Domestic Abuse Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 15th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Finally, I wish to say that it is really important that we get this Bill on the statute book. We are running out of time. I know we can ping-pong and carry on until we actually get through it, but were we to run out of time and were it not to get on the statute book, that would be the biggest betrayal of victims.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this hugely important debate. First, let me echo what both the Minister and the shadow Minister said about His Royal Highness Prince Philip and about Dame Cheryl Gillan. We will very much miss what would typically have been a knowledgeable and passionate contribution from Dame Cheryl in this debate and in so many debates to come.

Although these Lords amendments cover many significant issues, I shall take only a short time to cover two, as the Bill almost exclusively extends to England and Wales and relates largely to devolved matters. The two excellent Lords amendments I wish to express Scottish National party support for are Lords amendments 40 and 41, which were drafted expressly with a broader scope, touch on a reserved matter—immigration—and have the potential to bring significant benefits to victims from across the UK if we support them today.

Lords amendment 40 would start to roll back the Home Office’s ever-extending network of data sharing agreements and its grab of sweeping exemptions to data protection laws—my party has repeatedly proposed this. These exemptions have contributed to a dangerous situation in which migrants feel unable or reluctant to access potentially vital public services for fear that any information they share will end up being used by the Home Office in a bid to remove them. Domestic abuse is one severe but perfect illustration of that point. Fleeing an abusive partner can of course put women at risk, and none of us would want them to fear seeking the protection and support that they need. The reality, however, is that too often they do, and one reason for that fear is precisely because they do not have faith that the information they are required to share will not result in an attempt to remove them or have other implications for their current and future status here.

That is what Lords amendment 40 effects, by requiring the Home Secretary to put in place

“arrangements to ensure that the personal data…processed for the purpose of”

securing that help and support “is not used” against victims for immigration purposes. We therefore give it our support. I listened to what the Minister said in response, but I do not understand how police guidance can provide any sort of comprehensive answer and I fear that the evidence shows that it will not. It does not provide the necessary or sufficient reassurance that a statutory provision can provide. It is that simple.

Lords amendment 41 is, as we heard, the new clause that would broaden the scope of the domestic violence rule and the concessions so that more victims of domestic abuse here can find safety, knowing that they also have a pathway to leave to remain and do not need endure destitution and homelessness while they pursue it. Now, those possibilities are limited largely to those who are here on spouse visas.

The domestic violence rule and the concessions have been transformative for many victims of domestic abuse who are able to access them. The very same reasons for putting them in place for those on spouse visas clearly also apply to other victims of domestic abuse. If we do not completely break the link between a woman’s lawful residence here and her relationship with an abusive partner, far from helping her, we are hindering her ability to find help and support—we hand power to the abuser. No one wants that but, unless we support the new clause, I fear that is the position that we will risk remaining in.

Again, I do not understand the Government’s answers in response, in particular what was said about the Lords amendment not being true to the original purpose of the rule and the concessions. On the contrary, it is about applying the same purpose, intention and reasoning to a broader group of victims who equally require support and protection, ensuring that they may access them.

In relation to another Government response, the Lord Bishop of Gloucester explained in the other place why the Government’s support for migrant victims, while welcome, is not a comprehensive answer, as the shadow Minister said today. We need bolder action as a matter of urgency. There is already an abundance of evidence that the changes proposed by way of Lords amendment 41 are utterly necessary and could transform lives.

The Government also seem to object that the leave proposed might ultimately be indefinite leave. If they find that objectionable—I do not understand the reasons why they might—rather than reject the amendment outright, they should at least provide for a decent period of time unencumbered by restrictions, including on public funds, to allow victims to get the support that they need and to get their lives back on track.

In a letter to MPs this morning, Ministers argued that migrant victims are not a homogeneous group, and that argument has been repeated this afternoon, but we know that—those advocating Lords amendment 41 know it better than anyone—and supporters of the amendment are not treating them as such. Rather, we would create a space in which complex and diverse needs can be better understood and addressed and where victims are free of the incredibly intimidating coercion and control that precarious immigration status can cause a victim. The Government risk denying victims that space and the possibility of addressing their diverse needs.

In conclusion, the focus should not be on the nature of victims’ immigration status or the type of visa that they hold; it should be on their needs as victims. Despite the Government’s protestations to the contrary, Lords amendment 41 would be another step towards ensuring that that happens. The question for this House is: what is more important, protecting and supporting victims, or protecting Home Office powers over migration? We say, support the victims, and we therefore give our full support to the Lords amendments.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]]

I join in the tributes to Cheryl Gillan, whom we all miss badly from this House and from debates such as this one in which she has been a participant for so many years.

I welcome the progress made on the Bill with the work done in the House of Lords. It is an important Bill and I commend the work on it of the Minister, the Opposition Front Benchers and all those in the Lords who sought to improve and build on it, because it got better as a result of all that work along the way. We have seen, for example, the addition of references to children as part of the Bill—something that our Home Affairs Committee recommended some years ago—and the amendments to reflect the issues raised earlier in our Commons debates about making non-fatal strangulation an offence.

I want to focus in particular on two areas where the Lords have proposed amendments that the Government are still resisting. The first is to support points made by other Members about the need to make sure that migrant women are not deterred from coming forward to get help when they desperately need it. These can be some of the most vulnerable women of all, threatened by perpetrators with losing their immigration status. Effectively, what the perpetrators are doing is exploiting the immigration system to exert coercive control over vulnerable women. We have a responsibility to make sure that that cannot happen, but, again, the Government are not going far enough in that regard.

The second area that I want to address is in relation to Lords amendment 42, which was put forward by Baroness Royall with support from across the Lords, including from Baroness Newlove. It is similar to an amendment that I put forward at an earlier stage in the Bill’s consideration, which the Government did say they would consider, because they recognised the importance of the issue. It builds on the work that Laura Richards at Paladin has done and has the support of hundreds of thousands of people who have signed petitions for stronger action against repeat perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking.

We know that there are too many cases of awful crimes against women—serious domestic abuse, awful violence, horrendous stalking, murder, and lives that are lost as a result of terrible crimes—and yet the perpetrator has committed crimes before. They may have been involved in other stalking offences, harassment, repeated domestic abuse or violence. They move from one victim to another and sometimes from one town or region to another. They find someone new to control and to abuse and someone else whose lives they can destroy. Too often, when those previous crimes emerge, everyone sighs in sadness, everyone wishes that the signs had been picked up earlier, everyone says that the dots should have been joined, and everyone says that lessons should be learned, but in the end they never are and not enough changes. We cannot carry on like this.

Hollie Gazzard was stalked and murdered by a man who was involved in 24 previous violent offences, including 12 on an ex-partner. Even though he had been reported to the police many times, there was no proactive risk assessment, and there was no management despite his previous violent offences. Linzi Ashton was raped, strangled and murdered by a man who had strangled two previous partners, but his repeat pattern of abuse towards women was not picked up. Jane Clough, an A&E nurse, was stalked and then murdered by a violent ex-partner, even though he had a history of abusing other women. He was not on the high-risk offenders register and the police were not monitoring him.

There are so many cases. Shana Grice was stalked and murdered in 2016. The man who killed her had abused 13 girls before, yet there was still no focus on him as a perpetrator, and no intelligence or information sharing. Faced with these cases, where perpetrators have repeated convictions for domestic abuse or for stalking, why on earth are their names not on the high-risk offenders register? Why on earth is there not a process to identify or manage these high-risk individuals? Why on earth do the police not take these cases seriously, because it is not happening? That is what Lords amendment 42 is all about. It adds convicted serial domestic abusers and stalkers to the high-risk offenders register so that police and specialist agencies can work together to prevent them from offending again and to use the multi-agency public protection arrangements to keep more women safe.

We know that, when it comes to domestic abuse, stalking, or violence against women, the most serious offenders are those repeat offenders. That is where we should be trying to focus more of our efforts.

Let me consider the Government’s objections. The Minister says that they will draw up a perpetrators strategy, which was part of Lords amendment 42. That is strongly welcome, but the Government are not going far enough with their plans for that strategy. For example, the strategy currently does not include stalking, which it needs to do, and it is not a replacement for the high risk register and the proper monitoring and interventions underpinned by statute that we need.

The Minister has said that a new category 4 is not needed on the high-risk offenders register—a new category from MAPPA—because these dangerous people can be included in category 3. The trouble is that just because in theory some of them can be does not mean that most of them are. The system is not working; simply adding a bit more guidance, a bit more urging and a bit more soul searching will not mean they are included in practice either.

Category 3 has historically been interpreted very narrowly and is interpreted by gatekeepers—people who are concerned about stretched resources and will continue to be so. At the moment, what that means in practice is that police, probation officers and other agencies involved in the system are simply not treating repeat perpetrators —those with repeat domestic abuse convictions—as high- risk offenders, yet they are high risk. Someone who has already been convicted of domestic abuse against a series of different women is a risk to other women and needs to be properly assessed, yet at the moment the system does not assess them as high risk. That is what we are trying to fundamentally change through legislation, to send a strong signal through the system—to police officers, specialist agencies and probation services across the country—that these cases are high risk and put other women at risk in future. They need to be properly assessed and managed to keep other women safe.