of abuse that different communities face, and to make sure that it will work in practice for victims of all backgrounds, religions, disabilities and so forth. We hope that the Minister will work with the Peers raising issues and look into their concerns.

I pay tribute to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments for the very experienced and knowledgeable way in which they have highlighted this matter, to ensure that the rights of Jewish women to end their religious marriages and secure a get are included as part of the statutory definition of domestic abuse. This would be on the grounds of domestic abuse by way of controlling and coercive behaviour and psychological abuse, and of economic abuse where that is a factor.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said in her detailed opening speech, the amendment is intended to help women who are unable to leave a failed marriage, and is specific only to Jewish religious laws; there is no intention to undermine the Jewish courts. Including it in the Bill would provide the opportunity to ensure that its provisions and protections were applicable to all, and that it specifically recognised the plight of those women, removing the shadow of abuse and control, and restoring their right to exercise their faith through their ability to remarry and have children within their faith. That recognition would also offer them other protections under the Act, once the Bill is passed, if they were specifically included.

It is in line with a key objective of the Bill to raise awareness and understanding of domestic abuse and its impact on victims. Key is the ability of women to bring a case where they can retain control of the process as the victims, rather than as a witness in a prosecution having criminal sanctions as a civil party. Through tabling such an amendment, the issue can be usefully raised, and seeking legislative change could be ground-breaking for chained women.

This group highlights what so many noble Lords have been saying. The Bill must work for all victims, and to do this, it must grapple with the reality of how domestic abuse is experienced in all the different ways that it is by those living with it and those trying to escape it. I sincerely hope that the Minister can work with the noble Lords sponsoring this group of amendments to review this important issue and achieve a positive resolution.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments, particularly my noble friend Lady Altmann for her very good introduction. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, that it is not his noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar responding, but I know that he will be listening to every word I say and will correct me where I am wrong. I also thank him for some of the compelling stories that he outlined—some absolutely tragic cases which I know that all noble Lords will sympathise and empathise with. I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with me on this subject. It has been a real education for me, outlining the situations that some women find themselves in.

I will take these amendments one by one to address them properly. Amendments 3 and 5 would add a sixth limb to the list of behaviours in Clause 1(3) which count as abusive, namely the unreasonable refusal, or the threat thereof, to agree to the granting of a religious bill of divorce, or a get, which is necessary to dissolve a Jewish religious marriage. I am all too aware of the real hardship suffered by women refused a get by their husbands. As already outlined, such a woman is unable to remarry under the auspices of Orthodox Judaism. Furthermore, as a woman regarded in Jewish law as still being married, any children she goes on to have with another Jewish partner will themselves be severely restricted, as a matter of Jewish law, in who they are later able to marry. The term applied in Jewish law to such a woman, “agunah” or “chained”, is, as my noble friend Lady Altmann pointed out, both apt and tragic. I know that Jewish religious authorities are concerned about the problem, but they have not so far found a solution to it within Jewish religious law.

All too often this will be about the exertion of control by one spouse over the other, as noble Lords have pointed out. There could well be situations where the refusal of a get might constitute controlling or coercive behaviour, depending on the facts of an individual case, and this would sit better in the statutory guidance on domestic abuse provided for in Clause 73 than in the Bill.

The list of abusive behaviours in Clause 1(3) is deliberately drafted at a high level, to provide a clear and easily understandable summary of what constitutes domestic abuse. Including very specific circumstances in this list could lead to pressure to include other such circumstances, which would make the definition unwieldy. It could also create the impression that there is a hierarchy of abuse, which of course there is not. It is these more specific circumstances that the statutory guidance is designed to address, and I am more than happy to work with noble Lords to discuss what such content might look like.

Amendment 169 seeks to ensure that this guidance and the statutory guidance issued under Section 77 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 include in their discussion of controlling or coercive behaviour the unreasonable refusal to grant a get. We wish to avoid, as far as possible, prescribing in statute what statutory guidance must contain, which can arguably defeat the purpose of producing that guidance. My noble friend will be aware that, in response to significant concern from a large number of parties, Clause 73(3) does provide that guidance issued under the Bill must recognise

“that the majority of victims of domestic abuse… are female.”

However, including the specific issue of Jewish religious divorces similarly in the Bill would lead to pressure for a large number of other topics to be so included—as beautifully illustrated by my noble friend Lord Moylan—which could in practice end up reproducing much of the substance of the guidance in the Bill. My noble friend will have just heard my commitment to referring to this subject in the guidance.

Amendment 168 seeks to amend Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to ensure that the person who unreasonably refuses a get, and their spouse, are regarded as being in an intimate personal relationship with each other, and therefore count as personally connected, which is a prerequisite for the application of the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour, as noble Lords have pointed out. I understand the intention behind this amendment. My noble friend may be aware that in our White Paper on domestic abuse, published in January 2019, the Government committed to undertake a review into the controlling or coercive behaviour offence. That review, which has considered evidence surrounding the effectiveness of that offence, will be published before Report, and the Government will consider their position in relation to that offence after its publication, in the light of the content of the review and any other information brought to our attention. Therefore, my noble friend’s amendment may be slightly premature.

Amendment 170 seeks to ensure that the unreasonable refusal to consent to a get be regarded as a significant factor in the consideration of whether a person has suffered domestic abuse, particularly whether the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour has been committed; whether a domestic abuse protection order should be issued; and the production by relevant local authorities of strategies for the provision of domestic abuse support, as required by Clause 55. On the first limb of that, the determination of domestic abuse, my remarks about what it is appropriate to include in the Bill and what to include in guidance apply equally.

On the two limbs which refer to court proceedings, it would not be appropriate for the Government to direct the judiciary in this way as to what it might or must consider, and nor is it necessary. The conditions which must be satisfied before a court can make a domestic abuse protection order will already enable a court to make one in relation to this behaviour, if it amounts to abusive behaviour under Clause 1(3). It is therefore unnecessary to make specific provision that a court must consider this sort of behaviour. It would also be the first provision of its type in the Bill, and lead to pressure for other considerations to be included in the Bill as factors courts must consider.

On the final limb, relating to local authorities, we are not otherwise specifying what local authorities must consider when drawing up their strategies. Strategies will relate to general provision in the local authority area, and it would be very odd for the only such provision to refer to a situation which relates to a very small number of people at most. However, again, I reassure my noble friend that this issue will be considered in the statutory guidance, to which local authorities will refer. I hope that in the light of this explanation, my noble friend is happy to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 6, 8, 9 and 14, in my name, and support Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Having listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and others said in the previous group of amendments, I make the point that what I will talk about affects a lot of people from a considerable number of communities.

Amendment 6 is quite short. It deals with the possibility of not being related but being a guardian. It refers to teenage marriages in a forced marriage situation, since some young people may be abused by their guardian rather than someone to whom they are related.

However, Amendment 8 is more important, and it has two parts. First, it concerns those “in a forced marriage”. I put that in despite the fact that there is legislation on forced marriages and, if there is domestic abuse, the question of whether the person being abused is in a forced marriage may not make a great deal of difference. It is really a question of awareness. Secondly, and more importantly, it addresses situations where

“one person is forcing the other into a forced marriage with another person.”

This happens to young women and men, both under and over the age of 18, across a considerable number of communities: ultra-Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Travellers, Hindus and others. The abuse is generally coercive: the abuser says to the young person, “You are to marry the person we have chosen”. Gay men are particularly at risk because, if it is known that a young man is gay, the family is particularly anxious that he should marry.

What is particularly worrying is that the abuse is not necessarily just coercive. It can become physical and there are instances, if the girl has said that she does not want to marry the man chosen by the family, it is seen as a shame or blot upon the family, and they kill her—a case of so-called “honour abuse” or “honour violence”. I saw actual examples of such extreme cases when I was a judge, and they go on today.

This is extremely concerning because it is domestic abuse, not between spouses or partners but within the family. It is very important that forced marriage is well understood, despite the legislation, because there is no widespread recognition that forced marriage can be, and often is, a part of domestic abuse. The reference to “a forced marriage” applies not only to ultra-Orthodox Jewish families but others where the wife is unable to end the marriage. This happens in a number of communities.

Amendment 9 deals not with forced marriage but modern slavery, an issue with which I am also very much involved. Under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, women who are in domestic servitude are seen as slaves, but what is happening is also domestic abuse; it may not be between those who are married, partners or related but women who come into this country, very often to work for a family, and are treated abominably. They are physically, and sometimes sexually, abused, which is domestic abuse and requires to be understood.

Amendment 10, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, addresses those who are not related or spouses but may be living in the same household and need, none the less, to be taken into account as part of the group who are domestic abusers.

Amendment 14 deals with children and a specific, rather important, gap in Clause 3. At the moment, the Bill deals with people related to, or personally connected with, each other. What it does not deal with is the fairly frequent situation in which the mother of a child or children has a number of successive partners. Those partners may either live with her in the same household or visit regularly, but not live in the household. They can equally well, and undoubtedly do, abuse the woman to the detriment of the children. It is an extremely worrying situation. As a judge, I have heard endless cases where a woman has been abused by a man who has been visiting her every day for several hours and has taken the opportunity to treat her very badly. The children, of course, have either witnessed it or been in the next room, cowering and not knowing whether they will also be abused.

It is very important that forced marriage and modern slavery, particularly forced marriage, are recognised as coming within the definition of domestic abuse. Although the legislation is there, as I have said, it does not cover these situations. It particularly does not cover the fact that the agencies do not seem to know about it. It is for that reason that I urge that these amendments be recognised and I hope they will become part of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment 6.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 7, which would ensure that a carer of a person with disabilities is included in the definition of “personally connected”, together with Amendment 12, which inserts the term “provider of care.” This means any person who provides ongoing emotional, psychological or physical support to another, with the aim of enabling that person to live independently, whether or not they are paid for this support. Clause 2 gives a definition of “personally connected”, including those who are or have been married or in an intimate relationship. On the definition of “personally connected”, the Bill should reflect the realities of all domestic abuse victims who need to be able to access services, justice and support. No victim should be left behind.

These amendments would ensure that “personally connected” also covers a person’s relationship with their carer, paid or unpaid. This is to reflect the lived experience of disabled victims of domestic abuse, where a significant personal relationship in their life is with the person who provides care. This is a Bill for all victims, and we believe that this would help ensure that disabled victims are represented in this legislation. We have heard the Government say that the abuse of disabled people by their carers is already covered by existing legislation. Indeed, Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 places such a duty on local authorities. However, this Bill is for all victims of domestic violence and it is flagship legislation. It should not be that disabled victims have to be provided for elsewhere.

The unamended clause does not recognise the lived experiences of disabled victims of domestic abuse, who are among the most vulnerable. It is abuse that often goes unnoticed. Disabled victims are more likely to experience domestic abuse for a longer period: 3.3 years on average compared with 2.3 years for non-disabled victims. The Bill should make it easier for disabled victims of domestic abuse to be recognised. Therefore, there has to be an understanding and acceptance of the reality of disabled lives. Significant relationships can be different from those of a non-disabled person with an unpaid carer.