Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

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

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, given the length of the debate and the time, I have junked most of what I intended to say and will keep it really brief. I can understand that at first sight Clause 2 looks as though it covers a range of relationships, but when issues arise and the police become involved, we have to remove any loopholes the perpetrator could use. Therefore, at least some of this group of amendments should be seriously considered to be added to the Bill. The less that is in doubt, the better. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot see how guardians are covered in Clause 2, so Amendment 6 is an absolute must to be considered to be put in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, with this group, which comprises Amendments 16 to 19, we turn to the role of the domestic abuse commissioner. I do not want to delay the commissioner-designate being able to drop that suffix—it is a bit tempting to refer to her as “elect”, but that is just what she cannot be.

At Second Reading I referred to the commissioner-designate’s energy and how much she and her team have managed to do without statutory backing. I was surprised to discover that the appointment is on a four days a week basis. That is the formal appointment, at any rate; it must be a challenge to keep to four days, if she does. I have not discussed this with Nicole Jacobs, and I must make it clear that this comes out of my head and is not something she has suggested. I suspect that she is far too professional to have done so in any event. I also suspect that she does not watch the clock. She would say that she knew what she was applying for; I would say that not making it a full-time appointment is mean-minded and gives a message about whether the Government regard the commissioner’s role and work to be as serious as it is. That is certainly not what they want to project.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has had to withdraw from the debate, emailed me when he did so to explain that something had come up that would need his attention. He had previously emailed me to say that he very much agreed with this amendment.

Turning to Amendment 17, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has the word “independent” in her title and so did her predecessor, because that is in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Personnel change and so can attitudes to the role on the part of the Home Secretary. The postholder can obviously change; people move on.

There has not been the same concern as during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act to designate —if I can use that term without it being confusing when used as a verb—the commissioner as independent through the means of the title. Whether that is because the various commissioners over the last few years are all spirited and clearly their own persons, I do not know, but titles are significant. Third parties would be justified in questioning the independence of a postholder so dependent on the Secretary of State as Clause 6 makes her.

Amendments 18 and 19, in my name and that of my noble friend, together amount to the right for the commissioner to appoint her or his own staff. Again, I point to the Modern Slavery Act, under which Section 40 provides that the commissioner may appoint staff—no more, no less. The commissioner will be restricted as to the numbers of staff and their salary levels, because their appointments will all have to be within a budget set by the Secretary of State. However thorough and sensitive the consultation may be when the Secretary of State appoints staff, we believe that the commissioner should be in charge and should be seen to be in charge.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am unclear as to the precise status of the commissioner. I have one key question: is the commissioner the accounting officer for the commission? If I knew the answer, I could either shut up or not proceed with any of the other points I want to make. I am not going to get an answer, but I invite the Minister to give an answer if possible, because it indicates certain things.

Amendment 16 would, it seems, prevent the commissioner taking on any other role which might be relevant or helpful to the role of commissioner. I am not clear as to whether full-time means excluding any other roles.

The whole thrust of Clauses 4, 5 and 6 is a worry because it appears that the Secretary of State wants to pull all the levers. This becomes really clear in Clause 8. I am therefore very sympathetic to the thrust of these amendments and the Minister will have to make a convincing case to avoid my supporting them at another stage. I also note that Refuge is very supportive of this group. Can we have a clear answer on whether the commissioner is the accounting officer for the commission?

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Burt and I have Amendments 24, 25 and 26 in this group. Clause 7(2) sets out the powers that the domestic abuse commissioner can exercise in pursuit of her functions. I read that subsection as not being exhaustive, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that when responding to the debate. I ask because, as I say, subsection (2) is about powers, not functions, and Clause 10 gives the commissioner the usual facilitative—if that is the word—incidental and conducive powers.

In any event, Amendment 24 would include powers relating to perpetrators, including words similar to those in Clause 7(2)(a), which relates to services to people affected by domestic abuse. I appreciate that there are other paragraphs—(c) is one of them—that are not limited to victims, but a specific reference to why people abuse seems appropriate. I think we can agree, since this is a point that has been made by a number of speakers and we will come back to it, that many noble Lords regard this as a crucial issue. I certainly do.

Amendment 26 would extend the power in Clause 7(2)(g). That power as drafted provides for the commissioner being able to co-operate or work jointly with public authorities, voluntary organisations and other persons. We would extend that to making recommendations to voluntary organisations and others. Under Clause 7(2)(b) the commissioner can make recommendations to a public authority. I think that all those to whom recommendations can be made should be included in the clause.

The Bill as drafted regards co-operation and joint working with public authorities as being likely to prompt recommendations—hence the Bill before us— but co-operation and joint working with voluntary organisations are not exactly the same. I would have said it was implicit that recommendations to them could follow, were it not for the distinction in the drafting of the Bill.

Amendment 25 is a consequential bit of drafting. I beg to move.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in the interests of making progress, I have nothing further to add to what the noble Baroness has just said.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

--- Later in debate ---

I would be interested to know whether there is any reason why the Bill, as currently drafted, limits the submission of the report to the Secretary of State or whether there was a position of principle taken as to why it would not be made to Parliament alone. However, I am sure that if this debate were to be held, as it will be if an amendment is carried on Report, I am very confident that Back-Bench Members of the other place will be just as keen as we are in your Lordships’ House to ensure that the report is provided to Parliament as the basis for debate and to ensure the commissioner’s independence from the department and operational independence from the Secretary of State. I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s summing up on this small group.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will not be as brief on this group as I was in the previous group. I very much support Amendments 31, 32 and 48 in the name of my noble friend and I simply do not see why the Secretary of State wants such a controlling role over the commissioner. The first commissioner is clearly a person of substance, and we would expect the successors to be persons of substance. I want to explore a bit of the detail. If we do not have openness and transparency, frankly, we will not engender confidence from the media, opinion formers, legislators or potential victims of domestic abuse. It is pretty crucial. Without openness and transparency, confidence is at risk. Let us think about this because, on Monday evening, the Minister admitted, after one of my questions, that the accounting officer function rests with the Home Secretary, not the commissioner.

In addition to my time at the Food Standards Agency, I worked in six government departments over 12 years, and I can assure noble Lords that, on more than one occasion sitting in on meetings, I heard the words uttered by a person in the room, where there was a dispute going on, “This is an accounting officer function, and this is what I have decided.” In the main, I tended to go along with that: obviously, it was usually the perm sec. It is a killer point to make in any dispute that a department might have with one of its other bodies, and it is not about money. The title is actually not quite right here, because it is the accounting officer who ends up before the Public Accounts Committee—again, accounts—but it looks at the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the function and the role; it does not look just at the pounds, shillings and pence, if I can put it that way.

Then you have to look at the staff. It was agreed by Ministers on Monday that the commissioner’s staff would be Home Office civil servants. It is clear that they will be civil servants, but I have not worked out why they have to be from the Home Office. It ought to be possible for civil servants from across Whitehall to apply to be on the staff of the domestic abuse commissioner. They will be a small group, so will one of them be the legal adviser to the domestic abuse commissioner? Will she have a legal team of her own, made up of Home Office civil servants giving her advice—from the lawyer to the client—about the functions set out in subsection (4)(a) and (b)? Of course, it might be that the budget put together by the Home Secretary does not allow for a legal team for the commissioner, who will then have to make use of the Home Office legal team, which I should imagine is pretty extensive. Where is the client-lawyer relationship when the commissioner might be in dispute with the Home Secretary about what is to be admitted, or not admitted as the case may be?

I freely admit that some of these questions go beyond the clause, but I want to be practical about the situation that will arise if there is a problem. I know nothing about the problems of other commissioners as regards legal disputes. I assume that in most cases the Permanent Secretary of the department will be the accounting officer, so they will have the final word. I can assure noble Lords that it is pretty powerful in Whitehall when other civil servants hear the accounting officer assert their role. I am therefore not sure, if the position is as I have painted it, whether one could use the word “independence” in terms of the domestic abuse commissioner in any way, shape or form, unless some of these amendments are carried forward into the Bill. I will leave it there.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) (V)]

My Lords, it is always good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Even when he speaks for a bit longer than previously, his words are full of expertise and to the point.

When I looked through these amendments, I was particularly attracted to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lord Cormack. I agree that Parliament should be much involved in these reports, so I looked a bit further and noted that Clause (8)(6) states

“The Commissioner must arrange for a copy of any report published under this section to be laid before Parliament.”


I have been listening intently to the debate and trying to find out why, if it is to go before Parliament in any case, according to the Bill, there is a need for the amendment.

I agree that it is down to Parliament to decide whether it is debated, perhaps in a Select Committee, and echo the points made by my noble friend Lord Cormack. On this issue and indeed on so much else, there is so much expertise in your Lordships’ House that it would be meritorious to do that—or indeed on the Floor of either or both Houses. Presumably in previous times it would have been very much for the Government and the business managers to arrange that, but these days in the other place there are various avenues for Select Committee and other reports to be debated. I am not entirely sure whether there is a need for these amendments as such. One thing that comes into all this, I suggest, is that there is always mistrust about why things are being put in. Perhaps subsection (6) could be looked at so that it says something like, “the commissioner must arrange for a copy of any report published under this section to be laid before Parliament at the same time as it is reported to the Secretary of State.” There would be no question of the report being held back from Parliament.

My other point relates to the phrase

“The Secretary of State may direct the Commissioner to omit material”.


My noble friend Lord Cormack was technically correct when he said “censor”, but we might call it redaction because in some cases it would be wise to do that. I cannot imagine that someone with the expertise of the commissioner would do that, but it is there. However, I also note that before the Secretary of State does so, the commissioner has to be consulted. The real point of what we are discussing is independence, as other speakers have said. I echo the concerns I had when we considered the Modern Slavery Act. If I remember correctly, we had to insert the term “independent anti-slavery commissioner” to try to convince people that it was in fact an independent position. However, as we know, the commission relies on the Home Office for its financing, staffing and so on. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said, we will certainly have similar discussions when we come to consider the Environment Bill and the chair of the office for environmental protection.

The calibre of the candidates who will fulfil these roles should mean that they will feel independent. However, if I had a cynical streak—I am afraid to say that it does occur from time to time—I might say that it would probably be better if the commissioner served their term and was not up for reappointment. I cannot help feeling that if someone thinks, “Am I going to be reappointed or not?”, it might just curb some of their exuberance for making comments or giving directions that they feel the Home Office, in this case, would not like.

I remain slightly sceptical about whether these amendments are required and look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says. I have not yet made up my mind about whether, when the Bill comes to Report, I would support some of these amendments if no changes have been made. However, I feel that noble Lords are perhaps being a little too cynical about the intentions in these provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too wish to mention the brilliant introduction to this group of amendments by my noble friend Lady Lister. I was also completely moved by the speech of my noble friend Lady Primarolo, whose experience I shared in the other place.

Universal credit is complex. It came about after I left the House of Commons and I do not do constituency surgeries any more, but is it working well? I think it was in 2018, as what I might call a floating member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments at a time when extra members were needed, that I saw first-hand the inability of the DWP to take on board some of the issues.

I have a very brief cautionary tale about universal credit from first-hand experience. Late last year I received a note from the family of a former constituent. They are in Australia, and they were getting hassle from the DWP about debt relating to a Social Fund loan in 1994. The couple in Australia were informed that they were claiming universal credit and that the debt would be taken from their payments each month. It did not take me long to get that sorted—about a month—but when I thought it was all closed, they received more letters demanding repayments.

The alleged debt was from 1994; they have been in Australia since 2006 and the first contact from the DWP was in 2019. They have never had a loan or been on universal credit. In fact, as I informed the DWP, I suspected that there was an internal fraud going on. This got sorted completely just before Christmas when the DWP confirmed that no claim for universal credit had been made by them or anyone using their details. Interestingly, the DWP said in writing: “Regrettably, it appears to be a system error.” So I do not need any lectures from anyone—I know I am not going to get one from the Minister because I have great respect for her—telling me that all is well with universal credit; to judge by my brief experience of a particular case and my experience on the statutory instruments committee, it clearly is not.

On the points made about the split in the benefit and its construction, it was obviously done in such a way that it is completely out of bounds for anyone fleeing a home because of domestic abuse. I certainly hope these points are going to be taken on board.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have been sitting here working out what on earth I could say that would add meaningfully to this fantastic debate. I particularly commend my noble friend Lady Lister, who has always been a stalwart on these matters.

This has taken me back to the Welfare Reform Bill, as it then was, and the endless but pointed debates we had about the problems that were being stacked up by the system being introduced. I remember that at one stage, the Minister complained that food banks had built up because they were a “free good”—which perhaps reflects a bit on how the system was viewed.

It is time for a fundamental review of the system. We have enough expertise in your Lordships’ House, let alone in the other place. We have heard a good deal of that today and we need to build on that. I hope the Minister will support much of what she has heard from noble Lords today. From my point of view, as someone who is rather out of date on these matters, it has been a privilege to listen to such powerful presentations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It requires the commissioner to use the power under Section 15 of the Bill to help ensure that the children of victims are not further disadvantaged by losing their places on NHS waiting lists by virtue of having to move to escape the abuser. The commissioner must issue the request to every clinical commissioning group and every NHS body she deems necessary, within six months of the Bill coming into law, to co-operate to this effect, and to ensure that it is done within 12 months.

We know that waiting lists can vary from area to area, but the overall effect should be that no child waits longer than they would have in the original area to whose waiting list they were originally referred. On the pre-legislation consultation committee, we heard of children who never get the treatment that they need through having to move areas and losing their place for treatment on NHS waiting lists. This must no longer be allowed to happen. Why should these young victims be made to suffer this?

I hope that on this very simple amendment, the Minister will be able respond in a positive manner. I beg to move.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, but it is not simple. I live in Ludlow, 10 miles from the Welsh border. As far as I can see, this amendment applies only to England. There will be people who live in the north of England, close to the Scottish border. There will be people who seek sanctuary in different places. It is not always something you can control if you are on the move and fleeing. What happens to children who are moved from England to Wales or Scotland, or, in rare but not impossible cases, as I recall from the experiences of my constituents, people who flee back to Northern Ireland?

This looks simple and the aim is absolutely bang on. It must be the case that children do not suffer, but we do not have a national health service, do we? We call it the National Health Service, but it is not national; it is devolved. How do we get around the problem of children who have crossed to one of the devolved Administrations? That is the only point I wish to make on this amendment.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for moving this amendment, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I bring to this amendment my experience as a clinician some time ago in paediatrics—where, sadly, I admitted several abused children who had been caught in a complex cycle of domestic abuse—as well as my later clinical experience.

When children have experienced or witnessed abuse, some of them then move to live with kinship carers, or they move with the escaping parent, often to a different health provider area. They have to start all over again with schooling and health support. They may change GPs or move from one hospital referral list to another. There are waiting lists across the majority of specialty services required for many different types of support and intervention these children may need and for which they have been referred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which my noble friend Lady Armstrong introduced the amendment. I am going to raise only two issues, both of which have already been touched on, so I am not going to go into detail.

I want to raise the issue of who pays, for this simple reason. The amendment puts a duty on the specified authorities and uses the word “must”. The first thing those authorities are going to say to the domestic abuse commissioner is, “You’re ordering me to do this, so you’ve got to pay for it”, in which case it goes back to the Home Office, because it is still the Home Secretary who controls the budget.

A very fair point that has been raised already is that such training ought to be part and parcel of the duties of the authorities concerned anyway, even without this. However, the fact is that imposing a new duty—and, by the way, I agree with the new clause—means that there is still the nitty-gritty about the transfer of funds. Maybe that could be put in the amendment on Report.

The other issue, which has also been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is the police. Say it is 2 am and they are called to a squabble—there is banging, shouting and clattering, and the police turn up. They need to be trained to spot the issues. It can be confusing in the dead of night, maybe with upset children around, to find out what the cause is. They also need to have excellent contacts with trained social workers so that they do not fob them off. So there are some issues here.

I am not certain whether there would be an issue around whether the police force concerned is in a rural or urban area; it is true that the issues vary. But the fact is that, many times, although not the majority, the police will be the first port of call—the first on the case, as it were—and it could be in the middle of the night. They need that vital training, and so do the people they are going to communicate with.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, went into that in greater detail, so I am not going to go further into it. But the finance issue has to be addressed.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of London [V]]

My Lords, I add my voice to those of noble Lords who have welcomed this Bill. I thank the Minister for all her work in this area. As other noble Lords have already said, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address the crime of domestic abuse, which affects more than 2 million people a year in the United Kingdom. However, the Bill continues to overlook one of the most vulnerable groups affected by this form of violence against women and girls—migrant women. I too will address Amendment 154, which calls for the Secretary of State to ensure that the personal data of victims of domestic abuse in the UK is processed only for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance relating to domestic abuse, not for immigration control.

Government policy is clear that victims of crime should be treated without discrimination. Therefore, the separation of immigration enforcement and protection of domestic abuse victims who are migrant women must be delineated. Failure to do this puts migrant women at risk of a double jeopardy of danger from their abuser and fear of deportation. As has already been highlighted, the Istanbul convention, the landmark international treaty on violence against women and girls, which the Government have signed and are committed to ratifying, requires in Articles 5 and 59 that victims are protected regardless of their immigration status.

However, freedom of information requests reveal that 60% of police forces in England and Wales share victims’ details with the Home Office, prioritising immigration control over the victims’ safety and access to justice. While some services may need to share data to ascertain an individual’s immigration status and right to access services—some NHS services for example—there is no legal requirement for any data sharing with the Home Office relating to domestic abuse victims. As we have already heard, without any national policy guidance on this practice the police approach to safeguarding migrant victims of crime will remain inconsistent.

The blind spots in this Bill are resolved by this amendment. Organisations such as the Latin American Women’s Rights Service have been in touch with me to highlight evidence from people whose stories demonstrate the benefits of this amendment. One Ecuadorian woman who came to the UK in 2014 met her partner at work and later came to know how controlling he was and that he continually lied to her about her immigration status. In 2019, violence escalated when she became pregnant. During this time, isolation, emotional abuse and manipulation were exerted in addition to threats of deportation and separation from her child if she reported the abuse to the police. Although she has since received some support from specialist organisations such as the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, she has not yet reported the abuse to the police since she is too fearful of deportation and possible separation from her child.

I fear that this blind spot enables offenders and abusers to use police involvement as a threat to their victims, rather than the source of protection that it should be. Various countries around the world have demonstrated that firewalls can be and are being implemented in different ways to create separation between public services and immigration enforcement. It is entirely possible that the training and cross-sector relationships that we are calling for through this Bill can establish safe reporting pathways that include access to specialist support and legal advice to address a victim’s immigration status as necessary.

One of the other consequences of putting immigration control above the safety of victims is that perpetrators can commit these crimes with impunity. This is a risk not only for survivors but the wider community. Better trust in the police to protect victims of abuse and investigate crime against migrant women will improve responses for all survivors and the public. Like my co-sponsors, I call on the Government to establish safe reporting pathways by incorporating a clear statutory obligation that prevents public authorities and other support services sharing data with the Home Office for the purpose of immigration control. Will the Minister ensure that safe reporting will be established for all women, regardless of their immigration status?

The direction of the Bill is hopeful, and I look forward to the Minister’s response and to discussions with the Government before Report regarding the specific action taken on this amendment.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) (V)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on Amendment 154. I do not want to appear negative, but I had a year at the Home Office dealing with immigration, nationality and citizenship, and while I well understand the pressures on civil servants, I do not think that the Home Office is as trusted as it used to be. We can go back to the hostile environment started by Theresa May which led to Windrush. The Home Office has a long way to go before it builds up trust again. The key thrust of this amendment provides a chance for the Home Office to send a signal to other public bodies that the Home Office is not going to abuse or misuse information on domestic abuse for immigration control purposes. It is bad enough that the staff of the commissioner will be Home Office civil servants, and that the accounting officer for the whole function is still going to be the Home Secretary. The Home Office has some way to go in distancing itself from the misuse of information on domestic abuse for immigration purposes.

I know that civil servants will want to make the system work, but there is a lack of trust and some big moves need to be made to rebuild it. Accepting an amendment such as this would go some way to sending a signal to the police, the immigration authorities, social services and others dealing with domestic abuse and immigration issues to realise that a massive wall has been built between the two. The Bill will fail unless an amendment such as this is accepted.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) (V)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to offer the strong support of the Green group for, and to speak in favour of, the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Meacher. I associate myself with powerful contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, particularly her focus on the Istanbul convention, the importance of which was also highlighted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. All the speakers before me have covered the issue in depth and with clarity and power, so I will be brief.

I begin by noting the widespread support for this Bill from all sides of the House and the Government’s stated commitment to protecting victims of domestic abuse and ensuring that the law does not act as a facilitator of abuse. If ensuring that domestic abuse victims have a route to safety and perpetrators are brought to justice is the highest government priority, they need to ensure that not just those who might be subjected to immigration control but those who might fear being subjected to it, whether rightly or not, are not prevented from accessing the protections. Immigration status is a complex area and we know from the tragedy of Windrush that even citizenship is not always an adequate protection from detention and deportation.

It is not just those who might face immigration controls who need the reassurance of these amendments, but those who fear becoming entangled in the horrors of the Home Office’s hostile environment as a result of reporting abuse or seeking help. They might have no real reason to fear that, but history will tell them that there is cause for concern. We need not only to protect them and make sure they are safe but to ensure, by stating it loudly and clearly in the Bill, that reporting abuse and seeking safety and justice will not entangle them in that hostile environment. This needs to be set out in government publicity so that there is a clear understanding across the community.

--- Later in debate ---

I welcome those amendments, but we come back to the major question asked by my noble friend Lord Kennedy: why have the Government chosen not to specify workplaces directly on the face of the legislation? We want a culture in which workplaces are actively considered, not where they are an afterthought or only occasionally thought about. Work is where we spend the majority of our time, and it is essential for giving victims an independent source of income. The amendments that we have put forward would remove ambiguity and strengthen the Bill, highlighting that domestic abuse is a workplace issue and emphasising the responsibility of employers to protect victims from domestic abuse, at home and in the workplace. I hope that between now and Report the Government will give this further consideration.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I agree entirely with the points made by my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. In some ways I applaud the Government’s amendments, and want to elaborate on one aspect—that of not being restrictive of the location, giving an example regarding education establishments.

Going back a long time to around the early 1990s, I had a couple of constituency cases which might in modern times amount to sheer stalking. The two unconnected complaints from constituents were that the perpetrator—we will use that term—was loitering outside the college where they had gone to do a course. One of them said that she was not really that interested in the course, but it gave her a regular place outside the house, which was good. The perpetrator would loiter on the public highway, particularly at break times, and she said, “He was trying to see if I spoke to anyone, because I am not supposed to speak to anybody other than him.” Now we know more about coercive control and widespread domestic abuse. While the definitions of “educational establishments” or “work” might be a bit tricky, this cannot just be confined to the home, because, as both my noble friends have said, people can leave their home to go to work for financial independence, but my example was of someone who decided to do a course because it was regular and got them out of the home. Because it was a regular place the perpetrator knew where they were going, and therefore that ought to be included when the Minister thinks about this and comes back on Report.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, particularly on this subject. I believe that there is an open door here when talking about the protection of abused people. At Second Reading, I stated that the Domestic Abuse Bill has the potential to deliver a step change in the national response to domestic abuse but that the legislation requires significant change to tackle gaps in the system and ensure equal protection and support for all survivors. I believe that this suite of amendments offers in a small way the opportunity to protect those who have been abused.

I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt, as well as those from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, as they are trying to strengthen the powers for dealing with domestic abuse.

Many people are abused not only at their place of residence but also at their place of work. In many instances, prior to the pandemic, people spent longer at work or an educational institution each day than at home. Strict provisions need to be put in statute to ensure that the person who is abused feels safe and is protected. If they have children at home, they should also be protected and should not be exposed to the type of abuse levelled at their mother, or be caught up in the tension that the abuse engenders. In particular, I refer to the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which seek to ensure that those who make domestic abuse protection orders have discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.

In many cases, the perpetrator will also seek out the person they wish to abuse, whether a former partner or an existing partner, in their place of work. I have some direct experience, involving an employee, of where the legislation was too weak. A lady who was a cleaner for us was deeply frightened and obviously did not wish to talk about it. The person carrying out the abuse stalked her place of work, waiting for her to go into and come out of work, and was quite intrusive when we were dealing with constituents who came into the office. Noble Lords can imagine that that type of abuse was levelled not only at his partner but at other people. The nature of the cleaner’s work meant that she worked in other places, and he followed her there and waited outside those houses until she came out. She was therefore continuously abused at her places of work. People in these circumstances deserve full protection under the provisions that may be made by the notices, and careful attention must be given to further provisions in the requirements that may be imposed by orders.

The Minister’s amendment, Amendment 75, while important and a welcome development, should include the workplace. I have no doubt that my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt will return to this issue on Report, when I shall be very happy to support them. Perhaps in winding up, the Minister can open the door further and accept these amendments as a means of trying to protect the abused person in the workplace and in educational establishments and to stamp out that level of heinous abuse.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

Whereas I was very happy to support it—I will be interested to hear other speakers, notably the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who I know has extensive experience, and my noble friend the Minister—perhaps we can look at nuance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said; some way of amending or making sure that, in the instructions to the courts, the presumption that they can disapply is recognised a bit more formally.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, my quick message to Hansard is that they can tear up the note I sent earlier. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has just made the speech I decided to make having listened to the debate. I do not propose to repeat what he said, save for the fact that the general thrust of his conclusion as a lay person is the same one I have come to. I read the briefings, considered the issue and listened to my noble friend Lord Rosser; I was then surprised when listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. As the debate went on, I started to have second thoughts. This is the benefit of Committee—that is what it is for. The idea can be taken away and reworked.

I will raise one point from one of the briefings, from Support Not Separation and Women Against Rape, which quoted the harm review. They said they found a pattern of bias in the court professionals which gave weight to the views of the child who wanted contact but dismissed the views of the child who did not. That is extremely worrying.

However, having come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I will leave it there.

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

My Lords, I view this amendment, which is in two parts, with some concern. To a very large extent, I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.

When I was President of the Family Division—and throughout the 35 years I was a family judge—I heard a great many cases which had some element of domestic abuse. I do not like presumptions, if they can be avoided. I remember that, when the amended Section 1(2A) was introduced while I was a Member of this House, I was very dubious about it, because I do not like presumptions. The important point of the Children Act is Section 1, which says that

“the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”

Any family judge or magistrate has to look at all the circumstances and decide whether it is appropriate, in those circumstances, for both parents to have a relationship with the child after their separation. In normal circumstances, one takes it for granted that both parents will have a relationship, but there will be cases in which there should not be one.

I am not quite so concerned about the first part of Amendment 130, because it says that subsection (2A) shall not apply in situations which have affected the child. Even so, it should be a matter where the welfare of the child is paramount and the judge exercises his or her discretion, having come to a conclusion based on all the facts.

I am particularly opposed to the second part of Amendment 130: the restrictions on Section 9. This is, first, because it does not require domestic abuse to have affected the child. Other points have been made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with which I entirely agree, but I can see circumstances where a child was for one reason or another—possibly at boarding school or away on holiday—not present when there was domestic abuse between the parents, and the child had no knowledge of it. In those circumstances, it would not be inappropriate for the child to have unsupervised contact with a parent who had done absolutely nothing wrong to the child but who may have been involved in a single or unusual circumstance which could be classified as domestic abuse of the other parent.

This draconian proposal that Section 9 be restricted is inappropriate, although I entirely understand and share the concerns about the parents—mothers as well as fathers—who have been given unsupervised contact where there are issues of domestic abuse which are true, where the children are then killed. That is extremely sad; there should be adequate training of all judges and/or magistrates trying family cases. It may be more important to get the Ministry of Justice to discuss with the Judicial College and the President of the Family Division whether the training of judges and magistrates in issues of domestic abuse, to which I shall refer on the next group, should be improved. I will later refer to a useful case in the Court of Appeal which has been discussing this.

I am completely opposed to the second part of Amendment 130. I am sympathetic to what lies behind it, but I believe there should be a broader consideration of whether, where the welfare of the children must be paramount, there should be any presumptions of any sort—but certainly not in the way this has been drafted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Helic (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I intend to focus mainly on Amendment 133, which is in my name. Like the other amendments in this group, which I support, it is trying to make sure that the courts protect survivors of domestic abuse from further harm. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his support on this amendment and for his leadership on the others, and I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friends Lady Newlove and Lady Bertin for their contributions. I have learned a lot from them.

I approach this debate humbly. I am not a legal expert and I have not had what is called “a lived experience”. My intervention is informed by many cases I have come across, in particular the case of a close friend whose experience at the hands of a judge and experts lacking domestic violence training has been traumatic, painful and unjust. I also want to put on the record the work of the London Victims’ Commissioner’s office and Women's Aid, from whom I have learned an enormous amount.

The Ministry of Justice review into the risk of harm in family court cases involving domestic violence, which concluded in June last year, found serious systemic issues. Despite good intentions, domestic abuse allegations are being overlooked, misunderstood and dismissed. Survivors and their children are being put at risk as a result, something which I have heard about directly from survivors. To quote one survivor who spoke to Women’s Aid and Queen Mary University of London:

“All professional witnesses supported me but despite overwhelming evidence, the judge said that I didn’t fit the profile of domestic violence victims as I wasn’t scared enough. Also I was too educated and knowledgeable to allow DV to happen to me.”


This runs against everything we know about domestic abuse and the damage it does.

I am afraid that underpinning this is a lack of judicial understanding. This is not a criticism of individual judges; they face tremendous challenges, given the complexity of domestic abuse cases and the way that society’s awareness and understanding of domestic abuse has improved in recent years. But, unfortunately, the family courts’ approach to domestic abuse remains much the same as 20 years ago, and the system is stacked against the survivor because of both the pro-contact culture of the courts and the intersecting structural disadvantages women experiencing domestic abuse face within then.

If we want to change the practice and culture of the courts so that they truly put the best interests of the child at heart, they need to work at the cutting edge of our understanding of domestic abuse and its harms, not years behind, and, for that, specialist training is absolutely crucial.

We have already heard several times in Committee about the need for better training. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, discussed judicial training, while Amendment 53 looked at the issue from another angle. Among those calling for improvements from outside are Women’s Aid and the London Victims’ Commissioner. The Government have also recognised the importance of training. The Ministry of Justice review panel recommended

“training for all participants in the family justice system”,

and I was heartened to hear my noble friend Lady Williams agree that judicial training needs to be revisited. I hope that she and my noble friend Lord Wolfson will be receptive to this amendment.

Domestic abuse affects all aspects of a family court case. It shapes how participants present at court, the evidence they give and how they give it, and it is a critical factor in determining the interests at stake and how safe child contact is arranged. However, as is recognised in the Bill, domestic abuse has a wide range of impacts and requires a wide-ranging, intersectional understanding. Mandatory training, delivered by domestic abuse specialists, will ensure that judges at all levels are much better equipped to understand the effects of domestic abuse and how to respond to it. As such, it will support and make possible the implementation of all aspects of the Bill. I note also that similar training is required for sexual violence, although that remains outside the scope of the Bill.

By stipulating that the training should be developed in consultation with the domestic abuse commissioner, we can ensure that it truly teaches current best practice and is aligned with national and specialist efforts to tackle abuse. As our understanding of domestic abuse improves, the courts will not, and should not, be left behind.

My focus so far has been on judicial training, but perhaps the real importance of the amendment is that it goes further than that, extending not just to members of the judiciary but to any Cafcass employees, social workers or appointed experts advising the court. That is why this amendment is so necessary. The Judicial College could offer better training for judges without it, but that is not enough.

Expert witnesses rightly play an important role in advising and guiding the family courts, but of course they do not have a thorough understanding of every field or every issue. Many expert witnesses, whose opinions might be crucial in shaping a court’s decision, are not experts in domestic abuse at all. They are not well placed to advise on whether domestic abuse is taking place or on what its impact might be.

Training which gives a full picture of domestic abuse—the context, the impact and how to respond—is therefore necessary in order that experts in our courts have a full picture of the situations they advise on. It will make them more aware of the risks and more attuned to the harm that could be inflicted. It will help implement the recommendations identified by the Ministry of Justice review, which called for training for all participants, including a cultural change programme and a multidisciplinary approach across all agencies and professionals. The result will be better processes for survivors and, crucially, better outcomes for children.

One survivor who contacted me recently described how Cafcass does not see her as a victim of domestic abuse because there are no broken bones or scars and because she seems like a strong and capable woman. But, as we all know, and as the Bill recognises, domestic abuse takes many more forms than just the worst manifestations of violence. It is no good changing our legislation to reflect that if we do not change practice as well. That requires training, and that is why we need this amendment.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. I will speak to Amendments 131, 132, 133, and 136. I shall not go back to my time in the Commons, when I dealt with some cases in a personal way.

I have had the benefit of a briefing from someone who has sat as a court independent domestic violence adviser and has what I will call direct, hands-on street experience and remains involved in the wider processes. She has worked in the voluntary sector and in law enforcement, so her experience comes from both sides.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I wish to speak in support of Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bertin and others.

I have long supported the view—also held by the Local Government Association—calling for the Government to introduce a national domestic abuse perpetrator strategy. It is clear that the right interventions at the right time can stop abuse occurring, recurring or escalating. According to the organisation Respect, there are around 400,000 perpetrators causing high and medium levels of harm across England and Wales, and yet only a small percentage of these—fewer than 1%—get the specialist intervention that might prevent future abusive behaviour.

The strategy should focus on community-level initiatives and communication campaigns for those seeking help and let them know where to access such help. Perpetrator interventions need to be responsive to the cultural context in which they are delivered. Programmes for children and young people are also needed to ensure that they are appropriately educated about domestic abuse and that prevention starts at the earliest stage. These programmes should also be available for those excluded from mainstream school. Some consideration should also be given to accommodation for perpetrators. This is an important aspect of helping the domestic abuse victim to remain in their own home, if it is safe to do so, and ensuring that the perpetrator leaves.

I am pleased to have added my voice to others emphasising to government the urgent need to produce a much-needed perpetrator strategy.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating both my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, on the way that they introduced this group of amendments. The examples that they gave to illustrate their points were horrendous by any stretch of the imagination.

My noble friend Lord Hunt’s point about the need for a cultural change is significant. I have looked at some of the figures that have been published; I do not wish to repeat them in detail, but the numbers of people involved are phenomenal. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also gave a very stark example. I understand and accept that the role of the police has changed in recent years; I know in particular that it is taken incredibly seriously by the part of the police family which with I am familiar in the West Midlands.

I do not want to repeat what others have said, but my central point relates to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, regarding Amendment 167; I agree entirely with their thrust and indeed support them. She mentioned that the overall costs were thought to be something like £66 billion and that there was a need for funding—probably £600 million. The point I want to make is that in order to have a strategic government approach, you must break the Whitehall silos.

This takes me back. I am not going back to the good old days, but I can remember when, in 1997, along with many others, I entered government after decades in opposition. We made an attempt, over a range of issues, to try to work across Whitehall, and it is not easy to break the silos. It has to be driven by ministerial commitment; it has to be known that the Minister at the top—in fact, the Prime Minister really, when you come down to it—has a bang-on, full-hearted commitment to something because that can be used to drive from the top. In both my first and second departments, when I was still in the House of Commons —first MAFF and then DSS; two very different departments—I can remember occasions when bright and, I will say, youngish civil servants moved from the department to go to work at some of the cross-departmental units that had been set up. One reason was that they saw the benefit of working in those units in terms of their career and promotion prospects and an enhanced role in the Civil Service—they were committed to the issues; this is not in any way a criticism of the individuals concerned—simply because of the drive to get cross-departmental work going and to break the silos. I realise that over the years, more particularly towards the latter end of the Labour Government years, things fell by the wayside. It does not mean that it cannot be rebuilt.

I would encourage the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and others, and the Ministers as well, to learn from experience. You do not have to reinvent the wheel. There are people around with experience—there are of course ex-heads of the Civil Service in your Lordships’ House who would fully take on board the points that I am making. You have to build a strategy that crosses the silos and breaks them down. If you do not do that, it will not work. That is what will filter to the cross-departmental work and indeed the cross-agency work outside government at other levels.

My central message, based on my own experience where I can see how things have worked in the past and indeed how they have not worked—I have examples I could use where it has not been successful—is on this issue of the silos and the cross-departmental working in Whitehall. The effect on civil servants is absolutely fundamental to success. I hope that this can be taken on board. I know that the Home Office Ministers have been very receptive on a range of legislation recently, but this has to permeate right across Whitehall.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the comprehensive opening by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He and every other noble Lord who has spoken have stressed the urgent need to overhaul and broaden our perpetrator strategy.

Amendment 164 from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, would correct a very obvious deficiency in the Bill and in our current arrangements for protecting potential victims from known perpetrators who present serious risks to those they may prey on in future, notably women with whom they form new relationships, but sometimes men, when those new partners know little or nothing of their past offending and nothing of the risk they take by being with them.

However, it is not always new partners who may be threatened. Serial stalkers threaten victims they hardly know but who still stand to be harassed by them in life-destroying ways. We know how stalking offences, which may not cause physical harm, can cause long-lasting and sometimes permanent psychological damage. Happy, untroubled lives can easily be reduced to anxious existence only, with work, travel and lives at home overshadowed by ever-present fear.

The case for this amendment is as clear as could be. There can be no argument against including domestic abuse offenders and stalkers in the arrangements already in place under the 2003 Act for serious sexual and violent offenders, including MAPPA. But these arrangements badly need enhancing, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others have explained, by establishing MAPPA-plus.

A central part of the system is the violent and sex offender register, ViSOR, a national database that enables agencies to register offenders, to carry out risk assessments and keep them up to date, and to manage and keep track of offenders. It is important that the register is national because offenders travel. It has been far too easy in the past for offenders to leave one area and set up home in another, where they are unknown to the police and manage to commit appalling repeat offences, without warning lights ever flashing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]]

My Lords, like others, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on championing the rights of older people over so many years. I will speak in support of Amendments 165 and 166.

At Second Reading, I highlighted the ONS statistics showing that in 2017, when it comes to older victims, more than 200,000 people aged 60 to 74 experienced domestic abuse in England and Wales. One in four victims of domestic homicide are over the age of 60. Age UK argues that older victims are systematically overlooked, suggesting that an older person being physically or mentally abused by their adult child or grandchild, family member or spouse of 50-plus years is far less likely to be recognised for who they are—a victim. It is a well-known fact that, in the UK, women regularly outlive men. As a result, they are often more vulnerable, living on their own and frail.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, highlighted the work of Hourglass, formerly Action on Elder Abuse. Its recent polling, conducted during the pandemic last year, showed that the number of calls related to the abuse of older people by a neighbour doubled. Meanwhile, 38% of calls in the first six months of 2020 related to sons or daughters as the perpetrators. Hourglass also reports that financial abuse is the most common type of abuse reported to its helpline, making up 40% of calls in 2019. These facts only reinforce the importance of these two amendments.

Amendment 165 is needed because financial assessment is an important marker and access point where potential abuse can be identified. Amendment 166 will ensure powers equal to those tried and tested across the border in Scotland and is an important safeguard for all, including older victims. How we treat our vulnerable is a reflection of our society and the elderly, like the very young, are among the most vulnerable. We need a zero-tolerance attitude to abuse, whatever the age of those involved, and must work hard to protect the vulnerable and support the many hidden victims of such crimes.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too pay many congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I mean this in the most polite way possible: during our time in opposition in the 1980s and 1990s, when I spoke on social services from the Front Bench—in other words, a long time ago—Sally was always there with helpful briefings. She has massive expertise and real hands-on experience of these issues.

I support both amendments in principle. I could quibble, as one or two others have done, about some of the detail, but they are both to be supported in principle, because this is an untapped area. In respect of Amendment 165’s provision for

“carrying out a financial assessment for adult social care”,

no one has yet mentioned that the person concerned—the older person—may well be the owner of the property. They may not be living in the property of their children or grandchildren. I can remember one occasion when a residential home in my former constituency was going to be closed. All the residents had to be assessed as to whether they might need nursing care, residential care or supported care. It was found that something like 10% of them could go off and live independently. What social services told me was: “We don’t know why they were there in the first place”. They had effectively been dumped by their families in order to get their hands on property.

All kinds of issues are involved here, not just, as some noble Lords have implied, the frustration due to the actual burden of caring. It would be quite valid if, where there is a suspicion, it is reported. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, talked about worries over being reported to social services or the police. The fact is that if there is good multi-agency working at local level, and the police were contacted first, you would expect them to say to social services, “Could you run the rule past this one?” In other words, it ought to be a multi-agency approach and it should not matter where the first contact is made. There ought to be a local procedure, and there should be no problem about worrying whether the police are contacted first.

As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s explanation of why it works well, as one assumes, in Scotland and Wales and cannot work in England. I was amazed when I looked at the amendment originally, to be honest, by the implication that social workers did not have the power of entry, so I checked that. I understand the problems of PACE from my other activities and my interests in the food industry.

There is an issue where a professional has reasonable grounds for believing abuse may be taking place. First, it ought to be reported and secondly, if need be, access ought to be given. It seems quite simple: those two issues are not part and parcel of what goes on at present, and we require legislation to deal with it. If legislation is required to make the system work and protect older people from such abuse, then so be it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will be quick, partly because noble Lords have already said almost everything there is to say about this, but also because it seems so obvious. These quite simple amendments would bring us up to date with other Administrations and it seems sensible to accept them.

Statutory reporting is an important tool, which we do not make enough of at the moment. Domestic abuse, child sexual abuse and other hidden crimes often arouse at least some level of suspicion and we need what was called earlier “the professional curiosity” to kick in, so that perhaps more will be reported. Whether that suspicion is noted by a social worker, teacher, or bin man, it should trigger a process of reporting and investigation that could lead to survivors being supported and perpetrators facing justice. Far too many cases go unreported at the moment, because it is too easy to pigeon-hole these human tragedies as “not my job” or “above my pay grade”, or simply because people do not know where to turn.

Implementing statutory reporting will lead to every individual understanding their role in tackling domestic abuse and require the authorities to put the process in place to deliver. This could matter more and more with our aging population. This abuse could happen more frequently, so these provisions would be needed with increased frequency. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, hugely for bringing these two amendments forward and look forward to returning to them on Report.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

It seems that the administrative processes for DWP officials may stymie our hopes of securing this period of grace, but perhaps we can be assured that the alternative route of using the DHP option will be facilitated by the Government recommending that local authorities prioritise these cases, and by enhanced liaison between local authorities and DWP Jobcentre Plus offices. The problem will not go away just because it is administratively inconvenient. We believe that Ministers are sympathetic to the approach that the amendment puts forward, and we hope the Minister today can offer us some hope that it can be resolved.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I was going to pass a short comment on each of the amendments because I agree with them all, but I will confine myself to Amendment 10.

I hope the Minister has taken on board the central point that my noble friend Lady Lister made: the social security system is undermining the processes and procedures in the Bill. We do not have joined-up government. It is terrible, really, because I have come across this several times. In 2001 I moved, after two years at the DSS, to the Home Office. It did not take me long, bearing in mind my responsibilities at the Home Office, to work out that we were not really joined-up at all. That was 20 years ago, and the situation does not seem to have improved at all. It is the problem of working in silos and allowing the DSS—or the DWP, as it is now—to use the administrative route out that is causing a problem, and there is no doubt that there is a solution.

The fact is that research from Refuge has shown that—I have to say I am astonished at this figure— 1.6 million adults have seen their experience of economic abuse start during the pandemic. We need some serious amendments to the universal benefits system; that is the priority.

The single payments are clearly open to abuse by perpetrators. As my noble friend said, it would not take long for a person to work out why their money had gone down: they would know that their partner’s had gone up and they would start to ask about the reasons. I understand that, some two years ago, the DWP said that it would encourage joint claimants to nominate a bank account for the main carer of the children in the house. But, while I am nowhere near an expert, I have seen no evidence that that advice has been followed, let alone effective. I simply do not believe that separate payments are impractical. It is all very well to claim that many couples manage their finances jointly, but that is not the case. We all know that it is not the case for millions of women who are experiencing economic abuse.

Amendment 10 is very reasonable, although I note that the Local Government Association wants a parliamentary inquiry. I do not think that that is the route here. On balance, I would favour the route set out in the amendment through the commissioner, with resources; it is more precise and it has a time limit, and it would not be side-tracked by other pressures on elected Members in the Select Committees. There is an argument there, but I do not accept the LGA view. This route would be a much better one.

As I said, I agree with the other amendments and do not propose to say again what I said in Committee. While it is not for me, and probably not for my noble friend, to say, frankly, there should be a vote on one or more of these amendments on Report to buttress the pressure and the force that the Minister could take back to the department—or even better, take back to the Government—to seek a joined-up solution. If it is just a question of the House having a little debate but there is no pressure, I fear that very little will happen.

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

My Lords, I agree with these amendments and in particular with what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has just said. However, I want to concentrate on Amendment 68, and I declare an interest as the chairman of the National Commission on Forced Marriage. I am not asking for comments on forced marriage to be put into the Bill on Report, but I want to see it in the statutory guidance. When looking at Amendment 68, I think it is very important that an assessment should be made of the impact of social security reforms by the relevant government department. There is a group of young people whose needs must be assessed in the social security reforms: those who are being forced into marriage—they are usually coerced. They include, in particular—this is what I am concerned about—those who are aged under 18. I hope that they can be taken into account when the impact of these policies is taken into account.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 15th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to give maximum support to my noble friend Lady Royall, but in effect to all speakers, since I have not heard anything that I disagree with.

I have four short points to make. First, I was very struck that buried in the short but useful briefing from the London Assembly was a warning that carrying on on a more casual, non-statutory basis does not work. It points out that in London from January to November 2019, the current domestic abuse protection order was used in only 0.5% of domestic abuse offences recorded by the Metropolitan Police. So the warning is that we have these well-intentioned tools but they are not used by the police or magistrates. I was very struck by a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, in her powerful speech, and it is a warning to the Minister: saying “We’ll do it” but then not doing it makes the position far worse. It is a question of resources in finance and of course in will, and that is a crucial point that has to be made.

Secondly, I share the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, having read the briefing from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust about domestic and non-domestic stalking. As the previous speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, Amendment 73 probably does not go far enough.

Thirdly, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath made a point about the numbers affected each week, but we also have to remember not just what happened last week and what has happened since the Bill came into your Lordships’ House, but the fact that we know for certain that by the end of this week another two females will have been murdered.

Fourthly, regarding perpetrators, we have heard the range of examples that noble Lords and noble Baronesses have given. Now I know this might be classed as fanciful because it is not correct, but I ask the Minister to think of perpetrators as an organised perpetrators’ grouping. I know they are not and there would be very little evidence for it, but there is a pretty consistent pattern, not only over some cases but over many years, as if they were such a group. If they were treated as an organised perpetrators’ group by Parliament, the Home Office and law enforcement then by now we would be having strategic views, risk management and people’s names on registers in the same way as with existing registers. We would really be toughening it up. I would take that as a starting point for the debate today, not a finishing point.

As I said originally, I do not disagree with anything I have heard today and I give my full support to these two amendments, both verbally and if they are pushed to a vote.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

And so, my Lords, we come to tail-end Charlie. What is probably not obvious to those listening or watching today’s proceedings who are not around the Palace of Westminster is that they have been taking place with the sound of helicopters circling almost ceaselessly. I think that is because a group of people who feel strongly about what we are discussing, some of whom may even have been on Clapham Common on Saturday evening, have decided to come to Parliament Square today while we are having this discussion, and I suspect while another place is beginning to talk about the policing Bill, to voice their concern and—in a respectful way, I am sure—are trying to demonstrate how strongly they feel about this issue.

What an irony that we have a female Home Secretary and a female head of the Metropolitan Police, and that it was a female assistant commissioner who, under huge pressure, took a decision on Saturday evening that with the benefit of hindsight she may possibly regret. The evidence around the country of demonstrations taking place where the police decided to be judicious and hold back is that they seem to have gone off without event, while the two that I have heard of—one in London and one in Brighton—where the police decided to take a different decision have ended badly. I hope lessons have been learned from that.