Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Paddick Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, I refer to my interests as listed in the register. I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness’s explanation of this first amendment. I bring to the House a different situation that in my view is covered by the amendment, but which the noble Baroness has not put forward. Like many of the groups I am involved with, I am very opposed to marriage under the age of 18. There is no doubt that a number of teenage marriages involve domestic abuse. It is important to recognise that, in such marriages, those under 18 are as much at risk as anyone else. Later, I will deal through amendments of my own with a situation I am particularly concerned about: young people both under and over 18 who are forced by coercive control or physical abuse into an unwanted marriage that they—she, generally, but sometimes he—do not want to enter. That is why I want to raise this issue as perhaps another probing part of the amendment: to recognise this group of young people aged under 18.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I restate my interests in respect of this Bill. Noble Lords will recall the story of the farmyard animals that come up with the idea of rewarding the farmer with an egg and bacon breakfast, to which the pig responds to the chickens, “I’d be committed to this; you’d only be involved.” As a former police officer who dealt with countless cases of domestic abuse during my service, and as a survivor of domestic abuse myself, I very much feel like the pig when it comes to this Bill.

Amendment 1 questions why both perpetrator and victim have to be 16 or over. We understand that, if the victim is under 16, the offence would be child abuse rather than domestic abuse, but not if the perpetrator is under 16 and the victim over 16. For me, the acid test is whether someone is being placed in the intolerable position of not feeling safe in their own home as the result of the abuse. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has described, this might be the result of the actions of someone who is under 16—elder abuse of a grandmother by a grandchild, for example.

The Minister will acknowledge that increasingly younger children are becoming involved in county lines drug dealing. One of the many worrying aspects of county lines is how children are becoming violent towards their own family members at home as they become embroiled in the savage and ruthless culture of drug gangs, particularly when they are challenged about their behaviour by a parent or guardian. My noble friend described the amendment as probing. On reflection, I believe that it may become increasingly necessary. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Bill currently defines domestic abuse as involving two people aged over 16. As has been said, the amendment would expand this definition to include a relationship where one person was under 16 and the other over 16. It appears that the definition would apply where the victim was over 16 but the perpetrator was not. We have doubts about the definition in the Bill being changed in this way, but I understand from what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said that this is a probing amendment.

Teenage relationships, and the victims of teenage relationship abuse, have specific needs, which should be addressed through a separate strategy tailored to them and recognised as an issue separate from both child abuse and the abuse that takes place between adults. As I said, we recognise that this is a probing amendment, but our concern is that if the age of the perpetrator in the definition is lowered—as appears to be the effect of the amendment in the circumstances set out in it—we would end up prosecuting and treating some perpetrators under 16 as, in effect, adults, which is not a road we believe we should go down. However, the issue of younger person or teenage abuse raised by the amendment is an important one, which the Government should address through a specific strategy and guidance for this group of victims and perpetrators. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I had a very late request from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to have a word after the Minister. Can we please hear from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick?

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I want to make a general point: the point of speaking after the Minister is to challenge something that she has said. That may be in the very last sentence that she speaks. Therefore, there should be a pause to allow people who want to challenge the Minister to email before we go to the mover of the amendment.

The Minister says that the perpetrator age should not be less than 16 because the Government want to avoid criminalising children. How is that consistent with the approach that they are taking in the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill? They want to increase penalties for children under that Bill, but apparently do not want to criminalise children in this.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I apologise to the noble Lord. Would the Minister like to come back on that particular point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bertin (Con)]

My Lords, it is never easy to make a truly original point at the end of such a full and interesting debate as the one on this group, so I will keep my remarks as brief as possible. In general, we have to be careful about diluting the definition of domestic abuse. We could be in danger of expanding it to the point where it begins to lose impact, duplicates laws already in place or worse still, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, stores up significant legal problems for the future.

However, to argue against myself briefly, there is significant merit in considering Amendments 7, 11 and 12. Some of the most shocking and disturbing evidence heard by the joint scrutiny committee was from Ruth Bashall, the CEO of Stay Safe East. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, read out a quote from her, so I will not repeat it, but it was compelling and moving evidence. As a result, after much discussion and consideration, the committee recommended that the Bill should recognise that the abuse of disabled people by their carers often mirrors that seen in other relationships covered by the Bill. We concluded that abuse by any carer towards this particularly vulnerable group should be included in the statutory definition. We also recommended that the Government review the “personally connected” clause, with the intention of amending it to include a clause that covers all disabled people and their carers, paid or unpaid, in recognition of the fact that this type of abuse occurs in a domestic situation. I stand by this recommendation.

Worldwide systematic reviews have highlighted the greater risk of violence generally for disabled people, showing that they are substantially more likely to experience threats of violence, physical abuse and sexual assault. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, made an excellent and strong speech on this. Most people outside this House would be shocked to hear about the levels of abuse that disabled people have to put up with. SafeLives also produced a report showing that disabled people are far more likely—twice as likely, I think—than able-bodied women in particular to experience physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse.

The other point that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, made excellently is that the route out is so much harder and less clear. Domestic abuse suffered by disabled victims often goes unreported and unnoticed, and leaves these hidden victims without the support they need. We often have a chicken-and-egg situation, because the data and research on this group are limited, making it far more difficult to justify and advocate for the commissioning of services that respond to their specific needs.

The voice of people with disabilities is not heard often enough or loudly enough. I therefore hope that the Government will give due consideration to these amendments, which could have a significant impact on their ability to escape from what can so often be a prison in their own homes.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I think the general test for this group of amendments is whether the perpetrator of abuse has some power or hold over the victim and, through abuse, makes the victim feel unsafe in their own home. In that regard, the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Wilcox of Newport, both made the important point about the close connection there often is between a disabled person and their carers, raising similar risks to other vulnerable people in intimate relationships.

I will take these amendments in order. If the victim is 16 or over and subject to abuse by their guardian—someone who has power over them—it seems only right that guardians are included in the definition of “personally connected”, as Amendment 6 suggests.

Similarly, a carer for a disabled person—someone who, to a greater or lesser extent, the disabled person relies on—should also be included, particularly if the care is provided in the victim’s home. Amendment 7 is perhaps too wide, albeit that the intention is to provide a safeguard for disabled people, in that someone who provides care to an able-bodied person would be included in this amendment as currently drafted. The more narrowly drawn Amendment 11 appears more precise.

Amendment 12, to which we have our Amendment 13, is arguably unintentionally too narrow in applying only to cases where the care is provided to enable independent living, rather than, as our amendment suggests, where the care is provided to enable someone to live in their own home, whether independently or not. I accept what my noble friend Lady Hamwee said: this may not necessarily widen the definition but simply clarify what independent living means.

I understand that those involved in coercing someone into a forced marriage may not be parents or other family members. They may be the family of the other party to the marriage, for example, but parents and other family members involved in such practices, as indicated in the Member’s explanatory statement, are already included in the definition of “personally connected”, as they are relatives. The behaviour would also be covered by the definition of “abusive” under Clause 1(3)(c), “controlling or coercive behaviour”, although I accept what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, says: it could also be physical abuse. I wonder whether the Minister agrees.

Amendment 9 seeks to include victims of the offence under Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I understand that such a person would also be a victim of domestic abuse, but I wonder whether they would need the protection of both this Bill and the Modern Slavery Act, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, alluded to.

Amendment 10 reinforces what I have previously said about someone who, as a result of abuse, does not feel safe in their own home. This might easily include someone who is part of the same household as the victim but not covered by any of the other definitions of “personally connected”, such as the victim’s sister’s live-in boyfriend. The sister and the boyfriend may be in an intimate relationship, but the victim is not otherwise “personally connected” to the boyfriend.

Amendment 14 concerns the separate issue of children as victims of domestic abuse who are traumatised as a result of seeing the effect on the victim and are related to the victim or the perpetrator. The example given is where a mother has several transitory relationships with men, who may live with her or visit her but are not otherwise connected with her children.

It is conceivable that such children might be traumatised by the actions of the perpetrator, rather than by experiencing the effects of abuse on the mother, making the amendment necessary. Bullying behaviour by the transitory lover could have a lasting and detrimental impact on the child, even if the mother’s reaction to it does not have any impact. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this Bill, so I hope that noble Lords will permit me to begin by agreeing with my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the wide range of noble Lords from all corners of your Lordships’ House who have paid tribute to my right honourable friend Theresa May for bringing forward this landmark legislation, as my noble friend called it. I mentioned in my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House more than a year ago that I hoped this Bill would see swift passage to the statute book. I hope this reassures noble Lords that I speak not just as a Government Whip but as an enthusiast for seeing this legislation on the statute book. I hope that we can conduct our scrutiny rigorously and swiftly, including of the nearly 200 amendments which have been tabled to it so far.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others for introducing these amendments, and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will begin with the amendments which seek to expand the definition of “personally connected” in Clause 2 of the Bill.

Amendment 6 seeks to expand the definition to include guardians. The Government have understood this to mean legal guardians of children under the age of 18, but we believe that the existing drafting already covers guardians to the extent that it is appropriate to do so. Clause 2(1) defines the term “personally connected” for the purposes of the definition of domestic abuse in Clause 1. Among those groups of people who are taken to be personally connected are two people who each have, or have at one time had, parental responsibility in relation to the same child. Subsection (2) goes on to define a parental relationship as being one where the person “is a parent of”, or has “parental responsibility for the child”. Subsection (3) then provides that parental responsibility,

“has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989 … section 3”,

which defines parental responsibility to include legal guardians of children. So, if the two individuals within an abusive relationship are, say, the birth mother of a child and a legal guardian or former legal guardian of the same child, then those two individuals would come within the definition of “personally connected”.

Amendment 8, in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, seeks to expand the definition of “personally connected” to include victims of forced marriage or those in a situation where one person is forcing the other into a marriage with another person. As the noble and learned Baroness said, this affects a large number of people from a wide range of parts of the community. She mentioned, for instance, gay men and women who are forced into marriage by their families and others, and that, sadly, it is often accompanied by violence or so-called honour killings. We are confident that victims of forced marriage are already captured under the existing definition of “personally connected” in Clause 2. Among other things, this provides that a personal connection exists if persons A and B are, or have been, married to each other, or if they are, or have been, in an intimate personal relationship.

We are also confident that victims who are being forced into a marriage with another person by a family member will also be captured under the existing definition at Clause 2(1)(g), which provides that a personal connection exists when person A and person B are related. Moreover, the draft statutory guidance clearly signals that forced marriage is one manifestation of domestic abuse.

That leaves one potential situation arising from Amendment 8, in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, namely where a victim is being forced into a forced marriage by somebody to whom he or she is not related. In this situation, the victim would not be considered “personally connected” to the perpetrator, and it would not be considered domestic abuse in the context of the Bill. Similarly, with reference to Amendment 9, victims of domestic servitude who are suffering abuse would not be considered victims of domestic abuse unless they were personally connected to the perpetrator as defined in Clause 2. That is because the definition of “personal connection” is key to the approach we are taking in this Bill.