Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Main Page: Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay's debates with the Home Office
Domestic Abuse Bill
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay ExcerptsMonday 25th January 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Committee - (25 Jan 2021)
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate. In her opening comments the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, echoed a profound sense of solidarity and all our best wishes for this Bill going through this process. We are very honoured to take part.
I wish to put on record my thanks to the many organisations that have so diligently briefed us; I also thank the Minister. As a former domestic violence officer and child protection worker, for decades I worked practically with families of survivors. This is an incredible opportunity to place their needs and well-being at the centre of legal frameworks. Recognition of the effect on children is long overdue.
I wish to address Amendments 6 and 8, and speak also to Amendments 11 and 12. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, whom I claim to be my noble friend, argues that this legislation should encompass matters of forced marriage victims and survivors within the context of the Bill, and I very much agree with her—I support her in her cause. Although I do not claim to have the legal wisdom or expertise of my noble and learned friend, my recommendation, as the chair of the Forced Marriage Task Force, was to ensure that we embed matters of forced marriage and murder—I have distaste for the words “honour killing”; it is murder, primarily of women but of course of some men, too—in mainstream legislation.
Like other noble Lords, I would like to see the eradication of disjointedness and silos in responding to victims, as though the violence that they experience is somehow different. Similarly, on Amendment 11, I am in constant awe of my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who is correct to assert that disabled persons have absolute rights to be heard within the purview of all public and mainstream rights to receive the necessary safeguards, protection and services that this legislation will afford and facilitate to all other victims and survivors of violence and abuse. This was very powerfully reinforced by my noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport, and I am really grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for her insightful recommendations for trained advocacy. I hope that the Government will give their fullest consideration to her request.
I will make some general points in support of this group. Community-based services are a critical aspect of empowering survivors and their children. According to a survey undertaken I think by Barnardo’s, 70% of individuals experiencing violence wish to receive community-based support. Specialist services that may be needed to address their welfare may include housing support, helplines and support for children, as well as programmes for perpetrators. The statutory duty on local authorities to provide accommodation-based services must not lose sight of the equal status and weight being mandated for community-oriented services, or we may unwittingly miss or discourage many hundreds of thousands of women who could find it prohibitive to seek urgent help and flee their perpetrators.
Postcode lotteries in access to services are well established, and lack of specialist services are well acknowledged. Nicole Jacobs has said that she is mapping current services. I feel that such an exercise will miss the value of all those women-led specialist services which have been shut down over the years, particularly by local authorities which have marginalised the needs of women from diverse backgrounds. I speak with some knowledge. In my own area, two critical women-led services, the Jagonari Women’s Centre and East London Asian Family Counselling, have been shut down, meaning that all the clients that they served over 30 years have nowhere to go. Whatever the excuse or rationale of local male leaderships, the end result has surely been that many women have been further alienated from reporting abuse and seeking urgent support.
Many specialist organisations have been a lifeline for women, particularly those who lack confidence and knowledge of the system and how to report or manage available services. Therefore, this legislative framework must widen its scope to ensure wide-ranging awareness of this law, once it has been passed. Also, leadership across different institutions must explicitly mandate organisations meeting the needs of all victims and survivors who experience additional distress or fears of discrimination. Furthermore, they must be held to account at the local and national levels for the quality and consistency of services for some of the most vulnerable in our society. I am grateful that the domestic abuse commissioner will broaden her reach to communities hitherto beyond the reach of the usual suspects and approved organisations.
I am grateful to have been able to participate in this discussion today. I want to make two final comments. I listened with a great deal of respect and admiration to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on Jewish marriages. She is right to be very specific. There are issues pertaining to other faiths, including Muslim marriages, some of which are stuck in the sharia councils—not sharia courts but councils, like the Jewish councils—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but she is now referring to our debate on the previous group.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
Okay. I finish by saying that I am grateful for this consideration and hope that it may be extended to others. Finally, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. I was deeply moved by her argument and would have taken part in her discussion; I did not manage to do so as I have not been well myself in the last few days. I am very grateful for the patience of the House.
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.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has given quite a long reply, which will bear reading. However, it sounded somewhat circular: the various groups referred to in the amendments are not within the definition. But that, of course, is why this long list of amendments was tabled. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, really nailed my concerns. I am not speaking from the point of view of someone who feels that their concerns have not been picked up, but I was unclear whether the Minister was saying that there were adequate remedies and protections for every one of the people covered by the amendments. I certainly did not feel that the Government accepted that being in the same household is very close to a personal connection—it is, after all, a domestic situation. I wonder whether the Minister can help further.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right: it was a lengthy response, which I hope set out why the wide range of examples given by noble Lords are, we believe, already covered either in the drafting of the Bill or in existing statutes. She is also right to say that the debate will repay reading—for me, as well as for others—to make sure that we have indeed covered all the examples.
In brief, the dilemma, as encapsulated by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is to make sure that, in seeking to cover the wide variety of relationships, we are not diluting the unique character of domestic abuse. A person coming into somebody’s household as a friend or as a temporary flatmate who may be there only a short time is in a different category from some of those other examples. I am sure that we shall return to this point throughout the scrutiny of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
Finally, I call the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to respond to the debate on her amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I would be very happy, in deferring to the great experience of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to undertake to make sure that we have the same understanding of Clause 3. I am very happy to give her that reassurance as she withdraws her amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for setting out her reasons for tabling these amendments and all noble Lords who took part in the debate on them.
Amendment 16 would mandate that the commissioner role be a full-time appointment. We do not think it is necessary to add that to the Bill. As has been noted in the debate, many statutory officers operate on a part-time basis, in line with similar commissioners, for instance, the anti-slavery commissioner and the lead commissioner for countering extremism—two other subjects which we take very seriously.
On advice from executive search specialists, we advertised for a part-time designate commissioner so we could attract as wide a range of suitably qualified and high-profile candidates as possible. As a result of that exercise, we found one such person, Nicole Jacobs, who was appointed initially on the basis of three days a week. We said at the time of her appointment that that time commitment would be reviewed after six months, and following that review, it was increased to four days a week with her full agreement. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, we will look again at that time commitment before commencing Part 2 of the Bill and keep that matter under review. But we would be denying ourselves the opportunity to appoint a highly suitable and qualified candidate in future if the legislation insisted this had to be a full-time appointment.
If I may say so, there is a slight tension between the amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She wants to underline the independence of the commissioner by changing her title, but then setting out more clearly in the Bill how she ought to fulfil that role. That seems to be slightly inconsistent. It is also important to note that the commissioner is not a one-woman operation; she will be supported by an office comprising around a dozen full-time equivalent staff. Reflecting modern ways of working, that will be a mixture of full and part-time appointments.
Turning to Amendment 17, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that nomenclature can be important, and symbolically so. But I do not think we should get into the habit of labelling every commissioner or other statutory office holder in law as independent. Granted, as she mentioned, we have the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, but we do not have an independent victims commissioner, an independent children’s commissioner or, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, mentioned, a new independent commissioner created under the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. I do not think any noble Lord would suggest that holders or previous holders of this office, such as my noble friend Lady Newlove, were any less independent because the word did not appear in statute in their job title.
Nicole Jacobs has amply demonstrated her independence from the Government—not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, pointed out, in the way she is campaigning for changes to the Bill. Her independence will come from the statutory framework provided for in Part 2, boosted by the provisions in the framework document, but also by the way she conducts herself once she is formally appointed in the role after this Bill receives Royal Assent. To add a word to her title in the Bill would in no practical terms augment her independence, so we do not think that amendment is necessary.
Amendments 18 and 19 would mean that the commissioner, rather than the Home Secretary, would be able to appoint staff for her office. Clause 6 provides for the staffing of the commissioner’s office by the Home Secretary, as well as accommodation, equipment and other facilities. It does so for a simple practical reason. We are creating here a statutory officeholder, not a body corporate. The commissioner will have no separate legal persona and therefore cannot, as a matter of law, appoint her own staff or otherwise enter into other contracts. To answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the accounting officer function therefore rests with the Home Office. We will write to set out that position more fully, not least because several noble Lords were interested in it and picked up on it.
Consequently, as a matter of form, the commissioner’s staff will be Home Office civil servants. Crucially, however, Clause 6(2) provides that the commissioner must approve the appointment of all her staff. To address the point raised by my noble friend Lady Newlove, one of the contracts that she cannot sign is for office space. Obviously, she does not exist in law until the Bill is passed, but the Home Office is looking for suitable office space for her—not located in Marsham Street, where the Home Office is, to illustrate her independence. At the moment, like so many other people, she is working from home because of the pandemic.
In addition, we have made further provision in the framework document provided for under Clause 11. This sets out how the commissioner and the Home Secretary will work together, including on matters such as governance, funding and staffing of the commissioner’s office. The draft framework document makes it clear that, while the commissioner’s staff will be provided by the Home Office, the commissioner will have day-to-day direction and control of staff in support of her work. Moreover, as I said, appointments can be made only after consultation with, and with the approval of, the commissioner. In fact, the commissioner or her chief of staff will conduct recruitment campaigns and the commissioner will be responsible for deciding whom to appoint. I hope that these reassurances are sufficient for the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have weighed in on this subject. Committee stage is the opportunity for us to make our views known, even if we do not really think that something should be in the statute. I am not the first, and I shall not be the last, to have used that opportunity.
I hope I have not given the impression that we are anything other than extremely impressed by the job that Nicole Jacobs has done and is doing. I mentioned her energy and determination, and could go on about her grasp of the subject and so on. I would be pleased if noble Lords took all that as read.
I hope it is not really inconsistent—is that what I heard the Minister say?—to call for independence but suggest that the job should be full-time or, to put it another way, not part-time. I do not think it is at all inconsistent. I cannot believe the Minister is suggesting that, in the other bit of time that might be available, the postholder would take up a position in any way in conflict with acting as domestic abuse commissioner. That would clearly not be appropriate.
Independence is in more than the title, of course, and the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was very good. The answer has rather confirmed much of what noble Lords have been saying. I looked at the titles of the other commissioners but, as I have said, it very much exercised the House at the time of the 2015 Act. I did not read independence, in the way we have been talking about it, into the draft framework document.
I liked the reference to giving you armour when dealing with the Home Secretary that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made. She is right to point to the—“loyalty” may suggest something I do not want to suggest, but the buy-in from the team. This is teamwork led by the commissioner.
I still feel that being seen to be independent is important, but most important of all is having the tools. Noble Lords have talked a good deal about the ability to hire one’s own staff. Coming out of this group of amendments, that may be the issue we will want to return to at the next stage, but at this moment I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 16.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to have put my name to these amendments and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for outlining the complex and troubling relationship between alcohol and domestic abuse. I also fully endorse my noble friend Lord Brooke’s wise remarks. He has been a tireless campaigner on this for more than 20 years in your Lordships’ House. I am sure that he, like the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is looking for a strong response from the Government, as I am.
The deep cuts made to addiction services since 2013-14 mean that the estimated 8.4 million high-risk drinkers and the hundreds of additional people with an opiate addiction needing help could miss out on life-saving treatment. No wonder the Royal College of Psychiatrists is calling for the Government to reverse the cuts and enable local authorities to invest £374 million into adult services so that they can cope with the increased need for treatment.
Professor Julia Sinclair, chair of the Addictions Faculty of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, has pointed to Covid-19 showing
“just how stretched, under-resourced and ill-equipped addiction services are to treat the growing numbers of vulnerable people living with this complex illness.”
There are only five NHS in-patient units in the country and no resource anywhere in her region to admit people who are alcohol dependent with coexisting mental illness.
Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, has warned of the hidden alcohol harm crisis in this country. Before the pandemic, only one in five harmful and dependent drinkers got the help they needed; that proportion will now be significantly lower.
Before we even consider the link between alcohol and domestic abuse, we see that the services to help people suffering from substance and alcohol abuse have been severely limited and stretched. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave very graphic details indeed of a direct link between domestic abuse and substance abuse. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, survivors of domestic abuse can use alcohol or drugs themselves. Research has shown that women who have experienced extensive physical and sexual violence are more likely to use alcohol or drugs harmfully, compared to women who have not experienced extensive abuse.
Despite the close relationship between domestic abuse and substance use, very few survivors access specialist support. This is due, in part, to the lack of services that respond to the multiple needs of people experiencing both domestic abuse and substance use. Research has shown that the lack of integrated or co-ordinated services can see survivors prioritising one need over another—in other words, domestic abuse or substance abuse. Yet even accessing either one service can prove very difficult. People can find themselves turned away from refuges when accessing domestic abuse support due to their substance use. Research in London found that only about a quarter of the refuges reviewed always or often accept women who use alcohol or other drugs.
Likewise, survivors can struggle to find alcohol treatment services that meet their needs and adequately consider their trauma. Women who have experience of violent male partners may be reluctant to engage in mixed-gender services, but women-only provision for substance users is available in fewer than half of local authorities in England and Wales.
It is of course important and welcome that the Bill puts an obligation on local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse. For the reasons that I and other noble Lords have just outlined, it is vital that this support includes substance use, addictions and mental health support where necessary. I too hope the Government will be able to come back with a strong response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that we will have to leave our deliberations there for this evening. I beg to move that debate on this amendment be now adjourned.