Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief, not least because of the happy coincidence that the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Polak, have largely said what I was going to say. I thank them. I can now go and have a late lunch.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Polak, I was impressed by the Barnardo’s press release last Thursday, with all the different voices speaking in unison. My own experience of dealing with voluntary organisations over many years is that hell hath no fury like different voluntary organisations in pursuit of similar goals and, in particular, similar pools of funding. Peace seems rather dangerously to have broken out in this case. I hope it will continue.

I thank the Government for listening. It was a bit of a no-brainer with a Bill in which 25% of the accommodation-based services for domestic abuse victims were dealt with but 75% were not. That was an open goal waiting to be filled. I am grateful that the Government have acknowledged this and acted on it.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I took note of the National Audit Office investigation and report into the state of local authority funding. I have observed a variety of individuals in this House—some of whom I have worked in co-operation with—who, for the best of reasons, ceaselessly plead with the Government to put more and more statutory duties on local authorities in a whole variety of different areas. In a sense, this is dangerous because, in a situation where local authorities are under the strains and stresses that they are, piling even more statutory duties or guidance on them runs the risk of mission failure and initiative fatigue. I am very conscious of this. It requires a joined-up approach from the different parts of Her Majesty’s Government.

The Home Office is doing its bit. The Ministry of Justice is going to do what may not come easily to it and talk more openly with the communities department —and vice versa. It was not terribly helpful that the Secretary of State, while acknowledging the councils’ problems, could not resist the political dig of accusing them of poor management. This is a bit rich coming from a national Administration who have spent the amount of money they have on initiatives such as test and trace, or who have presided over the highest number of deaths per million in the world during the current pandemic. Before one starts throwing political missiles at one’s opponents, it does one a lot of good to look in the mirror and have a degree of humility. None of us gets it right all the time.

When the domestic abuse commissioner comes back with her recommendations, I would plead with the various parts of national government and the local authorities to talk to one another, agree, buy into whatever is recommended, and put in place properly thought-through, long-term plans to deliver on this strategy and to fund it properly.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, government Amendment 17 requires the domestic abuse commissioner to prepare and publish a report on

“the need for domestic abuse services in England, and … the provision of such services.”

The report must be published no later than 12 months after this new clause comes into force.

Other government amendments require local authorities to keep under review the impact of the duty to provide accommodation-based services on their provision of other domestic abuse services in the community.

Amendment 30, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, makes it clear that the public authority may not prioritise accommodation-based support services for persons with a protected characteristic over other support services for the same person, except in so far as those persons have a greater need for accommodation-based services than for other support services.

Amendment 31 would give the Secretary of State power through regulations to extend the duty in Part 4 to include community services, instead of just accommodation-based services. I agree with the points made and the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in his powerful contribution.

Amendments 85 and 86 in my name are the community service amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Polak, re-tabled. We tabled them pending sight of the Government’s specific commitments and amendments. I will not move them. Like others in the House and outside, we welcome the Government’s amendments and commitment to consult on community-based services as part of the consultation on the victims law. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and to other noble Lords, as well as to all the organisations which have worked on this issue. I also pay tribute to the shadow Minister in the Commons, Jess Phillips, who pursued the proper provision for community-based services with some vigour and determination during the Bill’s passage through the other House.

We now need to see the Government’s words and commitments translated into real progress and meaningful action. The key to achieving this is for services, victims and perpetrators to be looked at holistically; to see what needs to be done in the round to prevent abuse, and to support victims who experience it. This also means providing services for children who are victims, for older victims and for perpetrators, as well as ensuring that there are specialist services for black and ethnic minority victims. Healthcare services are also vital.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I expressed my concern in Committee at the proposal to abandon the presumption in subsection (2A) of the Children Act 1989 where there has been domestic abuse that has affected the child or the other parent. My concern was then, as it is now, that under the Children Act the welfare of the child must be the court’s paramount consideration.

The presumption requires courts, when making orders about arrangements for children, including their living arrangements and arrangements for contacts, to ensure that

“unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare”.

That presumption is supported by a great deal of evidence that for children to maintain a relationship with both their parents following a breakdown of the parents’ relationship is generally in their best interests. The presumption has stood the test of time. It serves to remind custodial and non-custodial parents in entirely non-abusive relationships that have nevertheless broken down that their responsibility is to try to help their children to maintain relationships with the other, non-residential parent.

But the presumption is rebuttable, hence the words

“unless the contrary is shown”.

In many cases involving domestic abuse, judges will not order contact, because the best interests of the child will not be met by their making an order for contact. That covers the cases that I suspect the noble Baronesses, Lady Uddin and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, are worried about.

However, as I attempted to demonstrate in Committee, there may be cases where acts of abuse should not lead to the conclusion that contact should be cut. In some cases, the child will have not witnessed, known about or been put at risk by an act of abuse, which may have been a completely isolated act, committed against its parent. I am reluctant to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because I so rarely do, but I do on this occasion. I understand her concern and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, to ensure that children are protected from the harm of unsuitable and often dangerous contacts, but to provide that protection is the job of judges. It is not the task of Parliament to make absolutist rules that treat all cases where allegations of abuse are made in the same way. Judicial discretion in these cases should be left as it is, exactly for the reasons advanced by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

I also do not accept that the proposed new subsection (4) should pass into law. It would provide that no court should make an order for unsupervised contact with a parent who is, broadly, facing proceedings for a domestic abuse offence, is involved in a fact-finding hearing for a domestic abuse offence or who has a criminal conviction for such an offence. There are two points that are conclusive against such a clause. First, in the circumstances of paragraphs (a) to (c) in the proposed new subsection (8) of Section 9 of the Children Act, there would have been no finding of guilt of domestic abuse. The presumption of innocence has to apply, a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. A judge hearing a contact application should not be barred by a statutory prohibition from making a finding of fact and an order after hearing evidence if they take the view that the welfare of the child would be best served by making such an order for contact, just because there is a statutory prohibition that operates without a finding of fact.

Secondly, this suggested prohibition would not be limited to cases where the alleged offending party is said to have been involved in domestic abuse against either the child or its other parent, so it would forbid a contact order between the prohibited parent and a child from an entirely different relationship. A court would be forbidden from making an order for contact with a child from a father’s relationship with a former partner, with whom a good relationship had been maintained by him and by the child, because of an allegation of domestic abuse lodged by a subsequent partner. Such an absolute prohibition would be wrong, and I cannot support it.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the proposed new clause in this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would disapply the presumption that parental involvement furthers a child’s welfare in cases where there has been domestic abuse. It would also prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial or on bail for domestic abuse offences where there are ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse or where the parent has a criminal offence for domestic abuse. I moved a similar amendment in Committee which did not receive the backing of a number of speakers in the debate or of the Minister.

In his response in Committee, the Minister said:

“I have a great deal of sympathy for the aims of these amendments, and I agree that more needs to be done to ensure that the courts take proper account of the impact that domestic abuse can have on children’s well-being and safety.”


He went on to say that

“following the recommendations from the Expert Panel on Harm in the Family Courts, the Government launched a review on the presumption of parental involvement”

which

“will focus on the presumption … and the impact on children’s welfare of the courts’ application of these provisions.”

He argued that it would

“be premature to amend the legislation relating to the presumption … before gaining the in-depth evidence from the review.”—[Official Report, 3/2/21; col. 2222.]

However, we should not forget that Women’s Aid’s Nineteen Child Homicides documents the cases of 19 children in 12 families who were killed in circumstances relating to child contact by a father who was the perpetrator of domestic abuse. The Expert Panel on Harm in the Family Courts said that it had

“received sufficient evidence to conclude that in the cohort of cases described in submissions the presumption further reinforces the procontact culture and detracts from the court’s focus on the child’s individual welfare and safety.”

The report also states:

“The panel is clear, however, that the presumption should not remain in its present form.”


There is thus some clear and, indeed, tragic evidence that the present arrangements relating to the presumption of parental involvement as opposed to solely what is in the best interests of the child, including its welfare and safety, are just not delivering the protections they should. However, in the light of the concerns expressed by some noble Lords in Committee, which have been repeated today, and the current review of the presumption of parental involvement, we did not put down the amendment for Report. Instead, we will continue to pursue this issue outside the discussions and debates on the Bill.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has explained, Amendment 42 seeks to disapply the presumption found in the Children Act—that parental involvement furthers the child’s welfare—when there has been domestic abuse that has affected the child or the other parent.

The amendment also seeks to prohibit unsupervised contact by a parent in a number of different circumstances: when they are on bail awaiting trial; when there are ongoing criminal proceedings for a domestic abuse offence; when a fact-finding hearing concerning domestic abuse allegations is pending; and when domestic abuse is proven in such a fact-finding hearing or as a result of a criminal conviction for a domestic abuse offence.

In Committee, many noble Lords spoke passionately about the presumption of parental involvement and gave a number of examples of unsupervised contact leading to tragic results in cases which involved domestic abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, reminded us of some of them this evening. As I said in Committee, I have significant sympathy for the aims of this amendment and agree that more needs to be done to ensure that the courts are taking proper account of the impact domestic abuse can have on children’s well-being and safety. That is why this Government, in November 2020, following the recommendations from the Expert Panel on Harm in the Family Courts, launched a review of the presumption of parental involvement. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, referred to the harm panel’s report, but it is important to acknowledge that the panel did not call for immediate legislative change, despite hearing evidence from more than 1,200 parties. Instead, the panel recommended that a full review be undertaken by the Government, and that is precisely what we are doing.

In my respectful view, the panel was right to do so because, as the debate in Committee demonstrated, this is a complex and nuanced issue, with a significant real-world impact for the thousands of families who go through the family courts every year. That review will focus on the application of the provision and its exceptions, and the impact on children’s welfare of the courts’ application of those provisions. Through the review, we will develop a strong evidence base and ensure that any changes brought about as a result of it are rooted in a solid understanding of the effect of the presumption and the associated evidence on child welfare. I remain of the view that it would be premature to amend the Children Act in the way proposed by the amendment before gaining the in-depth evidence and response from the review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak. I was delighted to see the Minister’s name on Amendment 45 and the consequential Amendments 88, 89 and 96. That is three times that I have been delighted today so I do not quite know what is going on. I welcome the extension of “personally connected” in the context of coercive control to family members or people who have been in an intimate relationship, whether living together or not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about how important training for police and professionals is in the implementation phase. As several noble Lords have said, a lot of individuals who are being coercively controlled do not know or appreciate that fact. It is a bit like the story of the frog in the beaker where the water gets heated more and more, very gently, and the frog does not realise that it is trapped until it is too late. It really makes a difference if other people can recognise what is going on, perhaps even before the victim themselves.

Post-separation abuse is a terrible thing. Having thought that you had escaped the abuse but then realising that you are being dragged back and dragged down financially and emotionally takes a toll. We have heard a number of examples of just how awful that is, so I cannot say just how happy I am.

We have been pushing the boundaries somewhat regarding the definition of “personally connected” in several contexts. I will talk about disabled people in a second but, with regard to family members or people who have been in an intimate relationship, whether or not they are living together, I am glad that the Minister has listened. I am sure that is right, and the Bill will be stronger for it.

Amendments 46 and 47 extend the definition to the relationship between a disabled person and their carer. We had this discussion on Monday, so I will not repeat the arguments that were used then, but I was disappointed by the Minister’s response. The House showed its concerns and feelings, and I hope that the Minister takes them into account in her remarks, but also takes the opportunity to have another think before Third Reading and the Bill goes back to the House of Commons.

We strongly need disabled people to be heard. We heard strong arguments for this on Monday and tonight, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I hope that the Minister listens to them. I very much welcome Amendment 45.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Amendment 45 ensures that the existing offence of coercive or controlling behaviour applies to abuse that happens post-separation by extending the offence to cover those who no longer live together. It aligns the definition of “personally connected” in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 with Clause 2 of the Bill, and the result is that the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour will apply to members of the same family or people who have been in an intimate relationship, whether or not they live together.

Amendments 46 and 47 amend Amendment 45 to include the relationship between a disabled person and their carer in the definition of “personally connected” in the Serious Crime Act 2015 to reflect the changes made to the Bill when the earlier amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, were agreed on Monday. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for the determination that she has shown in pursuing Amendment 45 and the strength of the case that she has marshalled in support. This is a key amendment for us and, most importantly, a key change for survivors living with abuse after separation. I hope that, after today, they feel that their voices have been heard. We also appreciate the Government’s willingness to support the amendment and the role that the Minister has played. We trust that the House now does likewise.

I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. We strongly support Amendments 46 and 47 in her name, but understand why she now feels that she cannot divide the House, in the light of the Government’s apparent stance on those amendments and the impact that could have on Amendment 45 if they were carried.

The House has already shown its support for the inclusion of carers in the definition of “personally connected”, through the vote on Monday in support of earlier amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. We regard Amendments 46 and 47 as consequential parts of the package. As I have already stated, part of what Amendment 45, in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, achieves is to align the definition of “personally connected” in the Bill with the Serious Crime Act 2015. On Monday, this House added carers to the definition of “personally connected” in the Bill. That is why we believe that the Government should recognise the outcome of the vote on Monday and accept Amendments 46 and 47 as effectively consequential, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, asked. They should give a clear assurance that they accept them, as government support for Amendment 45 means that they will make sure that that amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, is still enshrined in the Bill when it becomes an Act.

I hope that the Government think hard about their response to these amendments, particularly to Amendments 46 and 47. If they do not feel that they can give a positive response tonight, along the lines asked for by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, perhaps they could reflect further and come back on Third Reading.