Domestic Violence Victims: Cross-Examination

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I fully accept that how litigants in person are helped with court proceedings is important, and the Government are spending £3.5 million on helping them. Let me make another point with which my hon. Friend may agree. Not every case needs to be decided in court; I am a strong supporter of mediation, and I should like to see more of that.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The emergency review is welcome, but cross-examination is not the only way in which perpetrators exploit family court processes to perpetuate their abuse. Will the review consider the ways in which abusers can, for example, string out judicial process in the family courts to continue to abuse former partners and their children?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I should be happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Lady, and to look into it in due course. This, however, is a discrete matter and an important one. I should like it to be tackled swiftly, and I do not intend to widen what we are doing at present, because I want to get on with that.

Domestic Abuse Victims in Family Law Courts

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for securing this important debate and for her moving speech. I pay tribute to the other Members who have shared moving stories of their constituents’ experiences.

I commend Women’s Aid for the publication of the “Nineteen Child Homicides” report. It makes for harrowing reading, but as legislators, we must not stay silent on the issues it raises and we must speak up for the children whose safety, wellbeing and lives are being put at risk by unsafe and poorly risk-assessed contact with parents who are known perpetrators of domestic abuse. The fact that over the past 10 years in England and Wales 19 children have been murdered, two mothers have been murdered, two further children have faced attempts on their lives and seven fathers have killed themselves after killing their children indicates that there are systemic shortcomings in the approach to family contact that need to be addressed.

I wish I could stand here and say that all is rosy in Scotland, but in reality we face very similar challenges. Obviously, we have always had a distinct legal system, and since devolution the Scottish Parliament has had responsibility for legislation and policy in this area. In some respects, we have a fairly robust legislative framework, but its application sometimes falls very far short and we know that there is a lot more to do. I am glad that Nicola Sturgeon announced last week that a new domestic abuse Bill will be part of the new programme for Government. There is recognition that psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour can be hard to address under our existing laws, and proposed new legislation will seek to put that right.

As understanding of coercive control has grown, however, it has given rise to difficult questions about child contact arrangements and the extent to which abusers can use them and court procedures to continue to exert control over a former partner and their children. The underlying issues on both sides of the border are very similar, and I want to highlight the shortcomings in the implementation of our existing legislation and identify those areas where new legislation or regulatory guidance could strengthen the safety and wellbeing of children and limit the opportunities for former partners to perpetrate further harm.

Section 24 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 refers to orders made under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, and rightly puts child welfare and children’s interests as a priority. The law states clearly that when a court is considering the welfare of a child in relation to parental rights and responsibilities, it must take into account the need to protect the child from any abuse, or risk of abuse, that affects, or might affect, the child. It also states that courts must take into account the effect such abuse, or risk of abuse, might have on the ability of the person who has carried out the abuse to care for, or meet the needs of, the child, and the effect that any abuse might have on the person carrying out those responsibilities.

When a parent raises an action for contact or residence for their child, the court is also under a statutory duty to give the child the opportunity to express his or her views,

“taking account of the child’s age and maturity”,

and it has to

“have regard for such views”

as he or she may express, giving them due weight relative against the child’s age and maturity. That ensures that the legislation complies with article 12.2 of the UN convention on the rights of the child.

So far, so good. Unfortunately, however, that is not how it always works in practice. I fear that the law is not being consistently applied; that it can still prioritise the rights of a parent with a history of violence over the wishes of children; and that it takes inadequate account of their safety and scant account of the safety of the parent with care.

Earlier this week, Edinburgh University hosted a conference that grappled with some of the difficult issues regarding child contact. I was not able to attend, but one of the keynote presentations was made by the Rev. Tracey Hart, who last October was sentenced to 12 months in jail for contempt of court, having been accused of attempting to keep her children away from their father, who press reports suggest is a convicted murderer with a history of violence. Ms Hart spent eight days in jail before being freed on appeal. The Appeal Court judges ruled that the sentence was “incompetent” and said that she should never have been convicted in the first place, much less jailed.

What disturbs me most is that not one, but two sheriffs were involved in those outrageous proceedings. That brings home to me that we are still battling vestiges of an institutional and attitudinal culture where the dynamics of coercive control are very poorly understood; where the impact of domestic abuse is underestimated; and where the voices of children are diminished. The experience of Tracey Hart and her children suggests that, in some parts of our judiciary, parental rights still override the wellbeing and safety of children. Children’s own rights to have their voices heard and respected are not taken seriously enough, and mothers who seek to protect themselves and their children form abusive and dangerous former partners are still seen in some quarters as bitter or vindictive troublemakers. Despite the law being unambiguous, we still seem to have some way to go to ensure that all sheriffs are properly equipped to preside over such cases.

Tracey Hart has been extremely brave in speaking out, but another troubling issue that arises from her experience is the extent to which court processes and the child contact arrangements ordered by courts can be used by abusive ex-partners to continue to perpetrate abuse. That point very much echoes the comments of previous speakers. We need to ask whether contact arrangements are sufficiently robust in protecting families form further abuse, and to find ways to prevent contact from becoming the vehicle through which an abusive ex can continue to abuse their former partner. We need to look at how contact is properly risk-assessed; how staff in courts and contact centres are trained to spot signs of controlling and manipulative behaviour; how a safe environment is maintained; whether new regulator guidance needs to be introduced; and how we can really put the interests of the child at the heart of decisions.

At the moment, there is a presumption that contact with parents is a good thing, but if a parent has a history of violence and abuse, is that really the case? I do not think that we have yet got the balance right. Tracey Hart says that her children were reluctant to spend time with their father. A psychiatrist’s assessment of her children indicated that contact was damaging their mental health, and she describes her elder son even vomiting before a contact session. But those children were still compelled to attend sessions and cajoled by staff into spending time with their father when they did not want to do so.

Frankly, that is just not good enough. We need to ensure that all parts of these islands become a safer place for those fleeing domestic abuse. It is incumbent on every single one of us to name these abuses of power for exactly what they are, and to speak out on behalf of those whose lives are damaged and endangered under present approaches. We can and must do much better. I hope that Ministers are listening and that we will do so.

Social Security

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

May I start by welcoming the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) to the Front Bench? I was surprised that the Minister chose to move the regulations formally and that there is so little interest in debating them, not because there are deep-seated, fundamental disagreements about them, but because, given the significant changes that are about to take effect with the introduction and implementation of a brand new pension system in just a few weeks’ time, I would have thought there would be an appetite in the House to debate the issues and, indeed, to raise awareness among the public, who are still very much in the dark about the changes and their significance to their lives.

I will confine my remarks to a few of the key issues, some of which have already been touched on. I will start by addressing the State Pension (Amending) Regulations 2016. Although the new state pension will be set at £155.65 a week, very few people will actually get that amount. Indeed, even though the single-tier pension will be higher than the basic state pension, the net amount that some people will receive may be less than they would have got under the old system, because of the loss of means-tested benefits. Only 22% of women and 50% of men who reach state pension age in 2016-17 will get the new state pension in full. According to the National Pensioners Convention, almost six out of 10 new women pensioners and nearly half of new male pensioners—around 1 million people—will get less than the full amount.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady is making an important point, which is rather pertinent to some of my earlier interventions. Is it not incumbent on the Government and on Ministers to communicate those changes properly? Do we not run the risk of repeating some of the mistakes that have impacted on the WASPI women, because those people will be bitterly disappointed when they realise that they are not entitled to what they expected?

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is worth saying that successive Governments have failed to communicate adequately with pensioners about a system that is, undoubtedly, very complex. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the WASPI women, and they are the best example of the problem at the moment. They have seen the goalposts shifted several times. Many of them are still not entirely sure what they are going to get and when, and they have had contradictory information, even in very recent times, from the Government.

I come back to the new state pension. We are calling it a single-tier pension and making much of that flat rate, but, in reality, there will be many different rates depending on an individual’s personal circumstances. In other words, it is not going to be so simple. Inevitably, the introduction of the new system means that two systems will operate concurrently for several decades. The danger is that the state pension could be seen as a two-tier system, because some existing pensioners would be better off if they were included in the new state pension. I am fairly confident that all MPs will be inundated with approaches from constituents after April once those people work out that they have been short-changed in comparison with their friends, relatives and spouses who are on the new state pension.

We all understand that there will, inevitably, be a cliff-edge with the introduction of a new system, and that it is impossible to predict accurately whether someone will lose or gain from the new pension without a crystal ball to tell us how long they will live in retirement. Given all the inevitable anomalies, which will cause a huge sense of injustice, it is incumbent on the Government to introduce some flexibility in the system by letting people take a bit more responsibility for whether they are in the old or new system, so that at least it is their choice to take that gamble with their own life expectancy.

We need to acknowledge that, over time, the new system will be less generous for most people. Those born from 1970 onwards will mostly be worse off under the new arrangements. Those who have contributed to the system for longer—for example, those who moved into work at an early age and worked continuously—will also lose out significantly. On the other hand, there will be benefits for the self-employed and for those who, under universal credit, start to receive credits to the state pension for the first time. There will be winners and losers, but there will be more losers over time.

The new state pension is being introduced on a cost-neutral basis, but the reforms are eventually expected to reduce expenditure compared with cost projections for the existing system. We must also note that the different indexation arrangements for the two systems have the potential to lead to accusations that the Government are building inequality into the system. After April 2016, the new state pension will be uprated annually at least in line with earnings, as per the triple lock, and we all support that. However, my understanding is that an existing pensioner will have a triple lock on only the first £119.30 of their basic state pension, with a consumer prices index link on any state second pension above that level. If CPI inflation is lower than earnings growth, as it is now, the value of the state second pension will fall in real terms. That gap is likely to widen.

Around 7 million pensioners get some kind of state second pension payment, and the average payment is around £28 a week. Applying the same indexation arrangements to old and new state pensions to the same level would cost a modest sum relative to pension spending, but it would mean that both the basic and state second pension were linked to the triple lock. That would help the Government to avoid some of the disparities that are likely to develop in the coming years, and it would help to create a system that is more likely to be perceived to be fair.

I want to express disappointment about the fact that the Government are not uprating savings credit. Instead, it will fall in April from £14.82 to £13.07 for a single person, and from £17.43 to £14.75 for a couple, and it will no longer be available to new pensioners. The Government announced in November last year that savings credit would be further reduced for current recipients, but that reduction is not included in the order. I would be interested to hear whether Ministers have decided not to reduce the amount of savings credit, or when they intend to introduce regulations for that measure.

Savings credit supports pensioners on low incomes who have managed to save a small amount towards their retirement. The vast majority—around 80%—of those who receive it are women, many of whom will have spent their working lives in very low-paid jobs. They have had limited opportunity to save, but they have done so nevertheless. It seems to me that reducing savings credit, and abolishing it for new pensioners, sends exactly the wrong signal to people in low-paid jobs who feel as though they should be trying to save but who have little incentive to do so.

Before I conclude, I want to devote some attention to the part of the statutory instruments relating to the uprating—or rather, the non-uprating—of state pensions paid to those living overseas; this is the issue of so-called frozen pensions. Such state pensions are paid to people who have spent their working lives in the UK paying contributions towards the state pension, but who, for whatever reason, spend their retirement domiciled in countries that do not have a reciprocal arrangement with the UK for the uprating of state pensions. Those UK pensioners find that every year, while UK-domiciled pensioners and those living in other parts of the EU or countries with reciprocal arrangements receive an uprating, their pension remains frozen in cash terms at the amount it was when they retired. The value of their pension therefore falls every year in real terms, causing real hardship to those affected.

According to the explanatory memorandum attached to the order, more than 500,000 people are in that position. Most—more than 90%—live in Commonwealth countries such Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, and also in India, Pakistan, parts of the Caribbean and Africa. In other words, they live in countries that have deep cultural and familial ties to the UK. Some have dual citizenship and others are UK citizens who have retired overseas to be close to family, but they all paid their contributions in good faith. The International Consortium of British Pensioners points out that a pensioner aged 90 who has lived in, say, Canada or Australia throughout their retirement will get a basic state pension of just £43.60 a week. If they had stayed in the UK, they would be receiving £115.95, which is due to go up as per this uprating. I just do not think that that is right. We are doing very badly by those people.

Those who are affected by frozen pensions had no choice about whether to pay national insurance contributions —doing so was mandatory. We must remember that many of them lived and worked in a rapidly changing and globalising world in the post-war era, when few would have paid much attention to the small-print of their state pension arrangements. It seems to me wholly unfair that a pensioner who retires to the USA will get their full uprated pension, whereas a pensioner in Canada will continue to receive their pension at its original level. Clearly, there would be a cost attached to uprating, but the Government must offset that against the costs that would have been incurred if those individuals had chosen to remain in the UK. The Government estimate that every pensioner who lives abroad saves the public purse on average around £3,800 each year in health and social care costs alone.

It is hard to measure the deterrent effect of frozen pensions. Pensioners who would like to retire close to their children and grandchildren in other parts of the Commonwealth are prevented from doing so by the knowledge that a key component of their retirement income would not keep pace with the cost of living. A partial uprating such as that advocated by the all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions would cost around £30 million and represent a tiny 0.03% of pension spending, but it would signal that those pensioners were not forgotten.

We all want fair and sustainable pensions that provide enough support for our elderly population to enjoy a dignified and comfortable old age, but the arrangements must be fair, and must be seen to be fair, if we are to maintain confidence in the system for future generations. I hope that the Minister will consider and respond fully to the points that I have raised.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Ultimately, if this Parliament decides not to agree to rulings from the ECHR, it has no sanction. It can apply fines in absentia, but it will be for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to recognise those decisions, as it is with all decisions. Of course, as Lord Justice Hoffmann said in 1999, there are political consequences for the UK if Parliament chooses to take that decision.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is right and proper that convicted prisoners should not be able to vote while they are in prison. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to consult the Scottish Government at the pre-legislative stage, but may I seek his assurance that he will prioritise keeping to a minimum the burden on the Scottish Prison Service, the Scottish Court Service and those who administer elections?

[Chris Grayling]

I will certainly give the hon. Lady that commitment. I should say that I spoke to the Scottish Justice Secretary this morning ahead of this statement, as I did to his counterparts in the other devolved Administrations. It is important that they play a part in the discussions that lie ahead. Of course, one factor that needs to be a part of the discussion is what the burdens will be on those who have to administer systems to provide prisoners with the vote, if indeed that is what Parliament chooses to do.