Draft Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 General Committees

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

Not for the first time in my political career, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. It is certainly a pleasure, following the Minister’s comments, to have a working mother in the Chair.

The Opposition welcome the modernising of the system that allows a couple’s mothers’ and fathers’ details to be documented, alongside the flexibility for changes when they are needed in future. Modernising, from a technological perspective and a value perspective—the changes mean a marked decrease in costs—is welcome, but when it comes to gender equality, we do not just welcome it; we are very happy to see it.

For me, I suppose that this means that I will appear, if my children ever get married, on their marriage certificates. I did not think that that mattered to me particularly until I was told that I would not be on them and that my husband would, especially when I think my job is better—I want it on their marriage certificates. The change is much welcomed.

On Monday, it was International Women’s Day, a day when, across the globe, we celebrate the progress made in the quest for gender equality, as well as remember how far we have to go.  The delegated legislation means that both parents’ names and occupations will be recorded as part of the marriage. That omission until now reminds me of a fundamental of policy and politics—that we only make a note of, a legal record of, or count the things that we care about.  I presume that the old marriage registration system did not require or make note of the name or job of the mother because, as a society, we saw it as not important, not worth acknowledging and not worth the paper it would have been written on.  I am sad to say that this fundamental still rings true in other areas. There are many examples where we do not count, record or make note of the lives and experiences of women adequately. I hope that today begins progress in other areas.

I also want to flag the length of time it has taken to respond to the pressure from the public to bring forward the reform. The online petition from 2014 attracted 70,000 signatures. The delay of seven years again reminds me of the slow progress in so many areas in the fight for gender equality and justice.  In December 2018, the World Economic Forum reported that it will take 202 years to close the gender pay gap, but of course we are not currently bothering to count that either.

The Opposition do not oppose this legislation. We welcome the digital modernisation and immigration alterations and of course the progress on making mothers’ lives and work matter. This Opposition mother just wishes that it did not always take so long for us working mothers to be noticed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

Absolutely not. There is nothing to stop that. As the hon. Member will know with baptism, which is not recorded in a secular sense by the GRO, certificates are issued by churches. I think the language on them usually says they are to be used “when the child is presented to the Bishop for confirmation.” That is true in the Anglican tradition and there is nothing to stop that. It will not be a legal document of the marriage, but electronic statuses and transactions are becoming increasingly common for most people, and this will be an easy-to-access digital status when needed—for example, to prove a marriage to a bank or someone else—rather than, necessarily, as the hon. Member says, something that someone might want to have on the wall as a record of their relationship.

[Jess Phillips]

Just to clarify and potentially answer one of the points, nowadays anything can happen, ceremonially, in a church, or even in a registry office, where I got married; churches can, if they want, still keep old books, make records and keep the history of that church. Nothing in the draft regulations bars that—is that correct?

[Kevin Foster]

That is correct. The only things churches should not use are the current marriage certificates issued under the Marriage Act 1949. That is the thing that changes. Parish registers, which some Church of England parishes have kept literally since medieval times, can continue to be kept. There is no reason why a church cannot give something to people to mark their marriage there. However, people who attend the wedding perhaps will not see that the form that is signed is then sent by the priest back to the registrar to be entered on to the digital record.

We discussed at some length with the Church of England how we can provide a practical solution. It has thousands of priests and marriage venues that have stood for centuries, where a computer solution cannot realistically be installed in any sense, or even a mobile one, so that details can be directly entered into a digital register. This was the solution that we came to. It seems both fair and reasonable, and to be clear, the Church is perfectly happy with it.

Grooming Gangs

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing us here today. I, like others, think that this should have more prominence than waiting for the public to raise it; it should be front and centre in our thinking.

I remember the words of the girl who sat in front of me 10 years ago as she described, as if it were completely normal, a line-up of men at a party waiting for her to perform oral sex on them. She said it to me as if it was an everyday thing—no biggie. A year later, I was called to a school where a group of boys had sexually abused, assaulted and exploited over 50 girls at their school. I spent hours and hours interviewing young people and children about their experiences of sexual exploitation and abuse, and I realised how normalised, even in my own childhood, had become the idea that men can pass around girls and women among friends and associates in order to broker power, money and status.

In the last 15 years, thanks to the bravery of victims of sexual exploitation and grooming gangs, and also to the bravery of whistleblowers from police forces, sexual health services, youth workers and brilliant campaigners such as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), we better understand this heinous crime. Less than a decade ago, terms such as child prostitute were bandied around and children were still considered troublemakers rather than victims. The last decade has taught us many things. This crime should never have been ignored, and these children were failed by pretty much everyone. Anyone who seeks to use this horror as a political tool, rather than having a laser-like focus on saving the victims and bringing to justice the perpetrators, should be ashamed. As the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) said really eloquently, this issue is not a tool to be further exploited.

The Government have now published the long-awaited review that the petition called for. I am only sorry that the delay meant that further distrust and misdirection on this issue was allowed to gain traction. Transparency, openness and robust external and internal critique of state agencies is the only way that we are going to combat this crime and win back trust.

Let me turn to the Government’s newly released strategy on combating child sexual abuse. The strategy is good in the most part. As other Members have said today, it is a first step in the right direction. I am sure that the Minister will expect nothing less from me than a promise that at every single stage that this strategy is rolled out, I will be there asking exactly how the Government are going to do all the things they say they are going to do. I will keep on at her Department every week and check on progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham is usually right about these things and she was right today that unregulated care homes have to be sorted, and that pre-charge bail should be—without question in this area, and in many others when it comes to vulnerable people—sorted immediately. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) also made very good recommendations, and I could not agree more with the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) with regard to taxi licensing and the effort that needs to be put in there. The Government should do all these things; not one of them is in the strategy currently.

The strategy talks about working together, and we have heard a lot about cross-Government Departments needing to work together. I have spent the last decade, at least, sitting through review after review on this topic, meeting after meeting, homicide review and serious case review after another. In every meeting, I heard the language of “agencies do not work together well enough” and “information sharing is a problem”. In 10 years’ time, I will hear the exact same thing. Saying this and writing it into a strategy will change nothing. We have to make sure now—today—that this is not about what review we want to do; it is about what we want to change and how it can be different this time.

I turn to the proposals for schools in the strategy. There are very few people in this House who would not support the sentiment of a strategy that says, “We will educate children and young people about healthy relationships in a digital world”—noble indeed.

Yet only this week we have seen the publication of school materials being used in some schools in the UK that are teaching, and I quote:

“within a romantic relationship between male and female, masculinity is more about initiating”,

whereas,

“femininity is more about receiving and responding”.

The Government continually shrug their shoulders about these incidents, but they need to understand that without proper funding, robust safeguards and proper scrutiny, there is a potential that the roll-out of healthy relationships education could be anything but. Telling girls to expect men to initiate sex, and for them to receive it and respond to it, is dangerous. What will the Government do to monitor what is being taught? Saying that prevention will happen in our schools will take much more work than just words written on paper.

If I were to reflect on the whistleblowers in famous cases, including Sara Rowbotham and others from Rochdale mentioned by Members today, I would find that it was youth workers and sexual health workers who tried to speak up for the hundreds of girls that they were seeing being abused and exploited, yet over the past 10 years we have seen huge reductions in the numbers of youth workers and detached sexual health practitioners. Years of cutting back these services as if they were a luxury means that in any strategy the Government write now, they have to build from no base. A decade after these scandals, we should not still be in pilot phase after pilot phase.

The Government’s own strategy outlines that in the year ending March 2020, there were 58,000 police-recorded incidents of contact child sexual abuse—abuse where contact was made, not on the internet. In the year ending December 2019, only around 3,700 defendants were charged and 2,700 were convicted. That suggests that there are tens of thousands of incidents of contact child abuse reported with no further action. The number of convictions has been reducing since 2016. This situation is getting worse; we are convicting fewer people. The Government have been in power for a decade and they have been talking tough on this issue for pretty much all that time, yet numbers show appalling charges and conviction rates, which are getting worse.



I want to close my remarks by paying tribute to the victims of this crime and saying some of the things that they have asked me to say today. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), I spoke to Sammy Woodhouse just earlier this morning; I speak to her regularly. Sammy, as many have mentioned, was horrendously abused from the age of 14 and had a son born of repeated rape by Arshid Hussain. Sammy wanted me to specifically raise the issue that it is still very much the law in this land that her rapist should be allowed, and in fact in her case was encouraged, to seek access to her son through the family courts—a man who abused her as a child given credence as a father.

Sammy’s case, as the Minister knows, is by no means an exception. We can all stand here and be fire and brimstone about the rapists and child abusers—monsters, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) said—who perpetrate these crimes; however, here in this building we have repeatedly failed to legislate to prevent these rapists and other perpetrators of child abuse and domestic and sexual violence from continuing the abuse of their victims into adulthood through the family courts. This is on us; it is our failings—it is the law that has been too meek to change and to stop rapists like Sammy’s rapist being able to access her child.

Sammy and other victims have also asked me to raise specifically in this place the fact that we must have better service provision and protection for children born of rape. Currently, the system sees them merely as silent bystanders. Victims have asked that I bring to the Minister’s attention Sammy’s law, which has been mentioned many times, and I fully back the many calls today to implement that immediately.

The crime of child sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse happens across every part of the country; sadly, it happens in every community. The modus operandi of the perpetrators is the same; it is as if there were a manual online about how to target vulnerable people, exploit their weaknesses and then groom them to think it is their fault.

The nation has been shocked and appalled by these crimes for a decade. The victims of high-profile cases have been used as political footballs for the same length of time, when all they ever wanted was for this to never happen again, for victims like them to be heard, and for the crime to be understood. The time for action has long passed; let us do everything we can together, with every lever we can pull, to change this story once and for all.

Domestic Abuse and Hidden Harms during Lockdown

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. We in the Labour party are really pleased to hear about the launch of the Ask for ANI scheme today, which will be a real innovation in helping victims come forward. Can the Minister tell the House what work her Department has done to ensure that in launching this brilliant scheme, when a victim comes forward there will be support beyond an initial phone call available, especially in cases where victims are not ready to inform the police?

We are now eight days into a third national lockdown, with a “Stay at home” message that we have become incredibly familiar with. It was welcome in this third lockdown that the Prime Minister clarified that individuals who wish to leave their homes to escape domestic abuse could do so. That message was not given back in March, and I welcome that being rectified and that the right thing has now been said.

We on the Opposition Benches welcome what the Minister has said today about the measures being taken to tackle domestic abuse and hidden harms. Back in April, the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) wrote to the Home Secretary urging her to act on this important issue. He also raised concerns from the sector, including the need to bring forward urgently a package of emergency financial support for organisations doing the vital work on the frontline which the Minister has talked about.

It was the Labour party that urged the Government to put in place £75 million of financial support for the sector. When the Government announced that they would do that, we welcomed the support, but the Home Secretary confirmed back in June, months into the crisis, that only a staggering £1.2 million had been spent. Today, the Minister’s statement tells us that 11 months into this crisis, still only a third of that funding has reached the frontline. Can she explain that? Will she tell us when the £51 million unspent will be allocated? Will she confirm that the £11 million extra that she has announced today is in excess of the £75 million already announced?

The Minister has also mentioned refuge capacity, and we thank all those who struggled very hard under very difficult circumstances to create urgently needed beds that should never have been missing. We must now ask: is that still enough? I have myself this week tried to get a refuge bed and not been able to find one. Will the Minister tell us today and in the coming weeks what contact she has had with refuges about capacity? Can she today say that she is confident that there is capacity to meet the demand? Can she tell the House what specific provisions have been made for specialised services for those victims who are black, Asian and minority ethnic, migrants, LGBTQ, male or disabled?

As the Minister has mentioned, children are often the hidden victims of domestic and sexual abuse in the home. Can she tell us what work her Department is doing to ensure that vulnerable children who are out of school are safe? What, if any, detached youth work and proactive targeting of children—at the very least, those on child protection plans—has she asked for in order to reach children living in dangerous and violent homes?

The Minister mentioned the £11 million of funding to the brilliant “See, Hear, Respond” scheme, but as she said herself, it will target 50,000 children, not the three-quarters of a million children today living in dangerous homes. Can she tell us whether any of the schemes that she has announced for children cover every child in our country, so that all child victims can benefit, not just those in some areas, where a postcode lottery determines whether we fund a child’s safety?

To continue on a theme, the Minister mentioned the support of independent child trafficking guardians—a brilliant scheme that we welcome. Can she confirm that that scheme is available to all children trafficked in our country, as was promised some years ago by this Government, or is it still, as I understand, just a pilot for some areas, leaving some trafficked children without support?

Domestic abuse and community support services are currently planning for redundancies in March—quite unbelievable in the middle of a global pandemic and a national lockdown. The sector, the Labour party, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner have all called repeatedly for sustainable funding for at least the next year. The staff being made redundant are the very people the Minister needs for Ask for ANI to have any chance of success. Can the Minister confirm whether there have been any discussions with the sector or the Treasury about multi-year funding, and an end to the dangerous year-on-year short-termism in community services for adults and children?

The Government were too slow to act in the first and second lockdowns. I am very pleased that now, in the third lockdown, they are more alert to this issue. Labour, the shadow Home Secretary and I have been saying to the Government since April that they need to do more to protect those who cannot leave home. It is not enough to say that victims should reach out; we in this House, especially the Government, have a responsibility to ensure that when they do that there is help for them. If there is not, we risk losing them for good.

With the thought of the lockdown carrying on until March, it is imperative that the Government act, and act fast. All Members across this House need to assure their constituents that all, not just some, victims suffering from domestic abuse and other hidden harms can leave that abuse and access safety. There are people waiting and willing to help. That is the message that we need to send, and it is on all of us to ensure that that is the case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the Minister, I must point out that the hon. Lady significantly exceeded the time allocated to her. I know this is a very serious subject, but everybody on the list recognises that, and will want to make points. I must ask for brief questions; if they are not brief, the people who are at the end of the list—everyone can see who they are—will not get to ask their questions. It is a matter of dividing the time in this House equally and fairly between Members.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I very much recognise that. Indeed, part of the programme of work that sits within the Bill and outside the Bill is about tackling those who perpetrate domestic abuse. We need to stop these cycles of abuse; sadly, in some cases, perpetrators go from relationship to relationship, abusing and hurting people in their wake. One of the things that I am very interested in—I know that this is also an interest of my hon. Friend—is looking at what more we can do to understand the work of academics, particularly in interesting areas such as the use of artificial intelligence, to see whether we can do better by way of risk assessing domestic abuse perpetrators and the terrible impacts that they can have on their victims.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) [V]]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

The Office for National Statistics and Women’s Aid data last week revealed that 4,823 victims of domestic abuse were not given refuge in 2018-19 because of a lack of space. That is an increase of 1,200 victims left without a safe place compared with the previous year. The Government may cite the temporary increase in beds hard won by campaigners over the covid-19 crisis, but both the Minister and I know that support services should be for life, not just for covid. I have tried and failed to get refuge beds for victims over the last few weeks. I simply ask the Minister if she is proud of a record of a rising number of victims turned away from life-saving support? Can she guarantee that this figure will fall next year, or will it rise to 5,000 or maybe 6,000 victims turned away?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important point. I know that hon. Members across the House will very much have borne in mind the impact that further restrictions may have on victims and survivors of domestic abuse. I am more than happy to reiterate loud and clear that victims of domestic abuse can and must leave their home address to seek help, if they are able to. What is more, the Prime Minister made that very clear in his public statement to the nation at little over a week ago. I ask all hon. Members please to send that message loud and clear to their own constituents—that is, if someone is facing harm or injury at home, they can leave their home to seek help.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in her calls just now. I also make further calls to ensure that when people do need help, there is some help there for them. Due to a decade of cutbacks to our court system and the coronavirus crisis, there is a backlog of around 50,000 Crown court cases. I am sure that the Minister will have heard from those who have bravely come forward—just as I have been told by distressed survivors of domestic and sexual abuse—that trials such as these are being delayed, in some cases by up to two years. In light of these terrible delays to justice, will the Minister answer the calls of the domestic and sexual violence sector, and the Labour party, to ensure that sustainable, long-term funding is put in place beyond March, at least for community-based domestic and sexual violence advisers? Currently, those going through very delayed court cases could end up without the correct support because their court case will certainly run for longer than the funding allocated for their support.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the point of courts. Another message that we can all spread to constituents—please—is that under this set of restrictions, the court system is remaining open. Last time, some courts had to be closed. There were, none the less, still criminal and family courts open; indeed, domestic abuse and other forms of personal violence were prioritised by the courts. This time the courts remain open and absolutely can seek justice, and we have seen reports of increased orders, including domestic violence protection orders, issued by the police during the previous lockdown.

On the hon. Lady’s wider point about funding, I would say that it goes further than funding independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers, absolutely vital though they are. It is also about a wholesale change in how we deal with victims and survivors of domestic abuse, and with the perpetrators of those crimes. The Government are investing in more perpetrator programmes precisely so that we can stop the cycle of abuse. We will also be piloting integrated domestic abuse courts so that victims and survivors can find an easier atmosphere in which to secure justice, because that is what they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my hon. Friend sincerely for his question. The answer is yes, they absolutely can leave their homes to seek help. Of course, if anyone is in immediate danger, they must dial 999 and the police will help. For longer-term advice and guidance, we have set out a range of services on the gov.uk website, but please can we all send the message to our constituents that, wherever they are in the country, they can seek help if they need it if they are victims of domestic abuse?

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I echo the calls of the Minister to get people to reach out, and we have to make sure there is help when they do so. On a call last week with the children’s sector, professional after professional told me that the availability of specialist community support for child victims of domestic abuse is at worst non-existent and at best patchy. Can the Minister tell the House if her Department has a strategy in place that will enable every child in this country who lives in an abusive household to access the support that they need? Can she share that strategy with the House, not just read out funding sums from her folder that she and I both know cover only certain select areas for a short-term period? Perhaps she could enlighten us all on how we can access the support for the children in our constituencies, because for many in this place services for child victims in their area do not exist.

Birmingham Attacks and Extinction Rebellion Protests

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. He is right that these protests are not costless. Aside from the costs to the businesses affected, there is a large overtime bill to be covered. Of all the costs, the most profound and alarming is the opportunity cost; those police officers who are spending time ungluing protesters and dismantling scaffolding are not spending time preventing knife crime, murder, rape or domestic violence. There are other much more vital activities that could be performed in the communities they serve.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I would like to thank both Front Benchers for their kind words about our city, and to express my deep thanks to the people of Birmingham, to its police force and ambulance service, to David Jamieson, who has been misrepresented here today, quite grossly, and to Dave Thompson of West Midlands police force. They have worked tirelessly and will continue to do so, as they always do, to keep people in Birmingham and the wider west midlands safe. The Minister said today that he would do anything and Birmingham would have the resources it needed to ensure that this crime can be detected and victims will be looked after. Will he guarantee that the uplift in police force numbers—of course, in the west midlands, in Birmingham, we have had a loss of 2,000 officers since 2010 and an uplift of only 1,200— will be fully funded for the next two years? [Interruption.] Those are the figures—absolutely. Will he guarantee that that will be funded for the next two years?

[Kit Malthouse]

Obviously, I acknowledge the profound shock that this crime will have caused the hon. Lady’s community. I recognise her remarks and join her in expressing sympathy to all those affected, and I acknowledge the wider shock within Birmingham. This year’s uplift in police officers in the west midlands, which I believe is 366, is certainly fully funded. We have yet to decide the allocation of police officers across the country, but our commitment to 20,000 extra police officers over the next three years is unshakeable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The protection of children is an important issue—children are victims when it comes to domestic abuse, and it is a sad fact that children often witness some of the most abhorrent abuse of their parent or others—and the Bill does exactly that. I am really pleased and proud that we have made sure that children are at the heart of the Bill. It is right that we safeguard and protect them.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

Between 2015 and 2019, despite domestic violence cases rising by 77%, charging fell by 18% and conviction by 20%. In 2018-19, there were almost 60,000 reports of rape to the police, but less than 1,800 were charged and less than 1,000 convicted. The number of cases of rape referred by the police for charging decisions fell by 32% in 2019. How does the Secretary of State account for her Government’s performance in the falling rates of charge and conviction in sexual and domestic violence?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady will know that extensive work has been undertaken across Government, not just recently but in previous years as well. I am absolutely committed, as is my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary, to ensuring that we take an end-to-end approach to this through the royal commission that we are establishing on the criminal justice system, and that much more work is undertaken within policing to ensure that charges are undertaken and that the right kind of effective training is put in place for police forces and police officers. I have been very clear about that through all my work in policing, as has the Policing Minister. Ultimately, charging and getting those cases to court has to be the priority, which is why the Home Office is taking the right approach and working in the right way with the criminal justice system and the Lord Chancellor.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As the Minister has said, there is a lot of interest, not surprisingly, in wanting to take part in this debate. For the first four non-Government contributors, I will allow seven minutes, and thereafter the limit will be five minutes. Even with that, I am afraid not everybody is going to get in.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I would like to start by saying that we on the Labour Benches fully support all the Government’s new clauses and amendments today. Many of them and, in fact, many of the changes to the Bill since its very first draft, all those many moons ago, have been things that we on the Opposition side of the House have championed from both the Front and Back Benches. The Government have taken an approach throughout the whole process of this Bill of seeking always to try to improve it. For this, we are very grateful, and the victims in this country will be grateful. The Bill still has a number of processes to go through in the other place, and I very much hope that the Government will continue to have this attitude to positive change as the Bill progresses, although let us hope it progresses perhaps quicker than it has in the past.

To touch on a number of the Government’s amendments very briefly—in support—the changes suggested to the family courts were, by and large, amendments tabled by the Labour party in Committee, and they come hot on the heels of the Family Law Panel review, which was a very good, thorough and timely piece of work. I want to praise my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle), for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who worked tirelessly on behalf of their constituents and victims across the country to seek that review. I make a very special mention of Women’s Aid, and of Rachel Williams, Sammy Woodhouse and Claire Throssell—all victims and campaigners who have pushed family law reform for victims of sexual and domestic violence through their own pain, suffering and loss.

The amendment on including children in the definition of domestic abuse was again an amendment tabled by the Labour party in Committee. For this, we are eternally grateful, and I look forward to seeing it in today’s amended Bill. Huge thanks for this go to all the children and young people who joined the campaign to speak of their experiences of living with domestic abuse and about how, without question, this had victimised them. I want to say thank you to Charlie Webster and, in memory of Karl, Jack and Daniel, we once again pay tribute to them. To all the children’s charities from national groups such as Action for Children, Barnardo’s, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Children’s Society to local grass-roots campaigners such as Free Your Mind in London, WE:ARE —Women’s Empowerment And Recovery Educators—in Birmingham and Wirral Women and Children’s Aid in Merseyside, I say thank you for all seeing those children and fighting for them.

As for amendments regarding the rough sex defence, so ably championed by my inimitable right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and the new hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), as well as by the brilliant campaign We Can’t Consent To This, I simply want to say one thing. Natalie Connolly’s name and story has rung out around this Chamber and been told in many newspapers, and the bravery of her family will see this law changed. Today, I do not want to remember her for how she died or to allow a violent man to get to say what her story was. I simply want to remember Natalie, a brilliant, beautiful, bright mother, sister, daughter—a woman who had a story all of her own about the things she loved and cared for. I hope that now the story of Natalie Connolly can be that: one that centres her as a human, just like all of us, not the story that somebody else told.

As the Minister has alluded to, we are debating new clause 23, which stands in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition, and we return to what seems now like an age-old issue: how we deal with victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds. In Committee, the Minister and I disagreed over the terminology for who we were talking about. I decided to refer to our care workers, NHS workers, people in this building serving us our drinks, to highlight the kind of people I was talking about when I referred to people with no recourse to public funds. The Minister, quite rightly, cited evidence of asylum seekers or even those with irregular immigration status.

Fundamentally, it does not matter on which rhetorical side of the fence we fall. We are talking about people, humans, who, when they have been raped, beaten, controlled and abused, before we ask them how we can help, first we ask what stamp is in their passport. This cannot be right. What is more, the situation as it is today is not only hindering support to victims; it is helping to leave rapists, abusers and violent perpetrators on our streets.

Since our debate in Committee, a number of police officers from across the country have been in touch with me. This is what they told me. One officer said:

“For years now, we have faced difficulties trying to effectively safeguard subjects of very serious offences. There are some things in place, such as the destitution domestic violence concession, but this process can take weeks to sort. The refuges are usually very helpful, but they obviously cannot operate without being paid, so we are often left with subjects being isolated in hotels for weeks, which is a bad outcome for everyone.”

Another officer from a different force got in touch and said:

“The current situation has a serious impact on the police’s safeguarding duties. It also has a knock-on effect on our ability to investigate domestic abuse as crimes, since officers are distracted by the need to find alternative safe accommodation and support, rather than concentrate on their primary role, which is to investigate the commission of potential criminal offences.”

The Minister is right to seek evidence, so I have looked to my own force, in the west midlands, which is a place obviously close to my heart. There the police public protection unit last year, out of police force funding, spent £23,161 on temporary accommodation. While some of this will have been due to the pressure on refuge places, I understand from the force that a common reason is accommodating out of police resources victims with no recourse to public funds. As the Minister seeks to gather evidence, I wonder if she will ask every police force how much police money—money that could fund a police officer—they are spending on such temporary accommodation.

The Government’s own draft guidance essentially admits that no recourse to public funds is a barrier to women getting out of abusive situations. In the Government’s words:

“Victims who have entered the UK from overseas may face additional barriers when attempting to escape domestic abuse that are related to their lack of access to public services and funds, leading to higher dependence on the partner or family that has supported their being in the UK. This may be exploited by partners or family members to exert control over victims.”

The police are saying this is a problem, all the expert charities bar none are saying it is a problem, Members of Parliament who face these issues every day are saying it is a problem, and the Government’s own guidance highlights that it is a problem and is being used by perpetrators, so why do we not seek to fix the problem? Our new clause seeks to meet the Government in the middle using what they suggested in Committee. We are suggesting that for the year of the pilot project outlined by the Government they trial the end to no recourse to public funds for victims of domestic abuse.



We have listened to the Government’s concerns regarding the pathways to settled status and essentially pleaded with Ministers to test whether giving these victims access to public funds will make a difference. The experts all say it will. Although I recognise what Ministers are saying about needing hard data, you cannot prove a negative; we will never know how many people turned up for help but were turned away because access was not available to them.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that we just do not know what the picture is. If we were to do away temporarily with the “no recourse to public funds” condition, that would bring people forward, confident that they would not be penalised in any other way.

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree. I agree not because it suits my purpose, but as someone with a vast amount of experience of handling cases of victims with no recourse to public funds, both as a support worker and as a Member of Parliament. My heart sinks when somebody tells me that they have no recourse, when I know there is very little I can do. That is when they come to me—someone who knows the different possible pilots that are happening. With the greatest respect to Members in this House, does everybody know how they would go about accessing exactly what was needed? Now think of Sue, who is at your local homelessness centre. The reality is that we will never know how many get turned away—that data will never be available—but by dropping “no recourse”, we can find out if it works.

As legislators, if we know something is a problem, we have a responsibility to address it. Our ideology should always be trumped by facts. I understand that often making law is complicated—seeing the consequences of this or the repercussions of that, the risks, benefits, checks and balances—but I think the Bill before us is quite simple. Today, we are making a law that tries to save people from domestic abuse.

New clause 25 would insert a non-discrimination clause to ensure that all are protected. If we stand here today and create a Bill that, not unintentionally or accidentally, but purposefully and wilfully excludes some from safety, we say that those people do not matter. We say that their life is not as important to us. In the votes today, we will be deciding whose lives are worth trying to save and how serious we are about trying to save them. Our new clause seeks to meet the Government in the middle. It is certainly not, as the Minister knows from the many amendments I tabled in Committee, necessarily what I always wanted, but it is an attempt to meet the Government in the middle. I simply ask that they walk toward us.

New clause 23 would expand an area where the Bill is very good—the duty on local authorities to provide accommodation-based services. This part of the Bill was hard won, and I will be thrilled to see it on the statute book, as it has the potential to put refuge services finally on a sustainable footing. However, 70% of domestic abuse victims do not receive services in refuge; instead, they are supported in community-based services. The victims in those services are often at highest risk of harm and homicide, and we want the same level of sustainability and strategy there as in refuge services.

I spoke last week to a brilliant community worker in Merseyside, who told me that their service, which has only four support workers, is currently supporting 776 complex domestic abuse cases. She had yet to receive any money from the announced covid-19 schemes, which would only last until October anyway. She told me how the easing of lockdown and the good and right national conversation about domestic abuse was massively increasing the numbers and the complexity of their caseload.

Our clause would place a duty on all relevant public bodies, not just local authorities, to do their part in commissioning domestic abuse services in the community. Every single health commissioner should have a duty to look at what domestic abuse services they can provide. Instead, as it stands, some A&E departments, such as those at the hospitals in Birmingham, have specialist domestic abuse workers on site, but the vast majority do not.  If public bodies are working with people, they are working with victims of domestic abuse. All should do their part.

The new clause would also ensure consideration for specialist groups catering for child victims, disabled victims, those working with perpetrators of abuse, LGBT victims, male victims and older victims, as well as services run by and for black and minority ethnic women, so that they have proper strategies in place to protect them. Groups such as Sistah Space in Hackney, which offers specialist services for black women, and Stay Safe East, which is one of only a tiny number of specialist disabled victims’ services, live hand to mouth, never knowing how sustainable their services might be. They rely on crowdfunding and fun runs to fund life-saving services.

I remember what it was like working in those services, drafting letters every January to put community-based staff on notice because we did not know, for example, whether our project catering for child victims or stalking victims would be funded after April. That is the reality for the vast majority of community services. The Bill recognises that refuge needs to be put on a sustainable footing. Bravo! It is absolutely brilliant. I think I said to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) that I might retire when that happened, but I will renege on that—sometimes even I do not tell the truth.

We must give the same attention to vital life-saving community services, which support the vast majority of victims in this country. One-hundred-and-twenty specialist community-based support services from all across our country wrote to the Government, and to all of us, to say:

“Our services have remained open during COVID-19—our staff have moved heaven and earth to make that so—ensuring we don’t let victims of abuse down. Now we look to you”—

the Government—

“to continue that commitment by pledging to recognise the huge contribution of community-based services in the Domestic Abuse Bill.”

Our new clause would do that.

In new clause 24, we seek, once and for all, to take decisive action to protect the lives of children who live with domestic abuse and have their cases heard in the family court. Between 2006 and 2019, at least 21 children were killed during contact with fathers who were perpetrators of domestic abuse. The Government’s report, released last week, states that many mothers explained how they fled the relationship with their father to protect their children, only to find that protection undermined or destroyed by the family court. The Opposition recognise that the Government, and especially the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), committed to a review of the pro-contact family court culture and how in some cases it endangers the lives and welfare of children. I have heard Ministers and Secretaries of State stand in the Chamber and cite the case of Claire Throssell, whose two sons, Jack and Paul, were murdered by their father after he was granted contact. We should not just say her name or think of her loss as some grisly exception when the Government’s own commissioned review shows that there is a systematic problem. We should act now to save lives and improve the safety of our country’s children while we have this Bill in front of us. At the very least, the Government should seek to ensure that their planned review is time-bound to conclude with the return of the Bill from the other place. If it is not, we could lose the legislative opportunity that is presented to us.

The argument to end the presumption of contact for proven violent perpetrators is, in my mind, made. There are already dead children—and I do not want to have to call for an urgent question to ask Ministers where we are with the review each time a new case of child homicide hits the media. I want us to act now, or at least to commit to a short timeframe of when and how the Government will act. I have no doubt that Ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice understand the severity and importance of the issue and, like the Opposition, do not want to kick the safety of our children into the long grass.

Amendments 40 and 43 relate to the degree of independence afforded to the commissioner of domestic abuse. The Bill before us deviates from the precedent set for the Children’s Commissioner by requiring reports and advice to be submitted to the Home Office rather than Parliament. Our amendments would retain the statutory requirement for safeguarding considerations but remove the possibility of the Home Office interfering, putting on undue pressure, or, in reality, just delaying the commissioner’s work. Every commissioner who gave evidence to Parliament in consultation for the Bill supports this approach. We will not press these amendments to a vote today, but we are keen to see further debate on the commissioner once the Bill arrives at the other place.

We do not stand here today to fight a political battle. The Domestic Abuse Bill has all our fingerprints across its pages. Its very existence sends a message to the victims in this country that we can see them, and to the perpetrators, that we will not tolerate them. We tabled the amendments and new clauses because, as has been the case since the Bill’s inception many, many moons ago, we want it to be the best it can be and for it to ensure that, no matter who you are, where you come from, where you work or whether you need refuge or want support in your own home, here in this Great Britain, we want to help you, because that is the kind of country we are: one that leaves no victim behind.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me a bit earlier than I was expecting.

I rise to speak to new clauses 4 to 11 in my name and that of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and to Government new clause 20. As we all know, these measures refer to the case of my constituent Natalie Connolly, who tragically died in 2016 at the hands of John Broadhurst—an individual who then used the rough sex defence to try to reduce his sentence. I overheard a conversation between two of my colleagues on the Back Benches, and I want to make it clear that these provisions are not about trying to stop people engaging in BDSM if that is what they choose to do. They are about preventing the use of the rough sex defence to try to lessen the charge against an individual.

The tragedy with Natalie Connolly was that she was a perfectly normal person. She was not into this type of thing, but she entered into a relationship with a man who serially abused her by coercing her into this type of rough sex, and who eventually, during an appalling afternoon, ended up killing her in the most brutal and intimate way, the details of which are available and are tragic to read. The problem with this is that not only was she not into this—had been coerced into it—but that the whole conversation about the case resulted in Natalie Connolly’s name being associated with rough sex.

I was trying to work out a good way of getting across how vile this is. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), in her opening remarks, was incredibly sensitive and really summed this up; the reality is that Natalie Connolly was the victim of abuse and of a flawed legal system. I received an email from Natalie’s father, Alan Andrews, a couple of days ago, talking about this. I will read out some parts of the email, which is incredibly moving. He says, “There is no way that a man should be able to bat away brutal sex violence as just an accident and pave the way to get away with it. To cope with her private life being explored in intricate detail on top of the grief of losing her has been unimaginably hard for the whole family. Natalie is no longer here to tell us what he did to her or why he left her where he did. One thing is for certain; Natalie didn’t fantasise about being killed or leaving her daughter without a mum that night.”

When Natalie’s daughter, Maddison, gets a bit older and starts googling her mother, we do not want her to find all these stories about her mother being described in this way. We want Maddison to look on her mother with immense pride and say, “As a result of my mother’s death, thousands of women are now protected against this type of defence in the future.” That is why this is so incredibly important and I am so grateful to all the people who have been involved.

The amendments that the Mother of the House and I tabled, which were co-signed by 70 MPs from both sides of the House, look at the rough sex defence, the review from the Director of Public Prosecutions in the event of a charge being reduced, the anonymity of the victim, and at something else, which is peculiar to modern Britain, where people spend too much time, perhaps, looking at a different type of pornography online from what was perhaps available many years ago.

To find an answer to this problem, we cannot address all those issues; some are quite complex legal issues. They are certainly beyond someone like me, although not my colleagues. However, I am convinced that the Government have come up with a solution in new clause 20 that addresses the issues, either directly through the provision on the rough sex defence, or obliquely by removing the need for specific anonymity for the victims. I am grateful for how the Government have moved on that.

I will say a few specific thank yous to some people. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) has provided a simpleton like me with extraordinary insight into the legal process, the like of which people like me really need. She is an incredibly important new Member of this House. I also thank the two Ministers on the Front Bench: my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), for their incredible hard work. They have been absolute rock stars—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle.

[Jess Phillips]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Garnier]

I will.

[Jess Phillips]

I just wanted to thank the hon. Gentleman, in order that he can continue thanking people.

[Mark Garnier]

I thank the hon. Lady; I am conscious that there are a lot of people. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle came to Kidderminster to meet with Natalie’s family. It was not a visit to tweet about afterwards, or to put out a press release; it was an incredibly private meeting with a grieving family to find out the effects of the appalling killing of poor Natalie Connolly. It was, frankly, an extraordinary afternoon, and I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for taking the trouble, and for all the work that she has done with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham. The Prime Minister has also been involved, and the Justice Secretary has worked incredibly hard.

In this House, we all know that it is an extraordinary privilege to be a Member of Parliament and to represent our constituents, but it is also an extraordinary privilege to be able to work with quite remarkable, extraordinary long-term parliamentarians. Working with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham has been an experience the like of which I have rarely had. [Interruption.] It has been a privilege, not a peculiar experience. It has been truly remarkable to be able to work with somebody who has worked so hard for so many years standing up for women’s rights, and with some extraordinary achievements.

--- Later in debate ---

His testimony highlights the fact that, if we pass this new clause, it will go against the very aims of this Bill, as a phone call often fails to illustrate whether a woman is in a domestic abuse situation.

[Jess Phillips]

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the Government-funded telephone lines for domestic abuse if it so difficult to take advice and to give advice to women in a domestic abuse situation over the telephone.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think it was designed by the Government as a very temporary measure. I do not think for a moment that it was designed as a permanent measure; it was designed simply in the context of covid-19. Body language and visual signs cannot be observed over the telephone. It is not a perfect way of consulting. There are already investigations into nine cases where pills issued via telephone were taken beyond the recommended gestation. This is less than two months after the service commenced. In one case, the abortion took place some 18 weeks over the legal limit of nine weeks and six days. We have also seen, of course, the media give better attention to domestic abuse and that increase in visibility may have given victims greater strength to come forward, which is good, but the gravity of women being coerced into abortion does not seem to have been taken as seriously as it should have been. It seems obvious to me that a woman seeking an abortion under duress may be being observed by abusive partners, or are otherwise acting in fear, and they will be less likely to come forward and disclose abuse.

I could quote doctors on this again and again, but there is not enough time. One said to me:

“This proposed amendment would place doctors in a very risky situation. Deciding whether a patient might be in an abusive situation by one telemedicine consultation would be almost impossible… Assessment of women at risk of domestic abuse should be part of a comprehensive safeguarding strategy—it should not be left to a single doctor working under time pressure, via the medium of telemedicine.”

I know that there are strong views and I respect the position of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). None the less, we will never agree, and this is, frankly, lazy legislating. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedure. Abortion is such an important issue that we need to have a serious debate around it. We in the Pro-Life lobby recognise that we will never change the fact that if a woman wants an abortion, she will get one, but we will never give up arguing the importance of the value of all life, however frail, and the dignity of all human beings. We consider it a vitally important issue and it should be dealt with properly by parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

It is fair to say there were moments in the past two and a half years where I did not quite believe that I would be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and deliver the winding-up of the Bill’s Report stage, so it is a genuine pleasure to be here doing exactly that.

We have seen extraordinary contributions from across the House, not just in this debate but over the history of this Bill and its progress through Parliament. We have heard from Members who have bravely given their own experiences of the abuse they themselves suffered, whether that was the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who moved us all on Second Reading in October last year or, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who brought to the Chamber his own experiences as a child living in an abusive household. Those are but two examples; there are, sadly, many, many more examples we have heard, both through the direct experience of colleagues, but also through the experiences we have all tried to bring into the Chamber.

There are people we know as soon as their names are said—names such as Clare, Rachel and Holly. We know their stories. If one thing can be drawn from today’s debate and the progress of this Bill, it is that we do not just talk about them and the experiences they endured and the experiences that were forced on them, but that we talk about the legacy their lives have had. Their legacy is written throughout this Bill.

As the Minister, I have to, of course, try to respond to the many points that have been made in the debate, and I apologise that I simply will not be able to do so. To give some indication of just how much cross-Government working there has been on the Bill, as well as the work in Parliament, there are now seven Departments—and counting—working on it. During briefing sessions for the Committee sage, the officials briefing me had to have a queueing system because they could not all fit on a conference call. That gives an idea of how many people have been involved in the Bill, and I thank each and every one of them, because I will not have the honour of doing so on Third Reading.

I will jump now to some of the substance of today’s debate. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and many Opposition Members, as well as my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), raised—understandably and rightly—support for migrant victims. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to helping victims and to the support for migrant victims scheme, which I announced on Second Reading. We expect to make announcements in the summer about this. We will be working with charities. We are working with the domestic abuse commissioner—I spoke to her about this only on Friday. We want this scheme to have the trust and involvement of everyone who is as concerned about migrant victims as we are. We are aiming to publish the framework of the scheme ahead of Lords Second Reading, and we very much hope that everyone will feel able to support it.

[Jess Phillips]

If the approximately 3,630 women who we imagine might want to access this scheme a year breaches the £1.5 million that the Government have allocated, will the Government turn people away, or will they make more funds available?

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Lady has rather set out the problem we have, which is measuring the number of women. She will know that we already help around 2,500 women under the DDVC. She will also be aware that, alongside the pilot project, we have the tampon tax funding, which is continuing. I very much see the two schemes running in tandem.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West has tabled new clause 27, which concerns the firewall. She will know that the police are facing a super-complaint relating to police data sharing for immigration purposes and that there is a judicial review outstanding. Obviously, we have to wait for those cases, but in the meantime we are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that the guidance it issues does the job that is required, so I ask her not to press the new clause.

Members across the House dealt with new clause 23. We all want to support domestic abuse victims and their children, regardless of where they reside. We must, however, ensure that any new statutory duties are properly considered, costed and robust. The new duty on tier 1 local authorities in part 4 of the Bill is the product of extensive consultation and engagement with local authorities and sector organisations. The same cannot be said of new clause 23. The Government are committed to gathering this evidence, and I am grateful to the domestic abuse commissioner for agreeing to lead an in-depth investigation on this. We have to be able to understand where services are and are not provided, to identify best practice and to consult fully with our charities, local authorities and other important parties before considering any statutory commitments. Any new duty must also be properly costed, taking into account existing provision. We expect the commissioner to set out her recommendations in a report under clause 7, and as those who have been following closely will know, we and others will then have 56 days in which to respond. We will act on this, and we will respond promptly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Chancellor. After three years, I am delighted that I might get the last word on this Bill. I will echo some of the thanks that he has laid out.

When I was speaking to the Deputy Chief Whip earlier, he said, “You know on Third Reading, Jess”—which I have not prepared for at all, because I did not think we would actually get to it—“you’re not allowed to just go on about what you want in the Bill,” so I might just sit down, because my forte is going on about what I want in the Bill. As it passes Third Reading, I feel slightly bereft about not updating it anymore. It seems that, since I was elected to this House, it has been going through.

I pay huge tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her work in the Home Office and latterly as Prime Minister. I told a story in Committee about how, on one occasion when she was Home Secretary, I was a candidate in the election so when she visited the refuge where I worked, I was allowed to work from home that day for shame that I might show up the organisation with the Home Secretary there. She visited where I used to work on a number of occasions and has always been, I would say, mostly in the right place around domestic abuse. We would not be here today had it not been for her efforts.

I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the work done by the Joint Committee, which was very thorough and detailed and has definitely led to the Bill being in the position that it is.

[Mrs Miller]

That gives me the opportunity to thank the other members of the Committee in both Houses, the other place and here, for the assiduous way in which they attended the Committee and for the excellent evidence that we were given by a large number of organisations. I also thank the Clerks of the House, who, when it comes to these sorts of Bills, go from a standing start to being ready for action almost overnight. They have our undying gratitude.

[Jess Phillips]

I could not agree with the right hon. Lady more about the Clerks of the House. I had not quite understood, until I was in my current position, exactly how much they do, but I feel as though Kevin from the Clerks’ office is currently on my speed dial and I will definitely be buying a hat if he ever gets married. I feel very close to the Clerks of the House now.

I want to pay tribute to the Ministers on the Bill Committee. Everybody today has rightly paid tribute to Ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice for their efforts and their open hearts and minds throughout the Bill, and I certainly echo that. I also want to pay tribute to a former Member, Sarah Newton, who is no longer here. I was about to say that she was the first Minister I ever sat down with and talked to about the Bill, but actually I think that was the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). I pay tribute to them both.

On my side of the House, I first wish to say a big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). Since he has taken up his position, he has really prioritised the issue of domestic abuse. In the context of the covid crisis we are currently facing, he is pushing every day for things to be better for victims in England, Wales and across the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) dealt with these issues very ably in Committee. I also want to make a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who felt that she could not speak today. We owe her an enormous debt of gratitude for what she has done.

Inevitably, I am going to forget somebody. Never list a group of people, because you will inevitably forget some of them. I do it with my children, so we will have to see how I go. I wish to thank: Women’s Aid, SafeLives, Southall Black Sisters, the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, Nicole Jacobs, End Violence Against Women, Vera Baird, Hestia, Refuge and every single organisation working every day across the country to support people directly. They have worked on the Bill just as much as anybody in this House. They put a lot of effort into the policy work and we are better representatives for the work they have all done.

I welcome what the Lord Chancellor said with regard to timeliness, and the severity and importance that he puts on the issue around the family courts he mentioned today. I look forward to the details of the review, and the pilot scheme, of migrant women’s support services.

I came to this House inspired by women and children who had been abused. It is an honour to stand in the Third Reading debate of the Domestic Abuse Bill. This place can seem completely otherworldly. The words written in the Bill will seem in many cases completely otherworldly to the vast majority of the people I have supported in my life as victims of domestic abuse. But the message it sends is that we can hear them, and that is a message we should send loud and clear from this place. Finally, in Third Reading part 1, I hope the Bill only ever has a part 1.

Domestic Abuse Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

I very much appreciate the way in which the hon. Gentleman raised that. We have systems in place at the moment. I hope that, particularly on the topic of legal aid, I have been able to provide examples of women who were not eligible for DDVC getting access to legal aid support. We accept that there is more to do. We are coming at the matter with an open mind and an open heart. We want to get the evidence, so that in due course we can put in place the systems that will provide the best support. That, as well as helping people in their immediate circumstances, is the intention behind the pilot project.

I turn now to the matter of immigration control. We believe that lifting immigration controls for all migrant victims of domestic abuse is the wrong response. Successive Governments have taken the view that access to publicly funded benefits and services should normally reflect the strength of a migrant’s connections to the UK and, in the main, become available to migrants only when they have settled here. Those restrictions are an important plank of immigration policy, operated, as I have said, by successive Governments and applicable to all migrants until they qualify for indefinite leave to remain. The policy is designed to assure the public that controlled immigration brings real benefits to the UK and does not lead to excessive demands on the UK’s finite resources, and that public funds are protected for permanent residents of the UK.

Exceptions to those restrictions are already in place for some groups of migrants, such as refugees or those here on the basis of their human rights, where they would otherwise be destitute. Those on human rights routes can also apply to have their no recourse to public funds condition lifted if their financial circumstances change. Equally, migrant victims on partner visas can already apply for the destitution domestic violence concession, to be granted limited leave with recourse to public funds.

However, lifting restrictions for all migrant victims would enable any migrant, including those here illegally, to secure leave to remain if they claim to be a victim of domestic abuse. For the reasons I have set out, we believe that the provisions in new clause 35 would be open to abuse and undermine the legitimate claims of other migrant victims and the public support on which our immigration system relies.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister outline exactly why she thinks the new clause would give everyone indefinite leave to remain? That is certainly not the case, if I may speak so boldly. We are asking for limited leave to remain for a six-month period, with a view to making an application for indefinite leave to remain. Will the Minister just highlight that the Home Office, even in the case of spousal visas, still has every right to refuse indefinite leave to remain to anyone it likes?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying. I am afraid that that is not the interpretation that lots and lots of officials who have pored over the new clauses have drawn. Perhaps that highlights the complexity of the area and the law. We have to be absolutely clear about our phrasing and intentions when we draft clauses that will have a huge impact on immigration policy, over and above the cases of the immediate victims whom we seek to help.

[Jess Phillips]

Does the current system of domestic violence destitution and the DV rule guarantee indefinite leave to remain for those on spousal visas? If it were extended to other groups, surely they would live under the same rules.

[Victoria Atkins]

I do not want to labour the point, but the purpose and remit of the DDVC and the domestic violence rule has been misunderstood. The DDVC and the rule were, and are, intended to provide a route to settlement for migrant victims who hold spousal visas, because they have a legitimate expectation of staying in the UK permanently. That is the nature of their status. That is why we say it is not, sadly, an easy transfer across for people on other types of visas, such as visitor visas—or, indeed, for people who have arrived here illegally. That is why it is a painstaking process to work out what we can do to help such victims with the immediate circumstances of their abuse, so that the immigration system plays its part and takes its course in the way that it would do for anyone on those different types of visas.

I appreciate the sensitivities of talking about illegal immigrants, but it is important to acknowledge that we have to balance the interests of people who apply properly for immigration routes, as well as the immigration interests of individual victims. That is why the Government keep coming back to the argument that the starting point for the process should not be people’s immigration status; it should be the care that they need to help them flee an abusive relationship, giving them the support they need to recover from that and to lead happier and healthier lives.

I talked about the human rights routes. People on human rights routes can also apply to have their no recourse to public funds condition lifted if their financial circumstances change. Equally, migrant victims on partner visas can already apply for the DDVC to be granted limitedly, with recourse to public funds. We are committed to the needs of victims, which is why we have introduced the pilot to help us understand the particular pressures and needs of these vulnerable people.

I started my speech by setting out the Government’s commitment to helping victims. I made the point that victims must be treated as victims and get the help they need. That is absolutely what we are focused on, which is why the next steps in our programme of work in this very difficult area are to publish the results of the review and then conduct the pilot, so that we can assess and implement the practical support that these vulnerable people need.

[Jess Phillips]

Let me explain to somebody who may never have filled in a domestic violence destitution fund form or have had to apply the DV rule in this or any of its forms. The reality is that even if someone has a spousal visa, it does not guarantee them indefinite leave to remain. They still have to apply through every single one of the same rules through which they would ordinarily apply—unless the Home Office is changing the policy and saying that anyone who applies will automatically be given leave to remain. That is absolutely not my experience.

There is a problem when I stand here representing my experience of years in the field, and with masses of experience of immigration cases in my constituency—more, I feel safe in saying, than any hon. Member present, except perhaps the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. It is very difficult when Ministers say that what I have experienced is not the case, or that all the victims who have given evidence—some of whom are our friends or family, and certainly our constituents—are wrong to say that the system does not work. There are lists of easements, but the reality on the ground is completely different. I understand what the Minister is saying and certainly what hon. Members want to see with regard to evidence gathering. Lord knows we live in a time when policy is made very quickly, and some people will prove that we needed better evidence for some of it. We live in interesting times. I have absolutely no doubt that that is what is required.

I do not see the point of a review if the evidence is not taken up by the Home Office. Even if all the evidence pointed the other way, I cannot see that the Home Office would come up with a different argument. The desire of all of us for the evidence is a sort of moot point. We are trying in this Bill to protect victims of domestic violence—it’s literally what it says on the tin.

[Peter Kyle]

Am I right in thinking that the argument my hon. Friend is trying to make is that this is the point in the Bill where evidence rubs up against raw politics. That is the problem. People who have submitted evidence, including verbal evidence, to this Committee and frontline practitioners have said one thing. The evidence is there. The Government say that they like to view and take into account evidence, but the politics is the barrier here.

[Jess Phillips]

I think it is. I do not get any uptick in sticking up for this group of people because migrant communities are not allowed to vote. People have seen a problem and they are trying to fix it. It is as simple as that. On the issue of leave to remain, I hear what—

[Victoria Atkins]

I rise to protect my officials more than anything else. New clause 35(2) states:

“The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules for the granting of indefinite leave to remain to any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom”.

That is the hon. Lady’s new clause, and that is how we have read it.

[Jess Phillips]

Okay. That is absolutely fine. I was about to say to the Minister that I hear what she says about the concern that we might let a few too many in the country. I will take the issue up on Third Reading and speak about it every day until we get to Report and I will ensure that people speak about it in the Lords.

The Minister has probably never taken a call in a refuge and had to tell someone that they could not come because they had no recourse. She can say that I speak with my heart and not my head, but I have had to use my head to turn women away. I have had to have women’s children removed from them.

I do not act as an emotional being; I am emotional about the right thing to do. We are here to protect victims of domestic violence. We do not expect to ask them which countries they have travelled from when they present. I will take away what the Minister says about possible confusion. The amendments that will be laid before the House will be clear that, just as for those on spousal visas, there is no guarantee whatever of indefinite leave to remain, as the Minister well knows, in the scheme.

In fact, not everybody gets indefinite leave to remain. The data collected centrally is widely available. All we ask is that for a period everybody will be able to access support and be given a fair chance to make an immigration application. It is as simple as that. I do not want to stand here and let it pass. The point still stands whether we want to call them illegal or whether we want to talk about which particular visa they might have. If anyone does not have asylum accommodation in their constituency, they are free to come to mine to see whether they would like to put victims of domestic violence in it. It’s really cracking.

There will be people exactly as I have outlined. It does not matter what sort of visa they are on. As I have said, there will be people who we come across every day to whom we are currently saying, “This Bill isn’t for you. This Bill doesn’t help you; I am sorry you got beaten up, but you are on your own.” That is the reality of this law, until it is changed. I will do everything I can to change it and I have a better chance of doing that in front of the whole House—either this one or the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30

Use of bail in domestic abuse cases

“(1) Section 34 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (limitations on police detention) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (5)(a) for the word “applies” substitute “or subsection (5AB) applies”.

(3) In subsection (5)(b) for the word “applies” substitute “or subsection (5AB) applies”.

(4) In subsection (5A) insert after the words “applies if”, “subsection (5AB) does not apply and”.

(5) After subsection (5A) insert—

“(a) This subsection applies if—

(i) it appears to the custody officer that there is need for further investigation of any matter in connection with which the person was detained at any time during the period of the person‘s detention; and

(ii) the offence under investigation is an offence that amounts to domestic abuse as defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;

(b) save that the person shall be released without bail if the custody officer is satisfied that releasing the person on bail is not necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances (having regard, in particular, to any conditions of bail which would be imposed and to the importance of protecting the complainant);

(c) before making a determination to release without bail or a determination as to any conditions of bail to impose, the custody officer shall conduct an assessment of the risks posed by not releasing the person on bail (including, in particular, to the complainant);

(d) before making a determination of a kind referred to in paragraph (c) the custody officer must inform—

(i) the person or the person’s legal representative and consider any representations made by the person or the person‘s legal representative; and

(ii) the complainant or the complainant’s representative and consider any representations made by the complainant or the complainant’s representative; and

(e) an officer of the rank of inspector or above must authorise the release on bail (having considered any representations made by the person or the person’s legal representative and by the complainant or the complainant’s representative).””.—(Peter Kyle.)

This new clause reverses the presumption against use of bail in the 2017 Act for these categories of offences, and introduces a risk assessment with prior consultation with the parties.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Peter Kyle]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

On risk, the new clause seeks to amend the Bill to ensure that a proper risk assessment is done. Somebody in a case involving me was recently released under investigation, and no risk assessment of my safety was done.

[Victoria Atkins]

Obviously, I am concerned to hear that. I take the point about risk assessment and will raise it with the NPCC lead. The hon. Member for Hove referred to the forthcoming police powers and protections Bill, but in the interim I very much want that to be considered.

We have worked closely with policing partners and other partners across the criminal justice system to track its implementation and monitor its impact, and we know that the use of pre-charge bail has fallen significantly. We have listened carefully to these concerns, and in November, as the hon. Gentleman said, we announced a review of pre-charge bail to address concerns raised about the impact of current rules on the police, victims, those under investigation and the broader criminal justice system. We launched a public consultation in February, which closed on 29 May. We received more than 1,000 responses, which we are analysing before deciding how best to proceed.

However, I very much take the point about the needs before the police powers and protections Bill is introduced, but our concern is that we cannot deal with this in a piecemeal, offence-specific manner; we have to take a holistic approach to changing the pre-charge bail system. This Bill is not the correct vehicle for that but, as the hon. Gentleman said, the police powers and protections Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech may well be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that contribution. She should never apologise for sharing the experience that she has gained outside this place and brings in here; it is an asset to our deliberations, not a hindrance.

I agree completely. In fact, I was quoting the Minister when I mentioned the now infamous pendulum. I think we all agree that the pendulum has swung the other way. We must always have consideration for the basic right of liberty, including for alleged perpetrators and defendants, which is why getting bail and bail conditions right is essential. What we are talking about here are conditions, not liberty—the conditions on which people are granted liberty.

The Minister’s main concern, if I interpret it correctly, is that new clause 31 could have unintended consequences on other parts of the bail system. Subsection (2) states:

“After subsection (1)(a) insert—

‘(ab) in a DA case, the period of 3 months beginning with the person’s bail start date, or’”.

Subsection (3) continues:

“After subsection (4)(c) insert—

‘(2) A “DA case” is a case in which—

(a) the relevant offence in relation to the person falls within the definition of “domestic abuse” in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020’”.

I fail to see how that could have an impact on other crimes. It is very specific. As I say, I understand why Government Ministers want to deal with the challenge that was caused by the Policing and Crime Act 2017 holistically, but we have a specific fix for a specific challenge in front of us now. I believe this would lead to a better piece of holistic legislation, because it would provide a workable template for it to be enacted down the line.

I will not push the new clause to a Division now but will keep this question open. The Minister intimated several times that she would welcome further scrutiny of the clause. I hope that this gives her the opportunity to reflect on this challenge and come up with her own fix for it, perhaps on Report or Third Reading. I do not believe that victims of domestic abuse should continue to suffer any longer from the uncertainty that would be created by this pernicious eventuality. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

Serving a court order on a person who has been subject to domestic abuse and is residing at a refuge

“(1) If a court order is to be served on a person [P] who has been subject to domestic abuse as defined in section 1 of this Act and who is residing at a refuge, the court order—

(a) must not be served on P at the residential address of the refuge, except if a court has ordered that it can be in the circumstances set out in subsection (3); but

(b) can be served on P at the refuge’s office address or by an alternative method or at an alternative place, in accordance with part 6 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.

(2) The address of the refuge in subsection (1) shall not be given to any individual or third party without the express permission of the court.

(3) Where attempts to serve the court order by the alternative means referred to in subsection (1)(b) have been unsuccessful, an application may be made to the court to serve the court order on P at the refuge’s residential address.

(4) An application under subsection (3) must state—

(a) the reason why an order can only be served at the refuge’s residential address;

(b) what alternative methods have been proposed and the consequences; and

(c) why the applicant believes that the order is likely to reach P if the order is served at the refuge’s residential address.”—(Jess Phillips.)

This amendment seeks to ensure that, where a victim of domestic abuse is residing in a refuge, the address of that refuge cannot be revealed as part of a service order or location order without express permission of the court.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Jess Phillips]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause arose out of cases that occurred a number of weeks ago, which highlighted something frightening. Specialist domestic violence refuges have supported hundreds of thousands of people over many years. They are life-saving, provide sanctuary, and are established specifically to meet the needs of women and children who need refuge. In most cases, the confidentiality of a refuge is crucial for the safety and wellbeing of those who stay there, and I cannot express to Members how seriously refuges take their confidentiality. Every single person who lives in a refuge signs a licence agreement that says that if they tell somebody, they have to leave, and enforcing that rule when it is broken is heartbreaking.

The Bill offers a golden opportunity to ensure that there is legal clarity about the nature of refuge provision, including the key elements that are necessary to preserve their integrity. At present, it is not explicitly clear that refuge residential addresses and the identity of those who work for a refuge must remain confidential, so that must change. Service of family court orders on families in refuges, particularly location orders, is often applied for by fathers when mothers and children have fled the family home to refuges following allegations of domestic abuse. The family courts use tipstaffs and the police to locate the mother and children in refuges, even though the address of those refuges is not publicly available.

Once they are located, the refuge is usually ordered to provide its address directly to the court to facilitate the service of court orders on mothers. Often the court order explicitly names the refuge and its manager, which is intimidating and could result in them becoming identified. Family courts usually order the police to attend the refuge’s residential address to serve the order on the mother. This causes upset, anxiety and distress to the mother who is served with a court order, and to the other women and children living in the refuge, who have reported feeling retraumatised by the process. Women who experience a number of intersectional inequalities, such as race, language barriers and insecure immigration status, have reported receiving a heavy-handed response from the police, being unable to understand what the police are saying, and feeling that they are being treated as criminals.

In at least one case that I have heard of in the past few weeks, a mother and child were located and stalked as a result of their refuge’s residential address being disclosed to the court. They had to move to two different refuge addresses, and then the father abducted the child and took them abroad. In another case, the police served a family court order on a vulnerable mother who does not speak English and sought safety with her two children. The mother found the experience degrading and humiliating. Concerns arose in that case that the father had discovered the family’s location, and as such the mother and children had to be moved on to another location.

It is acceptable that family court orders must be served on mothers, but the current family judicial practice is not acceptable, as it breaches women and children’s rights to a safe family life and a private life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The approach adopted by family courts is haphazard and inconsistent, with much depending on the judge’s approach to the case before them. Many judges have had no training on domestic abuse.

The situation I have outlined could easily be avoided by ensuring that refuge addresses are always confidential and that family court orders are served by alternative means, as per the family procedure rules 2010. A simple amendment to those rules would ensure that a consistent approach is adopted by all family judges. If such an amendment is not made, the same poor practice will continue.

It is imperative that this situation is addressed urgently, before irreparable harm is caused. I have therefore tabled this new clause, to prevent the service of family court orders at refuge residential addresses, and to ensure that refuge residential addresses and the identity of refuge workers remain confidential.

[Victoria Atkins]

I apologise to the Committee; I am stepping into the shoes of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, as he is about to appear on the Floor of the House, so please spare me particularly detailed questions and I will do my best.

We absolutely recognise the life-saving sanctuary that refuges provide for victims and their children, and we believe that existing legislation and court procedure rules state clearly that parties actively engaged in family proceedings are not required to disclose their address or that of their children, unless directed to do so by the court. Furthermore, parties may apply in any event to withhold such information from other parties.

When adequate information about the location of a child is not known to the court, the court can order any person who may have relevant information to disclose it to the court. In the first instance, details of the child’s address and who they are living with are disclosed only to the court and not to other parties. The court determines how this information should be used, based on the case details. Where there are allegations of domestic abuse, the court can and does treat this information as confidential, and holds it. We therefore believe that subsection (2) of the new clause is not required.

Subsection (1) would prevent the service of a court order at a refuge’s residential address, other than with the permission of the court following an application made under subsections (3) and (4). I fully appreciate that victims living in a refuge are fearful for their safety, and that their experiencing or witnessing the service of an order at a refuge would be very distressing. However, where courts are concerned about the welfare of a child, they must be able to take rapid and direct action to locate them. Direct service of an order at a refuge’s residential address may sometimes be necessary, for example when urgent concern about a child’s welfare demands it. Therefore, provisions to limit how documents may be served in specific places could have the unintended consequence of endangering a child.

I would like to reassure hon. Members that the courts may already direct completely bespoke service arrangements, based on the facts of a case. The family procedure rules 2010 provide clear powers for the courts to order service at alternative places, such as at an address other than a refuge’s residential address, and set out the procedure for making such applications.

In summary, we believe that the important outcomes sought by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley are already provided for in existing legislation and court rules. However, I want to reassure the Committee that we are committed to protecting vulnerable victims of domestic abuse who live in refuges. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham met the deputy president of the family court on Monday and raised these concerns, among others, and we will work with the deputy president to explore whether amendments to the family procedure rules 2010 could strengthen safeguards for victims and their children who live in refuges. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

[Jess Phillips]

I will withdraw the new clause, and I am heartened by the fact that the hon. Member for Cheltenham, who is no longer in his place, has spoken to the divisional lead in the family court. This is one of those situations where there may very well be regulations in place to allow the outcomes we want, but something is still going wrong, and an assessment and a change in this area is needed.

I understand the deep concerns that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, has needing to think through the potential for harm to come to a child, although I would argue that, in refuge services, there would be somebody there in the vast majority of cases. There are quite strict and stringent safeguarding measures in place in refuges to ensure that children come to no harm. However, I am pleased to hear what she said and will speak to the other Minister about it another time, when he is not debating the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 33

Reasonable force in domestic abuse cases

‘(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection 76(5A) after “In a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”.

(3) In subsection 76(6) after “In a case other than a householder case” insert “or a domestic abuse case”.

(4) After subsection 76(8F) insert—

“(8G) For the purposes of this section “a domestic abuse case” is a case where—

(a) the defence concerned is the common law defence of self-defence;

(b) D is, or has been, a victim of domestic abuse;

(c) the force concerned is force used by D against the person who has perpetrated the abusive behaviour referred to at subsection (8G)(b);

(d) subsection (8G)(b) will only be established if the behaviour concerned is, or is part of, conduct which constitutes domestic abuse as defined in sections 1 and 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020, including but not limited to conduct which constitutes the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.”

(5) In subsection 76(9) after “This section, except so far as making different provision for householder cases” insert “and domestic abuse cases”.’ —(Peter Kyle.)

This new clause seeks to clarify the degree of force which is reasonable under the common law of self-defence where the defendant is a survivor of domestic abuse.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Peter Kyle]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause seeks to provide domestic abuse survivors the same legal protection that householders have in cases of self-defence. Householders have a legal protection when they act in self-defence against an intruder, but no such protection is available to survivors acting in self-defence against their abuser. At its base, just think what that means: we are able in law to defend ourselves, to a defined threshold, against people who enter our homes and cause us harm, but we are unable to have the same defence against people who already live in the home and seek to cause the same harm. The new clause seeks to rectify that imbalance.

Common-law defences are outdated and ill fitting in the context of domestic abuse, leaving survivors with no effective defence. The Bill presents an opportunity to modernise the law by ensuring that the available legal defences reflect the improved public understanding of domestic abuse. This issue gained prominence with the case of Sally Challen last year, who had her murder charge for the hammer attack she inflicted on her husband downgraded to manslaughter in recognition of the effect of decades of coercive control that she had endured. That judgment reflects our new understanding of how domestic abuse can effect survivors and lead to offending behaviour, so it is only right that the Domestic Abuse Bill recognises this.

Evidence from the Prison Reform Trust shows that the common-law defence of self-defence is difficult to establish in cases of violent resistance by a survivor of domestic abuse against their abusive partner or former partner, as a jury may well conclude that the response was disproportionate without taking into account the long history of abuse. The self-defence proposal would make it easier for victims and survivors to establish that they were acting in self-defence, providing them with an equivalent protection to those using force against an intruder into their home. This is a really important distinction: all we are asking for is the same threshold to be allowed against people perpetrating violence from within the home as that allowed against people perpetrating violence who enter the home.

The definition is also now successfully established in statute. Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is the basis for the new clause. Subsection (5A) allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home. It provides that, where the case involves a householder,

“the degree of force used by”

the householder

“is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as”

the householder

“believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate”.

[Interruption.] I believe I am being heckled by Siri—I think I might have either turned someone’s lights on or off or ordered their shopping. A householder will therefore be able to use force that is disproportionate, but not grossly disproportionate. A CPS guideline states:

“The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproportionate force in every case they are confronted by an intruder. The new provision must be read in conjunction with the other elements of section 76 of the 2008 Act. The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be (section 76(3)).”

In deciding whether the force might be regarded as disproportionate or grossly disproportionate, the guideline states that the court

“will need to consider the individual facts of each case, including the personal circumstances of the householder and the threat (real or perceived) posed by the offender.”

The new clause would add the same provision and that same test of proportionality of force to cases of domestic abuse.

The Government have gone to great lengths to consider the different forms that domestic abuse can take, but there is not the same recognition of the criminal acts that can result from that abuse. We will go on to discuss the need for statutory defence further, but the new clause would go some way to addressing a difficulty survivors can have in court currently in self-defence cases.

The current Secretary of State was instrumental in providing the increased protection for householders when she was a Back Bencher. The coalition Government put forward their self-defence amendment for householders with the following comments by Lord McNally:

“All we are saying is that if householders act in fear for their safety or the safety of others and in the heat of the moment use force which is reasonable in the circumstances but seems disproportionate when viewed in the cold light of day, they should not be treated as criminals. Force which was completely over the top—grossly disproportionate, in other words— will still not be permitted.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 881.]

The new clause would see the Government apply the same sympathy and understanding to domestic abuse survivors that that Act provides in those situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

One of the people we have not mentioned in Committee so far is Sir James Munby. In his time as president of the family division of the High Court, he was a robust defender of it and a vocal proponent of reform. In engagement with and in the processes of Parliament, Sir James was fulsome in his advice and in answering questions. When I was campaigning for reform of cross-examination in the family courts, I had a meeting with Sir James in the High Court. I have said already in Committee that I have no legal training, and that is something I have never apologised for—in fact, at times like this and at that meeting, I found it a benefit. It gave me the opportunity to ask some pretty basic questions of one of the most pre-eminent lawyers in the land.

One thing that I wanted to ask back then was simple. Coming fresh, as I was at the time, to the challenges and the need for reform in the family courts, one thing that struck me, and that I could never ever understand, was the fact that someone who had committed the most horrendous crimes against their partner—battery, rape, serial abuse or coercion, stretching back sometimes years—had parental rights, to the point where they can be exercised time after time, sometimes even from prison, where they have been jailed for inflicting the abuse on the very family over whom they are exerting their rights. I simply could not understand that, and I had the privilege of putting it to Sir James.

We now come to the point in the Bill where we can talk about one particular aspect of that, because this new clause relates directly to the presumption that parental involvement furthers a child’s welfare when there has been domestic abuse. It would also prohibit the unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial, on bail for abuses offences, or involved in ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse.

The use of force that is disproportionate but not—forgive me, my notes seem to be out of order.

[Jess Phillips]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Peter Kyle]

Of course. I am very grateful.

[Jess Phillips]

Perhaps the Chair could help me with this inquiry. My hon. Friend is moving the new clause, but I have a specific case that I might want to share with the Committee. Is that permitted, for both of us on the Front Bench to speak? I will not do it now, while he is in the middle of his speech, but I thought I could give him a minute.

[The Chair]

That sounds more like a point of order—you could try that again.

[Jess Phillips]

On a point of order, Mr Bone. Will it be all right that I share something after the shadow Minister has spoken on the new clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

The case that I am about to read out has been sent to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I feel for him, because we can all get him to agree to things while he is not here. It is a bit like when you do not turn up to a Labour party branch meeting, and you end up being given every single position—you end up being chair and secretary.

The case is one of the most stark examples I have ever heard of where the presumption is going wrong. People like me are often accused—or things are spray-painted across the front of my office—of trying to stop parents being able to see their children. In fact, this is very much rooted in the welfare of the child. That is all we are seeking: that the assessment of the welfare of the child should be the most fundamental thing.

In this case study a service user made a call to Solace, a women’s aid organisation advice line, during the week commencing 8 June 2020—only last week. She is going through a child contact hearing but there is also a separate criminal investigation of child sexual abuse by the child’s father. In December 2019, in a hearing at which both parties were unrepresented, allegations were made that the father had sexually abused his seven-year-old daughter.

[The Chair]

Order. We are not straying into matters that are sub judice, are we?

[Jess Phillips]

Definitely not, Mr Bone; I checked with all those involved in the case, and it is done—worry not. I have just been sending wild WhatsApp messages to that very effect. Also, I shall not mention anybody’s names or those of the courts.

The allegations were that the father had exposure his genitals to his daughter and that he had been sucking her toes and fingers while she was asleep. The judge said that if the father stopped doing this he could continue to have unsupervised contact with his daughter. The judge commented that when he was a barrister he had successfully ensured that a convicted paedophile could have unsupervised access to his children. The mother tried to tell the judge that the father has a history of domestic abuse, but the judge replied that she did not look like a victim of domestic abuse. He said that the father’s behaviour sounded more like a man losing his temper, rather than domestic violence. The judge dismissed the request for supervised contact between father and daughter.

In January 2020, allegations were made about the father’s sexual assault on his daughter. A criminal investigation into child sexual exploitation is ongoing but unsupervised contact is still ordered. This woman has no legal representation. She is not eligible for legal aid due to the means test. She has joint property ownership but no financial means to instruct a solicitor. Solace has described the severe impact this has had on the survivor: a complete distrust of the justice system—she felt like she was the one on trial even though she was there as the survivor and a mother trying to protect her daughter from her predatory father. She was met with disdain and not believed, whereas the father was met with sympathy.

I am almost certain that the Minister will refer to—the hon. Member for Cheltenham would have referred to it—practice direction 12J, which is meant to deal with this so that it does not happen in courts. It is routinely ignored in many cases. In this example, where presumption overrules even the child’s best interests, it is clear that there is a serious problem in our current system.

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Members for Hove and for Birmingham, Yardley have set out fully the legal frameworks that exist, and I will not repeat them. I will bring to the Committee’s attention the fact that the current legislation places absolute primacy on the welfare of the child and does not seek to fetter judicial discretion regarding the factors they can take into account when making an order under the legislation.

I appreciate that this is a sensitive and complex issue. That is why the Ministry of Justice last year established an expert panel on how the family courts deal with allegations of risk of harm in private law children proceedings. The panel has considered the issue of parental contact, informed by the over 1,200 submissions of evidence it received. Its recommendations will be published in the coming weeks.

I have no doubt that the hon. Members for Hove and for Birmingham, Yardley, and other members of the Committee, will want to return to this matter once they have had the opportunity to consider the expert panel’s report. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Hove to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I want to begin by telling the story of my constituent Marian, who is a lovely woman. She was able to access the domestic violence destitution fund that we have been talking about today. She was in the middle of the process—thus proving that one does not get automatic, indefinite leave to remain from that scheme—of accessing potential indefinite leave to remain. She is now on a two-and-a-half-year roll of immigration cases.

Funnily enough, I received the death threat to Marian, because it was sent to my office. It was a death threat to her and some members of her family, both here and in Pakistan. I handed it over to her and then spoke to the police. She then called the police, because she was concerned about the threat to her life. She has been a victim of domestic abuse for a while.

The police turned up at her house. Marian’s English is not particularly good. The next time I heard of her, her neighbour was calling me to tell me that she had been taken away. I said, “What do you mean she’s been taken away?” They said, “She’s been taken to Bradford.” Bradford is another site where there is quite a lot of refugee accommodation. It is not uncommon for people in the immigration system to be moved from Birmingham to Bradford, so I thought, “Something must have gone wrong here.”

Then Marian called my office and said that she was in Yardley, which was again confusing. Eventually, I got to the bottom of it: she was in Yarl’s Wood in Bedford. She had been taken to detention, because the police, while they were at her property, had seen her Home Office immigration papers on the side. Instead of taking her, with the death threats against her, to a place of safety, they detained her in a detention centre, when she had every right to be in this country. She followed to the letter all the exact rules laid out by the Minister today. Funnily enough, she is still here.

That case of my constituent is not an isolated one, as I found out when I started to look into it. It is not uncommon for such action to be taken when people come forward, whether they are victims of rape or of crimes that are not related to violence against women and girls. A number of cases were raised during the Windrush scandal about victims coming forward and being told that they were going to be taken to detention. Some were wrongly deported. This is not a new issue.

The absence of a safe reporting mechanism enables perpetrators to continue their abuse against victims, as they are afraid to report them to the police for fear that their immigration status will be used against them. The Home Office has now recognised in its statutory guidance framework on controlling and coercive behaviour in an intimate and family relationship that perpetrators routinely use immigration status as a tactic of coercive control towards migrant women.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Is not that the point about data being shared between the police and immigration services? The very fact that immigration status is sometimes used by the abuser to exercise coercive control over the victim means it is good that sometimes information is shared between the two authorities.

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree. I would say it is very uncommon, when someone whose immigration status is either in process or unstable has come to see me for help about domestic abuse, for me not to get in touch, eventually, with the Home Office. That is absolutely the case. It is totally bread and butter that I would say, “I am going to take your case, and here are the things that you might need for this part of your life—and also we need to settle your immigration status. We need to sort this out so that it cannot be held over you.” The hon. Gentleman is right.

In those circumstances I seek the consent of the person to that, and that is all I am asking for in the new clause. I do not know when the rule was brought in that we now have to get people to sign something to say we are going to get in touch with the Department for Work and Pensions, for example. We all do it quite routinely in casework. We seek consent. If I am getting in touch with the Home Office, the likelihood of the constituent being carted off to detention will be almost zero. They do not make that mistake too many times the wrong way. However, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is absolutely right. I recognise the argument that we need a system through which the police can help with immigration. All I would seek in that circumstance is consent.

The issue goes back to what would happen if I walked into a police station and said that someone had hurt me or was threatening to kill me—in fact, I have to do that quite regularly. No one has ever asked me my immigration status—not once. They dealt with me primarily as a victim in front of them. Fair enough, because I am a quite well known Member of Parliament, and I presume that they assume. However, I know very few white British people who would ever be asked their immigration status. All I seek through any of my new clauses or amendments is equitable treatment from the beginning. The fact that that is not given, and the fact that such cases happen, has unfortunately given perpetrators another tool and enabled them to say, “They’ll throw you in detention.”

The Minister focused earlier on the need for legislators always to be aware of how systems can facilitate abuse, and how unintentional and collateral damage can be used, giving perpetrators tools to inflict suffering. She set it out clearly, with lots of cases. Perpetrators can use the current situation against victims. That is how the way we process victims when they come forward is currently being used. The Minister made a compelling case about the issues with county lines, and this bit of law is currently being used by perpetrators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. It is the balancing act that the Government must employ, and not just on this subject matter. Where there are competing interests, we have to try to find that balance and we take that very seriously. We listen very carefully to concerns that are raised—I am very happy to discuss individual cases outside the glare of the Committee—but we have to abide by our duty to ensure that there is an effective immigration system. We have to balance that against our duties towards the victims.

The data exchanged between the police and law enforcement are processed on the basis of it being in the public interest, as laid out in articles 6 and 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.

The problem with consent is that it can be withdrawn at any time—that is the point of consent. As such, it cannot be the basis on which public bodies, such as the Home Office, discharge their duties in the interests of all of the public. To require consent would, we fear, undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control.

I emphasise that we must, of course, keep the NPCC guidance under review, and we work with it to do just that. There are other ways of scrutinising the conduct of the police and, indeed, the Government. We know that there are two forms of legal action on this subject at the moment. Clearly, we will reflect on the findings of those cases when they are delivered.

I very much understand the motivations of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley in tabling the new clause, but I must balance the interests of victims with the need to ensure that our immigration system works as effectively as possible.

[Jess Phillips]

I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity in wanting to ensure that this matter is sorted out. She invoked the public, and she is right that the public would expect people to live within the rules. However, I think if we asked the general public, “Would you rather a rapist was not reported or that somebody got to stay in the country a bit longer?”, they would be on the side of ensuring that crimes are properly investigated and that people come forward to help deal with those crimes.

All I am trying to do is send a clarion call to victims: “You will be safe and you will be supported if you come forward.” All we are ever trying to do in the field of domestic abuse is to increase the number of people who come forward. That is why we would never ever criticise when domestic abuse figures go up, although it would be easy to use it as a blunt tool and do that; in fact, we all celebrate the idea that more people are coming forward. That is all I seek to do with the new clause. I do not doubt that the Minister agrees and wishes to ensure that that is always the case.

What I would ask, as the situation is reviewed and as we work with the NPCC, is for some sort of evidence—once again, we are calling for an evidence base—that when these matters are passed on to immigration control, it is less about enforcement and more about safeguarding. I am sure that, over a period of time, that data could be collected.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 42

Joint tenancies: removal of a tenant

“(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 B is removed as a joint tenant.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) it 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 as 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 19, or a domestic abuse protection order has been made against B under section 25, 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.

(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.

(d) if the application does not fall within subsection (b), then the court may make such an order if it thinks it fit to do so.

(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” means an offence that amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of this Act.

(8) In section 88(2) Housing Act 1985, after “section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.)” insert “, or section [Joint tenancies: removal of a tenant]Domestic Abuse Act 2020,”.

(9) In section 91(3)(b) Housing Act 1985, after subsection (iv), add “(v) section [Joint tenancies: removal of a tenant] Domestic Abuse Act 2020.

(10) In section 99B(2) of the Housing Act 1985 (persons qualifying for compensation for improvements) paragraph (e), after subsection (iii) add “(iv) section [Joint tenancies: removal of a tenant] Domestic Abuse Act 2020.””—(Jess Phillips.)

This new clause would facilitate occupiers of social housing removing one joint tenant from the tenancy agreement where there has been domestic violence. The tenancy would then continue (so preserving existing rights). The court must be satisfied that the applicant can or will be able to afford the tenancy.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Jess Phillips]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 43—Housing Act 1996: Removal of local connection—

“(1) The Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 199 (local connection), insert—

“(12) A person who is or is likely to become a victim of domestic abuse, is not required to have any local connection to any authority within the meaning of section 199(1) of this Act for the purposes of his or her application.

(13) For the purposes of subsection 12, a person must provide evidence of domestic abuse or the risk of domestic abuse in one of more of the forms set out in regulation 33(2) of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012.””

This new clause would remove the need for a local connection for victims of domestic abuse when applying for social housing to a particular local authority.

New clause 44—Allocation of Housing to domestic abuse victims—

“(1) Section 160ZA of the Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (8) insert—

“(8A) The Secretary of State must within two months of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 being passed make regulations under subsection (8) to prescribe the criterion set out in subsection (8B) as a criterion that may not be used by a local housing authority in England in deciding what classes of persons are not qualifying persons.

(8B) The criterion is that a relevant person must have a local connection to the district of a local housing authority.

(8C) For the purposes of subsection (8B), a “relevant person” is a person who—

(a) is or has been a victim of domestic abuse within two years of the date of their application for an allocation of housing under Part 6 of the 1996 Act, and

(b) has recently ceased, or will cease, to reside in accommodation provided by a local authority in an area in which they have been subjected to domestic abuse and where—

(i) the person has fled or will flee their local area; and

(ii) the purpose of fleeing was or is to escape domestic abuse.

(8D) The regulations made under subsection (8A) must specify that a local housing authority may not consider the location or whereabouts of the perpetrator of the domestic abuse.””

This new clause would remove the need for a local connection for victims of domestic abuse when applying for social housing to a particular local authority.

[Jess Phillips]

It is weird at the end stages, because we are now jumping around. We are now going to talk about joint tenancies, which is nothing like any of the stuff we have been talking about for the past few hours. I will speak to new clause 42 on joint tenancies and new clauses 43 and 44, which relate to local connection restrictions on survivors escaping domestic abuse.

The impact of joint tenancies on survivors of domestic abuse is not an issue that has been widely discussed in Parliament in recent years, but it should be. There has been a lot of stuff about tenancies, to be fair, but it has not necessarily been about joint tenancies. The current tenancy law leaves survivors particularly vulnerable to homelessness and further abuse. Where there is a joint tenancy between the abuser and the victim, either can give notice to end the tenancy and it then takes effect for all joint tenants.

I am sure I do not need to spell out what impact that has in abusive, coercive and controlling relationships. The current law means that abusers can unilaterally terminate the joint tenancy, ending the victim’s right to remain in the property, and putting her at significant risk of homelessness and harm. Currently, the only option in the short term is for the victim to seek an injunction preventing the abuser from serving notice on the tenancy. That is usually a time-limited and temporary remedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jess Phillips]

If you are going to ask me a detailed question about tenancy law, I have prepared myself for that.

[Peter Gibson]

It is not a tenancy-related question. While well-intentioned, the proposed new clause serves effectively to sever a joint tenancy agreement and put the tenancy agreement into the abuse survivor’s sole name. The clause fails to make any provision in respect of the tenancy’s joint and several liability and therefore may create unintended consequences, such as leaving the victim—whom the Bill seeks to protect—liable for damage to the property that may have been caused by the perpetrator. That could additionally lead to residual liability for any outstanding rent arrears that may have accrued. Does she agree with me that leaving the victim with further liabilities can actually make things worse?

[Jess Phillips]

It absolutely cannot do that, and we must consider the politics of priorities in these circumstances. I do not pick these amendments out of the air, much as I love to pore over tenancy law. They are usually brought to me by people who have been in these specific circumstances. It is an incredibly pernicious thing, and it can be seen when people are left with problems, less so with damage to the property. I do not believe anybody ever gets their deposit back; that is a mythical thing that never actually occurs in real life. I have certainly never got any deposit back. The rent arrears issue is terrible and pernicious; there is no doubt about that. Victims are telling us that they face the problem of the risk of homelessness. Somebody can end their tenancy just like that. Our constant objective in these clauses is to remove the perpetrator from the situation and leave the victim safer at home.

There are all sorts of things that I would offer if somebody came to me and said, “Well, I’ve got rent arrears based on that.” Birmingham City Council has not had a good write-up in this Committee, but one brilliant thing it does is have discretionary housing payments specifically for local allowances for issues such as rent arrears built up in domestic abuse cases. I would seek to access that sort of support in those circumstances. In fact, with regard to tenancies, lots of local councils have different rules about the kind of things that they can do as landlords—obviously, they are the largest landlords in the country—in cases of domestic violence. Currently, however, the law does not allow for the thing that victims are telling me would help them.

To go back to complicated tenancy law, for those who are unmarried but have children—the law is very detailed in the gradients that are covered—the Children Act 1989 provides an opportunity for the tenancy to be transferred for the benefit of children, but again that necessitates bringing expensive and contentious court proceedings that polarise parties who might have been able to reach agreement over many aspects of their children’s care without the emotional impact of a litigation process. When we talk about the family courts, especially some of the harrowing cases, it is important to remember that 90% of people breaking up from each other, including a high proportion of people even in domestic abuse situations, sever their lives and those of their children amicably without the need for the courts. I want to try to avoid needless litigation, especially for victims.

The transfer in such cases is further complicated by the fact that it is only for the benefit of the children, so if the children are about to turn 18, the remedy may not help. It may be possible to sever the tenancy, but if the child is crashing towards a certain age, people may be cut off.

Married or unmarried victims with or without children can apply under the Family Law Act 1996, but for married couples, the court will insist on divorce proceedings having been commenced and will often divert them down the route of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Where the parties are unmarried, the route of the 1996 Act will still necessitate lengthy court proceedings, often with two or three hearings at a cost in court time in excess of £10,000 and in legal aid of a similar amount for either party represented.

In contrast to those complex and uncertain processes, the new clause provides a straightforward mechanism for the victim of abuse, where they have a joint tenancy from a social landlord, to seek the transfer of the tenancy from joint names to their sole name and to prevent the abuser from ending the tenancy in the meantime. It sets out that where there has been a conviction for a domestic abuse-related offence, the court must make an order to transfer the joint tenancy to the victim’s sole name.

Understandably, there have been quite a few conversations about unintended consequences, which happen with pretty much all laws. No matter which rosette hon. Members wear, no law that has ever been passed has helped everybody universally and has been perfect for everybody. That is the reality, which is perhaps not expressed very well by the Punch and Judy politics of this place.

In the new clauses that we have tabled, we have sought to be clear that the level of the evidence base, such as conviction, needed to take something away from somebody must be high. In the issue of presumption that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove was talking about earlier, that was based on orders and convictions. When we are talking about taking something away, such as a tenancy, I recognise that that is a big liberty, even if someone is a perpetrator, because they might have had a terrible life—lots of them will have had a terrible life.

A domestic abuse protection notice or a conviction seems like a reasonable threshold, rather than just an allegation, for doing something such as taking someone’s tenancy away. Where a domestic abuse protection notice or a protection order has been served, there is a presumption that the court will make an order transferring the tenancy to the victim’s sole name, which the other joint tenant can seek to oppose by showing exceptional circumstances. In both cases, this is subject to the court being satisfied that the tenancy is affordable for the applicant. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Darlington, in this instance the court would assess the affordability of the tenancy rather than the burden of that tenancy, because we do not want to burden people needlessly.

[Peter Gibson]

The clause deals with affordability going forward, but does it specifically address any latent problems?

[Jess Phillips]

That is a reasonable point. This definitely happens, so I am more than happy for those issues to be dealt with as we go through this process. One thing about this Bill going through to the Lords is that it has some really keen experts who know an awful lot about housing law; I have been a licensed landlord through running refuges and other things, so I know a little bit about the law in this area, but it definitely bamboozles me. Some Lords know an awful lot about the criminal justice system and housing tenancies, so I feel keenly that we ought to make some assessment of the point the hon. Gentleman has made. I suppose the victim could give their consent by self-declaring—by saying, “I am willing to pay £3 a month until my arrears are paid back”, or “He has kicked out the fireplace; I am happy to get it replaced.” Any Member who has large numbers of council tenancies in their constituency will know that tenants would often much rather pay to have things replaced than wait for the council to replace them. It is not uncommon to hear, “I’ve had my whole kitchen done, because I’ve been waiting four years.”

In the new clause, any notice to quit served by the abuser is of no effect if an application has been made, therefore removing the need for an injunction or to protect the tenancy until the application is decided. The amendment also protects succession rights and right-to-buy rights on the transfer of the tenancy to a sole tenant—another classic casework thing I have to deal with all the time. This is a simplification of the current complex, potentially expensive and risky processes by which a victim of abuse can seek the transfer of a joint tenancy to their sole name. It gives greater certainty about the circumstances in which the court will transfer the tenancy to the victim, and it helps the victim of abuse obtain security in their home, free from the fear of the abuser ending their tenancy.

I will briefly touch on new clauses 43 and 44. Domestic abuse does not end when a relationship ends, and leaving an abuser is statistically a highly dangerous time. A survivor faces ongoing and severe threats to their safety. Anyone who has read domestic homicide reviews will know that very few things consistently crop up—the people involved can be of all races, backgrounds and classes—but the common thread running through them is that people often get murdered when they first escape. It is a very risky time, and therefore many survivors escaping abuse need to leave their local authority area in order to be safe. Women and children escaping to a refuge, in particular, will often need to cross local authority boundaries.

The very existence of refuges depends on those services’ availability, as this Committee has largely covered. The Government homelessness guidance for local authorities makes it clear that the local connection rules should not apply in cases of domestic abuse. It states that all local authorities must exempt from their residency requirements those who are living in a refuge or other form of safe temporary accommodation in their district, having escaped domestic abuse in another local authority area. However, this is not a requirement and does not apply to women who have not escaped into a refuge—or into another form of temporary accommodation, which I am afraid to say is the most likely place for them to end up nowadays.

In addition, local authorities often use blanket residency tests in allocation schemes without accounting for exceptional circumstances, such as a woman fleeing domestic abuse. This has already been found unlawful. In the case of R (on the application of HA) v. Ealing London Borough Council, the full homelessness duty under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 was owed to a mother and her five children fleeing domestic violence, but she was disqualified from the housing register because she failed to meet the residency requirements. There was an exceptional circumstance clause in the local authority’s allocation scheme, but this was not used. The High Court found that Ealing had acted unlawfully in failing to apply the exceptionality provision, or to even consider applying it.

Despite that case and the Government guidance, there remain clear inconsistencies between local authorities across England. I am sorry; I do not mean to exclude Wales, but I have no idea—I presume there are inconsistencies there.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I am slightly confused about what the hon. Member seeks to improve with new clause 43. I am happy to be corrected, but I understand that local authorities, as the hon. Member said, already have the ability to prioritise domestic abuse cases for rehousing. I believe that, on Second Reading a couple of weeks ago, the Minister quoted the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who said that he was making this a priority. The statutory guidance also states that local authorities should find a local connection, and that it is okay if it is in another district or local authority, so long as there is no threat to the family or the woman. I am just trying to understand what the new clause would do that is not already in the statutory guidance or the Bill.

[Jess Phillips]

I am more than happy to answer that. I am quite fond of the particular bit of statutory guidance she refers to, because it did not actually exist until a woman who lived in the refuge where I worked took a case against Sandwell Borough Council regarding her local connections. Currently, the statutory guidance is explicit about refuge accommodation. This woman was living in a refuge, many years ago now, and Sandwell Borough Council said she did not have the local need that meant it had to pay her—what we call—housing benefit-plus, so it contested her application on the basis of local need. With the help of the Child Poverty Action Group, that was challenged in the courts in two cases specifically around refuge accommodation. All the new clause really seeks to do is extend that beyond being only about refuge to being about other forms of temporary accommodation.

Councils imposing local connection restrictions on their refuge funding contracts—exactly what I was just talking about—such as capping the number of non-local women able to access the refuge or requiring a specific proportion of the women in a refuge to be from the local authority area, has been one fall-out of that particular incident, because a refuge just cannot be run like that. We cannot know who will turn up. By and large, refuges will have people in who are from the local area, but it is not like a school, where someone has to live within a certain radius and has their needs assessed based on other things. People deal with the situation as it arises.

Homelessness teams are refusing to support women escaping abuse because they are not from the local area. Nearly a fifth of women supported by Women’s Aid’s No Woman Turned Away project in 2016 and 2017 were prevented from making a valid homelessness application on the grounds of domestic abuse—outside of refuge; just rocking up to the homelessness services—for reasons including that they had no local connection and that local housing teams were deprioritising survivors who did not have a local connection within their housing allocation policy.

As Members may know, the Government already require local authorities to make exemptions for certain groups from these local connection requirements or residency tests, including members of the armed forces and for those seeking to move for work. Nobody would argue with that. We just wish to add domestic abuse victims to that roster. Therefore, to tackle continuing inconsistent and unacceptable practices, a statutory bar on local authorities imposing local connection restrictions on refuges or any temporary or permanent accommodation should be included in the Bill, and needs to sit alongside the proposed statutory duty on local authorities to fund support in refuges and other forms of safe accommodation. The Government are essentially going to be paying for some of this from central funds. We look forward with bated breath to that big cheque, Minister; we should have a big-cheque moment.

[Nickie Aiken]

I want to get to the bottom of this. Is the hon. Lady saying that there is a lack or a vacuum in the Bill or in statutory guidance full stop, or are local authorities not complying or doing what they should under existing legislation or statutory guidance? If they are not doing what they should be doing—if Sandwell, which is a Labour council, or Ealing, which is a Labour-led council are not doing what they should be doing—surely it is possible to go to the ombudsman? Surely there is a way to hold local authorities to account if they are not carrying out their statutory duty?

[Jess Phillips]

No, they absolutely are carrying out their statutory duty, but the statutory duty is only about refuge—unlike the statutory guidance regarding servicemen and women, which is that they are allowed to move without local connection, recognising that base life does not necessarily mean that they are based in a place, so they might not have a local connection, as well as tipping the hat to people who deserve a break when they are presenting to homelessness services. It is essentially the same thing—recognition that people living in certain circumstances might need extra help. I am sure the hon. Lady does not wish to be political about this, but I could list lots of Tory councils that turn away victims of domestic abuse, and many that have no current provision for refuge, but send their victims to a neighbouring local authority; that is not uncommon. The way some councils choose to fund this is to fund it elsewhere, which I think is problematic and will certainly be furthered by the new statutory duty.

The Government will pay for this statutory duty, which may lead to people having to present to homelessness teams in different areas when they do not have a connection to the local area. That is the problem I am trying to overcome. Together, the new clauses will help to ensure that all women and children fleeing domestic abuse can access safe housing where and when they need to. I urge colleagues to support new clauses 43 and 44 to bar local authorities from imposing dangerous local connections restrictions on survivors of domestic abuse.

[Victoria Atkins]

I apologise at the start because, just as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley went into the fine detail of housing law, so, sadly, will I. I will try to cut it down.

We understand the motivation behind new clause 42. Abusers seek to control their victims in many different ways, and threatening to make their victims homeless or actually making them homeless by ending a tenancy is a particularly pernicious form of control. However, we have concerns about the drafting of the new clause, as it would apply only to local authority and housing association periodic tenancies, whereas most social tenants have periodic tenancies that are often known as lifetime tenancies, which generally mean that they can stay in their home for the rest of their life, provided they comply with the terms of the tenancy. A social tenancy with lifetime security of tenure is a valuable asset, which is why the Bill includes provisions designed to protect the security of tenure of victims of domestic abuse when granted a new tenancy by a local authority.

Notwithstanding the general position on security of tenure, current law provides that if any joint tenant of a period tenancy serves a notice to quit, it brings the whole tenancy to an end and the landlord can seek possession. The rule is of long standing; it has been established in many cases over the years and was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. It aims to balance the interests of each joint tenant and the landlord. For example, it would allow a victim of domestic abuse who has had to flee her home to ensure that she is no longer bound by the full obligations of the tenancy, which she is no longer able to enjoy. We recognise that the rule may be problematic in some cases of domestic abuse where the perpetrator can use it to exert control. I appreciate that the aim of the new clause is to find a way around that, to enable victims of abuse to remain in their current home, without fear that the abuser may seek to terminate the tenancy.

We are concerned about a number of areas of the new clause. It would allow the victim to apply to the court to remove the perpetrator from the tenancy, which is intended to effectively transfer the tenancy into the victim’s name. Where there are other joint tenants, it would have the effect of transferring the tenancy into the names of the victim and of those other joint tenants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington pointed out so eloquently—perhaps he should have declared an interest as a long-standing solicitor, as he was bringing his expertise into this—it means that victims may face the prospect of unresolved or remaining debts and costs because of any damage that the perpetrator may have caused to the property. The perpetrator will not be liable, as they will have been removed from the tenancy.

The new clause also fails to provide for how the interests of third parties may be taken into account by the court, including those of the landlord, any other joint tenant or any children in the relationship. A decision to grant a tenancy lies with a landlord. Where a landlord has decided to grant a tenancy to two or more individuals jointly, this new clause means that the number of tenants may be changed without reference to the landlord as the property owner.

It is important to bear in mind that landlords may have other reasons, outside of affordability, for deciding to grant a joint tenancy. In addition, this could amount to an interference with a housing association landlord’s own rights under the human rights legislation. Since this engages other parties’ human rights, we need to consider carefully what is the right approach in order to balance those rights, and ensure that any interference is proportionate and justified.

I understand that officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are engaging with the domestic abuse sector and other relevant stakeholders on these issues, regarding the termination of joint tenancies. I am happy to give a commitment that we will continue to consider the issues with the sector, with a view to arriving at a workable solution.

Turning to new clause 43, this seeks to amend section 199 of the Housing Act 1996, which defines local connection. Local connection relates to how local housing authorities establish and carry out their statutory homelessness duties under part VII of the Act. If an applicant does not have a local connection, as defined by section 199, a housing authority can refer that applicant to another housing authority where they do have a local connection and can access this support. However, under that legislation, the authority must ensure that the conditions for referral are met. This means that a housing authority cannot refer an applicant to another authority if they, or anyone who might reasonably be expected to reside with them, would be at risk of violence.

The homelessness code of guidance makes clear that a housing authority is under a positive duty to enquire whether the applicant would be at such a risk, and stipulates that authorities should not impose a high standard of proof of actual violence in the past when making its decision. The changes the Government propose to make in this Bill, in order to ensure that domestic abuse victims are considered to be in priority need for homelessness assistance, will be strengthened further by amending section 198 of the Housing Act 1996, so that a local authority cannot refer an applicant if there is a risk of not only violence but domestic abuse, as defined in the Bill.

Local connection is also a factor in how many local authorities determine priority for social housing. The allocation of social housing is governed by part VI of the Housing Act 1996. Local authorities must give reasonable preference for social housing to certain groups of people, including those who are homeless or who need to move for medical or welfare reasons. To help them determine the relative priority of applicants who fall into these groups, they may, but are not obliged to, use local connection as defined in section 199. Existing statutory guidance, to which authorities must have regard, makes it clear that they should consider giving additional preference within their allocation schemes to people who are homeless and require urgent rehousing as a result of domestic abuse. Existing legislation and guidance should therefore ensure that the intended purpose of new clause 43 is already in effect. It is not correct to say that a victim of domestic abuse needs to have a local connection for the purposes of a homelessness application, and lack of local connection should not prevent victims of domestic abuse from getting priority for social housing.

--- Later in debate ---

The allocation of social housing is devolved to local housing authorities for good reason. The legislation allows for flexibility, to ensure that authorities can tailor their allocation schemes to meet local priorities. The Government are committed to ensuring that the system is fair and functioning effectively. The social housing Green Paper included a proposal to carry out an evidence-collection exercise to improve our understanding of how the system is playing out across the country. The findings from the exercise will be published in due course and we will consider any changes that may be needed. For those reasons and on the understanding that we will continue to examine the issues around joint tenancies, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the clauses.

[Jess Phillips]

It is pleasing to hear that the issue of joint tenancies is being looked into. As I said to the hon. Member for Darlington, these issues will undoubtedly come up in the Lords, where some very eminent people will wish to look over them, so I will withdraw the motion and look forward to progress being made.

On local connection, if we do not do something in regulations, the issue will continue to be tested in the courts because it is currently not working. I very much hope that the Bill in its wider sense and the new duties will provide further strength, but I guess we will have to wait and see. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 46

Defences for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence

“(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if—

(a) the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence;

(b) the person does that act because the person is compelled to do it;.

(c) the compulsion is attributable to their being a victim of domestic abuse; and

(d) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics might do that act.

(2) A person may be compelled to do something by another person or by the person’s circumstances.

(3) Compulsion is attributable to domestic abuse only if—

(a) it is, or is part of, conduct which constitutes domestic abuse as defined in sections 1 and 2 of this Act, including but not limited to conduct which constitutes the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship as defined in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015; or

(b) it is a direct consequence of a person being, or having been, a victim of such abuse.

(4) A person is not guilty of an offence if—

(a) the person is under the age of 18 when the person does the act which constitutes the offence;

(b) the person does that act as a direct consequence of the person being, or having been, a victim of domestic abuse as defined at subsection (3)(a) above; and

(c) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics might do that act.

(5) For the purposes of this section ‘relevant characteristics’ means age, sex, any physical or mental illness or disability and any experience of domestic abuse.

(6) In this section references to an act include an omission.

(7) Subsections (1) and (4) do not apply to an offence listed in Schedule [Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply].

(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule [Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply].

(9) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for monitoring of the types of offence for which victims of domestic abuse are prosecuted and use this evidence to inform an annual review of the offences listed in Schedule [Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply] and any amendment to that Schedule.”—(Jess Phillips.)

This new clause would provide a statutory defence for survivors of domestic abuse, in some circumstances, who commit an offence.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Jess Phillips]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 1—Offences to which the defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit an offence does not apply—

“Common Law Offences

1 False imprisonment.

2 Kidnapping.

3 Manslaughter.

4 Murder.

5 Perverting the course of justice.

6 Piracy.

Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100)

7 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—

(a) section 4 (soliciting murder)

(b) section 16 (threats to kill)

(c) section 18 (wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm)

(d) section 20 (malicious wounding)

(e) section 21 (attempting to choke, suffocate or strangle in order to commit or assist in committing an indictable offence)

(f) section 22 (using drugs etc to commit or assist in the committing of an indictable offence)

(g) section 23 (maliciously administering poison etc so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm)

(h) section 27 (abandoning children)

(i) section 28 (causing bodily injury by explosives)

(j) section 29 (using explosives with intent to do grievous bodily harm)

(k) section 30 (placing explosives with intent to do bodily injury)

(l) section 31 (setting spring guns etc with intent to do grievous bodily harm)

(m) section 32 (endangering safety of railway passengers)

(n) section 35 (injuring persons by furious driving)

(o) section 37 (assaulting officer preserving wreck)

(p) section 38 (assault with intent to resist arrest).

Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3)

8 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Explosive Substances Act 1883—

(a) section 2 (causing explosion likely to endanger life or property)

(b) section 3 (attempt to cause explosion, or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property)

(c) section 4 (making or possession of explosives under suspicious circumstances).

Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (c. 34)

9 An offence under section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (child destruction).

Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)

10 An offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (cruelty to children).

Public Order Act 1936 (1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6 c. 6)

11 An offence under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1936 (control etc of quasi-military organisation).

Infanticide Act 1938 (c. 36)

12 An offence under section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938 (infanticide).

Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27)

13 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Firearms Act 1968—

(a) section 5 (possession of prohibited firearms)

(b) section 16 (possession of firearm with intent to endanger life)

(c) section 16A (possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence)

(d) section 17(1) (use of firearm to resist arrest)

(e) section 17(2) (possession of firearm at time of committing or being arrested for specified offence)

(f) section 18 (carrying firearm with criminal intent).

Theft Act 1968 (c. 60)

14 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Theft Act 1968—

(a) section 8 (robbery or assault with intent to rob)

(b) section 9 (burglary), where the offence is committed with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm on a person, or to do unlawful damage to a building or anything in it

(c) section 10 (aggravated burglary)

(d) section 12A (aggravated vehicle-taking), where the offence involves an accident which causes the death of any person

(e) section 21 (blackmail).

Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c. 48)

15 The following offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971—

(a) an offence of arson under section 1

(b) an offence under section 1(2) (destroying or damaging property) other than an offence of arson.

Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)

16 An offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 (assisting unlawful immigration to member state).

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2)

17 An offence under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc) in relation to goods prohibited to be imported under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 (indecent or obscene articles).

Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (c. 28)

18 An offence under section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (hostage-taking).

Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36)

19 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Aviation Security Act 1982—

(a) section 1 (hijacking)

(b) section 2 (destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft)

(c) section 3 (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft)

(d) section 4 (offences in relation to certain dangerous articles).

Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)

20 An offence under section 127 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (ill-treatment of patients).

Child Abduction Act 1984 (c. 37)

21 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Child Abduction Act 1984—

(a) section 1 (abduction of child by parent etc)

(b) section 2 (abduction of child by other persons).

Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64)

22 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Public Order Act 1986—

(a) section 1 (riot)

(b) section 2 (violent disorder).

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)

23 An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture).

Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)

24 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988—

(a) section 1 (causing death by dangerous driving)

(b) section 3A (causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs).

Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31)

25 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990—

(a) section 1 (endangering safety at aerodromes)

(b) section 9 (hijacking of ships)

(c) section 10 (seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms)

(d) section 11 (destroying fixed platforms or endangering their safety)

(e) section 12 (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safe navigation)

(f) section 13 (offences involving threats).

Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/570)

26 An offence under Part 2 of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (SI 1994/570) (offences relating to Channel Tunnel trains and the tunnel system).

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40)

27 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997—

(a) section 4 (putting people in fear of violence)

(b) section 4A (stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress).

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)

28 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—

(a) section 29 (racially or religiously aggravated assaults)

(b) section 31(1)(a) or (b) (racially or religiously aggravated offences under section 4 or 4A of the Public Order Act 1986).

Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11)

29 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000—

(a) section 54 (weapons training)

(b) section 56 (directing terrorist organisation)

(c) section 57 (possession of article for terrorist purposes)

(d) section 59 (inciting terrorism overseas).

International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17)

30 An offence under any of the following provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2001—

(a) section 51 (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes)

(b) section 52 (ancillary conduct).

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24)

31 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—

(a) section 47 (use of nuclear weapons)

(b) section 50 (assisting or inducing certain weapons-related acts overseas)

(c) section 113 (use of noxious substance or thing to cause harm or intimidate).

Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (c. 31)

32 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—

(a) section 1 (female genital mutilation)

(b) section 2 (assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia)

(c) section 3 (assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl’s genitalia).

Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)

33 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—

(a) section 1 (rape)

(b) section 2 (assault by penetration)

(c) section 3 (sexual assault)

(d) section 4 (causing person to engage in sexual activity without consent)

(e) section 5 (rape of child under 13)

(f) section 6 (assault of child under 13 by penetration)

(g) section 7 (sexual assault of child under 13)

(h) section 8 (causing or inciting child under 13 to engage in sexual activity)

(i) section 9 (sexual activity with a child)

(j) section 10 (causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity)

(k) section 13 (child sex offences committed by children or young persons)

(l) section 14 (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence)

(m) section 15 (meeting a child following sexual grooming)

(n) section 16 (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child)

(o) section 17 (abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity)

(p) section 18 (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in presence of child)

(q) section 19 (abuse of position of trust: causing a child to watch a sexual act)

(r) section 25 (sexual activity with a child family member)

(s) section 26 (inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity)

(t) section 30 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder impeding choice)

(u) section 31 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to engage in sexual activity)

(v) section 32 (engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder impeding choice)

(w) section 33 (causing a person with a mental disorder impeding choice to watch a sexual act)

(x) section 34 (inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder)

(y) section 35 (causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in or agree to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception)

(z) section 36 (engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder)

(aa) section 37 (causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception)

(ab) section 38 (care workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder)

(ac) section 39 (care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity)

(ad) section 40 (care workers: sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder)

(ae) section 41 (care workers: causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act)

(af) section 47 (paying for sexual services of a child)

(ag) section 48 (causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography)

(ah) section 49 (controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography)

(ai) section 50 (arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography)

(aj) section 61 (administering a substance with intent)

(ak) section 62 (committing offence with intent to commit sexual offence)

(al) section 63 (trespass with intent to commit sexual offence)

(am) section 64 (sex with an adult relative: penetration)

(an) section 65 (sex with an adult relative: consenting to penetration)

(ao) section 66 (exposure)

(ap) section 67 (voyeurism)

(aq) section 70 (sexual penetration of a corpse).

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28)

34 An offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm).

Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11)

35 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Terrorism Act 2006—

(a) section 5 (preparation of terrorist acts)

(b) section 6 (training for terrorism)

(c) section 9 (making or possession of radioactive device or material)

(d) section 10 (use of radioactive device or material for terrorist purposes)

(e) section 11 (terrorist threats relating to radioactive devices etc).

Modern Slavery Act 2015

36 An offence under any of the following provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015—

(a) section 1 (slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour)

(b) section 2 (human trafficking).

Ancillary offences

37 (1) An offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence listed in this Schedule.

(2) An offence committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an offence listed in this Schedule.

(3) An offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting) where the offence (or one of the offences) which the person in question intends or believes would be committed is an offence listed in this Schedule.”

This Schedule is consequential on NC46.

[Jess Phillips]

rose—

[Andrew Bowie]

On a point of order, Mr Bone. I apologise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. Perhaps you can instruct me, Mr Bone, on how best to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who has been in touch to express her gratitude to all Members and officials on the Committee for taking this Bill through. It is three years since she introduced it and she very much looks forward to seeing it on Report. Will you advise me as to how best to place her gratitude on the record?

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but that is clearly not a point of order. However, he has put it on the record.

[Jess Phillips]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was intervening on me before I had even spoken, which would have been a bold move. I did not know where we were going with that, but I echo the hon. Gentleman’s words. I do not think anyone would ever question the dedication of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead to domestic abuse services. I knew her in my former life. When she was the Home Secretary, she would regularly visit services that I ran, whether they were for victims of human trafficking, female offenders, victims of domestic abuse or victims of sexual violence. On more than one occasion towards the end of my career there, when I was a parliamentary candidate, I was sent home on the days that she would come. I am certain that we would not have fallen out, but I was glad to work from home on those days. I think it got to the point where I was the more difficult of the two of us, so I was sent home.

When the right hon. Lady returned to the Back Benches, I thought, “What a brilliant ally she might be to me on certain things,” and I was delighted that, at every opportunity during the Bill’s progression, she has spoken up, including on some of the more difficult things to say. She has talked about issues of domestic abuse within the police force itself. It is bold and courageous to do so, and we will continue to rely on her input.

When speaking to new clause 33, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove discussed some of the arguments related to new clause 46, so I will not reinvent the wheel. Everyone will also be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause for the Committee to debate. New clause 46 and new schedule 1 would introduce a statutory defence for survivors of domestic abuse that is closely modelled on section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, giving them the same legal protection as that given to victims of trafficking who are compelled to offend, with the same excluded offences.

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I want to ask for clarification. Hon. Members know that some of us are very new to this, so it is possibly my mistake. The new clause really does not make sense to me, because subsection (1) states:

“A person is not guilty of an offence if the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence”.

That strikes me as a typo, because it should say “under”, not “over”.

[Jess Phillips]

I cannot speak for the typo, but the new clause is almost exactly, word for word, based on what the Modern Slavery Act says about modern slavery. It may well be a typo, although, having said that, I cannot absolutely vouch for it not being one. However, as somebody who has had some success with my ability to write, I do find that the law is sometimes difficult to read. It could be a mistake or it could be completely right, but I am sure that we can come back to the hon. Lady and let her know.

New clause 46 is directly modelled on section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act, giving the same legal protections as those granted to victims of trafficking who are compelled to offend. Victims of trafficking rightly have a statutory defence where they have been compelled to offend as part of, or as a direct result of, their exploitation, yet there is no equivalent defence for people whose offending results from their experiences of domestic abuse. New clause 46 would address this significant gap in the law and reflect improved public understanding of domestic abuse. It should be accompanied by a policy framework, including special measures for vulnerable defendants, drawing on policies that are in place to support section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act. That would encourage earlier disclosure of abuse and access to support, to help break the cycle of victimisation and offending.

Research by the Prison Reform Trust has shown that types of offending driven by domestic abuse vary widely. They include shoplifting to supplement an inadequate allowance from an abusive partner; being coerced into benefit fraud; holding a weapon or drugs for the abuser, as the Minister quite rightly pointed out earlier; and defending themselves against their abuser. The law needs modernising to take account of the context of domestic abuse that is so often behind women’s offending in particular. Although usually minor, such offences can still leave victims behind bars and often separated from their children. Nearly half of prison sentences imposed on women are for theft offences, predominantly shoplifting.

We now understand how coercive and controlling behaviour can erode a victim’s sense of self and undermine their agency. As we heard this morning, however, there remains an inconsistent approach by the police and prosecutors where an individual’s offending may be attributable to domestic abuse and a lack of effective defences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove argued earlier, having effective defences on the statute book would direct everyone concerned in the criminal justice process to consider the domestic abuse context at an early stage. It would deter inappropriate prosecutions and, crucially, encourage earlier disclosure of abuse. A specific statutory defence is already provided for victims of trafficking in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the policy framework that goes with it. This requires proactive early case management and means that all involved become more adept at recognising circumstances that indicate there is no public interest in prosecuting an individual or where the statutory defence should apply. It does not work in all cases—there are victims of human trafficking who end up behind bars—but I would like to think that it has heightened the awareness of people having to deal with them. Magistrates, judges and lawyers increasingly understand how exploitation in this context can lead to offending and are taking this into account to ensure that victims are not further punished.

The question asked earlier of Minister Chalk—or it might have been the new Minister Chalk—was whether this stops that process getting to the court room. In cases of modern slavery, the answer is yes. For example, if you were to find somebody in a cannabis farm or running drugs, the process stops before that point; is not like it gets to court. If somebody was sent shoplifting because of human trafficking, no one says, “This is going all the way to court”. The charges are simply not made. That is my experience. The same legislation and policy frameworks should be in place to protect defendants whose offending is attributable to their experience of domestic abuse.

I will now explain why the existing common law defence of duress does not work for individuals who are compelled to offend due to their experience of domestic abuse and how new clause 46 and schedule 1—sorry, new schedule 1; we are not going back to schedule 1, having come this far—would help fix the problem. Duress is a common law defence that can be applied to offences other than murder where the defendant was acting under the threat of imminent death or serious injury, and where there was no alternative course of action for a reasonable person with relevant characteristics. However, the legal test for duress is rarely used in the context of domestic abuse for three main reasons: the complexities of domestic abuse are ignored; as the emphasis is on death or threat of serious injury, the defence does not recognise psychological, sexual or financial abuse; and for the defence of duress to suceed, the threat of physical harm must be imminent. That fails to recognise the nature of domestic abuse behaviour, including coercive control, as it is typically entrenched, unpredictable and random. To a woman whose self-esteem has been demolished by past violence, the fear of violence may be ever-present and overpowering.

In a modern slavery case, someone would say, “You’ve got to go and do this.” Unfortunately, in the cases I handled, it was, “You’ve got to sleep with 30 men today.” Nobody is suggesting that those women should be criminalised, thank goodness. However, in the cases of domestic abuse that I have seen where a pattern of offending behaviour occurs—for almost all the women I saw in my female offenders service, there had been a pattern of domestic abuse—there is the suggestion that things had to be got: “Why haven’t I got this?” or “You’ve spent all your money and you haven’t bought this.” A woman would be faced with a situation where she had not got the things from the shop that he wanted, or did not have the money to buy something for the kids. That would often, I am afraid to say, lead to acquisitive crime offending.

It is also terrible when—I hope this has improved; I need to check—women are charged and sent to prison because their kids have not gone to school as part of their domestic abuse, as the children have attachment issues because of domestic abuse. I suppose they are free and easy at the moment because nobody is at school. On a number of occasions, I saw women criminalised because their children would not go to school, and domestic abuse was not taken into account.

The duress defence applies where a reasonable person with relevant characteristics has no alternative but to do what he or she did. For that to succeed, those experiencing abuse must show they were suffering from battered woman syndrome—it has been a long time since we called it that—or learned helplessness. Those are outdated concepts that pathologise women rather than offering an effective defence suitable for the circumstances. They require the production of medical evidence, which is not practicable in many cases involving low-level offending that are tried in a magistrates court. It would be complicated to try to get that. My favourite ever case of going to the GP about domestic violence—this shows why we may need to improve our health response to it—was when a woman I was working with tried to tell her GP that her husband was strangling her and she could not breathe. She left his office with inhalers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

May I take a moment to thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine for his non-point of order? It is right that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) be mentioned in Committee. Ministers are always encouraged by the Whips to engage with Back Benchers. It is an important part of the job to listen, consider views and try, where possible, to accommodate them. At the best of times that can be, depending on the Back Bencher, an interesting exercise, but Members can imagine what it is like to try to do Back-Bench engagement with a former Prime Minister who introduced the Bill that is the subject of that engagement: it is on a whole new level. I am delighted that she was mentioned again in the scrutiny of the Bill.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley for raising the point covered by the new clause. As she said, it stems from a campaign by the Prison Reform Trust. I note that my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State for Justice met trust representatives, the designate domestic abuse commissioner and the Victims Commissioner recently, to discuss the issue, among others. It has very much had his attention, as it now has mine.

We of course recognise the harm that is suffered by victims of domestic abuse. That is why the aim of the Bill is specifically to target it and raise awareness and understanding of its impact. It seeks to raise the profile of domestic abuse in all its forms, particularly given its pernicious nature, and to improve the effectiveness of the justice system in providing protection for victims and bringing perpetrators to justice. It also seeks to strengthen the support for victims and survivors provided by statutory agencies. The definition should help further in clarifying the wide-ranging nature of domestic abuse for all those involved in the criminal justice system, at every level.

There are several defences that are potentially available under the law. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley raised some cases in her speech. I have to deal with the fact that we have these defences. The hon. Lady herself acknowledged that there will be occasions where those involved in the system do not apply the law in the manner that Parliament intended. None the less, we still have to respect the independence of the judiciary, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police in ensuring that our criminal justice system works. She mentioned the defences of duress and self-defence, which are full defences. In homicide cases we have the partial defences of loss of control and diminished responsibility.

I recognise that legal representatives and the CPS should be made aware, as soon as possible, of domestic abuse histories and their impact, in the course of making charging decisions and when considering guilty pleas. That needs to be balanced alongside the recognition of the harm done by the perpetrator of a crime and the impact on the victim, in order to ensure, wherever possible, that people do not revert to criminal behaviour. That is reflected in the law, which continues to evolve and aims to strike the right balance between these factors.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley relies on the model set out in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We have concerns that that model would create anomalies with other offences. For example, there is a range of offences, mainly serious sexual or violent offences, to which the section 45 defence does not apply, in order to avoid creating a legal loophole for serious criminals to escape justice. The offences that are excluded are set out in schedule 4 to the 2015 Act, which schedule 1 seeks to replicate. Identifying the trigger point resulting in the behaviour that caused the offence remains problematic. If that defence is to be raised, the issue would become at what point in time and in relation to which type of level of domestic abuse the defence became available. Establishing such a threshold would be incredibly difficult. To clarify the circumstances in which the defence would be permissible would likely reduce the applicability or effect of the new defence to the parameters already set out in existing defences. Additionally, a full defence for a defendant subject to domestic abuse would create anomalies with defendants subject to other forms of harm, such as sexual harassment from strangers. Those are anomalies I am sure that none of us would want to see.

Let me deal with the point about the Modern Slavery Act. In earlier debates I talked about the evolving methodology of gang leaders and their efforts to ensnare young people into their gangs. We have in mind that we hear from law enforcement partners that the statutory defence for victims of modern slavery is being misused, primarily by the gang leaders, to persuade the young people they are manipulating and exploiting that it does not matter if they are caught, because they will get off anyway. That will not be the case, particularly for the sorts of serious offences that are not set out in the schedule. This comes back to the point about the ability of perpetrators and those who would exploit and manipulate other human beings, and their never-ending capacity to find new ways to do so—we are concerned about that aspect as well. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned a female victim of a gang being instructed to have sex with members of that gang—sadly, that is a factor that we know happens in gangs. Gang leaders find many ways to exploit vulnerable people in all walks of life, but particularly in those very hard-edged crimes. We are working with criminal justice partners to assess how the modern slavery defence is used in practice and the repercussions of that.

Existing full and partial defences cover circumstances in which a defendant is also the victim of domestic abuse. Indeed, full defences, including duress and self-defence, are defences to any crime, which, if pleaded successfully, result in acquittal. I refer to the debate that I had with the hon. Member for Hove about the decision-making process that the CPS must go through before the decision to charge is taken. At every stage of the criminal justice process, there are checks and balances. For example, at half-time, when the prosecution has closed its case, if the prosecution has failed to establish a case such that a judge feels confident to leave it to the jury, the judge will stop that case there and then. The jury will not be asked to deliver a verdict because the judge has ruled that, at the half-time submission, the evidence is insufficient and the prosecution has not done their job.

We have those checks and balances all the way through to the closing speeches. When I used to prosecute cases, I would always say to the jury, “If you find yourself using the words, ‘Possibly,’ ‘Likely,’ or ‘Probably,’ I have not done my job proving the case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.” Those are the sorts of checks and balances that have been worked out over time to ensure that the guilty are convicted and the innocent are acquitted.

Partial defences, such as diminished responsibility and loss of control, reduce a charge for murder to manslaughter. Very recently, the incredibly moving case of Sally Challen not only demonstrated that partial defences can be employed, but showed the improvement in our understanding over a matter of years. Ms Challen was convicted in 2010 and a matter of years later, we have a better understanding of domestic abuse, and her appeal was successful.

Those checks and balances are important to ensure that, wherever possible, victims make their background and circumstances known. I very much hope that the Bill’s success in raising awareness about the sorts of things that the Committee has debated in such depth and degree will ensure that the justice system is as effective as it can be in providing victims and survivors with as much protection as possible—I am sure that I will work on that with colleagues from across the House. On that note, I will conclude.

[Jess Phillips]

It seems almost unfair on the Minister that I get the last word on a Bill that she introduced, but that is the system. I welcome what she said, and I will take up that issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and with the Prison Reform Trust.

I am very interested in—but unsurprised about—the idea that, in the Modern Slavery Bill, there is potential to say, “You are going to get away with it,” without recognising that what we are talking about here is mostly minor crimes—nothing that causes harm to others, no sexual abuse and no domestic abuse. However, it is very much the case that in patterns of abuse, people end up abusing other people. That is a complex area and we want fairness both for those who are accused and for those who are suffering. I will withdraw the new clause, and everybody can finally be done with the millions of amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.