Grand Committee
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2021 and the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2021 were laid before this House on 18 January. In my view, the provisions in these orders are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order is an entirely technical matter that we attend to each year. It provides for formerly contracted-out defined benefit occupational pension schemes to increase their members’ guaranteed minimum pension which built up from April 1988 to April 1997 by 0.5%. This is in line with the increase in the general level of prices as at September 2020.
The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order reflects the Government’s continuing commitment to support working families and pensioners across the nation, especially during a particularly challenging time for many. It will increase the basic state pension and the new state pension in line with the triple lock; increase the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with the cash increase to the basic state pension; increase working-age benefits in line with prices; and increase carer’s benefits and benefits intended to meet additional disability needs in line with prices.
In November, Parliament passed the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act. Without this legislation, state pensions would have remained at 2020-21 levels, because under the existing legislation there is no power to bring forward an uprating order to increase these rates in the absence of an increase in the level of earnings. The legislation allows for state pension, pension credit and widows’ and widowers’ benefit in industrial death benefit rates to be uprated for the 2021-22 financial year, benefiting millions of pensioners.
Under the Government’s triple lock commitment, the basic state pension will continue to be uprated by the highest out of earnings, prices or 2.5%. This year, the Government will draw on the power in the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act to maintain this commitment to the triple lock. The triple lock has been an invaluable tool in combating pensioner poverty and demonstrates this Government’s commitment to pensioners. This year, the basic state pension will increase by 2.5%, which is the highest of the triple lock figures. The basic state pension will rise to £137.60 a week for a single person. From April this year, the basic state pension will be over £2,050 a year higher in cash terms than in April 2010.
Five years ago, the Government introduced the new state pension, which provides a transparent and sustainable foundation for private saving and retirement planning for people reaching state pension age from 6 April 2016 onwards. We have also committed to increasing the new state pension by the triple lock. From April 2021 the full rate of the new state pension will increase to £179.60 per week.
Turning to the additional state pension, from April state earnings-related pension schemes and the other state second pensions, as well as protected payments in the new state pension, will rise by 0.5% in line with prices.
We are continuing to take steps to protect the poorest pensioners. This includes the pension credit standard minimum guarantee, the means-tested threshold below which pensioner income should not fall. The pension credit standard minimum guarantee will rise by 1.9% to match the cash increase in the basic state pension. Therefore, from April 2021, the single-person rate of this benefit will rise to £177.10, providing a valuable safety net to pensioners.
Working-age benefits will increase in line with prices—or 0.5%. This includes people receiving jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit and universal credit. Those benefits linked to child tax and working tax credits will also be uprated in line with those benefits. This increase to working-age benefits is in addition to the unprecedented support that this Government have provided to those affected by Covid-19. To support individuals through this challenging time, we have mobilised our welfare system with a wide-ranging package of measures worth more than £7 billion, benefiting millions.
The uprating review did not include a decision on the £20 per week uplift to universal credit and working tax credits, announced by the Chancellor as a temporary measure in March 2020. The uplift was enacted for one year under different legislation to support those facing the most financial disruption as a result of the Covid-19 public health emergency, so it is not referenced in the order. This is still being kept under review in light of the ever changing situation we find ourselves in.
Universal credit work allowances will also rise in line with prices. This means that an individual is able to earn more before their universal credit payment is reduced and directs additional support to some of the most vulnerable low-paid working families.
Finally, I turn to disability benefits. Carers and those who face additional costs as a result of their disability will see their benefits increase in line with prices from April 2021 to ensure that they continue to get the support they need. These benefits are: disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, incapacity benefit and personal independence payment. In addition, the carer and disability-related premiums paid with pension credit and working-age benefits, the employment and support allowance support group component, and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit will also increase by 0.5%. The Government remain committed to protecting the most vulnerable.
To conclude, in this order the Government propose to spend an extra £2.7 billion in 2021-22 on increasing benefit and pension rates. With this spending, we are maintaining the triple lock, increasing spending on pensioner benefits by £2.2 billion and upholding our commitment to the country’s pensioners; helping the poorest pensioners who count on pension credit; and ensuring that working-age benefits maintain their value in relation to prices. This is in addition to the comprehensive support package already put in place to support those affected by the pandemic, providing essential support to disabled people and carers. On this basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister and welcome the decision to increase the guaranteed pension credit by the value of the cash increase in the basic state pension. Pension credit is targeted at the poorest pensioners, and it has always surprised me that the Government, given their manifesto commitment to the triple lock for the basic and new state pensions, never committed to a protective underpin for our poorest pensioners. Some 1.5 million people receive pension credit, but over a million eligible pensioners do not claim. Now, by not claiming, many will see their annual income reduce by £157.50 when they get their TV licence demand. The BBC, by targeting pensioners in receipt of the pension credit for exemption from the licence fee, perversely excluded over 1 million eligible people for not claiming that credit. Recently there has been radio silence from the Government about how they are progressing and protecting this million, so can the Minister reassure the Committee that they are not walking away from the problem, having handed over policy on pensioners and the licence fee to the BBC?
In the UK, declining levels of household financial resilience were a growing problem before the pandemic and increasingly evident during it, contributing to the easements necessary to create a functioning welfare system. Factors that increase household resilience, such as employment benefits, state benefits, insurance savings and affordable credit, were all weakening. Indeed, only 28% of employers, for example, now provide more than statutory sick pay of £94.25 per week—a reality quickly evident when the virus started to spread. Did the Government give any consideration to increasing the rate of statutory sick pay by more than the 50p in this SI and, if they did, could the Minister share it with us?
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for her introduction and for the letter circulated previously. As far as I can tell, as a non-specialist, the increases are either as required in statute or as promised, with additional discretionary increases that can apply for one year only. That leaves me slightly confused as to what happens after that one year. Perhaps the Minister could explain, as I have not been part of the teams and meetings with her.
Broadly, I do not quarrel with the SIs. Where there are issues, it is with the underlying structures that, notably through the triple lock, reward at a higher rate than those benefits that apply to the harder up. I appreciate that the increase in the basic state pension in cash terms has been transposed over to pension credit but, given that there are other thresholds in play, are there pensioners who will lose out due to the increase in thresholds being less than the 1.9% cash increase?
Regarding the triple lock, can the Minister advise on where we are with the original catch-up idea, which came about because pensions had fallen behind earnings? We have had unexpectedly low earnings rises, and now again through Covid, and there has been low inflation. Originally it was projected that it would take until 2038 for the state pension to reach 26% of national earnings. Is there a new projected date by which that will be reached?
Once again, it is still unfair that the over-70s get the triple lock on only part of their pension and not the whole of it.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing these SIs and her very clear explanation. Of course, I welcome the Government’s commitment to protecting the vulnerable and the poorest pensioners. Indeed, it is really important for us to make sure that we protect pensioners properly.
As my noble friend knows, I find it difficult to reconcile the statements and the commitment to the triple lock when the triple lock does not apply properly to either the oldest pensioners or the poorest. The basic state pension is £42 less per week than the new state pension, which is available only to those pensioners not over 70. Pension credit increasing in line with the cash increase in the basic state pension is welcome, and is certainly better than prescribed in legislation, which would see an increase in line with earnings, which could be a fall or no increase at all. However, this still leaves the oldest and poorest pensioners at a disadvantage relative to the youngest pensioners, who have much better protection from the triple lock.
I welcome the fact that these benefits are increasing but urge my noble friend, in line with the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Bowles, to look at whether there is an appetite in the department to ensure that pension credit for the poorest pensioners is covered by the triple lock.
On the subject of pension credit, I acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about the problem of low take-up and the poorest pensioners not necessarily receiving the free TV licence intended for them because they do not take it up. Does my noble friend agree that there might be merit in encouraging the BBC itself to make sure that there are promotions for increasing take-up of the pension credit?
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I want to comment on work-related benefits. I served on your Lordships’ Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and Environment. As we have seen in the past 12 months, one of the growing factors in front of us every day is more children being in poverty and unable to get proper food. UNICEF was even prepared to come into the United Kingdom for the first time. In these circumstances this year, while I fully support the principle that work must pay, I believe that there is an appetite in the community generally to tolerate a modest increase in tax and to target any revenue to eradicate what is a stain across our entire community.
Obviously, there are things I welcome in these instruments, but I must point out that we face the challenge of a whole generation losing out, and not only on school. At least two academic years have been disrupted and who is to say that there will not be a third? On top of that, we have the growth in food banks and people such as Marcus Rashford trying to target children’s needs in recent weeks. In the difficult economic circumstances that they face, I urge the Government to consider that there is, I believe, a preparedness in the community to tolerate a modest increase in tax, even for a couple of years in this Parliament, to ensure that that stain is removed from the United Kingdom.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, in my two minutes, I have only one issue to raise: the take-up of pension credit. The Minister will recall that many of us were concerned about the loss of free TV licences for those aged over 75, which broke a Conservative manifesto promise. Now only those on pension credit get free TV licences but, as my noble friend Lady Drake said, about 1 million people are eligible but do not claim, so they also lose their right to a free TV licence.
The Minister will also recall that some of us suggested to her a new take-up campaign—a much more vigorous and innovative one than any we have had previously. She kindly arranged for some of us to meet her and the Pensions Minister, Guy Opperman, in November, when they promised action. But more than two months later, apparently nothing has happened. Will the Minister now agree to get together urgently with those representing the interests of older people—Age UK, Age Scotland, Independent Age and all such organisations—and their media representatives to discuss how to launch a new, innovative, exciting, forceful and participatory campaign to get more people who are eligible to take up pension credit? The Minister may also notice that I have, I hope helpfully, tabled an Oral Question for answer on 8 March. That will give her an opportunity to report back on the success of such a meeting and the introduction of this campaign.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension scheme. Looking at the detail of the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2021, one has to remember that it applies only to those who retired before 6 April 2016. I looked at what would have happened if I had retired on that date and at life expectancy data. It would mean that I got 29 years: that is not a small financial commitment for Her Majesty’s Government.
I want to talk about the triple lock. If one thinks about the challenge to the Treasury—in effect, the taxpayer—it is almost a triple whammy. There is the basic state pension, based on national insurance contributions; the additional state pension, which is partly earnings-related; and all final salary schemes for public sector workers. The financial cost in the past three years has gone up by 21%, which is over £1 trillion in real money. Has not the time come for the Government to review the employee’s contribution through national insurance, and for the public sector as well? This seems fair, not least because a pension—one that is pretty old—is a really good deal. Of course, the cost of that state pension is forecast—admittedly over 50 years—to rise from 4.9% of national income to 6.9%. We need a clear positioning paper, produced by the interested parties in the Government and the pension industry, to look at the financial options for the national pension and state employee pensions.
I offer one saving: the £10 Christmas bonus. This year, after the pandemic, the Chancellor can say, “Father Christmas has run out of money and there will be no Christmas bonus for this coming year.”
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I want to highlight three issues. First, on pensions policy, I welcome the Government’s proposal to increase pensions by 2.5%, in line with the triple-lock policy. Despite criticism, that triple lock helps to redress intergenerational unfairness and keeps pensioners’ incomes higher than they would otherwise be, given the relatively low basic level of state pension in the United Kingdom compared to other countries.
Secondly, regarding the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order, I want to highlight the unjust frozen pension policy that affects some 500,000 pensioners who, despite paying into the system—and in many cases serving their country—have had their pensions frozen since they moved to places such as Canada, Australia, South Africa and so on. This is a wrong that needs to be put right. Will the Government explain whether action will be taken at long last to pay these pensioners what they are entitled to?
Thirdly, I refer to the £20 a week uplift to universal credit and the working tax credit given last year. Of course, legacy benefits should also have seen the same uplift and the Government should explain why people on legacy benefits have not seen a similar increase. The extra £1,000 and more in universal credit has been very important in helping to support people facing terrible financial disruption from increased unemployment, as well as from increased food, utility and other unavoidable costs as a result of living and working from home. It is clear that the disruption and financial hardship due to Covid will continue beyond April. I urge the Government—I know that this is not a part of today’s instrument, but it is a very relevant issue when we are talking about the uprating of benefits—to announce as soon as possible that the uplift will be extended, rather than waiting nearly until April, when we are approaching a cliff edge.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I associate myself totally with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, about universal credit and legacy benefits, but I want to say a bit more about the triple lock. I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to the triple lock and, without trying to pre-empt what will be in the Budget, it would be good to have an assurance that the triple lock will work again in the coming year. Can we have a firm commitment?
It is worth pointing out, as always when we talk about the triple lock, that it applies only to the basic state pension and the new state pension. It does not apply to the additional pensions, which some of us still think of as SERPS, it does not apply to deferred retirement additions and it does not apply to the graduated state pension. It would be interesting to have some idea of what proportion of the state pension actually gets the full triple lock and what proportion has had to make do with the very low figure of the CPI this year.
I have a further question about the TV licence. The Government’s approach on this has, of course, been shameful. However, I have heard some suggestion that what has happened to the TV licence has had the perverse effect, as some of us have said, of increasing government expenditure because it has encouraged a noticeable uptake of pension credit. Perhaps the Minister could indicate what net effect it is now having. I am very much in favour of anyone entitled to pension credit claiming it, but if the Government’s idea was to restrain expenditure, how successful have they been?
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will try to be brief, as many issues have been raised by other noble Lords. In these challenging times for pensioners struggling with the pandemic, and with the over-75s faced with paying the BBC licence—in effect a tax imposed by the BBC—many pensioners will receive very little support from the Government. They cannot go on furlough; they are not self-employed; they cannot take out business loans. Many are not on benefits: they either will not or do not claim them. I am glad that the Minister has at least confirmed that the Government remain committed to the triple lock for pensions, but as a number of noble Lords have mentioned the triple lock, can the Minister confirm that this remains government policy, up to and including the next Parliament?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has withdrawn, so I now call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations. I accept that the Government have a statutory duty to review the rates of social security benefits annually. However, given the ongoing consequences of the pandemic, the rise in the levels of people unemployed and the growing number of people accessing food banks, there is a need for a root-and-branch review of social security and welfare policy.
We should be focused on the principles of the needs of the population. During various debates on social security matters in your Lordships’ House, I have raised this viewpoint. There needs to be a review through the lens of whether people have adequate or inadequate levels of income to live on, taking in poverty levels, the growing need for access to food banks and rising levels of fuel poverty. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I agree that the uplift in universal credit needs to be retained. It should also have been applied to legacy benefits. The very fact that it was introduced by the Government, albeit temporarily basis, surely pinpointed the need to uplift benefits and to have a complete review. I ask the Minister a simple question: when will the Government undertake this root-and-branch policy review of social security and welfare legislation to bring benefit to people, based solely on income and the needs of each individual in the UK?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on all that her department has achieved, particularly the new uptake of universal credit claimants, for which she is responsible. This has been a mega-task and it has passed smoothly, so congratulations are in order. An extra £2.3 billion on increasing benefit and pension rates is commendable.
I thank my noble friend for bringing these two orders before the Committee. I am anxious for her to respond to matters that were raised at the end of January, when there was a situation relating to a small but defined cohort of women whose state pension records had not been manually updated. These were women born before 6 April 1953 who were not automatically paid their state pension benefit uplift, which was based on their husband’s national insurance contributions. This has caused a lot of concern to the pension sector and I know that the department will seek to resolve it as quickly as possible.
Like other noble Lords, I would like to comment on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that only those on pension credit can claim the free television licence. It is a matter of record that the Government made specific provision with the BBC for the continuation of free television licences for all pensioners over the age of 75, irrespective of whether they were in receipt of pension credit. It behoves the department to go back to the BBC and ask what that money, which was allocated for this purpose, is being used for. If it has gone into the general pot and is being used for productions, that is not a good use of the money; it is not what it was specifically allocated for. I hope that my noble friend will use her good offices to look into that matter. Otherwise, I congratulate her on bringing forward these two orders, which I support.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for the clarity of her presentation. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that thanks are due to DWP staff for their response to the huge uptake of universal credit as a result of the pandemic. I also welcome the £20 a week addition to universal credit and working tax credits and strongly urge the Government to continue this.
There is no doubt that the pandemic has hit the poorest hardest, in terms of both vulnerability to the virus and loss of earnings and employment. A report by the Resolution Foundation, The Debts that Divide Us, is based on the results of surveys of families receiving universal credit. It tells us that more than half of all single parents are now on universal credit. It also shows evidence of the extent to which universal credit claimants are experiencing financial difficulties. One-third of new claimants report that their family income in January was at least 40% lower than pre-pandemic; one in five are behind on essential bills; and three in 10 are more in debt than a year ago.
Looking ahead, the Government must soon make a decision on whether to continue the additional £20 for universal credit and working tax credit. The report tells us that, if this is not continued, basic unemployment benefit will be at its lowest since 1990-91. Stopping the additional payment will contribute to a rise in child poverty of 400,000 by 2021-22. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, this is an absolute crisis, as has been made clear by the fact that many children are now not getting enough to eat.
I am sure that the noble Baroness is familiar with the report by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee—chaired by her noble friend, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—Universal Credit Isn’t Working: Proposals for Reform. It recommends a major review of universal credit in the light of dramatically changed economic circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, is right in calling for a root-and-branch review. We need to look at the new circumstances which the current system was not designed for. For example, recommendations in the report suggest that the Government should commit to making the increase in the standard allowance permanent. It also talks about the review of the benefit cap:
“In light of the unfolding economic crisis we recommend that the Government review the level of the benefit cap and its effect on hardship and poverty.”
It also makes clear that the two-child limit is unfair:
“We urge the Government to remove the two-child limit and consider introducing tapered awards for families with more than two children.”
As I said, I very much support a root-and-branch review.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to retaining the triple lock and support the call by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for a confirmed commitment from them to provide pensioners with clarity for the future. My noble friend Lady Bowles asked that we should look at what progress has been made in recovering the value of the state pension and I would welcome that. The commitment to the poorest pensioners is of course welcome. They have paid their contributions over many years and should reasonably expect to receive a realistic income in their old age. I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. As other noble Lords have said, the state pension is the lowest in Europe; we are culpable for having allowed this to happen over recent years. I attended the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about getting the BBC to run a proper take-up campaign for pension credit. We would welcome the Minister’s response to that.
As we face the economic costs of the pandemic and Brexit, it is also important to keep the triple lock, as future generations are unlikely to benefit from the same generous private pensions as their parents. It will be all the more important for the state pension to provide a realistic income. I support these orders and look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions and those raised by other noble Lords.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these orders and all noble Lords who have spoken today. The guaranteed minimum pensions order is a routine uprating, but I have one question about it. When the House debated the GMP increase order on 3 March last year, I asked the Minister what guidance the DWP would give to pension schemes in the wake of the High Court decision on the Lloyds pension scheme. At that point, some matters had still not been clarified by the court, particularly in relation to past transfers out. However, on 20 November 2020 the High Court ruled that pension schemes have to proactively revisit individual transfer payments made since 17 May 1990, to check if any additional value is due as a result of GMP equalisation. Members who exercised their statutory right to transfer their benefits will be able to have a top-up payment if there is a shortfall between the original transfer payment and what would have been paid if benefits had been equalised at the time, with interest at 1% per annum.
The judgment clarified trustees’ obligations to revisit past individual transfers out when it comes to equalisation, but it also begged the question of how easy it would be for trustees to trace transfers back to 1990. Some schemes may face difficulties in complying. The data may no longer exist or the cost of checking and contacting members may exceed the benefit to them. There are no time limits on claims. Although the court judgment confirmed that past individual transfers must be equalised, details of implementation were left to schemes to decide. Will the Minister update the Committee and say whether the DWP plans to issue any further guidance and support to pension schemes?
On the social security uprating, Labour supports the Government’s decision to honour the triple-lock commitment that will see the basic and new state pensions rise by 2.5% this year. I am glad that the increase has been passed through to the standard minimum guarantee and pension credit. I will be listening carefully to hear the Minister’s answers to the crucial questions raised by my noble friends Lord Foulkes and Lady Drake and to the information relating to pensions sought by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and other noble Lords.
Can the Minister explain the rationale for uprating the savings credit threshold in pension credit only by CPI? The other main working-age benefits and allowances go up in line with September CPI at 0.5%. I am glad that there is an uprating, but people are still suffering the effects of the Government having frozen benefits between 2016 and 2020. Excluding the Covid-related increases, most working-age benefits were between 9% and 17% lower last year than they would have been if benefits had been uprated by CPI since 2010. Those figures are from the House of Commons Library.
When the Minister mentions £7 billion in pandemic support, has she remembered that the OBR estimated that the 2015 Budget would cut more than £9 billion from social security spending by the end of this financial year? No wonder that, prior to the £20 uplift, unemployment support was at its lowest level in real terms since 1992.
I have four questions for the Minister. First, what is happening to the £20 a week uplift to universal credit, an issue raised by many noble Lords? Is it still being taken away in April? Parliament and, more importantly, those who depend on universal credit need to know. Increasing UC by 0.5% is neither here nor there if the Government are going to take £20 a week off it in April. People need that money. Has the Minister read the latest report from the Resolution Foundation, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke? Has she heard Citizens Advice say that of the people it is helping, three-quarters of those on uplifted benefits would have a negative budget if the £20 was cut? Has she read the Trussell Trust research showing that one in five UK claimants reported it very likely that they would be forced to turn to a food bank? Has she heard CPAG warn that we are going to see another 200,000 children pushed into poverty? I concur with the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about food poverty, but I add that a growing number of poor children are in working families.
What about the number of older workers, which is growing during this pandemic? They are at particular risk of long-term unemployment. They do not need their income cut by £20 a week. What of the impact on economic recovery? Money given to poor families is not saved: that £20 a week is spent in shops and businesses, stimulating the economy. We all want to know, what are the Government going to do?
Secondly, why has the £20 not been extended to those on legacy benefits, as mentioned by many noble Lords? Many of them are disabled people or carers. The Disability Benefits Consortium surveyed disabled people claiming legacy benefits and found that almost half—44%—report being unable to pay rent and household bills. I have never had a satisfactory answer to this question, so let me try again: how do the Government justify this blatant unfairness?
Thirdly, why has the benefits cap not been uprated? It has been at the same cash level since November 2016, and the growing number of families hit by the cap see no benefit from any increase, but their living costs are going up too. December’s figures show that 170,000 families are seeing their benefits reduced by £246 a month, on average; 85% of them are families with kids. As the nine-month grace period comes to an end, more and more people who fell out of work in this pandemic are going to bang their heads on that cap and will be hit badly.
Finally, why has bereavement support payment once again not been uprated at all? Can the Minister tell us by how much bereavement support payment has fallen in value since the Minister introduced it by abolishing the previous benefits? Why is it not being uprated?
People out there are desperate: they need help, and they, and we, look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. They have demonstrated their vast experience of and commitment to the issues we have been talking about. The debate has covered a number of topics and, as ever, I will try to respond to them in the time available. However, I assure noble Lords that if that is not possible, I will write to them with answers to the questions put.
Let me start by answering the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friend Lady Altmann: whether the Government are committed to the triple lock. We are committed to ensuring that older people are able to live with the dignity and respect they deserve, and the state pension is the foundation of their support. As with all aspects of Government policy, we keep tax rates and spending under review, and any decision on future changes will be taken as part of the annual Budget process in the context of the wider public finances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and my noble friend Lady Altmann raised the issue of whether the standard minimum guarantee should be uprated by the same percentage as the state pension. It is right that we should protect the incomes of the poorest pensioner households receiving the standard minimum guarantee. That is why this year we are increasing the guarantee by 1.9% to ensure that, as in previous years when the triple lock has applied to the state pension, pensioners see the benefit of the cash increase in the basic state pension.
I come now to the point about pension credit which was raised by virtually all noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his contribution and for his reminder that this is a work in progress. After his Question about pension credit, we did meet, along with the Minister for Pensions, and we agreed on the actions to take away. We have written to the BBC. Officials have had a meeting with its representatives and we are awaiting the outcome of that meeting. As I say, this is a work in progress. At that meeting we also agreed to review advertising in places such as post offices and GP surgeries. That is a commitment, but there is little point in doing that while Covid is in full flow as not many pensioners are going into these places. However, we will revisit that as soon as things change.
The Minister for Pensions, Guy Opperman, also made a commitment to review all the correspondence sent by the DWP to see how we can change the wording in order to encourage people to apply for pension credit. The review has taken place and there are a few things we need to grapple with. When we write to people about attendance allowance and then about pension credit, we do not want the messages to become confused or for one to overtake the other. Again, officials are working on this. I can give an absolute commitment that when all this work has been completed, we will meet with the same noble Lords we met before as well as with stakeholders to advise them of the outcomes and actions arising from our deliberations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether pension credit take-up had increased as a result of the BBC policy on free TV licences. I am told that it is too early to tell whether the BBC announcement about changes to the licence concession has translated into an increase in take-up. As I have said, the Minister for Pensions has written to the director-general of the BBC about its collaborating on pension credit. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and my noble friend Lady Altmann talked about the further campaign; I believe I have answered that question.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked what we are doing to tackle the low take-up which means that 1 million pensioners will miss out on the pension credit uprating increase. More than 1.5 million older people across Great Britain already receive extra financial help through the pension credit. We want more eligible people to claim what they are entitled to, so in addition to the campaign we launched last February, we will take the actions that I have already outlined.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made the point that statutory sick pay is not high enough. SSP is increased annually in line with CPI. Any greater increase in the rate of SSP would place an immediate and direct financial burden on employers at a time when we know that many of them are struggling. She also raised the question whether the rate is too low to live on. Statutory sick pay should not be looked at in isolation. Approximately 60% of employees receive more than the rate of statutory sick pay from their employer.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made the valid point that there are people who are prepared to accept a tax rise, even if only for a short period. I am sorry to say that I cannot make any further comment, other than to say that it is a matter for the Chancellor to take action on if he so desires.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked whether the uprating of pension credit would be negated by changes made to other thresholds. Pension credit is not linked to the national insurance system; it takes into account income and capital according to its own rules. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised the very important issue of uprating overseas pensions and the frozen pension situation. The current policy on this is a long-standing one under successive Governments; it has been in place for 70 years and with all respect to the noble Lord, we have no plans to change it.
We come now to the very topical point about the £20 uplift in universal credit. I understand noble Lords’ detailed interest in this matter, which was discussed yesterday at great length in the other place. Let me make the position absolutely clear. The £20 uplift to universal credit and working tax credit was announced by the Chancellor as a temporary measure in March 2020 to support those facing the greatest financial disruption. The measure remains in place until March 2021 and, as the Government have done throughout this crisis, they will continue to assess how best to support low-income families. That is why the Chancellor is looking at the economic and health contexts before making any decisions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Davies, asked why the £20 uplift has not been extended to legacy benefits. Claimants on legacy benefits can make a claim for UC if they believe that they would be better off. Claimants need to check their entitlement under universal credit carefully before applying, as the legacy benefits will end when claimants submit their claim and they will not be able to return to them in the future. Again, with all due respect to noble Lords, we have no plans to extend it.
My noble friend Lord Naseby asked why the Government are no longer indexing the guaranteed minimum provision for those reaching state pension age. The additional state pension, and with it the option to contract out, ended with the introduction of the new state pension for people reaching state pension age from 6 April 2016. The calculation that provided, for benefits earned between 1978 and 1988, the effect of having their guaranteed minimum pension price protected ended as well. My noble friend also talked about the increase in national insurance contributions. Again, this is a matter for the Chancellor, but I will draw my noble friend’s points to his attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, asked whether the triple lock would be in place until the next election. As a result of the order, the Government announced measures to increase most state pension rates by 2.5%, in line with their triple lock manifesto commitment for this Parliament.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about TV licence money and how the BBC has used its funding. I have an answer for my noble friend, but perhaps I may write to her, as I will on her point about ensuring that married women who have been underpaid state pension get what they are owed.
Time is short and I am sorry about that because I like to answer all the questions put to me. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked about the benefit cap level, which, again, has been raised many times. The statutory duty is to review the levels of the cap in Parliament at least once a year. This will happen at the appropriate time. On the UC uplift and the reports of the Resolution Foundation, Joseph Rowntree and others, like the noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Sherlock, I am aware of them, as indeed is the department. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, also asked about additional support for UC claimants if the uplift is not extended. We should await the outcome of the decision.
I am afraid that I will have to call time at this point. Having outlined the uprating orders for the guaranteed minimum pension and social security benefits, I commend them to the Grand Committee and I beg to move.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2021.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, in moving these regulations, I will also speak to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. I am required to confirm to the Committee that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am happy to do so. These statutory instruments will increase the value of lump sum awards payable under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the diffuse mesothelioma scheme, which was established by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008.
These two schemes stand apart from the main social security benefits uprating procedure. However, through these statutory instruments, we will increase the amounts payable by the September 2020 consumer price index of 0.5%. This is the same rate that is being applied to the industrial injuries disablement benefit and other disability benefits under the main social security uprating provisions. These new amounts will be paid to those who satisfy all the conditions of entitlement, for the first time, on or after 1 April 2021.
The Government recognise that people suffering from diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos or one of a number of other listed agents may be unable to bring a successful claim for civil damages in relation to their disease. This is mainly due to the long latency period of their condition, but they can still claim compensation through these schemes. These schemes also aim, where possible, to ensure that sufferers receive compensation in their lifetime while they themselves can still benefit from it, without first having to await the outcome of civil litigation.
Although improvements in health and safety procedures have restricted the use of asbestos and provided a safer environment for its handling, the legacy of its widespread use is still with us. That is why we are ensuring that financial compensation from these schemes is available to those affected.
I will briefly summarise the specific purpose of the two compensation schemes. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—for simplicity, I will refer to this as the 1979 Act scheme—provides a lump sum compensation payment to individuals who have one of five dust-related respiratory diseases covered by the scheme, who are unable to claim damages from employers because they have gone out of business and who have not brought any action against another party for damages. The five diseases covered by the 1979 Act scheme are diffuse mesothelioma, bilateral diffuse pleural thickening, pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and primary carcinoma of the lung if accompanied by asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening.
The 2008 mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme, which I will refer to as the 2008 scheme, was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act because, for example, they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 scheme allows payments to be made quickly to people with diffuse mesothelioma at their time of greatest need. Under each scheme, a claim can be made by a dependant if the person with the disease has died before being able to make a claim.
The rates payable under the 1979 Act scheme are based on the level of the disablement assessment and age of the sufferer when the disease is diagnosed. The highest amounts are paid to those diagnosed at an early age and with the highest level of disablement. All payments for diffuse mesothelioma under the 1979 Act scheme are automatically made at the 100% disablement rate, the highest rate of payment, reflecting the serious nature of the disease. Similarly, all payments for this condition under the 2008 scheme are made at the 100% disablement rate and based on age, with the highest payments going to the youngest people with the disease. In the last full year for which data is available—April 2019 to March 2020—3,220 awards were paid under the 1979 Act, totalling £42.7 million, and 450 people received payments under the 2008 Act, totalling £9.7m million. Overall, 3,670 awards were made across both schemes in 2019-20 and expenditure was £52.4 million.
I am keen to address the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on sufferers of pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. While this uprating debate is an annual event, this has been a far from normal year. We took the difficult decision at the outset of the pandemic to temporarily suspend all face-to-face health and disability assessments, including for the industrial injuries disablement benefit, to protect the health of claimants and staff. We have continued to process industrial injuries disablement claims for those individuals with terminal illnesses. Therefore, throughout the Covid-19 pandemic and the suspension of face-to-face interviews, service centres have continued to pay the D3, mesothelioma, D8, lung cancer with asbestosis, and D8a, lung cancer in the absence of asbestosis cases, for workers’ compensation.
In addition, since November 2020, we have been assessing claims for D1, pneumoconiosis, including silicosis and asbestosis, and D9, unilateral or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening, prescribed diseases, so that claimants can start to receive the payments they deserve. While we expect the number of people diagnosed with mesothelioma to begin to fall in the coming years, the Government are well aware that there will still be many people who develop this and other respiratory diseases. That is why we are committed to working with our agencies and arm’s-length bodies to improve the lives of those with respiratory diseases.
The Covid-19 pandemic has presented major challenges for all healthcare systems. The NHS has published a cancer service recovery plan, which has been developed with the Cancer Recovery Taskforce. The plan aims to prioritise long-term plan commitments, which identified respiratory disease as a clinical priority and will support recovery, including the delivery of targeted lung health checks. We know that research is crucial in the fight against cancers such as mesothelioma. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care invests £1 billion per year in health research through the National Institute for Health Research.
I am aware that people suffering from occupational lung diseases are likely to be at higher risk of complications resulting from Covid-19, at what continues to be a distressing time for sufferers of the diseases that we are discussing today. The Department of Health and Social Care is following advice from independent experts on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation on which groups of people to prioritise for Covid-19 vaccines. They advise that the immediate priority should be to prevent deaths and protect health and care staff, with old age deemed the single biggest factor in determining mortality. The JCVI has decided that it is safe for people with long-term conditions and that people who are high-risk should be prioritised to get the vaccine first.
Returning to these important regulations, I am sure we all agree that, while no amount of money can ever compensate individuals and families for the suffering and loss caused by diffuse mesothelioma and the other dust-related diseases covered by the 1979 Act scheme, those who have them rightly deserve the financial compensation that these schemes can offer. I commend the increase of the payment scales for these schemes and ask approval to implement them. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I chose to join the Grand Committee for the consideration of these regulations this afternoon in part because of the experience of friends and family members older than myself who have suffered from mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis. I also pay tribute to those who campaigned so hard for the 1979 Act and those who campaigned for the changes in 2008, including the deputy leader of Sheffield City Council, Councillor Terry Fox, who was president of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers and led a very successful campaign leading up to the 2008 changes.
I really respect the Minister and appreciate her explanation of what has taken place and the Government’s reaction in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. As she said at the end of her contribution, it is hard to get across to people who have not met anyone who has suffered from mesothelioma or pneumoconiosis just what a tragedy it is for the individual and their family, and the debilitating impact that these diseases have on the longevity, mobility and life chances of those suffering. It was not simply something that happened in the coal and steel industries. I remember, as a young man, that with Turner and Newall in Leeds, it took great campaigners, media appreciation and investigation to bring about change. That was also true of the Sheffield occupational health project, which today works in GP surgeries and does a first-rate job on a shoestring to ensure that it can work with primary care to help those who have those diseases. As the Minister spelled out, it also helps those unable to identify their specific employment as the cause, mainly because the workplace no longer exists, but for whom it is absolutely clear that their illness was associated with employment and that those living around that employment have been affected. That was why the 2008 change came in.
I am sorry that we did not build in automatic uprating in 1979 and 2008, but I am very glad that the Government have, like previous Governments, taken this on board. It is appreciated on behalf of all those currently suffering and those still being identified that the Government, despite disagreements elsewhere over welfare payments, have recognised the enormity of what people are suffering and stepped up to the plate.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and his reminder of just what a battle the miners had for proper compensation for pneumoconiosis.
Like many people speaking today, I suspect, I have a personal link. My sister, Betty, died of mesothelioma about 15 years ago. It is interesting what a pernicious disease it was. She died in her mid-70s, but one suggestion was that she might have contracted the disease when she left school and went to work in the local ICI, spinning fireproof clothing with cotton and asbestos woven into it. It was freely admitted that the disease might have an incubation period of 50 years. It is a pernicious disease and a cruel one.
I welcome what the Minister has announced today to the effect that notice has been taken of the impact of Covid. Of course, that is a respiratory disease, and one hopes that the understanding of how it could impact on people who are already in the early stages of pneumoconiosis suggests that they should have priority in terms of vaccination.
The 2008 Act was a great step forward, and Parliament can also take credit that there have been nudges since to remove some of the bureaucracy that was left in place so that people get action quicker and more effectively. However, I know from the time when I was a Minister the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is not with us today—he is probably doing good somewhere else. Last year he reminded us that 5% to 10% of mesothelioma victims survive for fewer than five years and that we have the highest rate of disease anywhere in the world. So this is not a job done. However, so far as this order is concerned and in terms of the Minister taking responsibility for it, I think there is general confidence that in the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, we have someone who will ask the right questions and demand the right action.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I wish to voice my support for the Government in the financial assistance they continue to offer people who have been diagnosed with these terrible diseases. I appreciate that no amount of money can compensate for these life-debilitating diseases, which often lie on the lungs or in the body for years before detection. However, it can help them and their families. Given the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, particularly on the lives and the longevity of those with these diseases, could the Government look at whether there is anything more they can offer to them, be it additional funding, priority vaccines or some other new developments?
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, while I welcome the mesothelioma order, I speak primarily to the pneumoconiosis order, which, as some colleagues may well remember, is close to my heart after the struggle we had between 1974—my first full year as an MP—and 1979 to get the 1979 Act on to the statute book. It was of huge significance for me and my constituency, in which were located many of the slate quarries, working in which had caused many constituents to suffer from silicosis and pneumoconiosis. The Act covered many other industries in which dust caused industrial lung diseases. I also had the Turner and Newall Ferodo factory in Caernarfon—and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred to the Turner and Newall dimension.
As time is limited, I will ask three brief questions. First, of the cases in which payments have been made in the past 12 months, how many arose from the slate quarrying industry? I realise that it would now be a small minority for two reasons: the scale of the industry has decreased, and many sufferers have either died or have already received benefits. Secondly, can the Minister give any indication as to how many applications have been turned down in the past year, and in those cases, what the main factors were leading to that refusal? Thirdly, and finally, on mesothelioma, can the Minister, who has referred to the impact of Covid on these schemes and referred specifically to lung health checks, please give some clarification as to whether the work of the rapid access clinics, which are vital for early identification of the disease, has been negatively impacted by coronavirus? The Minister has mentioned that time is of the essence. Indeed, it is a vital consideration. I realise that the noble Baroness may not have answers readily at hand, so if necessary, perhaps she could write to me on these matters and put a copy in the Library.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as usual, this annual debate on the uprating of mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis regs invokes passionate memories of our industrial heritage and a different time for health and safety. The long latency of these diseases, which others have referred to, means that it can be many years before an individual is aware that they have been infected and, given that the main cause of exposure to mesothelioma is asbestos, its continuing presence in so much of our built environment, such as schools in particular, makes it a risk to be managed not only now but well into the future.
The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 are the HSE’s latest offering to help with that, which is to be commended. It is clear that these regs before us today should be supported. It is of regret, however, that it has not been seen fit to narrow or eliminate the gap between compensation paid to sufferers and to dependants. It was originally the intention that this gap be eliminated once resources allowed. It is understood that the 2008 Act payments were to be funded from recoveries from civil compensation arrangements. Can the Minister therefore let us know what the current position is on this and how close we are to closing that gap?
The 2014 payment scheme grew out of concerns that it was proving difficult for individuals to access entitlement to compensation under employers’ liability insurance arrangements; the tracing of policies was difficult and may have been frustrated in part by the industry. Can the Minister tell us what headroom there is in these arrangements? The Minister will recall that the scheme was funded by a levy of 3% on the gross written premiums of the industry. What data does the DWP have on the aggregate amounts of claims for lump sum compensation for mesothelioma, which come under three headings: the 2014 Act, these regulations we are considering to date, and employers’ liability insurance payments?
We have acknowledged in the past the medical research going on with the support of the insurance industry in particular, encouraged by Members of your Lordships’ House. If you look at the scientific and medical advances and endeavours in recent times, perhaps there is hope for sufferers of these diseases as well.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I first came across mesothelioma in the early 1970s when I was a railway manager in Liverpool. We used to stuff the boilers of locomotives full of asbestos, and of course it became widely known how lethal that was. I pay tribute to the huge efforts that have been made by the trade union movement to bring this matter to prominence. The trade unions often do not get a very good hearing in this House from various quarters, but this is a circumstance in which membership of a trade union is essential, when something like this comes across the horizon.
Could the Minister give us some idea of how many new cases are coming to light and whether there is any knowledge of which industries these come from? It would be comforting to know that this is one of the things which is getting better rather than worse.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as a former civil servant, I had responsibility for compensation for industrial illness schemes. Updating the regulations is to be welcomed but I have two questions for the Minister. I agree with my noble friend Lord McKenzie about the unfairness for dependants.
My questions concern the 2008 mesothelioma regulations. First, Regulation 4(1) stipulates that the claimant’s exposure must have been in the UK. There used to be a considerable amount of asbestos on board ships, where mesothelioma—as my noble friend Lord McKenzie said, it has a long latency period—was contracted by many claimants. Can the Minister confirm that personnel at sea on UK ships outside territorial waters are in the UK for the purpose of the regulations?
Secondly, do the tables in the schedule take account of up-to-date increases in the average age of mortality when computing the relative amounts per age of the complainant? In that context, these sad deaths, usually caused in the ordinary routine of earning a living, are all the more premature and might merit larger sums.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of a company set up by a private company to pay compensation for asbestos-related problems. This is all very familiar territory. I will make only a small point because everybody else has said some good stuff.
I wonder how this compensation compares to legal decisions against private companies sued for asbestosis. I have been doing this compensation thing for about 15 years. It was on my suggestion that the company was set up by a big construction company that made asbestos. I have been following the numbers. At some stage, it might be useful to look at the legal decisions made by the courts—noble Lords will know that there have been changes to Scottish decisions and so on—which would enlighten us in revising our regulations. I just want to put that suggestion forward. If the Minister wants, I can get the data from our company, which was set up under Law Debenture. That is my suggestion.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the regulations on uprating benefits for sufferers of mesothelioma and other dust-related diseases. Like other noble Lords, I am pleased to support these regulations. I join them in paying tribute to the campaigners who continue to battle for more resources to fight this and other fatal lung diseases.
I want to mention in particular the British Lung Foundation, which not only campaigns for more research and awareness but provides support for sufferers and their families. It seems that, once diagnosed, many lung diseases are beyond treatment and sufferers are left with a very short time to live. I support the remarks made by noble Lords about equal treatment for families, which gives sufferers confidence that their families will not suffer unduly once they are no longer with them.
I must say, I was very much unaware of the ravages of lung disease. I became aware of it only when someone I know contracted it and subsequently died. Looking into the subject, I was shocked to learn that, far from being diseases of the past, which I thought they were, they are alarmingly on the increase; indeed, the UK leads the world in the number of deaths from mesothelioma.
As I understand it, these diseases, known to be caused by dust and asbestos in particular, are the result of working conditions. However, many sufferers are completely unaware of where they may have contracted their fatal condition. As noble Lords have said, there is still plenty of asbestos around, particularly in public buildings such as schools.
Certainly, much needs to be done to support work in this area, so I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about the millions that the Government are putting into research—occupational research in particular—but more research into the causes of these killer diseases is absolutely vital. The number of deaths from lung disease amounts to 20% of all deaths, yet research funding lags a long way behind that for other, better-known illnesses. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that occupational lung disease results in around 12,000 deaths a year, yet funding for this important agency has been cut repeatedly over the years. In addition to safe working conditions, monitoring needs to be provided in high-risk occupations such as construction, cleaning, baking and other artisan professions.
I ask the Minister to use her powers and influence to seek a more realistic level of support for research from the Government, and I support noble Lords’ request that the support for families be reviewed in future. Having said that, I certainly add my support to the regulations.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and the noble Lords who have spoken.
It is great to see some of the faithful stalwarts of previous debates back again this year, albeit on Zoom rather than in the Room this time. My noble friend Lord McKenzie has a long commitment in this area. Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, rightly raised the incidence of silicosis and pneumoconiosis among slate quarrymen—something raised in previous years by my noble friend Lord Jones. It is strange to be debating this without the noble Lord, Lord Alton; I am not sure that it is strictly legal. Most years, we have him here, speaking up for the victims of these awful diseases and advocating powerfully for the work of the British Lung Foundation. However, the medium has in no way diminished the passion and power of noble Lords’ speeches, even if it has curtailed their length a little.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for talking about the impact on miners; to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for talking about those who made railway boilers; and to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for telling us about his sister, Betty. It is heartbreaking to think of her working away for ICI, making fireproof clothing and having no idea that those awful seeds being planted would lie dormant for decades, only to bloom so awfully. I hope that we will never reach a point where we talk about these matters without pausing to think of those whose lives were cut short by these awful diseases and those who lost spouses, parents or friends. I pay tribute to the trade unions, charities and all those who have campaigned for this compensation.
Obviously, we support these regulations and are glad to see that, once again, the compensation in both schemes is being raised in line with the CPI, by 0.5%. Is it definitely the intention that this will happen every year from now on?
One of the issues raised by my noble friends Lord McKenzie and Lady Whitaker is the lack of parity between the levels of compensation being offered to sufferers and their dependants. It would be helpful if the Minister could remind us of the Government’s rationale for this distinction. Also, as has been mentioned previously, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of that disparity on women, who are more often the dependants? What is the latest estimate of the cost of providing equal payments?
Last year, the issue of medical research and investment in it was raised much more than this. I wonder what is happening, given the pressure on charity funding in the pandemic. Does the Minister know what is happening to charitable funding that goes into research? In the past, contributions have been made by some insurers. Can the Minister tell us what she knows of how that funding may be going?
In last year’s debate on the uprating regulations, a number of noble Lords asked for information about funding and the data held on the prevalence of mesothelioma, and my noble friend Lord McKenzie asked about progress on employer liability tracing. The Minister agreed to write once she had gathered that information, but I have not been able to find such a letter among the deposited papers, and the House of Lords Library was not able to trace it either. Can the Minister confirm that she did write? If so, will she place a copy in the Library, and would she confirm that all such future letters will be deposited for the record?
Finally, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie said so clearly, these dust-related diseases are a reflection of our industrial past and the carelessness with which too many employers approached health and safety. If we are to avoid future scandals, we need a strong Health and Safety Executive—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. But the HSE’s funding has been cut significantly since this Government came to power, and recent increases to fund the extra work caused by Brexit have not begun to make up for that. Can the Minister tell us how confident she is that the HSE is sufficiently well resourced both to manage the risks to employees in the current pandemic and to be alert to the health risks of the future, so that nobody else will be put through the next generation’s equivalent of the horrors we have been talking about today? I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody for their helpful contributions to this debate. The Government recognise that these two schemes form an important part of the support available to people with dust-related diseases such as pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, diffuse mesothelioma, bilateral diffuse pleural thickening and primary carcinoma of the lung. I hope to address all the points raised but, as always, if I run out of time, I will certainly write to noble Lords.
First, to pick up on the point the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, just raised about a letter, this came up in the office this week. My officials looked into it, and it seems that we did not write the letter as promised. That is being rectified at the moment, and I can assure the noble Baroness that it will be placed in the Library, as all other letters will be.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his contribution, and for paying tribute to the campaigners and eloquently telling us about the impact of these terrible diseases. Unless we have actually seen them, they are very difficult to appreciate. I add my thanks to all the health professionals for their support to people who require their help on this matter.
Moving to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, there is nothing I can say in relation to his dear sister. It is not a job done; we are on the case and we will keep it on the agenda. I say to all noble Lords that, on this matter and any other, my door is open to speak to them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the point that dependants are mostly women, and asked whether I have considered the equality issues by not equalising payments and about an impact assessment. The intention of this scheme was to compensate those who contracted diseases as a result of their working environment. Historically, those who worked in hazardous environments tended to be men, and this reflects the current gender balance of claims. Nevertheless, the 2008 Act compensates people regardless of whether they contracted their disease through work, and this recognises the indiscriminate nature of mesothelioma. We have not conducted an impact assessment on the uprating of the lump sum schemes, but the noble Baroness raised a very valid point which I will certainly take back to the department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked why the uprating of the lump sum schemes has not been placed on a statutory footing. Each year, since 2004, Ministers have agreed that payments under the lump sum scheme can be uprated in line with inflation. Making this legally binding is extremely unlikely to make any actual monetary difference to those who benefit from these payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and other noble Lords raised the point about government support and mesothelioma. This is absolutely critical in the fight against cancer, which is why the Department of Health and Social Care invests £1 billion a year in health research through the National Institute of Health Research. For several years, we have been working actively to stimulate an increase in the level of mesothelioma research activity from a low base. This includes a formal research priority setting exercise, a National Cancer Research Institute workshop and a specific call for research proposals through the National Institute of Health Research.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked whether we could offer more support. I will take this away and write to the noble Baroness to see if there is anything we can do.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised the point of payments made in the past 12 months and how many of those arose from the slate quarrying industry. My responses may be disappointing, but the information is not published or readily available, and it would require analysis of multiple datasets for the 1979 scheme. In the quarter ending March 2020, there were a total of 210 industrial injury prescribed disease first assessments in the mining and quarrying industry, which were accepted and payable. The noble Lord asked how many applications had been turned down and what the main factor was in these cases. Again, the information is not published or readily available, and it would require some intensive analysis of multiple datasets. Information on industrial industry first diagnosed prescribed diseases all assessments by standard industry classification is published in the industrial industries disablement benefit quarterly statistics. If the noble Lord needs any help in accessing those, I ask him to please let me know.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, also asked, in relation to mesothelioma, whether I can give some clarification on whether the rapid access clinics, which are so important to secure the vital early identification of the disease and thereby facilitate payment, have been negatively impacted by Covid-19. It is imperative that people get tested and that cancer patients continue to receive the treatment they need. Overall, cancer treatment services have been maintained throughout the pandemic. Between March and November last year, 203,000 people started treatment for cancer, and 95% of them did so within 31 days of a decision to treat.
In terms of the levy mentioned, it was £33.3 million for 2019-20 and £28.9 million for 2020-21. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised the point of equalising dependence payments for those made to people who have the disease. Again, the main intention of the scheme is to provide financial support to people living with certain diseases and to help them to deal with the issues the illness brings. It is right that funding is targeted where it is needed most, and around 90% of payments made under both schemes are paid to those who actually have the disease covered by these schemes. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked why we do not use money from recoveries towards the equalisation of dependence payments. The combined cost of the 1979 Act and 2008 Act scheme payments outweigh the money received from compensation recovery, so there is, of course, an overall cost to the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised a number of points. The first was what the latest projections are of when diffuse mesothelioma deaths in Britain will peak. There is always a degree of uncertainty in predicting future disease incidence, but the annually published data from the Health and Safety Executive show that annual mesothelioma deaths have been broadly similar over the last seven years. Before that, annual deaths had been rising.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, seafarers count as being in the UK. I will write to her with further information on that point.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about how this compensation compares to legal decisions, I will certainly take him up on his offer. I will be in contact to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked whether we will publish a breakdown of people with mesothelioma by age and occupation. Data on the incidence of mesothelioma was published on the Health and Safety Executive website. It can be found on the health and safety at work statistics page under the subheading of ill health. The breakdown is available by age, occupation and geographical location. Again, if the noble Baroness has any difficulty in accessing this, I hope that she will let me know.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made a point about anybody being worse off as a result of making a civil claim. The amounts paid under the 1979 Act were originally set at a lower rate than the usual amounts paid in damages in civil cases. It is therefore unlikely that the amount paid under the 1979 Act scheme or the 2008 Act scheme would be more than the damages received through a civil claim.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and others mentioned research; I have dealt with that.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about the Health and Safety Executive having sufficient resources, I will go back to the Employment Minister, who has direct responsibility for this, and double-check before I answer. I will write to her.
I thank noble Lords for the way in which they have entered into this debate. This is a terrible disease with terrible consequences. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I hope that we will never debate this, as we do on an annual basis, without being moved by the impact of these diseases.
I commend the uprating of the payment scales for these schemes and ask approval to implement the regulations.
Motion agreed.
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.40 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Bank for International Settlements (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Bank for International Settlements (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid on 11 January 2021 under the affirmative procedure. It confers immunities and privileges on the Bank for International Settlements, BIS in short, that have been negotiated as part of a host country agreement to support the establishment of a new BIS innovation hub in London. The order is required so that the UK is able to comply fully with its obligations under the host country agreement. Before I go into further detail about the order, please allow me to provide some policy context.
In June 2020, it was announced that the Bank of England was successful in its bid to host a BIS innovation hub in the United Kingdom. The hub will conduct research on how new technology may change the way financial services operate in the future and help the global central banking community ensure that this innovation does not have a negative impact on consumers and the stability of the financial system. Most importantly, the hub will help develop and share best practices with central banks across the world, including in developing countries.
As we all recognise, the United Kingdom is a global leader in financial innovation and technology, and the UK’s fintech sector is worth nearly £11 billion annually to the economy. This success is largely due to the UK’s policy and regulatory expertise in financial innovation and fintech, and London being selected to host the hub reflects that. To pick just one example, the UK was the first jurisdiction globally to implement a “regulatory sandbox” to support financial firms in the testing of innovative products and services. This initiative has now been replicated by countless regulators around the world.
As countries, particularly developing ones, grapple with the emergence of new financial technologies and the rapid increase in the use of digital payments, it is only right that we support the creation and sharing of best practice in this area with the international community. Let me now turn to the details of the order.
This order confers legal capacity and immunities and privileges on the BIS and persons connected with the bank, such as staff and secondees. These have been negotiated as part of a host country agreement. The International Development Act 2002 allows the Government to give effect to such provisions made in an agreement establishing an international financial institution. The negative order linked to this order, which came into force on 1 February, added the BIS to the list of international financial institutions referenced in the 2002 Act.
The BIS is an international financial institution, headquartered in Switzerland, with a mandate to support global monetary and financial stability. It therefore shares similar policy objectives with other international financial institutions, such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation, which are part of the World Bank Group. I can reassure noble Lords that the proposed legislative changes make no other amendments to the International Development Act and that the immunities and privileges afforded to persons connected with the bank, such as staff and secondees, are strictly limited to those required for them to conduct their official activities and are not for their personal benefit.
It is customary practice to grant immunities and privileges to international financial institutions to enable them to function and they are in line with those offered to officials of other international financial institutions of which the UK is a member. These include immunity from suit and legal process for its staff in respect of their official acts, and tax exemption. They do not include immunity in respect of road traffic accidents.
To conclude, this order confers only those immunities and privileges on the Bank for International Settlements and persons connected with the bank such as staff and secondees that are necessary for the institution to function effectively and conduct its official activities in the UK. The new BIS innovation hub will help to ensure that rapid advances in financial innovation will benefit consumer outcomes and, as I said, support financial stability. This is an area where the United Kingdom already enjoys a competitive advantage and the hub will help to share best practice with the international central banking community, including throughout the developing world. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order, which confirms an interesting and potentially very useful innovation. I have just one question. The order confers an extraordinarily widespread immunity on those managing this new hub. I am aware that the Minister has made it clear that these immunities are not for personal gain; nevertheless, employees of the hub are, apart from some civil liability in arbitration, effectively above the law in all their professional work. What steps will the Government take to ensure that individuals do not seek to abuse these privileges?
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the establishment of the hub in London, which is renowned for its skills in the financial sector and in regulation. This testimony to that is therefore very welcome. I understand why a degree of what we might call diplomatic immunity may be required, although the total freedom from immigration restrictions is interesting because we have huge pools of labour in this country that could do the work that I guess will be done within the hub. Could the Minister say whether those who will be coming into the UK to work at the hub, and will come in free of any immigration controls, will actually be doing jobs that could perfectly easily be done by the many skilled people we have in the City of London?
More broadly, I welcome the areas in which the innovation hub will be involved. It will play to the strengths of the City and those areas where we are renowned, particularly fintech, which is a growing sector in the UK, and regulation, where we like to think we are ahead of the curve. I am not always so sure of that. However, we are told that one area that the hub will be looking at carefully is that of central bank cryptocurrencies and how these should be regulated. My real question is allied to that because I am deeply concerned about the growth, not in central bank cryptocurrencies, but in cryptocurrencies generally. Noble Lords will have seen that the price of bitcoin, which fluctuated hugely in January, between $34,000 and $47,000, has again leaped into the news because Elon Musk is putting $1.5 trillion into it. While the founder of Tesla can afford to lose $1.5 trillion, although I am convinced he has no wish to do so, my concern is that a lot of people will be persuaded to put hard cash into bitcoin because Elon Musk has done so, and their money will be at risk.
Bitcoin is not regulated; indeed, none of the cryptocurrencies is regulated as such. Derivatives of cryptocurrencies are regulated. I think that the time has come for the UK to lead the way in regulating completely these new and potentially very dangerous currencies. The US is beginning to look at this and the SEC is now considering whether to prosecute XRP, which, far from being a currency, looks like a scam. I fear that there may well be more of these, so I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether he has any means of persuading the innovation hub in London to pioneer regulation—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I think we got the gist. I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this short debate and to add my support to the initiative of the Bank of England and the Government in bringing the Bank for International Settlements innovation hub to the UK. As other speakers, including my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, have said, we are acknowledged as leaders in fintech and the combination of domestic skills and this institution will further consolidate that situation. I hope that the furtherance of the work of the hub will not only benefit the UK and the developed economies but will also directly impact on development of the weaker economies of the world. The bank itself has good intentions but is not yet as representative globally as I would like it to be. Can my noble friend assure me that, by hosting this hub, we will also encourage the bank to institute wider membership from those parts of the world that are currently underrepresented in its counsels?
I turn to the interesting way in which the order is presented, and the measures and entitlements it offers to bank staff and dependants. We are, of course, fully acquainted with the diplomatic immunities offered to ambassadors and others who represent their countries here in the UK, which are confirmed by the various Vienna conventions and the convention on consular relations, followed by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. I will move off my script for a second. Knowing of the incredible diplomatic skills and charm of the Minister, might he have a word with his friends in the Foreign Office and see if we cannot sort out this ongoing problem regarding the diplomatic status of the EU’s ambassador? I would be pleased if he would. Having said that, I will go back to my script. In recent years, from time to time, we have witnessed some of our guests and their staff interpreting the privileges they have here in a wider context than the normal caveat of “relating to acts performed in the course of their duties”.
As we all know, there are also other immunities from prosecution available to our own citizens, where the Crown Prosecution Service believes that this might aid the conviction of a criminal, where co-operation is a key element. However, I would be interested to know how many organisations like the bank under discussion today have currently enjoyed the special immunities that this order confers? For instance, I know that the International Maritime Organization is based in London. Does it and its staff enjoy these privileges? I am assuming that there are many others too, so perhaps my noble friend might elucidate on this. I see that, in this case, the offer of immunity was a condition of securing the bid to have the bank here. Apart from any other cases of a similar kind, is it now a normal expectation that such immunities have to be offered? Is there international precedent, pursued by other states in such bids? Where others have been successful and we have not, is that because they have made better offers of this kind?
This order is also unique in allowing the exercise of Section 12 of the International Development Act 2002 for the very first time. An Order in Council by Her Majesty is an interesting feature of this measure, especially as it relates to immunities and privileges of a non-domestic body. Can my noble friend enlighten the Committee as to whether this is now regarded as a precedent in any way? Regardless of the general immunities which this order will confer, I note, as a former Immigration Minister, that bank officials and staff will, additionally, have the benefit of exemptions from immigration controls for their dependants. Was this extra provision requested as part of the bid process, or offered because of any other precedents? The main immunities are to BIS officials and employees and are wide, but the extension to dependants appears in the negative Order in Council.
The securing of this facility for the UK is, of course, to be welcomed. Only the Government and the Bank of England know the details of the competition to win the bid but it is obviously important and of interest to all noble Lords, as legislators, to be aware of the terms we need to offer in global competitions of this kind.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The Bank of England has made a successful bid to host the Bank for International Settlements innovation hub in the UK. In order for it to operate in the UK, it is necessary to grant immunities and privileges which will be effected in the host country agreement between the UK and the BIS when it is signed. These privileges and immunities have been negotiated between the UK and the BIS in the HCA and are the most limited, consistent with the functionality of an international financial institution.
The HCA will come into force once this Order in Council has been approved. The UK has agreed to grant certain privileges and immunities for BIS officials, employees and experts, particularly those who will be located at the BIS innovation hub in the UK. The immunities will include: exemptions from national taxation; immunity from inspection or seizure of official baggage; and inviolability of official papers and documents. BIS employees and their households will also be exempt from immigration control. First, does the Minister agree that these privileges are almost the same as given to diplomats? Secondly, does he agree that these BIS employees and their families will spend considerable sums of money to buy their daily needs from local shops and, possibly, employ local staff for their offices and homes?
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this statutory instrument and thank the Minister for introducing it. I realise that this is an administrative matter, so that this hub can be set up here with the relevant immunities and privileges required, although I note some of the concerns that other noble Lords have expressed. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, is right: if we can offer all these advantages then we should surely be offering due regard to the EU ambassador. I look forward to the Minister’s update on that.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the fact that the Bank of England has made this successful bid to host the Bank for International Settlements innovation hub in the United Kingdom. As the Minister said, the BIS is an international financial institution, headquartered in Basel, assisting central banks in the interests of global monetary and financial stability. As the Explanatory Notes say, the main activities are supporting discussion between central banks, producing research, and assisting central banks’ financial operations. I noted that its membership currently includes 62 central banks and monetary authorities from both advanced and developing economies. That is not every central bank of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, noted. I would be very interested in seeing which countries are involved, and which are not. When DfID existed, did we encourage central banks in countries that we supported, for example in Africa, to join this? I would certainly hope so.
We certainly know how important financial co-ordination is, not least from the global effect of the 2008 financial crisis. We face new challenges now, with the economic effects worldwide of coronavirus and the speeding up of the adoption of new technology. New technology has often leap-frogged in Africa, not least with mobile money, from M-Pesa onwards, and it is vital that there are global discussions which help to underpin financial stability.
We now have cryptocurrencies moving fast, particularly in developing countries, and we know the risk here and how they may conceal corrupt payments. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, is surely right that they need to be regulated. There are many new challenges.
I note that the hub states that it aims, among other things, to act as a focal point for sharing best practices with regulators in developing countries. Can the Minister say how that information will be disseminated? It was an irony of the Brexit discussions, as many have noted, that fishing played a large part but our financial sector so small a part in the discussions. Given that the Minister has just stated that the fintech sector alone is worth nearly £11 billion a year to the UK economy and that the UK is indeed a world leader in this area, that was astonishing. The DIT has just held a UK-Africa fintech summit, at which the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, noted that
“the financial services sector is a key primary driver of a nation’s economy. There is a strong correlation between economic development and the depth of their financial and professional services sector.”
Indeed so.
I note that there are two BIS representative offices, one in Hong Kong and one in Mexico. Can the Minister tell us whether the one in Hong Kong looks secure in current circumstances? I also note that, between 2020 and 2022, it is planned that centres will open not only in London but in Toronto, Frankfurt, Paris and Stockholm, and that they will form a strategic partnership with the Federal Reserve in New York. What are the implications for London of those other European centres? How will that work?
The Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, said in relation to this hub:
“Now more than ever it is important the central banking community does all it can to build a more effective, resilient and inclusive financial system, and technology is an important part of that effort.”
He argues that the hub will provide
“an important venue to ensure the UK’s deep expertise in innovation can contribute to solving global financial issues.”
We all certainly hope that this expertise will continue to develop for the economic future of the United Kingdom.
I come to the immigration provisions in perhaps an opposite way from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. Can the Minister assure me that there will not be restrictions on who might be recruited to work at this hub, and that it will not be affected by the new Immigration Rules, which will have such a damaging effect on being able to attract technical support from EU citizens whose salaries may not be above the requisite level? I hope that the UK will become more responsive to the rest of the City of London and elsewhere in our economy in our being able to attract people in whose salaries may be below the levels we are stipulating.
I certainly hope that this new hub prospers and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome this statutory instrument. The Bank of England said in its press release at the time:
“The decision to establish this centre is a reflection on the UK’s position as a world leader in innovation and technology”.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, the BIS is also responsible for promoting stability, so I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to her question about the new bitcoin currencies that are developing and establishing themselves. Certainly the press reports on Elon Musk are pretty worrying.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, I would be interested to hear about this issue. They referred to the fact that 62 countries were part of the system of BIS, which represents 95% of world GDP. What are we doing to ensure that the membership is expanded and built on?
I have some specific questions in relation to the host country agreement. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, said, the specific powers to create these regulations are contained in Section 12 of the International Development Act 2002, and it is the first time that these powers have been used. Can the Minister advise whether any further regulations are required, for example in the exercise of powers under the International Organisations Act 1968?
Noble Lords have referred to the exemptions, which appear to be in line with international precedent. Nevertheless, there are security implications there. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will work closely with those managing the new hub to ensure that no individuals seek to abuse those exemptions?
The other area that is specifically excluded and where no immunity is conferred relates to road traffic accidents. Can the Minister confirm whether such an exemption has been included in previous immunity agreements or this is a new policy?
Turning again to the host country’s agreement and comparable agreements in the BIS, I wondered whether there were any differences that the Minister would draw to noble Lords’ attention. For example, I note that the 1998 agreement with the Hong Kong Administration does not exempt the hub office from all taxes, which are exempt in the UK agreement. Is this a relevant difference, or is it something that we need to understand better?
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, mentioned that the Explanatory Notes refer to the fact that the new hub is the result of a bid by the Bank of England, and other noble Lords referred to this bidding process. Obviously, that has policy implications. Is there any intention, or has there been an opportunity, to publish the details of the bid so we have a bit of transparency and accountability—particularly if this is an issue where we will be seeking to attract other similar institutions to London?
At the end of the day, we must welcome the fact that we have this hub and that it will promote and include innovation in this field. However, one of the broader issues regards how we finance our contributions. Are there any additional issues with the source of the finance and whether it comes out of our ODA budget? Of course, one thing that all noble Lords are completely focused on at the moment is the size of that cake and how it is being reduced by the decline in the size of the economy, but not least also the policy decision to move from 0.7% to 0.8%. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government’s priorities will not be affected by this decision.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, let me say that I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and support in welcoming this new initiative and the success that we have achieved with the Bank of England’s successful bid to host the innovation hub of the new Bank for International Settlements in London.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to the bidding process and greater levels of transparency. Obviously, when the Bank of England bids in any confidential process, certain things are very much part and parcel of the bidding process as it is made.
I am sure that noble Lords recognise—indeed, several of them referred to this—that one of the main bases on which this bid was successful was the recognition of the City of London as the leading global international financial capital. Although it was some time ago now, I declare a mild interest related to this as someone who worked in the City for more than 20 years. This decision further recognises the importance of infrastructure and innovation in the context of the City of London. Notwithstanding our departure from the European Union, it is a real boon for the UK economy and our place as a global Britain around the world.
I will now pick up on some of the specific questions. Some technical questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, with reference to specific Acts. On the specifics of how this order relates to other Acts, I will write to him to ensure that we are correct in the detail.
Picking up on the point about immunities and privileges made by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, it is standard practice for international organisations, including international financial institutions and their staff, to be accorded immunities and privileges by host Governments. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also raised the issue of the Government’s approach to this. The immunities and privileges granted to international organisations, such as international financial institutions, should be granted primarily on the basis of strict functional need. The host agreement grants legal capacity to the BIS so that it can enter contracts and have a UK bank account, for example. As I stated in my opening remarks, immunity from legal processes is granted because it is necessary to ensure that the BIS and other persons connected to the bank, such as staff and secondees, have the independence necessary for them to carry out their functions. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, among others, raised the issue of abuse of this. I assure her that where this is suspected, the privileges and immunities will be revisited and the institution will be asked to waive these specifically.
My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft speaks with great insight and experience of the City of London. She talked about how staffing will work in this new innovation hub. The converse argument was presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. We want to allow the best and the brightest to be recruited. In regard to issues around immigration, yes, we continue, as anyone who has worked in the private sector or elsewhere will recognise, to want to see the best of homegrown talent come forward, but equally to allow for an international hub to benefit from international talent. The BIS is set up, if I may put it this way, to attract the best and the brightest.
The issue of cryptocurrency, interestingly, was raised, and rightly so. There has been a lot of topical discussion on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft talked specifically about regulation. Regulation of financial services over time has demonstrated that, at times, voluntary measures are introduced, but there is a requirement to provide for the security and safety of all investments that might be made. With the growth of bitcoin, I totally recognise the lack of a regulatory environment in which the bitcoin sector operates and the vulnerabilities of people who invest in it without the security of other investments. I assure my noble friend that this will form part of our G7 workstreams. Among others, the FCA has taken steps towards looking at regulation in this respect.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhope also talked specifically about the IMO and other international organisations. Under this order, we have reflected the status of the bank as an international financial institution. My noble friend and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to the powers that we were granted under the International Organisations Act 1968 and asked why we are not using them. As the BIS is considered an international financial institution, the International Development Act 2002 was deemed the most appropriate route to confer immunities and privileges, rather than the International Organisations Act 1968. For example, the Bank for International Settlements does not fall directly within the scope of international organisations covered by Section 1 of the IOA 1968, which is limited to organisations of which the UK or HMG are members. The BIS is a membership organisation of central banks, not Governments themselves. It is the Bank of England, not the UK, that is a member of the BIS.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhope also talked about extending the scope beyond the current membership of the BIS. Of course, that is primarily a matter for the BIS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also recognised, there are now 63 central banks and monetary authorities which are currently members of the BIS, and which can vote and are represented at meetings. I will share some facts and figures with noble Lords. Of the current membership by income status, 70% are from advanced economies and 30% from developing economies. To give noble Lords a sense of geographical breakdown, 54% are from Europe, 15% from Asia, 10% from Latin America, 8% from MENA and 3% from Africa. Membership is not required for central banks to benefit directly from the BIS’s research. For example, 300 organisations from 160 countries already benefit from access to its Financial Stability Institute’s web-based information tool. However, I fully acknowledge what noble Lords have raised, including my noble friend Lord Kirkhope. As we strengthen the role of the City of London, we will continue the UK’s global role in the world and particularly in financial services, focusing on the importance of widening the scope so that all parts of the globe, including, most importantly, the developing parts, benefit from fintech and the innovations provided by this new hub.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope—I thank him for his description of my charm and powers of persuasion—referred to the issue of the EU delegation to the UK. The update on this is that we continue to engage with the European Union on the arrangements for the EU delegation. These are ongoing discussions, and I do not want to pre-empt any particular outcomes. However, I have noted noble Lords’ concern and reflections on this important issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, also talked about the importance of privileges and immunities. I believe that I covered that in part through the assurances that I provided.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly raised concerns over the situation in Hong Kong and how that will be reflected in the work of the office there. As she will appreciate, at the moment the situation is very fluid, and of course we are concerned by developments more broadly in Hong Kong, as the noble Baroness will be fully aware. She also raised the importance of co-ordination across key centres and offices of the institution and named a number of cities in this respect. Again, that underlines the importance of the financial services sector, its connectivity and how innovation and technology will further enhance the manner in which international financial centres further co-ordinate these activities. As all noble Lords will know, the BIS is often referred to as the bankers’ bank—that is, it is the bank which provides settlements for central banks—so its role is even more crucial.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also raised a technical point about traffic accidents. As far as I am aware—if this is not correct, I will amend the record—it is very much standard to grant that exemption from privileges and immunities, in the manner in which privileges and immunities work for international agreements.
I believe that I have covered the majority of the questions which were raised specifically on this issue. I conclude my remarks by saying once again that, if there are any additional points that I have not covered, I will write to noble Lords in the appropriate way and place a copy of the letter in the House of Lords Library.
Finally, this is a recognition of the City of London’s continued strength. I believe the innovation hub will lend itself to further innovation and technology advancements within the City of London, not just to retain the strength of the City as a global financial centre but to continue to retain its position as the leading financial centre in the world.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Electronic Commerce Directive (Education, Adoption and Children) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electronic Commerce Directive (Education, Adoption and Children) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before Parliament on 18 January. I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for considering them. I also thank the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which considered the regulations in 2019.
The regulations seek to remove statutory measures that implemented Article 3 of the e-commerce directive, better known as the country of origin principle, from two pieces of legislation: the Education Act 2002 and the Electronic Commerce Directive (Adoption and Children Act 2002) Regulations 2005. This is a necessary step now that we have left the European Union and the transition period has ended.
The e-commerce directive is a piece of EU legislation that aims to facilitate digital trade in the EU’s internal market. It was introduced by the EU in 2000 and seeks to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by ensuring the free movement of information society services, which, for ease, I will refer to as online service providers.
Article 3 of that directive contains the country of origin principle, which is designed to facilitate digital trade among businesses in the European Economic Area. It applies to online service providers based in any state operating across the European Economic Area and means that online service providers have to follow certain rules only in the state in which they are established, rather than in each state where their service is received.
This principle applied to a variety of parts of UK legislation. To give one example, in October, noble Lords will have heard my noble friend Lady Barran speak in this House to regulations that removed the effect of the directive from the Communications Act 2003. However, the regulations we are debating today concern two main aspects of policy: teacher misconduct and adoption.
On teacher misconduct, Section 141F of the Education Act 2002 sets out reporting restrictions that aim to protect the identification of a teacher in England and Wales facing an allegation of an offence made by or on behalf of a pupil until the point at which legal proceedings for the offence have begun or the Secretary of State for Education publishes information following an investigation or decision relating to the allegation. Section 141G makes it an offence to publish information in breach of Section 141F. Schedule 11B to the Education Act 2002 applies the country of origin principle to the offence created by Section 141G.
On adoption, the Electronic Commerce Directive (Adoption and Children Act 2002) Regulations 2005 give effect to the country of origin principle in two offences in the Adoption and Children Act 2002. First, Section 92, dealing with restrictions on arranging adoptions, prevents anyone who is not an adoption agency, or acting pursuant to a court order, taking steps to arrange the adoption of a child. Secondly, Sections 123 and 124, dealing with the restriction on advertising adoptions, prohibit advertisements relating to the adoption of a child unless they are undertaken by an adoption agency.
Following our withdrawal from the EU, the country of origin principle no longer applies to the UK. It is for this reason that these regulations have been laid: to amend the 2002 Act and the 2005 regulations to remove inappropriate provisions and ensure that our legislation continues to operate effectively.
These regulations do not create new policy. The offences I have referred to, which protect children and teachers, remain in our legislation unchanged. These regulations are a technical measure to fix all failures of retained EU law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. They will ensure that all online service providers who commit an offence created by the Education Act 2002 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 in the UK will be liable for prosecution in the UK.
Domestic online service providers that publish prohibited information in a European Economic Area state will no longer be automatically treated as having committed a relevant publishing offence in England and Wales for an offence under the 2002 Act, or anywhere in the UK for offences under the 2005 regulations, but will be subject to prosecution in the state in which the offence is committed. It will also mean that online service providers established in a European Economic Area state will not automatically be exempt from prosecution in the UK. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much doubt that this is a unique situation with respect to the consideration of regulations. But, in more than 23 years in your Lordships’ House, this is the first time I have participated in a debate involving just two speakers. Indeed, is it actually possible to have a debate with only two speakers? Perhaps that is a subject that the Minister and I should debate. The lack of interest from other noble Lords today is perhaps down to the fact that these regulations are non-controversial. I thank the Minister for introducing them.
The regulations require affirmative approval, and, on behalf of the Opposition, I am content to signify our support. We welcome the fact that they are subject to the affirmative procedure, because that was not the case when an early version of these draft regulations was brought forward in 2019. In its meeting two weeks ago, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House considered these instruments and concluded that there was no requirement for them to be reported to both Houses. However, in 2019 that was not the case; at that time the draft regulations were considered with a view to the possibility of the UK departing the European Union without a deal being signed. Thankfully, that has been avoided. However, two years ago the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said in its report that the draft regulations should be upgraded to the affirmative procedure. It is therefore appropriate that the affirmative procedure applies to the regulations we are considering today.
The Minister has set out the intricacies of the draft regulations in more detail than I am able to. As she said, the provisions in question engage the country of origin principle—a reciprocal arrangement between EU member states which, as of 31 December, no longer applies to the UK. These regulations disapply that principle as it relates to the subject matter of Schedule 11B to the 2002 Act, which applies only to England and Wales, and the 2005 regulations, which apply across the whole of the UK. The amendment of these provisions is necessary to reflect the ending of this reciprocity and to ensure that domestic legislation continues to operate effectively in the post-EU environment. The relevant provision in the 2002 Act relates to the offence which is committed where a person breaches a reporting restriction set out in the Act in respect of a teacher who has been accused of an offence involving a pupil at their school. The relevant provisions in the 2005 regulations concern a breach of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which imposes certain restrictions on arranging adoptions and the publishing or distributing of adoption-related advertisements.
There is not much more I wish to say. We believe that the amendments contained in these draft regulations are logical and appropriate. It is right and proper that only the state has a legitimate authority to arrange and oversee adoptions. We welcome this being reiterated and that both the institution of adoption and the rights of teachers will continue to enjoy the full protection of the law.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for his contribution on these regulations. I hope that public health will allow us to meet face-to-face at some point in the future and perhaps debate the challenge to consider whether two people can have a debate.
I hope I have reassured the noble Lord that the amendments made by these regulations do not dilute or diminish in any way the offences I have described that are set out in the Education Act 2002 and the Electronic Commerce Directive (Adoption and Children Act 2002) Regulations 2005. Neither do these regulations impact in any way on the policy behind those regulations. We most definitely want to continue to protect the identity of teachers who are accused by a pupil of an offence until the point at which relevant proceedings have begun. We also want to continue to safeguard children by ensuring that arranging or advertising adoption is something that legally can be undertaken only by adoption agencies.
As I have outlined, these regulations are purely a technical measure to fix what would have become a failure of retained EU law. Our intervention will empower UK regulators to enforce UK laws where the offence is committed in the UK and irrespective of the country in the European Economic Area where the online service provider is based. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Death of a Member: Lord Fraser of Corriegarth
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Corriegarth, on 6 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them very brief—no longer than 30 seconds—and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Covid-19: Self-Isolation
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of people self-isolating who have been asked to do so as a result of testing positive for COVID-19.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we know that the public continue to make enormous sacrifices. A recently published study by UCL indicated that, in the case of people who have been in contact with someone who tests positive, the proportion who report self-isolating is around 80%. Isolation remains critical to breaking the chains of transmission. We continue to improve our support to those who are asked to isolate.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, surveys show that approximately a third of people stop self-isolating between one and five days, with many saying that, despite the current cash support, it is the financial crisis that they face that forces them out of isolation and back to work. Is it not time for the Government to deal with this and do what some other countries with high levels of self-isolation compliance do by paying people’s full wages while they isolate?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the surveys are not crystal clear about practice, but on the whole the UCL survey and our own interrogation of those isolating suggest that compliance is much higher than the noble Lord implies. I pay tribute to local councils, which are doing an enormous amount to provide the kind of economic support that the noble Lord quite rightly alludes to. Blackburn with Darwen, for instance, provides an enormous amount of support for those with annual earnings under £21,152. In Colchester, applicants must not have more than £16,000 in capital, but the council provides a substantial discretionary payment. It is this kind of targeted local support that we believe can make an enormous difference.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Yvette Cooper, the chair of the Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs, has reiterated that there is no testing at airports, with incoming passengers able to leave the terminal and go directly to public transport. This has been reinforced on television with passengers leaving Heathrow without any checks whatever, having flown in from South Africa via Dubai. Does the Minister believe that such slackness keeps the British people safe?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not accept the accusation of slackness. Testing should happen before the flight, not at the airport. All those who seek to avoid the red list protocols will be interviewed by the police, and the kinds of fines ascribed to that offence have been made crystal clear in the Statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
Does the noble Lord the Minister dispute the figure quoted by my noble friend Lord Scriven about the number cutting short their isolation, or is he just planning to ignore it? Does he accept the figure from local authorities that two-thirds of applicants for the £500 do not receive it? Does he therefore agree with me that most of those who apply for it actually need it to help them do the right thing?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do question the figure supplied by the noble Lord on isolation adherence because, I am afraid, he does not know, nor is there any questionnaire that can prove exactly, who is isolating, when they are isolating, for how long and under what circumstances. However, I agree with the noble Baroness that the issue of economic support is very important. We have put a large number of protocols in place. The isolation payment of £500 is substantial. I acknowledge that there have been procedural issues with that payment, but a lot of them have been ironed out and take-up of the money has increased.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, the challenges for effective testing, border security and the development of effective vaccines have obviously all increased hugely with the emergence of new variants, which continues and is causing great public concern. Can my noble friend say what the Government are doing to use the expertise that we have in the UK in genomic testing, which has enabled us to identify these variants, to help other countries do the same? In the end, it is not only the right thing to do morally, but it helps us too.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is entirely right. We can only be safe here in the UK if we understand what variants of concern are developing elsewhere in the world, if the countries where those variants are emerging are testing and are identifying those variants, and if measures are put in place to tackle them. That is why we have put together an international platform where we will accept samples of new variants from anywhere in the world and use Britain’s substantial genomic testing capacity to help countries process them. We are sending machines from the UK and providing expertise for all those who need to supplement their genomic testing using the considerable resources of Public Health England, the Sanger Institute and our genomic testing capabilities.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi on the excellent rollout of the vaccines. However, the CBI, of which I am president, had a recent survey that showed that only 13% of firms are testing their workforce, due to lack of expertise, unclear guidance and funding and operational regularity. However, firms have welcomed the workplace testing portal and the lowering of the employee threshold to 50. Can the Minister confirm what the medium and long-term strategy for workplace testing is and also the interaction of mass testing and mass vaccinations?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, of course, employees should be working from home wherever possible, and that is why our focus has not been on this area to date. I emphasise that on Monday the community testing part of Test and Trace issued a call to all those employers of more than 50 employees where it will provide free testing kits for those interested in using workplace testing. This is going to be an essential part of our fight against Covid in the future, and we look forward to working closely with the CBI and other employer groups to make sure that the rollout happens efficiently.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I am puzzled, because the studies by SAGE estimate that the levels of compliance were between 18% and 25% and that people earning less than £20,000 a year or who had less than £100 in savings were three times less likely to self-isolate. I repeat what other noble Lords have said: what plans do the Government have to fix statutory sick pay so that people who self-isolate have the proper financial support that they need? Also, how many people have applied for the £500 grant and how many people have been awarded it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, in terms of the numbers or proportion of those isolating, a large number of figures is being bandied around. Some apply to last year and some to this year. I raise doubts as to whether anyone truly knows what the behaviours of people are, but I reiterate that UCL reports that 80% are self-isolating for the recommended 10 days or more, and that figure has some authority. In terms of the support that we are offering to people, we have taken on board the recommendations of noble Lords on the Opposition Benches and local authorities are using targeted support that suits the communities in which they work to provide that kind of support. We have provided substantial financial funding and resources for local authorities to provide the support needed.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
Despite local authorities doing their best to support those self-isolating, good examples from Germany show that integrated health and care teams that visit people daily are vital to support people’s health and well-being in self-isolation. What has stopped the Government fully financing this integrated model across England?
Lord Bethell (Con)
We are hesitant to send teams of healthcare workers to people isolating because of the fear of infection. Obviously, having people attend those who have either tested positive or are the contacts of those who have tested positive does not comply with the latest hygiene protocol, but the noble Baroness is entirely right, and one way in which we could work harder is to use volunteers and community groups to provide pastoral and practical support for those isolating.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
Have HMG any stats on or traced the people who have been in isolation due to positive test results, as well as the regulatory lock-ups, and who have either died or developed serious conditions from other related ailments, such as neurosis?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are extremely concerned about the mental health impacts of Covid on all those who are feeling the effects most harshly. A substantial amount of money has been invested by NIHR into the mental health effects of Covid, and it is up to the institute to find out the impacts to which my noble friend refers.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a legal requirement to self-isolate if you test positive or are told to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace. However, Test and Trace counts as having been traced those who live with someone who tests positive. I believe that this is a dubious method of counting. Will the Minister tell the House whether those people who have not been contacted directly by Test and Trace can therefore be penalised if they fail to self-isolate?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The method of counting is done in the way that it is at the moment because we did try the way that the noble Baroness recommends and that led to all sorts of confusion. It led to people having dozens of SMSs and being called relentlessly by the same staff because other members of their household had been identified. It led to a very large number of complaints, including from noble Lords on the Opposition Benches who read to me at great length the complaints of their contacts. We rationalised the system along the lines we currently implement, and that has led to a much more effective system. The feedback from our questionnaires to households is entirely positive. Having isolated myself, with my considerable household of seven people, I can tell noble Lords that it is a huge relief that the account management system is now around households rather than individuals.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Lord, Harris of Haringey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, that there was not time to take their questions. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Inheritance Tax: Cohabiting Siblings
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make transfers of property between long-term, cohabiting siblings exempt from inheritance tax.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, while the Government are understanding of the issue, there are no plans to exempt transfers of property between long-term cohabiting siblings. The inheritance tax spouse exemption is long-standing and reflects the formal legal obligations that marriage and civil partnership relationships necessarily entail. Extending that would be precedent-setting, as no analogous legal status exists between cohabiting siblings.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, can there be any doubt that siblings who share their lives in jointly owned homes represent strong, stable families? It is a fundamental principle of conservatism to support all families. Why therefore do the Government continue to deprive these families of the protections that they deserve, no less than married couples and civil partners, to ensure, among other things, that no bereaved sibling has to face the agony of selling the family home on the death of a loved partner in order to pay an inheritance tax bill?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, of course the Government recognise the strong family ties that my noble friend refers to. However, that is a different matter from the formal legal obligations that marriage and civil partnership relationships entail. I also remind noble Lords of the context that 95% of estates pay no inheritance tax at all.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, could my noble friend explain why the Treasury thinks a sexual relationship is necessary to avoid the trauma of losing one’s home to pay inheritance tax when one member of a long-standing couple dies?
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I said to my noble friend Lord Lexden, the issue is around the unique legal relationship that marriage and civil partnerships entail. No similar legal relationship exists for siblings.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that life can be very unfair to single people and elderly people? This law is discriminatory. Siblings and family carers may have struggled on for years looking after each other, and they are saving the state a fortune in social care. Why should they not enjoy a tax deferral when one of them dies, especially since the state will recover on the death of the second survivor?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I remind noble Lords of the context that each individual can pass on at least £325,000 without any inheritance tax charge. That is well above the average house price in the UK. For those who are affected, there are also provisions where it is possible to have 10 years to pay off inheritance tax in instalments if the estate contains a house that is unsold.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, to follow up on the interesting question from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is there not a compromise? If the problem is a requirement for a sibling to sell a jointly owned and occupied property to pay IHT, why not simply defer the deceased’s liability, thereby leaving the surviving sibling undisturbed? The taxman would ultimately be paid. This could be done on the basis of a charge on the property, perhaps even tapered in favour of the Revenue or the surviving sibling, dependent on tax rate policy.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, to add to my previous answer, for those in certain circumstances, joint ownership would also mean that a house had to exceed £650,000—more than the average house price, including in London—to be liable for inheritance tax. As I say, there are arrangements in place whereby you can have up to 10 years to pay off inheritance tax in instalments if the estate contains an unsold house.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, without a change in the law, it pushes siblings who can afford it to employ expensive lawyers to incorporate a discretionary trust in their wills, which on a joint estate of £800,000 will save tax of £130,000, not as the Minister has just said. Does she agree that there is an urgent need to change the law to make such imaginative tax avoidance unnecessary?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid the Government do not agree that this is an urgent issue. It is an issue that we have debated a number of times in this House, and, while we have sympathy with those who may be affected, we emphasise that it is a minority of people. Having looked very carefully at this issue, we believe that the current status is the right one.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the run-up to the Spring Budget, surely the Treasury should be grappling with questions such as the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. However, many people across the UK are concerned not about the intricacies of inheritance tax but about rising council tax bills and the potential for Covid-19 economic support to be withdrawn in just seven weeks’ time. Is the Minister able to offer any reassurance to those who are struggling to make ends meet?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, without previewing the Budget in a few weeks’ time, I can reassure the noble Lord that all measures to support families during this difficult time are kept under review. Those reviews take into account the current circumstances that the country faces.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, inheritance tax hits people when they are at their most vulnerable—when they are bereaved. It is an unfair tax, paid on taxed money by only around 5% of estates, penalising all those who have done the right thing and saved for their old age. Surely we should be encouraging families to live together. Please can the unjust tax situation be looked at again, with a view to remedying this particular situation about siblings?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government understand that individuals work hard to build up their assets to pass on to their families. That is why the nil rate for inheritance tax exists and, as my noble friend has noted, exempts the vast majority of estates from paying inheritance tax. I also note that it makes an important contribution to the funding of public services in this country, equivalent to around 1p on income tax.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Minister tells us that 95% of estates do not pay any inheritance tax. In that case, could she tell us what estimate Her Majesty’s Treasury has done of the infinitesimally small number of people who would come under this situation? Has it done any research? Does it have any evidence to show what the impact on revenue from inheritance tax would be if it were to make this legal change, so that those of us who want to see that change can bring about Private Members’ Bills to so address this issue if it is unwilling to do so?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are of course aware of my noble friend’s previous Private Member’s Bill on this subject. The question is not just one of cost; it is about legal relationships between individuals. Married couples and couples in civil partnerships have a unique legal status and it is difficult to see why cohabiting siblings should benefit where other cohabiting family members, for example, would not.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
The unfairness in law that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has rightly highlighted goes well beyond the question of inheritance tax. In my experience, cohabiting siblings in mining communities face a whole range of disadvantages in law. Should the Government not be looking at the whole issue of the rights of those who choose to cohabit as, say, brothers and sisters?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, that is a broader point, but I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint noble Lords: the Government have looked at this issue in the context of inheritance tax, and may have looked at it more widely. In the context of inheritance tax, the unique legal relationship that marriage and civil partnerships entail has been concluded as the right place to draw the line on this issue.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Does the Minister agree that there is a considerable risk within the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that family members would find themselves being put under duress not to marry, to preserve family property and so on? It is not the wholly benign measure that he would lead us to believe.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am not entirely sure that that is the Government’s motivation for disagreeing with my noble friend Lord Lexden. The difficulty is around drawing the line between the legal status of marriage and civil partnership and the other status that cohabiting family members may have. It may not necessarily be around the less benign implications of drawing the line in a different place.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, that there was not time to take his question.
Covid-19: Performing Arts Freelance Workers
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the proportion of (1) the Cultural Recovery Fund, and (2) any other emergency support for the performing arts provided during the COVID-19 pandemic, that has directly benefited workers in that sector who are freelance.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as listed in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, around 40% of awards made so far from the £1.57 billion Culture Recovery Fund have gone to non-building-based organisations. Arts Council England has also provided over £47 million of awards to individuals through non-CRF funds. The Government have supported the self- employed in the performing arts through the Self-employment Income Support Scheme. As of 31 December, 60,000 self-employed people in the sector have claimed for phase 3 of the scheme, 76,000 received support in phase 1 and 72,000 in phase 2.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her detailed Answer and wish her a very happy birthday. It is undoubtedly true that significant help has gone to organisations from the CRF, but organisations can help freelancers only by employing them. Recent research from Freelancers Make Theatre Work shows that performing arts organisations ordinarily expect to spend nearly 40% of their turnover on employing freelancers. This has not been possible for nearly a year and there is no early prospect of work resuming. One-third of freelancers in the sector have received no government support since the pandemic began and I can tell from personal experience how desperate they have become. Do the Government now have plans to broaden the eligibility criteria for the Self-employment Income Support Scheme and/or to enable remaining CRF funds to be used to provide more targeted, direct support to freelancers?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her kind wishes. In relation to her question, she is right that the work of freelancers is totally tied up with the ability of cultural institutions to begin to perform again, something that we are all very much looking forward to. The Treasury is looking at phase 4 of the Self-employment Income Support Scheme and will be announcing the terms of that in the Budget early next month. In the meantime, we have held back £400 million from the Culture Recovery Fund as a contingency to make sure that we are able to support organisations and the freelancers they employ, so that we can begin to enjoy our performing arts again when it is safe to do so.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, what has the regional distribution of money paid out from the Culture Recovery Fund been? How much has been in London and the south-east and how much in the rest of the country?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I start by wishing the noble Baroness a happy birthday as well, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, if she is listening—it is a busy day. I will have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, with the exact distribution in England. In the devolved Administrations, £33 million has been given to Northern Ireland, £97 million to Scotland and £59 million to Wales.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Lords’ Interests. I also wish absolutely everybody a happy birthday, particularly the Minister, who has achieved so much at such a young age. I wonder whether she has had a chance to look at the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which suggests that for about 5% of the cost of the furlough scheme we could fill the gaps left for some freelancers who are not eligible under SEISS. It is about £5 billion, which in pre-Covid days was a lot of money, but in Covid days it is just 5%. Could she give me the Government’s view on that report? Will she, along with her colleagues, meet trade bodies such as the Creative Industries Federation which are doing so much work engaging with freelancers and looking for solutions?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am of course happy to agree to meet any of the trade bodies that my noble friend suggests. Colleagues in the department are considering this report and working very closely with HMRC, the Treasury and the freelance community to understand take-up of the Self-employment Income Support Scheme and how that can best operate in future.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I too wish all the noble Baronesses a happy birthday, of course. I would like to pick up on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. At the moment under SEISS, those freelancers who have gaps in their self-assessment tax returns during the last three years due to maternity leave, paternity leave or caring responsibilities have received lower grants. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government plan to adapt the scheme to incorporate a declaration for those freelancers so that these gaps can be covered?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I reassure the noble Viscount that all these options will be considered, but we remain of the view that the support that we are offering the cultural sector through the Culture Recovery Fund, combined with following public health advice so that we can reopen our cultural venues as quickly as possible, is the best route for re-employing freelancers.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab) [V]
All the people to whom we are giving birthday wishes—which I join in doing—are women. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that women freelancers working in the arts, who constitute a very high proportion, suffer badly for two reasons. Last year, pay gap enforcement was suspended, and many women reduced their working hours to care for children who were home for school. This renders them not qualified for the Self-employment Income Support Scheme. Will the Government adjust their provision to include targeted support for women freelancers working in the arts?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I said to other noble Lords, we are considering all the elements in detail and all the barriers to taking up the support offered. A further announcement on this will be made by the Treasury in the Budget.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD) [V]
Happy birthday to all as well, and for once I suspect that the noble Baronesses wish they were a bit older so that they could get the jab. Last week we saw British talent triumph in the nominations for the Golden Globes. We cannot risk losing this vibrant sector, which contributes so much to our economy and world standing, but that is what we are heading towards. As my honourable friend Jamie Stone has repeatedly highlighted in his campaign “Gaps in Support”, so many of those facing this plight are from the creative industries. Does the Minister recognise that there should be more targeted financial help for this group? Can she say what exactly the Government are doing about this?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I feel as though I should have birthday cake on the Dispatch Box. Of course our understanding and our approach needs to evolve as our understanding of the pandemic and its impact evolves. We have aimed to tackle this from all directions by supporting our institutions with a major funding package, having a very broad job support and self-employed support scheme, and giving targeted support to individuals—particularly from the Arts Council, which has distributed £47 million in England alone.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
Diversity of the performing arts is important. What is the linkage with self-employed freelancers, so that both Government and these individuals can keep abreast of what exactly is happening and raise matters of concern?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are making every effort to co-ordinate with the sector and hear from it directly about the impacts. I shall give my noble friend two examples: we have established steering groups for both indoor venues and outdoor events and festivals, and are working closely with a number of sector bodies across music and the arts. If there are particular groups that he thinks we should be listening to more, I invite him to get in touch.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am beginning to wish I had brought some freelancers along to sing “Happy Birthday”, rather than ask a question. However, given that the spring Budget is fast approaching, will DCMS Ministers now lobby the Chancellor to admit the mistakes of the past and accept and correct the injustice of excluding so many of our hard-working freelancers in the cultural industries from the Government’s Covid-19 support schemes? I also urge them to take advantage of the fact that we are entering the new tax year.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot accept the noble Lord’s criticism of the Government’s action, which has been speedy, generous, broad and effective. Of course we keep it under review, but it is unparalleled in its generosity.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, with all the birthday wishes, in which I join, we have run out of time, so I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, that there was not time to take their questions.
UK Shellfish Sector
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to reports of restrictions on the export of live bivalve molluscs to the European Union, what steps they are taking to support the shellfish sector in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con) [V]
My Lords, we recognise the importance of this long-standing trade and the impact of restrictions on a valued industry. Live bivalve molluscs ready for human consumption can be exported to the EU as “products of animal origin”. The Secretary of State raised the matter of exporting from GB class B waters with EU Commissioner Kyriakides, and we are pressing for an urgent solution to enable trade to resume.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend join me in extending our good wishes and regrets to Baron Shellfish of Bridlington, which prospered as one of the success stories of the common market, selling direct to customers in the European Union in the 1970s? Because of the bureaucratic and administrative barriers to trade since 1 January, it is now ceasing to trade, which is highly regrettable.
Given the recent ban, to which my noble friend referred, on exports from the UK of live bivalve molluscs, what plans do the Government have to use the regulatory framework set up under the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU? When does he expect that the specialised committee on fisheries will be set up? This would seem to be a classic case of an ideal solution being found by talking, rather than taking retaliatory tit-for-tat action.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend’s tone. We seek to have a quick discussion with Commissioner Kyriakides about how this trade can resume. We do not believe that the legal interpretation that they are putting on the class B waters is correct. We are working very closely with stakeholders and the devolved Administrations: my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have further discussions with the Welsh and Scottish Ministers tomorrow. We wish to resolve this matter. Of course, we want to ensure the smooth passage of exports of our excellent produce.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, yesterday, the Minister was uncharacteristically reluctant to answer my question about compensation, so I will ask it again today: will the fishers affected by this EU ruling have access to the £23 million disruption fund, made available to other fishers whose markets have been disrupted? Will the Government consider increasing that fund now that so many fishers seem to be in need of that kind of compensation?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, of course I shall seek to answer the noble Baroness’s question. The £23 million fund for financial assistance announced today is for those businesses that suffered a financial loss because of
“delays related to the export of fresh or live fish and shellfish to the EU during January”.
With our dialogue with the Commission, we seek to resume this valued trade from class B waters, which we think is completely justified under the law. What is more, many EU businesses have invested in depuration facilities, and that is what they wish.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be very aware of the damage that has been done to various aspects of the fishing industry by the trade and co-operation agreement and the lack of other agreements. It is very important that the Government get their own view over in this case, so would the Minister or one of his colleagues come down to Cornwall with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who negotiated the deal, to explain all these issues face to face with the industry itself?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
I am grateful to the noble Lord, and this gives me an opportunity to mention the very regular dialogue that there is between Defra and stakeholders that work with the exporters—the UK Seafood Exports Working Group, for instance. Of course I will take back to the Fisheries Minister the point about meeting Cornish fishing interest groups, and I am sure that they will be part of the discussions that we need to have to work towards resolution of some of these matters.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, we can all agree that this is a desperate time for a great many small businesses in this field. The latest figure I have seen for the size of this part of the industry was from 2019, when sales were recorded as £113 million; they now must be much more. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what proportion of UK production has been affected by this ban? What proportion of the remaining trade takes place in Northern Ireland?
This is a different angle from that voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, but I believe that a concern for the industry is that the £23 million support package appears to be geared to those who handle exports and is less likely to be accessible to the catching sector. It is reassuring to know that the Scottish Government have promised £6.5 million to help with the costs of the vessels involved; will further support be available from the UK?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, there were quite a number of questions there. In terms of trade, the figures are that the annual value of exports of live fresh bivalve molluscs to the EU in 2019 was £13.8 million, excluding scallops, which are less affected by this issue. The other point is that this particular ban does not relate to Northern Ireland. On the issue of support, in addition to the £23 million support scheme for across the UK, there is a newly established Scottish Seafood Exports Task Force, which will be engaging with Scotland and Scottish interests. In addition, there is the £100 million UK fisheries funding, which is £100 million over three years and begins in April, for the rejuvenation and modernisation of fishing fleets.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
As the Minister will be aware, the new rules also require export hygiene certificates. These would be a considerable cost to fishermen, but Cornwall Council is using Defra funding at the moment to meet those costs. However, that runs out in March. Can the Minister indicate that new funding will be made available so that these costs do not hit fishermen?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will take that particular point back to the Fisheries Minister, because it is important that that is received by my honourable friend. Clearly, we want to ensure that there is a smooth passage of exports, and that is what we are working on to resolve in the particular matter of class B live bivalve molluscs.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
Will the Government urgently redeploy the £23 million seafood winter scheme funding, which was set aside for a no-deal Brexit, to install and reupholster tanks and UV filters for mollusc fish farms to create a market-ready product for export and home promotion as well as maintaining and creating local jobs? Will the Government also work with water companies to improve run-off water quality discharged into our coastal waters?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
The noble Baroness makes two important points on the improvement of our waters. The water industry has invested £200 million in improving waters. We need to work on improving our waterways and marine environments, which is part of the 25-year environment plan. Also, the £100 million scheme may well apply to depuration and facilities, but I should say that, as part of the profile of this trade there are depuration facilities on the continent, so that the molluscs are purified close to the point of human consumption. This is part of the business model, and we think that this trade is legitimate and should resume.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that this is a situation where a little bit of compromise would be advisable? Standing on principles of control is not something we should do here, because the only alternative to keep this industry going is to encourage us all to eat moules frites more frequently.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We are seeking a pragmatic solution to this matter.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, I would like to follow on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. The Minister said a little bit about what needs to be done to bring our class B waters up to class A standards. Can he say how long he thinks this might take? Will the Government move this into a higher priority area now?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]
On the timeframe, there has been a lot of work to improve waters and achieve our water regulation standard results in shellfish waters of high class B quality. As I say, there is investment, and this will need to continue. Part of our 25-year environment plan is to have three quarters of our water in its natural state. This is going to need investment, and we are working on this. But I want to emphasise that our molluscs from class B waters are of very high quality, and we wish to work with permission to ensure that this legitimate trade, which is important around the country, is resumed.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to say that all supplementary questions have been asked.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Beijing Winter Olympic Games 2022
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the calls from human rights organisations to boycott the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we share the deep concern of these organisations regarding human rights violations in China, particularly those perpetrated against Uighurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. The UK has repeatedly taken a leading international role in holding China to account for its actions, including at the UN. We shall continue these efforts and keep further actions that may be required under close review. In respect of the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022, no decisions have yet been made about ministerial attendance. The participation of the national team in the Winter Olympics is, of course, a matter for our national Olympic committee, which operates independently of government, as stipulated by the International Olympic Committee.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he take back to anybody who is dealing with this the plight of the individual athlete, who may well be making a decision about their one chance to be at the absolute peak of their career—something they may have given their life to? If anybody decides not to go, or is told not to go, they should be given a chance to train sufficiently well to stand a chance the next time around, or possibly to make a career change, because that much we do owe them.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord, as I have become accustomed to, makes a very pertinent and important point about the investment that is made in a person’s training for the Olympics. One look at me and noble Lords will know that I have never aspired in that respect—but, on a serious note, I totally hear the noble Lord, and of course I will take his sentiments back to colleagues within government.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, the IOC is bound by the Olympic charter and last year it committed not only to strengthening its human rights strategy but to considering an amendment to the charter regarding members upholding human rights. Do the Government support the incorporation of stronger human rights commitments in the Olympic charter, and would they also support strengthening human rights obligations in future host city contracts?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Again, in principle, I see no reason why we, as a Government, and I, in my capacity as Human Rights Minister, would not be supportive of both points that the noble Lord makes.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, with 1 million Uighurs incarcerated in Xinjiang, does this not conjure up the spectre of Munich? Does the Minister agree that we should now be giving advice to senior diplomats and members of the royal family as to whether they should be attending the Beijing Winter Olympics? If another country were to say that they were willing to host the Winter Olympics, how would Her Majesty’s Government respond?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord’s final point; that would require various decisions at different organisational levels, not just by Her Majesty’s Government. On his initial point, I referred to ministerial attendance and, of course, we work with all attendees, including diplomats and the royal household, on future attendances. I note what the noble Lord said, but I cannot go further than that.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Is the noble Lord aware that China has apparently threatened the United Kingdom with sanctions in response to even considering a boycott? Therefore, we can see how important the 2022 Winter Olympic Games are to China’s global reputation. Will the Government be keeping any participation at these Games under close review?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, participation will very much be a question for the national Olympic committee itself. What I can say is that there have been no decisions made about ministerial attendance—although I would add that, with the recent challenges we have faced, not many decisions have been made about ministerial attendance in various parts of the world. But I hear what the noble Baroness says.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, human rights matters, inappropriate activities in our universities, security threats, 5G, Hong Kong and now possibly a boycott of the Winter Olympics—sadly, our relations with China are poor and likely to grow increasingly problematic. Yet, paradoxically, government websites are still encouraging British businesses to invest in China, and we still, I believe, indirectly offer foreign aid to China. It all seems a little inconsistent, so will my noble friend accept that, while we all hope for an improvement in relations with China, it would be sensible to remind ourselves that there are many other exciting trading partners in the Indo-Pacific area, many of which are democracies, and that Britain’s Asia policy should increasingly no longer simply be a China policy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s point about strengthening our global relationships across the world, we have specifically talked about the Indo-Pacific region. My noble friend will be aware of the strengthening relationships we have with key democracies in the world, including India. He is right to raise that wider spectrum of relationships. We are looking for strategic dialogue status within ASEAN. On his point about China, I hear very clearly what he says, but I draw his attention to the announcement that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made on 12 January for businesses operating directly with China, particularly with reference to Xinjiang. We continue to keep the situation of business relationships with China under review.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I am sure none of us wants to see a boycott of the Winter Olympics, yet we are seeing unprecedented human rights abuses and we will be judged by future generations on how we respond. Have Her Majesty’s Government considered what actions they might take against companies that are either official sponsors, suppliers or partners of these Games and that are bidding for public contracts?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I direct the right reverend Prelate to the point I made earlier about the 12 January announcement. We are looking to see how we can further strengthen any action that is required in this sphere. Businesses are also responsible for their own actions, but we are looking specifically at a number of the points that the right reverend Prelate has raised.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I might pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Wood. Often, the emphasis for participation is on the individual athlete. Have the Government had any discussions with the national Olympic committee about the operation of the IOC Rule 50, which forbids athletes to protest at Olympic venues? Surely it is time for the IOC to align the Olympic Charter with the UN Declaration of Human Rights—we should not allow athletes to be put in this position again.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the sentiments and the thrust of the noble Lord’s question: the onus should really be on an acceptance by all international committees of the UN Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights. The specific interaction is a question for another department, but I shall inquire and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, anyone who doubts the propaganda use to which the Olympics can be put by an authoritarian regime should visit the astonishing, magnificent 1936 Olympic Stadium in Berlin, which is a monument to National Socialism, whereas the boycott—the partial boycott—of the Moscow Olympics in 1980 sent a strong signal to the Soviet Union. So I urge my noble friend to take away the message that we will actually be assisting the Chinese Government in their use of propaganda if we do not condemn the Chinese Government by not sending any Ministers or official representatives to the Olympics.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I have noted very carefully what my noble friend said. I have already alluded to the fact that we have not yet made any specific decisions, but the decisions and calls we have made about the human rights situation in China have been very clear.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, boycotting the Winter Olympics in China for its brutal treatment of the Uighurs and other minorities would send an important message about the UK’s total commitment to human rights. Will the Minister underline this commitment by also condemning India’s behaviour for its indiscriminate use of tear gas, water cannon and savage police beatings of tens of thousands of farmers in their three-month peaceful demonstration against unjust and unconstitutional laws?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister responsible for our relationship with India, I reassure the noble Lord that we continue to raise a wide range of human rights concerns in a very constructive manner with India. On the specific issue the noble Lord raised, I assure him that we have reiterated the importance for any democracy of safeguarding a person’s right to protest.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Winter Olympics is a wonderful spectacle that we all enjoy watching. However, are we prepared to countenance sending Team GB to a country with such an appalling record on human rights, with Hong Kong in addition to the plight of the Uighurs? Are the Government waiting for a third devastating infringement of human rights before they decide to ignore China’s threats of retaliation before withdrawing ministerial attendance?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have been very much on the front foot and leading the charge. I have been engaged quite extensively, as the noble Baroness will know, at the Human Rights Council and within the UN framework in raising egregious abuses of human rights, particularly against the Uighurs in Xinjiang. I have already answered on the question of attendance in my original response.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, China has form on this. It threatened the Australians with sanctions about the WHO. Will my noble friend the Minister ask the Government to put this on the G7 agenda so that we can get a co-ordinated response, rather than just one country or another? Of course, it is still not too late to move the Winter Olympics to another venue, but it will be if we let things drift.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s second point, that is, of course, not a matter for the British Government, but I know what he is saying. On his first point about G7 action, he will have seen increasing co-ordination between G7 members around a values-based system for international human rights and we will continue to co-ordinate with our G7 partners during our presidency.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my position as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. Given the grave concerns about human rights abuses in China and its position as a source of much sporting equipment and specialist clothing, can the Minister tell me what support the Government are giving to UK sporting bodies to avoid products linked to slave labour and abusive labour practices, such as those widely reported in Xinjiang?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I understand that it is the noble Baroness’s birthday, so I will add my best wishes to her. Picking up on the seriousness and appropriateness of her question, we made announcements on 12 January specifically for companies in the public and private sectors to look at their supply chains. We will announce further details in this respect and we will talk through the usual channels on any further announcements that need to be made.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Robathan about the significance of Berlin in 1936 and Moscow later, but particularly Berlin. Unless there is a notable improvement in the next three or four months in the way the Chinese Communist Party treats the people of China, especially the Uighurs, the Chinese Christians and other faith and minority groups, should we not order our athletes and their representative bodies to withdraw from participation in these Games and try and get them moved elsewhere?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, let me reassure my noble friend. He will be aware of my commitment to the importance of freedom of religion or belief around the world. This issue is very pertinent to what my noble friend raises. We have talked often about the Uighurs and other minorities within China. It is very much a priority for Her Majesty’s Government. I know it is a priority for our Prime Minister. On the issue of the Olympics and China’s current hosting or a change of venue, as I have already said, that is not a matter for Her Majesty’s Government, but my noble friend makes a very strong point, as others have during this short debate.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the time for this Private Notice Question has elapsed.
Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 15 June 2020, 17 June 2020, 22 June 2020, 19 July 2020, 8 September 2020, 9 December 2020 and 11 December 2020 be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 8 February.
Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Penn
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 January be approved.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 February.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl of Courtown
That the Regulations laid before the House on 19 January be approved.
Relevant document: 43rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 February.
Yemen
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Biden Administration have reversed Trump’s designation of the Houthis as a terrorist organisation, appointed a special envoy for Yemen, curtailed support for offensive operations by the Saudi-led coalition in the conflict and are supporting the UN-led peace process. On this last point, what are we doing to align ourselves with the United States to bring an end to this conflict, which the UN has described as the worst humanitarian disaster? Will last year’s licensing of £1.4 billion of arms sales be the bigger consideration?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is right to raise the US Administration reversing the previous Administration’s designation of the Houthis, which we welcome. The UK is engaging very closely with the US Administration on this matter and over the past months we have shared our concerns about the designation and the humanitarian situation. Our ambassador to Washington has also met with the new special envoy to co-ordinate our efforts. As the noble Lord knows, we continue to provide humanitarian support. We will initiate further debate on this during our presidency of the UN Security Council and we continue to adopt a very tight regime on arms exports.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, why yet again have the Government failed to provide a credible explanation for their decision not to join their closest ally and its much welcome new President in suspending arms sales? This war has lasted seven years. The citizens of Yemen have suffered misery, famine and death. What is wrong with assisting the President in the endeavours to break the logjam by giving him unqualified support?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with the United States on this. We agree that it is important to bring this crisis of humanitarian suffering to an end and work very closely in this respect. On arms sales and export licences, I assure the noble Lord, as I have done previously, that we will not issue any export licence where there is a clear risk of serious violation of international humanitarian law.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
The claim that the United Kingdom and other countries providing arms to Saudi Arabia were potentially “aiding and assisting” war crimes by the country’s forces in Yemen is a heavy charge to be laid on our country. The Government have indicated that they do not intend to mirror the actions taken by the United States and suspend defence exports to Saudi Arabia. Will they reconsider their decision not to mirror the actions taken by our closest ally, the United States, and suspend defence exports to Saudi Arabia as part of an attempt to end the Yemen conflict?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already in part stated the Government’s position in answer to the previous question. Yes, we have an ongoing defence relationship with Saudi Arabia, but it is not just about exports; we also provide valuable training courses, advice and guidance. We have a strong relationship. I assure my noble friend that the issue of international humanitarian law is at the forefront in any exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or any other country.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, not achieving objectives is failing. It follows that the war in Yemen is doomed, with the return of Mr Hadi unrealistic and the Houthis not only controlling the areas with the largest proportion of the population but exercising control over Saudi border regions. Would not the best immediate course be external disentanglement in all perceived forms, including cessation of arms to Saudi Arabia—bar supply of critical humanitarian necessities—and, to the extent that Tehran can extend influence on the Houthis, constructive engagement with that country while encouraging Saudi Arabia to come to the table and negotiate its way out of this mess?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about ensuring that all regional players play their part in bringing about peace in this conflict. We are also very much guided by and integrated into the work, which I am sure all noble Lords acknowledge, of UN special envoy Martin Griffiths; we urge parties to engage with him constructively. The UK has also made available £1.6 million to the UN to run the peace support facility that works with the special envoy and all parties on peace initiatives supported by both sides.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, the United Nations predicts that the number of Yemenis experiencing famine-like conditions will reach 47,000 by June, nearly triple that of December. In the light of the signals that US policy towards Yemen is changing, as we have heard, and the upcoming aid review, will the Government commit to at least maintaining their current aid commitments to Yemen? Further to earlier questions, does the Minister agree that the public find it hard to understand how the Government intend to reconcile their role of being both arms seller to Saudi Arabia and peacemaker and aid-giver in Yemen?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the right reverend Prelate’s first point, we remain very much committed, through the challenging exercise of the reduced total spending, to playing a leading and active role in combating hunger in Yemen. For example, in the financial year 2020-21, we spent £214 million. On his final point on our relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as I alluded to earlier, we have strict criteria on which we agree to exports of arms sales.
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab) [V]
The Minister will be aware that arms sales to Saudi Arabia amount to approximately 40% of the volume of all UK arms sales. Does he agree that UK arms sales and technical support are sustaining the war in Yemen and that we should use the US decision to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia as an opportunity to pursue peace talks?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already given the Government’s position on arms sales, but I agree with the noble Baroness; we will work very closely with the US and other allies, and through the UN, to ensure that we can bring about peace in Yemen. However, that requires the participation of all parties to the conflict.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
Will the Minister consider whether it is right and proper for outside parties to continue to pressurise the warring north and south of Yemen to remain together? Would it not be desirable for the Southern Movement, which is highly competent and full of professionals, to be left alone to restore the former living standards of south Yemen and the huge prosperity of the port of Aden?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point about southern Yemen, but I am sure she will agree that it is a question for the Yemeni people. The position of the United Kingdom and the Security Council remains that we support the unity, sovereignty and independence of Yemen. That is why the UK supports an inclusive peace process in this respect.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that calls for the suspension of British arms sales to Saudi Arabia are misplaced? This would not help the search for peace; it would simply encourage the Houthis to dig their heels in still further. It would also be extremely damaging to our very important relationship with Saudi Arabia, a country in which I have served twice. Finally, does he agree that the key lies in Tehran and that American diplomatic muscle will be essential?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with experience of that region. I agree that it requires Tehran, the United States, the UN and all parties to come together to finally bring peace to Yemen.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, at a time when the United States and President Biden have shown such a magnificent stand on the principles on which foreign policy should be based, in their reversal of the existing policy on arms to Yemen, is the obstinacy of the British Government, refusing to budge on this, really the hallmark of what they want to be seen as global Britain?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the objective of Her Majesty’s Government is to bring about peace in Yemen. As I have already indicated, this engages us on several fronts. We are second only to the US in the humanitarian support we provide to Yemen. We have engaged quite directly as penholders at the UN Security Council and will continue to do so. I believe I have made our position on arms control and exports very clear on a number of occasions, and again today. However, I assure the noble Lord that we will work very closely with the new Administration in the United States, who have clearly signalled the importance and priority they attach to this issue, in pursuit of the objective—peace in Yemen.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume, and I ask all Members to respect social distancing. During Committee on the Domestic Abuse Bill, I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it is not possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice, either in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Wednesday 10th February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-VI(Rev) Revised sixth marshalled list for Committee - (8 Feb 2021)
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse
(1) This section applies where there are two or more joint tenants under a secure or assured tenancy and the landlord is a local housing authority or a private registered provider of social housing.(2) If one joint tenant (“A”) has experienced domestic abuse from another joint tenant (“B”) then A may apply to the county court for an order that B is removed as a joint tenant.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) it is sufficient that the domestic abuse was directed at A or to anyone who might reasonably be expected to reside with A.(4) On such an application, the court must take the following approach—(a) the court must be satisfied that the tenancy is affordable for A, or will be so within a reasonable period of time;(b) if the court is so satisfied, then—(i) if B has been convicted of an offence related to domestic abuse against A or anyone who might reasonably be expected to reside with A, the court must make an order under this section;(ii) if B has been given a domestic abuse protection notice under section 20, or a domestic abuse protection order has been made against B under section 26, or B is currently subject to an injunction or restraining order in relation to A, or a person who might be reasonably expected to reside with A, the court may make an order under this section;(iii) if the application does not fall within sub-paragraph (i) or (ii), then the court may make such an order if it thinks it fit to do so;(c) for the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(ii), the court must adopt the following approach—(i) if B does not oppose the making of such an order, then the court must make it;(ii) if B does oppose the making of such an order then it is for B to satisfy the court that, as at the date of the hearing, there are exceptional circumstances which mean that the only way to do justice between A and B is for the order to be refused.(5) Where A has made such an application to the court, any notice to quit served by B shall be of no effect until determination of A’s application or any subsequent appeal.(6) Notwithstanding any rule of common law to the contrary, the effect of an order under this section is that the tenancy continues for all purposes as if B had never been a joint tenant. (7) For the purposes of this section, an offence related to domestic abuse includes, as against A or anyone who might be reasonably expected to reside with A, an offence of violence, threats of violence, criminal damage to property, rape, other offences of sexual violence or harassment, coercive control, breach of injunction, breach of restraining order, or breach of domestic abuse protection order.(8) In section 88(2) of the Housing Act 1985, after “section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Actusb 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.)” insert “, or section (Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021,”.(9) In section 91(3)(b) of the Housing Act 1985, after sub-paragraph (iv), insert—“(v) section (Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;”.(10) In section 99B(2)(e) of the Housing Act 1985 (persons qualifying for compensation for improvements), after sub-paragraph (iv) insert—“(v) section (Transfer of joint tenancies and survivors of domestic abuse) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;”.”
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for supporting this amendment and making it cross-party. There are few things in the unjust world of domestic abuse that make me more angry than a perpetrator driving the victim and their children out of the family home. This amendment seeks to address this injustice for joint tenancies in a secure or assured tenancy, where the landlord is a local authority or a private registered social landlord—I would make it wider if it were possible under the law as it stands.
As things stand, it is very difficult and costly for a victim in a jointly tenanted home to get the tenancy transferred to them if the perpetrator does not agree. For the purposes of simplicity, I am going to use the pronoun “he” for the perpetrator and “she” for the victim, but of course there are circumstances where it is the other way round. They could also be a same-sex couple.
Until the perpetrator’s name can be removed from the tenancy agreement, the victim will never achieve the security she needs. She cannot change the locks or restrict his access. She can seek a temporary court order to remove him from the property but when that expires, he has the right to return. The perpetrator can give notice to end the tenancy without the survivor’s consent or even knowledge, even though he no longer resides there. Unless he signs away his interest in the tenancy, her only recourse as things stand is to embark on costly court proceedings, which are complex and tortuous. Social housing providers, much as they might wish, have no legal mechanism to evict perpetrators and support survivors to stay in the tenancy. A number of creative methods have been tried, but these use legal mechanisms for which they were not designed.
For all those reasons, all too often the victim ends up fleeing the family home, leaving the perpetrator ensconced while she ends up homeless, often in a refuge with no resources to enable her to start again except emergency assistance from the state. It makes my blood boil even thinking about it.
This new clause aims to resolve the problem, at least as far as secured and assured social tenancies are concerned. Three family law and housing experts, Giles Peaker, Justin Bates and Jenny Beck, developed the solution which I am proud to lay before the Committee today. It provides a simplified mechanism for transferring a joint tenancy into the hands of the victim as a sole tenancy. It utilises other mechanisms in the Bill, domestic abuse protection orders and notices, as well as existing mechanisms such as restraining orders, occupation orders and non-molestation orders, which can remove the perpetrator from the home temporarily. The breathing space created when the perpetrator is out of the home can be used to transfer the tenancy permanently to the victim, so when the order expires, he is no longer legally able to return.
Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause describes the conditions under which a domestic abuse transfer of tenancy order can be granted by the court. The new sole tenant must be able to afford the rent or have expectations of being able to do so in a reasonable amount of time. The court must make the order if the perpetrator is subsequently convicted of domestic abuse. It may make an order if a domestic abuse protection order or notice, injunction or restraining order has been issued. Even if none of these conditions applies, or the victim has already fled the property, the court may still make the order. If the perpetrator does not object to the order the court must make the order. If he objects, the onus is on him to make the case that there are exceptional circumstances why he should stay.
That is the gist of it. No doubt other noble Lords will have points to make which are more learned and informed than someone with no legal training like me, but I must say that it looks to me like an elegant and equitable solution. No doubt the Minister may have some legal reservations, but all I ask at this stage is for him to take it away, think about it and come back at Report—with, I hope, an even more elegant solution of the Government’s making. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, which now has support from all four corners of the House. I add a brief footnote to the compelling case just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. This is a rather modest amendment, as it covers only the transfer of a tenancy where the victim is a joint tenant. A more radical but perfectly defensible amendment would have proposed the transfer of the tenancy where the perpetrator was the sole tenant and the victim was living lawfully in the property as a spouse or partner, but not as a joint tenant. I should have been happy to sponsor such an amendment—with adequate safeguards, of course.
Once again, we find that Scotland has stolen a march on England with its amendment to its domestic abuse Bill. That amendment enables either the social landlord or the survivor/tenant to do just what I have said: to seek a transfer of tenancy through a court order. It can transfer a sole tenancy in the perpetrator’s name into a sole tenancy in the survivor’s name. Our amendment is more modest and proposes that the survivor can apply for a transfer of tenancy through the county court only if it is a joint secured or assured social tenancy, shared with the perpetrator. Of course, in those circumstances, the tenant is already known to and approved by the landlord.
The amendment is one of the domestic abuse commissioner’s top recommendations. At a round table last month with the Chartered Institute of Housing, Shelter, the National Housing Federation and the National Federation of ALMOs, there was unanimous support for this initiative. Since the A New Deal for Renting consultation in 2019, the organisation Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse, to which I am grateful for its briefing, has regularly met the department about joint tenancies and discussed the amendment. The organisation has sought to address the concerns expressed in the letter that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Williams, sent to us, which stated that
“there are good practical and principled reasons for the rules which seek to balance the rights and interests of each tenant and the landlord.”
I shall quickly go through those rights and interests. Those of the social landlord would be basically unchanged because the nature of the tenancy agreement would stay the same. The rights of the tenant-survivor would also stay the same by their retaining the right to continue to live safely in their home. The rights of the perpetrator would, of course, be affected, and I agree that we should be cautious about making anyone homeless. However, in the circumstances to which the Bill applies, we have to strike a balance. If the perpetrator leaves, he may indeed face homelessness, probably as a single person. But if he does not, the innocent party and any children would also face either homelessness or continuing harm by staying put.
The amendment provides that where there is such a dispute and this balance has to be struck, the matter should be resolved by the county courts, which would hear both sides of the case before reaching a judgment. If a perpetrator loses but remains in the property, the normal eviction process would take place. However, in many cases, he may already have left due to a domestic abuse protection order, a restraining order or an occupation order, or he may have done so voluntarily. Under the amendment, the courts would have to define affordability, but this is something they already do, and it would be based on the survivor’s income and access to benefits to cover the rent.
There are further injustices in the present position, which were touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. At the moment, the perpetrator can leave the property and then unilaterally end the joint tenancy. That cannot be right. He can stop the survivor accessing housing benefit because his income is taken into account, but he will not be paying. As we have heard, the survivor cannot change the locks without the perpetrator’s consent. Without the amendment, if the perpetrator does not leave, the survivor has to resort to costly legal proceedings. That cannot be right, either, because it can take up to two years to complete the process and, depending on legal aid, can cost up to £10,000.
I therefore hope, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has just said, that the Minister will listen sympathetically to the case made this afternoon and indicate that there is some flexibility in the position that the Government have adopted so far.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am proud to stand with the other signatories to the amendment, which is eminently sensible. Sadly, our discussions on the Bill have uncovered the nasty elements of the ways in which one human being can behave towards another. This is another example.
Stereotypically, it is the mother with children most in need of staying put, housing and avoiding children changing school. It is much more difficult to rehouse her if he causes her to flee. We must therefore remove the power of the abuser who is a joint tenant to remove the victim. The amendment would allow the victim to apply for a tenancy transfer, even if she has already been forced to flee. He, the perpetrator, could potentially cause rent arrears and damage to the property, for which she would be responsible.
It is a shame that the amendment cannot apply to private tenancies. Are there no alternatives? At the moment, a victim might obtain a temporary court order, such as a non-molestation or occupation order, but they are time-limited and could cost up to £5,000 at legal aid rates—more if there is no legal aid. The perpetrator might return. He may well not consent to a tenancy transfer and there is no guarantee that the landlord would grant a sole tenancy to the victim in the alternative. He, the perpetrator, might vindictively give notice to end the tenancy. Therefore, if there is a temporary eviction, it would have to be followed up by a transfer of tenancy action, again costing thousands. A married victim who is seeking a divorce could apply for a tenancy transfer under the Matrimonial Causes Act or Section 1 of the Children Act. This is all slow and expensive.
We need to avoid those complications and expenses that mean that the victim has to become homeless and start finding a home all over again. In the case of social housing, the provider can evict the perpetrator only after the victim has left the shared property. Again, she is put in a position of rendering herself homeless and hoping that someone will take care of her immediate housing needs. That is just not good enough because it is all disjointed and no-one has pulled together all the strings and pieces of legislation that might protect the victim, albeit imperfectly.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation, the representative body for housing associations.
The amendment seeks to enhance the welcome improvements in relation to tenancies embodied in Clauses 71 and 72. They show that the Government have recognised that survivors of domestic abuse in this area are currently let down by the law. The tenancy laws can mean that where there is a joint tenancy a survivor of domestic abuse has only two options: to stay and endure further abuse or to leave the home and potentially become homeless. There is currently no way in which the survivor can exercise a right to stay in the home, with all the security and instability that that means, and require the abuser to leave. Indeed, an abuser could unilaterally terminate the joint tenancy, thereby effectively evicting the survivor into potential homelessness.
Where the landlord is the local authority or a registered provider of social housing, there is no requirement for alternative accommodation to be under the same security of tenure that the survivor and her children previously enjoyed. As Women’s Aid has said, the risk of losing a lifetime tenancy is a significant concern for survivors who fear the consequences of losing security of tenure if they leave. Yet, that is a frequent outcome for survivors and children who escape to a refuge.
As I have said, Clauses 71 and 72 are welcome. However, they assume that it is the survivor of abuse who must quit the family home and not the abuser. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, would ensure a legal solution for survivors with joint tenancies to retain their housing security and stay safely in their own homes long term. It is important that there be a range of housing options available to people experiencing domestic abuse and that if they wish to stay in their home they should be able to do so safely and affordably. They should not have to become homeless or struggle to afford their tenancy because of abuse.
I know that housing associations are keen to work to support people who are experiencing domestic abuse and I know that they have also worked supportively with survivors if there are any arrears on the tenancy and/or damage to the property caused by the perpetrator. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has said, it would be useful if there were more workable rules for joint tenancy in general, but the amendment is certainly a good first step.
The Government have recognised the importance of guaranteeing safe accommodation for survivors who flee their home and their abuser. I hope that they will agree that the best outcome for any family is to have the safety and security of staying in their own familiar home, free from the abuser and free to get on with their lives.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I should declare a number of interests because this is a housing matter. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of Heart of Medway Housing Association and a director of MHS Homes Ltd.
The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, is one that I fully support. I am delighted to sign it with other Members from across the House. During our discussions on this Domestic Abuse Bill, we have heard how perpetrators can take control of all aspects of victims’ lives. The victims need help and support to get away from their abuser. The ability to live in your home without fear of the person you are living with is an important first step to getting control of your life. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, when she says that a victim being driven out of their home—to a refuge or other temporary accommodation or to stay with friends—is something that should make us all very angry. It is just part of the devastating consequences that abusers have on victims’ lives and their children’s lives. We all want to ensure that we stop this.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, again made an excellent contribution. I would be happy to support an amendment with his suggestion at the next stage. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, could respond to that. It may be that we need something more expanded. If someone is not a tenant at all but is living in the house, perhaps they should have the right to take over the tenancy as well. I think it is an important point.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, listed the disadvantages that a victim can suffer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, we need to take away the power of the abuser in this situation. We can all see the situation in which an angry abuser wants to get even or cause trouble for the victim, for example by ending the tenancy or doing something else equally unpleasant and nasty. We need to ensure that we are doing what we can to stop those things. As my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe said, you can see the real concern of a victim, “I’m in this terrible situation. Even worse, I’ll be on the street”. It just makes it even more difficult for people.
This is a very important issue and a very good amendment. As we have heard, the amendment provides for a new mechanism whereby a survivor of domestic abuse can apply for the transfer of the tenancy from a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy. The amendment is welcome and it gives the victim support and another option as to the action they can take to protect themselves and their children. If they want to stay in their home, they can stay and get the abuser out.
I hope for a very positive response from the Government. Hopefully we can find a solution at the next stage.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, set out, Amendment 163 seeks to allow victims of domestic abuse who have a joint social tenancy with the perpetrator to transfer the tenancy into their own name and to prevent the perpetrator from unilaterally ending the tenancy.
We certainly recognise and sympathise with the motivation behind this amendment, as expressed very eloquently by all noble Lords who have spoken. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, abusers who seek to control their victims by threatening to unilaterally end a tenancy and make their victim homeless—or indeed who actually do make them homeless in this way—are exercising a particularly cruel form of control.
The amendment would apply to local authority and housing association tenancies. By way of background—as I am sure noble Lords will know—these social tenancies are usually in place for a tenant’s lifetime, as long as the tenant adheres to the terms of the tenancy and, as such, a lifetime security of tenure is a valuable asset. That is why we are including provisions in the Bill which seek to protect the security of tenure for victims of domestic abuse when they are granted a new tenancy by a local authority for reasons connected to that abuse.
The current legislation means that, where any joint tenant of a periodic tenancy serves a notice to quit, it ends the whole tenancy and the landlord is able to seek possession of the property. This is a long-standing rule, which has been established in case law and was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case of Sims v Dacorum Borough Council. The rule seeks to balance the interests of each joint tenant, as well as those of the landlord. For example, a victim of domestic abuse who has a joint tenancy with the perpetrator, and who has fled their home to escape abuse, would be able to end the tenancy to ensure that they are no longer bound to it with their abuser.
We do recognise that, in some cases of domestic abuse, as noble Lords have pointed out today, a perpetrator could use this rule to exert control. We understand how this proposed new clause seeks to overcome this important issue. The victim through it would be able to apply to the court to remove the perpetrator from the tenancy, which would effectively transfer the tenancy into the victim’s name. The perpetrator would also not be able to end the tenancy unilaterally.
We have certainly looked carefully at it and I am afraid we have some concerns with the effect of the amendment as drafted. One is that the amendment does not consider how any liabilities that might have occurred during the course of the joint tenancy, such as accrued rent arrears or damage to the property, would be apportioned between the tenants. As the perpetrator would no longer be a tenant, they would no longer be liable. That certainly ought to be considered. As a result, the victim and any remaining joint tenants would be left responsible for any liabilities, even if they were not fully responsible for contributing to them. We need to ensure that the victim and any remaining joint tenants are not put at any disadvantage by changes to the law in this area.
Another concern, picking up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is that the amendment does not provide for how the interests of third parties—including the interests of any other joint tenants, children, or those of the landlord—might be taken into account by the court.
It is for landlords to decide whether to grant a tenancy for their property, and on what basis. This amendment would mean that, where a landlord grants a joint tenancy to two or more individuals, the number of tenants could be changed without consideration or consent from the landlord as the owner of the property. Landlords may decide to grant a joint tenancy for a number of reasons, including affordability and because joint tenants are jointly and severally liable for paying rent or looking after the property. In addition, this could result in interference with a housing association landlord’s own rights under human rights law. Since this engages other parties’ human rights, including those of the perpetrator, we need to consider very carefully the right approach in order to balance those rights, and to ensure that any interference is proportionate and justified.
It is important that we carefully consider the practical and legal issues, such as these, before we decide what the right approach is to protect victims in this situation, and whether that includes making changes to legislation so that we can ensure that any proposals have the outcomes which I am sure all noble Lords intend them to have.
Today’s debate has certainly contributed to that process. We would welcome further evidence on the scale of the issue, including how many victims wish to remain in a property where the perpetrator knows where they live. I understand that officials at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are continuing to engage with the domestic abuse commissioner and her office, as well as the domestic abuse sector more widely, on the termination of joint tenancies in order better to understand this issue.
We understand how important this issue is as part of a whole housing approach. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work that is being done by the domestic abuse and social housing sectors together in supporting victims of domestic abuse. I am aware that many landlords are already committed to taking action through sector-led initiatives such as the Making a Stand pledge.
I am very happy to underscore our commitment to continue working with the sector in considering these issues, with a view to arriving at a workable solution. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lords for their contributions today, which have contributed to that important debate. We will certainly continue to consider it, but in the meantime I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I have received a request to speak from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord’s explanation. Could I just ask that the noble Lord reflects on this after the debate? The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has identified a really practical issue here. It is real. This will be our one chance to sort it out in this Bill. When the noble Lord gave some of his answers, I just thought, “Really?” I just think he needs to think about it more. This is a simple solution to a real problem. I am sure he talks to the charities and to the commissioner. The abuser can cause the victim real problems here. They will deliberately do that and we need to stop that. I hope he can reflect on that and that we can have this discussion again on Report and seek a solution.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, we certainly will. I hope equally that the noble Lord listened to the points where I outlined some of the complexities, which have to be considered in the law. But we certainly want to continue to engage on this and arrive at the right place.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made extremely knowledgeable contributions. I thought that there would be experts on the Benches on all sides of the House, and I have certainly not been disappointed this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, talked about the balance that must be struck and the role of the courts in that; the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, used their professional experience and knowledge of human rights law; and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, had two bites of the cherry—and very welcome they were too, because he embodies the spirit of what we seek to achieve.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 164. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 164
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Monitoring of serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators under multi-agency public protection arrangements
(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) In section 325 (arrangements for assessing etc risk posed by certain offenders)—(a) in subsection (1), after ““relevant sexual or violent offender” has the meaning given by section 327” insert—““relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” has the meaning given in section 327ZA;”;(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “offenders” insert—“(aa) relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators,”.(3) After section 327 (section 325: interpretation) insert—<strong>“327ZA</strong> Section 325: interpretation of relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator (1) For the purposes of section 325, a person (“P”) is a “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” if P has been convicted of a specified offence and meets either the condition in subsection (2)(a) or the condition in subsection (2)(b).(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the conditions are—(a) P is a relevant serial offender, or(b) a risk of serious harm assessment has identified P as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm.(3) An offence is a “specified offence” for the purposes of this section if it is a specified domestic abuse offence or a specified stalking offence.(4) In this section—“relevant serial offender” means a person convicted on more than one occasion for the same specified offence, or a person convicted of more than one specified offence;“specified domestic abuse offence” means an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning of section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“specified stalking offence” means an offence contrary to section 2A or section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.(5) Within six months of the commencement of this section, a Minister of the Crown must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament reviewing the interpretation of the term “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” for the purposes of section 325.(6) A report under subsection (5) must give specific consideration to arrangements for assessing and managing the risks of domestic abuse or stalking posed by perpetrators convicted of offences other than a specified offence.(7) Subject to a report under subsection (5) being laid before both Houses of Parliament, a Minister of the Crown may by regulations amend this section.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for the establishment of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (“MAPPA”), to make arrangements for serial domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators to be registered on VISOR (the Violent and Sex Offender Register) and be subjected to supervision, monitoring and management through MAPPA.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 164 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Royall, I will also speak to my Amendment 177B. My noble friend is extremely sorry that she is not able to speak today due to a long-standing and immovable commitment. My remarks very much reflect her views and passion to see strong action in relation to serial and serious domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers. I am grateful also to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Brinton, for putting their names to the amendment.
This amendment follows many years of advocacy, during which my noble friend Lady Royall has sought to reflect the views of families of victims and many organisations, including John and Penny Clough; Paladin; Aurora New Dawn; Women’s Aid; the Hampton Trust; the Alice Ruggles Trust; the Centre for Women’s Justice; the London Assembly and the Mayor of London; the domestic abuse commissioner, Nicole Jacobs; the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird QC; Napo; magistrates; police officers; countless survivors, including Zoe Dronfield, Georgia Hooper, Rachel Williams, Charlotte Kneer and Celia Peachey; and the 217,000 people who have signed the petition in support of the need for action.
My noble friend’s amendment seeks to ensure a co-ordinated, consistent and mandatory approach throughout the country to the flagging and targeting of perpetrators, without which, more women and children will be terrorised, and some will die. It would place a statutory obligation on police, prison and probation officers to identify, assess and manage serial and serious domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers. This would change the culture and ensure that questions are asked of the perpetrator and not the victim. It would ensure a multiagency problem-solving approach by the statutory agencies charged with a responsibility for public protection.
So far, the Government have resisted this in the belief that current arrangements are adequate. They are not. There are pockets of good practice, but it is not national and there is no co-ordinated approach led by statutory agencies. There is no legal framework or national process in England and Wales by which serial perpetrators are routinely identified, monitored and managed. These serial perpetrators and stalkers are simply not visible or held to account, even though past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. We know that they are transient: they seek to control the most vulnerable women and children, and if that includes moving across borders to meet their needs, they often will do so. They travel and start new relationships, but the history is not recorded, so vital information does not travel with them. We have to change this by ensuring that there is a legislative duty to proactively identify, assess and manage these men using MAPPA-plus, an enhanced version of MAPPA, to include domestic abuse specialist services, honour-based abuse services and stalking services that understand coercive control and stalking, and ensure that the intelligence is collected and put into the national system, ViSOR.
The enhanced system would of course require multiagency training, complemented by clear guidance ahead of implementation. Without MAPPA-plus, Clare’s law will never work effectively, because there is no duty on the police to add any information or intelligence about a perpetrator’s previous offending to a local or national system. If information is put on a local system, it lacks the detail required. The burden is placed on the victim, and too often the perpetrator’s narrative is believed rather than the victim’s.
When my noble friend Lady Royall met the Minister, she was asked for evidence of such a system, and she forwarded a report by Laura Richards, a global expert and founder of Paladin. Her report focused on 28 men who had murdered 31 women and eight children, and who had significantly harmed more women and children. There will undoubtedly be more. In addition, there are family members who are terrorised and threatened by serial abusers, and the impact on others when a loved one is killed. The report makes for distressing reading. It is utterly compelling in its conclusion that there have been too many reviews and that the time for action is now.
I will cite just two cases in the report. The first is that of Alfie Gildea:
“Four-month-old Alfie Gildea was killed by violent Sam Gildea, who had been previously convicted of manslaughter by violent shaking. This is how he killed Alfie.”
His mother, Caitlin McMichael, learned about Sam Gildea’s history after Alfie had been murdered. Why was she not told before about his previous conviction?
“This is the police force that failed Clare Wood, and the reason Clare’s Law came in because of their failures. Greater Manchester Police knew that he was a serial perpetrator and they did not act. Why not?”
Last November, the coroner, Alison Mutch, said that Gildea was a
“serious and serial domestic abuse perpetrator”
who was well known to Greater Manchester Police. They failed to recognise coercive control. Why was his case not heard at MAPPA, when his history of violence was known to Greater Manchester Police?
I now come to the case of two unnamed women, in 2020:
“Stephen Williams was sentenced to two years in prison on May 29 2020, for a horrific campaign of mental and physical abuse on his 18 year old girlfriend. She is 10 years younger than him. He held a knife to her throat, punched in the face, poured corrosive cleaner over her head and threatened to kill her. He coercively controlled her and made her give up her job as a hairdresser & her family and friends … made her travel with him in his HGV lorry cab to make sure she didn’t talk to anyone … punched her in the face, bit the back of her neck and said he would ‘break every bone in her body.’ He pulled her finger back causing ligament damage and fractured her rib. Her sister called the police and she was taken to hospital.”
Williams was arrested and pleaded guilty to controlling and coercive behaviour, assault by beating, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, causing an unauthorised transmission from prison, and witness intimidation.
“A former partner gave evidence at court about his abuse. Williams pressured her to retract her statement and threatened her by saying ‘I will get out of her one day and you will regret it.’ The judge described him as a controlling and manipulative bully and said ‘I have come to the view that you pose a significant risk of harm to your female partners.’ Williams was sentenced to just two years in prison and made the subject of a restraining order, forbidding him to see or contact his ex-partner for two years.”
Upon his release, Williams will not be identified as a serial perpetrator and a risk to other women. Under the new system, he would be categorised as category 4, included on ViSOR and managed via MAPPA. Other relevant services would be involved as well. An order could be placed on him regarding whether he moves, starts a new relationship or changes his name, as well as attendance at an accredited perpetrator programme. But we do not have that at the moment, and
“under current guidance and practice it is unlikely that he will meet the MAPPA criteria.”
I have mentioned two cases. In her contribution the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, will bring another disturbing example to the House’s attention.
My noble friend Lady Royall is arguing that, under MAPPA-plus, a new category four,
“serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators”,
should be included. Positive obligations would be placed on a perpetrator, including attending a treatment programme. They would have to notify the police if they changed their name, moved, went abroad or started a new relationship. These are critical components of the strategic plans in Amendment 167, which I also support, and my own Amendment 177B. The difference between these two amendments is the time given to the Government to come forward with a strategy. In fairness, my noble friend Lady Royall thinks that my two-year period is far too generous and that we need much quicker action. Time is of the essence. We know that at least two women a week are murdered by ex-partners, many of whom are serial offenders. This has increased to five a week during the pandemic. It is self-evident that a cohesive strategy is needed as soon as possible.
At Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, spoke of investing more than £7 million in direct perpetrator-focused interventions through police and crime commissioners to prevent abuse. She also promised that the forthcoming domestic abuse strategy would include specific work to tackle perpetrators and prevent offending. This is welcome but not sufficient.
It is significant that, last year, 80 signatories, including charities such as Women’s Aid, Respect and Action for Children, as well as academics and individuals, called on the Government to invest in a perpetrator strategy. They called for public voluntary services to be empowered to hold perpetrators to account; best-practice perpetrator interventions to be available across England and Wales; a national quality assurance system and a sustainable, predictable source of funding; and for national and local leaders to spearhead the perpetrator strategy. Nicole Jacobs, the designate domestic abuse commissioner, supports these measures. She said
“I support the call on Government to publish a Strategy on Perpetrators of Domestic Abuse. Current prevention work is patchy and too often perpetrators go unchallenged and are not offered opportunities to change their abusive behaviour.”
I urge the Minister to accept the principles contained in Amendments 167 and 177B but, even more importantly, to accept my noble friend Lady Royall’s amendment and introduce MAPPA-plus without further delay. I beg to move.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to the amendment in my name, as we enter the final day of Committee I want to thank everyone who has been involved in this marathon. By tabling more than 200 amendments, we have created a vast amount of work for the clerks, the Bill team and the Whips’ Office. I acknowledge their professionalism, time and effort. I also recognise and pay tribute to the different organisations and individuals who have worked so hard to brief us while also dealing with a huge surge in work because of the pandemic. In particular, I thank Drive and Veronica Oakeshott.
I thank all noble Lords who have put their names to Amendment 167, giving it cross-party support. It is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. As he set out, this amendment would require the Government to provide a comprehensive perpetrator strategy for domestic abuse within one year of the Act being passed. I will not speak specifically to the other amendments in this group, but I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for her tireless work against the insidious crime of stalking. I support the sentiment behind her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. They reminded us just how popular these amendments are, as almost every single one of them was backed by many organisations and individuals. Whereas popularity is not necessarily a good guide to the way we approach legislation, in this case we ought to be listening to the people who know what they are talking about. We have talked extensively about stamping out domestic violence, misogyny and gender-related violence. We have discussed the fact that domestic abuse is endemic in our society, and these amendments would hand important tools to people who try to be in the arsenal in that fight.
Amendment 164 requires the monitoring and rehabilitation of serial domestic abusers and stalkers. That is an important requirement. It means that they are treated alongside other violent and sexual offenders. Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements—MAPPA—are about protecting society as a whole, and individuals against the most dangerous and sinister people in our society. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, used the phrase “change the culture”. Changing culture is incredibly difficult. It takes a huge amount of work, but that is the only way we have to make a difference in this, and we have to change the culture.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, used a very good phrase, “professional curiosity”, and I will come on to that in the next group of amendments. That is something we should encourage so that people spot exactly what is happening. So often, people feel that they should not get engaged because it is personal and involves people’s privacy. MAPPA would bring together the police, probation and prison services and draw support and co-operation from social services, health, youth offending teams, Jobcentre Plus, local housing and education authorities. It would also take the responsibility off the victim for reporting it themselves, which is crucial. MAPPA is a ready-made system.
With this Bill, we recognise that as a society we have failed to treat domestic abuse as the serious and grave offence that it is, so updated arrangements would be perfect—MAPPA-plus—and a natural extension of MAPPA. Then we can recognise domestic abusers as dangerous people who need that level of intervention and co-ordination. It is essential if we are to stamp out domestic abuse and misogyny in the way that any civilised country would expect us to do.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I should remind the Committee that I was a police officer for more than 30 years. Picking up the theme from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, of a change in culture, there has clearly been a change of culture in the police service towards domestic abuse, but it needs to go further. There needs to be a cultural change in attitudes, particularly those of men towards women and towards domestic abuse in wider society.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for so clearly and comprehensively introducing this amendment. He clearly demonstrated that the approach to perpetrators is, at best, inconsistent. The examples he shared with the Committee showed that existing legislative and procedural provisions are insufficient or are not being complied with adequately. I have received more emails on this amendment than any others during this Committee.
Section 325 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires the responsible authority for each area to
“establish arrangements for the purpose of assessing and managing the risks posed in that area by … relevant sexual and violent offenders,”—
and other offenders which the responsible authority considers
“may cause serious harm to the public.”
These are the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, MAPPA.
Section 327 of the 2003 Act defines “relevant sexual or violent offender”, and Amendment 164 would add
“relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator”
to that definition. It goes on to define a “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” as someone who has been convicted of a serious offence and is a “serial offender”, or that
“a risk of serious harm assessment has identified”
the person
“as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm.”
A relevant domestic abuse or stalking offence is defined as an offence under Clause 1 of the Bill or under Section 2A or Section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Baroness Wyld (Con) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of Amendment 167, in the names of my noble friend Lady Bertin and others. Given that we are discussing multiagency strategies, I declare my interests as a non-executive member of the board of Ofsted and a non-executive director of DCMS.
My noble friend gave a powerful and comprehensive speech. It is quite right to push us to change the narrative from “Why doesn’t she leave?” to “Why doesn’t he stop?” What has really come across today is the need for urgency here. My noble friend is right to urge the Government to take a definitive step to help this happen and for it to be reflected in lived experience.
As we have heard, it is completely unacceptable for perpetrators to move from one victim to another when evidence exists that they can be stopped with early intervention. We have a huge bank of evidence showing what works, and I am grateful to all those who briefed me—in particular, the Drive initiative—and to those in your Lordships’ House who have brought their own examples to the Floor. Seeing who follows me in the list, I am sure that we will hear more of those today.
We have heard consistent calls for a national approach to quality assurance, from better-tailored information on data sharing to workforce training, long-term funding and campaigning. The Government have, rightly, emphasised the need for an evidence-based and precise approach to a perpetrator strategy, but let us not drag our heels. The concern that has come across today is that we do not want to end up with the situation where everyone agrees with each other but nobody takes the lead and gets this done. On that note, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to support all these amendments but particularly Amendments 167 and 177B. I too pay tribute to all those who have written to me and have frankly explained not only their policy approach but, in the case of individuals, the personal tragedies that they have experienced. I may not have replied to them all, but I have been deeply moved by many of them. My sense is that we all want the same things with this Bill, but some take a more binary approach than others. I try to avoid that in order to look at what I hope is the larger picture and wider criteria, but I apologise in advance if I fail.
My starting point is that with domestic abuse there is already a relationship in which the parties to it mostly come together voluntarily and often remain so in a sufficiently close and prolonged arrangement for children to arrive on the scene. Whatever happens thereafter, there are thus emotional and psychological bonds, some of which remain very important and for children are often formational, even when the original adult relationship has started to go wrong or failed altogether.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, set out very many points—too many for me to say, on each individual one, how much I agreed with him. But, however justified in any given case, simply providing for some variant of justice in which perpetrators are branded as intrinsically evil or criminal and resource is focused primarily on due process and the support and protection of victims and survivors does not, in my view, amount to a comprehensive policy response. So I was very glad to learn both from my local police and crime commissioner and again from the Minister herself in a briefing last month about the £7 million provided last year to police and crime commissioners for perpetrator programmes.
The PCC, in particular, was enthusiastic in her explanation of the hugely beneficial effect that even a relatively modest allocation of £150,000 or so could have in pressing forward with a perpetrator programme and the disproportionate advantage that would flow from this intervention as compared with what I might term the “picking up the pieces after the relationship” debacle. Of course, with the largest force areas, the available sum might be a drop in the ocean but, for all that, it is welcome. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, said in speaking to her amendment, it is not ongoing but a one-off. That needs to be addressed.
In all this, I have in mind that every perpetrator may cast a shadow over the lives of maybe six victims—at least, that is the factor that I most frequently hear. But, beyond that, it is the pain, the dislocation of lives and the damaging effects on adults and particularly children that concern me, plus the potential for abused partners to fall into some other similarly abusive relationship, just as unaddressed abusive behaviour might simply be allowed to repeat itself in an endless cycle of wretchedness. We know that these things have social and emotional costs—they lurk behind crime statistics, in judicial activities, in the all-too-limited resources of the voluntary and charitable sector, in the workplace, in health outcomes and in children’s long-term attainment.
To intervene and break this cycle, the Bill must now provide for a national framework for perpetrator programmes; it seems to me that the Long Title readily admits it. The Government clearly readily admit it to the tune of £7 million as an admission of need. We have heard much about the architecture of the Bill and I agree that it needs to keep focused, but all the focus in the world will be of little help if it is so narrow that the principal facet of what is, after all, a process involving human relationships of the most complex kind is overlooked. In the Bill we have motive, opportunity and the means to effect change. We should do it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, referred to current programmes, such as MAPPA, and their success. I suggest that a carrot and stick approach may be better than simply stigmatising perpetrators. I agree with other noble Lords that this is very much a two-way street that we need to look at. She also referred to the need for coherence—for sustainable and reliable funding and the wins all round in the effects on society for perpetrators, victims, victims’ families and survivors that would flow from that. I fundamentally agree.
At the end of the day, we have a relationship, usually between two people, each of whom makes a personal investment in that. Were we to be successful in making perpetrator programmes not only universal according to some sort of coherent framework and leadership referred to by the noble Baroness, but also part of the normal, non-criminalised mainstream service provision, then more relationships might remain functional and a significant proportion of perpetrators might cease to abuse. That would have implications for the frequency and severity of victimhood and victim and survivor experiences.
Amendments 167 and 177B propose in their various ways what is fundamentally the right way forward. This needs to be co-ordinated and driven as a national strategy by Government. I trust that the Minister will see the merits of this and accept that there is now an unanswerable case for adopting the principles behind these amendments.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I echo the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to the many organisations and people who have briefed us and who constantly fight for safety and justice for victims of serious domestic abuse and stalking. I have added my name to Amendment 164.
Ten years ago, I was a member of the Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Stalking Law Reform, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. It has been a pleasure to work with her over the succeeding years. I was asked to join the inquiry because I had been the victim of harassment and stalking by a political opponent, who over nearly three years waged a war of anonymous hate, criminal damage and increasingly serious threats of violence against myself and my team in Watford.
We could not get the police to take seriously what was happening to us. Only when I gave them my spreadsheet linking more than 100 escalating incidents did the police realise that this was not a political spat. But it took their expert profiler to warn them of how serious this behaviour was and how violent it was likely to become before they arrested the perpetrator. He pleaded guilty to 67 separate incidents and, in common with many other obsessed perpetrators, was found to have had mental health problems.
We know that this category of serious domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators exhibit FOUR traits—an acronym for fixated, obsessive, unwanted and repeated. Their entire behaviour and its escalation must be understood rather than each single incident being looked at separately.
The College of Policing guidance and flow charts published since the stalking protection orders came into effect last year are excellent. This is exactly the type of documentation that needs to be understood by all front-line staff and officers in the police, courts, probation and health. A decade on, there are some pockets of excellent practice, but it is not consistent. The result of that lack of consistency is that victims of such perpetrators—usually but not always women—are ignored. Too many times, this has resulted in serious violence and murder.
I shall give just one example. In 2014, Cherylee Shennan was stabbed to death by convicted killer Paul O’Hara in front of police officers called to investigate reports of domestic abuse. He had already served a life sentence for murdering Janine Waterworth in 1998. Coroner James Newman published a prevention of death report, raising alarms over lack of inter-agency communication between probation services and police. He said that, following O’Hara’s release,
“there were no local MAPPA meetings, no inter-agency meetings and no significant inter-agency communications regarding the perpetrator; no detailing of his licensing conditions and no information regarding either his nature or the trigger factors of his offending”.
Cherylee was failed at every step of the way when she tried to get help. She was even held hostage at knife point at least twice. Had that information been shared, O’Hara would have met the category 4 criteria and could have been risk-managed by MAPPA-plus.
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.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I do so as, in my former role as Victims’ Commissioner, I met many heartbroken families suffering from the loss of a dear loved one. In having such discussions with them, listening was really heartbreaking, especially knowing that nothing would bring their loved ones back.
I also speak on a personal level, albeit not about domestic abuse but about systems. In 2007, my late husband was murdered by a gang of youths. I found out afterwards that when a murder happens, the Home Office asks agencies to see if those charged are flagged up on their systems. To hear the background information of criminal activity is just shameful—even more so given that when I was a key speaker at an agency’s conference, I heard another speaker go into further detail on the procedures of gathering information for the Home Office. I ask the Committee to imagine the emotions going through my heart as I listened to a speaker that day describe how their agency breathed a sigh of relief that the offenders were not on its system as a red flag. However, I found that not to be true: one of the defendants was out on bail, awaiting sentence for a violent offence. Earlier on in the day when Garry was murdered, the defendant had appeared in court for a breach of bail and been bailed again with conditions that he then went on to breach in not just one attack but a further attack that night, which was Garry being kicked to death.
There have been some excellent speeches and they have been heartrending to listen to. I add my thanks to Laura Richards, the founder of the Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service, for her outstanding briefing. I commend her on her many years of hard work in helping families to understand why. In fact her briefing makes for extremely distressing and deeply disturbing reading, especially, as others have already mentioned, her outstanding report about 30 perpetrators, which describes a total of 109 women and children who were seriously harmed or murdered. In all those cases, they were let down by systemic failure. The cases highlight the failure of information-sharing, risk assessment and management across all agencies. Put simply, the focus should have been on the perpetrator and there should have been a MAPPA referral, but that rarely happens in practice regarding coercively controlling perpetrators and stalkers. This is exactly why a national co-ordinated mandatory approach is urgently needed for MAPPA to co-ordinate MAPPA-plus. Such systemic changes are urgently needed through law reform because, as Laura says, no amount of training has changed this.
The situation has to be dealt with as soon as possible, without more reviews that lead to no action because we are dealing with men who routinely terrorise and harm women and girls, who need protection now. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, it is right, as we discuss such an important amendment to an important Bill, that we listen to a young lady’s horrendous story. It is only fitting to share it now. I have asked her permission so I am not reading this without her consent. She says:
“I must first introduce myself and share with you my own experience of domestic abuse. My name is Georgia Gabriel-Hooper. I am 17 and, along with my mother, I am a victim of domestic abuse. I was witness to the domestic homicide of my mother, only two months after my 14th birthday. I grew up with abuse in the home from a very early age. My parents divorced when I was two after my dad gambled and drank away all the money in the relationship, leaving my mum with major debts and a child to look after.
I faced the rigmarole of Cafcass, where it was decided that my father would get supervised contact for a period of time. He was soon allowed to see me away from the contact centre but subsequently chose to pay more attention to betting offices and alcohol than to his own daughter. I have now not seen him for five years, as he was more of a burden in my life than a parent.
My mum entered into another relationship while I was still young. This ended after several years, when I was aged approximately six. This relationship was extremely physically abusive towards myself, and we always found ourselves in the situation of having to make up excuses to people for why I was bruised. I used to be dragged up the stairs by my wrist and thrown into my room, even when I had not done anything wrong. I would be left with black bruises on my wrist and carpet burns and bruises from where I had tried to resist being taken away.
My mum was helpless in these situations: all she could do was stand and watch, as, if she intervened, it would only make the situation worse. We spent 10 months locking ourselves in a bedroom together at night, with three bolts fitted to the door to stop him being able to get to us. He also put nails in our car tyres and tacks on the drive. The police refused to do anything because the tacks he was putting down were on his own property, even though they were there with intent to harm.
Shortly after my seventh birthday, in 2010, my mum met my stepdad-to-be. At first, he was the most charming, lovely man, well respected by his peers. He was a farmer and undeniably intelligent. Andrew Hooper soon turned out to be our worst nightmare. He was an emotional abuser and extremely controlling and unpredictable. Unfortunately, my mum had a miscarriage roughly a year into their relationship. He made her sit on a wooden kitchen table all night and bleed into a bucket, as she was ‘dirty’ and ‘disgusting’. The abuse had already started long before this incident.
Coercive control is incredibly hard to spot. It is like carbon monoxide poisoning: you can’t see it, smell it or taste it until it is too late. My mum had a lot of friends and would often go out to meet them for a coffee or a meal at the pub. Andrew would punish my mum for this by giving her the silent treatment or humiliating her, in private or public. The mood swings and trouble that would come from venturing out eventually got too much, and my mum was cut off from a lot of friends. We could not even have people over to visit us, as he would make us all so uncomfortable that nobody wanted to come back, and my mum was too embarrassed to even ask.
At some point in the relationship, Andrew made Mum aware of a situation that had occurred in 2004 regarding his ex-wife which resulted in him pleading guilty to affray and receiving a four-year suspended sentence. However, we were never told the full details, and it would not have mattered either, as he would still have managed to manipulate us into thinking that that was okay. We, of course, did not know his ex-wife, which made it very easy for him to convince us that she was a psycho and deranged and that his actions were to rescue his son from her. By the time we found out what had really happened, it was, of course, too late.
Andrew and my mother wed in 2016. The problems were meant to go away, but they only got worse. At this point, he really did have my mum where he wanted her, and leaving was made even harder. Things came to a head in December 2017, when a drunken Andrew smashed a television and was messing around with guns in his cabinet in the middle of the row. It was at this point that my mum made the decision to leave. From start to finish, it lasted approximately six weeks.
We stayed at my nan and grandad’s until we could find a house that we could move into. We were incessantly stalked. He would be outside the house, monitoring when we were in. He would drive round to our friends’ houses, hoping to find us there, and, if we were not there, he would flip between crying and rage, trying to get them to convince Mum to go back. He told a close friend that, if he could not have her, nobody would.
He removed our car from the drive without us knowing, as he had found the spare key. He kept the car for a matter of days before apologising and letting us have it back. However, he had fitted a tracker to the car, so he knew every move. There was also a long string of suicide threats, including one where he drove to my mum’s place of work and sat outside with a loaded shotgun, saying he would kill himself then and there if she did not go to him.
We did manage to find a property that we could move into in early January 2018. We had been there for three weeks before Andrew murdered my mother. She had gone out with a friend for the evening, when Andrew showed up unexpectedly to question my mum about what she was doing. My mum was in an area she would never normally go to, so, suddenly, we realised that he had been tracking her car. He made threats to destroy our belongings but not of physical harm. I was at a friend’s house, and my mum had to text me to tell me to call him in an attempt to calm him down. I received an angry fit of rage down the phone from him; this was the last time he ever spoke to me.”
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when considering these amendments, I thought at first about tackling the perpetrators guilty of persistent stalking and constant and continued terrorising or harassment of the victim. The kind of stories that we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in the testimony about Cheryl is what came to mind. For anyone who has experienced, or known friends or family on the receiving end of, that kind of treatment—constantly living under the awful reality of fear, looking over one’s shoulder and sometimes then facing police indifference or negligence—that is what springs to mind, as it did for me when I first looked at these amendments.
Yet I have some real qualms and queries about these amendments and feel that, however emotive this topic is, we need to pause and be cool. At the very least, I think there is a need for more precision in terms of what or who we are talking about. Who, exactly, does this allow the law to target? What constitutes a serial offender? What constitutes a serious enough offence to trigger these kinds of perpetrator interventions? Are there any time limits at all on surveillance, the sharing of information or the labelling of someone as a perpetrator? I worry that we could bring our own prejudices and subjective views and assume that we all agree on who or what we are talking about.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, stated as fact that
“past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.”
I dispute that. It flies in the face of agency and the possibility of reform, and it is not necessarily the basis on which we should develop law. We should certainly suggest that it is not always true. We heard the terrible story of Colin, whose past behaviour went on and escalated. But this Bill broadly spells out abuse to include a huge range of different types of behaviour. Do we always think they will escalate and end up as murder?
We are told that if somebody moves and starts a new relationship or moves away, they must report to the police, but that assumes that they will always be an abuser. We assume the police should have the right under Clare’s law to warn partners. But again, I want to know: does that mean we consider abuse a permanent feature in somebody’s personality? I worry about a national system of surveillance that follows around somebody dubbed a perpetrator that involves all state agencies. This amounts to state stalking of those labelled as abusers. I worry when perpetrators are accused in this Bill of hiding in plain sight, as though they are permanently committing offences, when maybe they are living in plain sight as citizens who have done the time for their crime and are not offending. Why do we always see them as perpetrators?
Of course, the most extreme examples are being given here today, and some of those terrorising examples of the most violent abusers, leading to preventable murder, are what concern me and many others here. Yet this legislation has broadened the meaning of abuse to an ever-expanding number of behaviours, as though all of them are escalating behaviours. I worry about losing a sense of perspective and justice. I worry that we end up focusing on offenders, not offences. For legislators, that is nerve-wracking. I do not think that if somebody has been abusive, they should for ever be tarred as abusive or we should see it as predetermined that they will carry on.
We will go very close, if we are not careful, to seeing certain people as malevolent, dangerous and evil. Are we saying those who have ever committed any of the multitude of abuses named in this law are a peculiar breed of criminal who, inevitably, no matter what, will strike again, and will carry on posing an ongoing threat? It is far too reminiscent of outdated views about “criminal types”, and that view of people has a long, unsavoury history.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, earlier asked us to “spot the signs”, but I am worried about us wandering around spotting signs in people. In an earlier part of this Committee, we were told that football matches and drinking might lead to domestic abuse. The “spotting the signs” version of legislative change strikes me as being too arbitrary and rather dangerous. Whenever we discuss domestic abuse, I often detect a lurking class prejudice. But the most important thing is the danger of lumping together a variety of individuals and behaviours.
I will make one point as an aside. Many noble Lords have mentioned that we all received a huge amount of information before these amendments were discussed. That is true, and in the debate so far those briefings have been used as evidence. I will make a caveated note about what constitutes evidence. When people stand up and say “But the evidence shows”, it is not quite the same as the evidence of the efficacy or safety of, for example, a vaccine against coronavirus. The evidence we are sent as legislators is often commissioned by, and presented by, lobbying organisations. Their briefing documents, much repeated in this House, might be repeated as facts or truth, but they are not always objective —or, in fact, factual. At the very least, we should recognise that they can be contentious. So, I ask for some caution that, while we want to deal with the most extreme examples, in the course even of this discussion facts and evidence have been thrown in that have been ideological than helpful.
Baroness Finn (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have debated at length whether our laws are sophisticated enough to catch all the terrible subtlety and invidiousness inherent in domestic abuse. It is important, though, that we also consider what can be done by way of prevention and reform. It is for this reason that I speak in support of Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bertin and other noble Lords.
I say, first, that not a penny should be spent on perpetrator programmes until we are sure the victim support provision is comprehensive. But where it is, we should also look at perpetrator strategies. We must do all we can to help victims, but our ultimate aim is to come as close as we can to eradicating domestic abuse from our society. Here, we are looking to reform individuals but also to weed out the idea that domestic violence is somehow a normal part of existence. Our targets are as much perpetrators as their children and extended families. It is right, then, that the Government should come forward with a perpetrator strategy, and one year should suffice to ensure it is sufficiently thought through and properly resourced.
In particular, I call attention to proposed new paragraph (a),
“improving the identification and assessment of perpetrators.”
Everything we have heard throughout the passage of this Bill has been about domestic abuse and its victims falling through the cracks—cracks in public health, cracks in early intervention, cracks in enforcement and cracks in sentencing. We need to get ahead of this crime wherever we can, and that means getting better at identifying perpetrators as well as victims to lessen damage and expedite justice and reform.
A large number of organisations, including those that support victims, have come forward to say they support this amendment and call for the Government to create a perpetrator strategy. The only caveat I would offer is that we should make sure that the strategy is thoughtful and comprehensive and that the programmes it offers are quality-assured. I read with interest the debate from the other place, where Members heard stories of providers that were not only opportunistic but unqualified bidding for contracts to provide perpetrator programmes. But if we get this right, the effects could be profound.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the Drive project, which works with high-risk, high-harm abusers—in other words, the worse and most dangerous perpetrators of domestic abuse. A University of Bristol evaluation found the Drive project reduced the number of perpetrators using physical abuse by 82%, and those displaying jealousy and controlling behaviour by 73%, and that it was similarly effective in reducing other types of abuse. In other words, if we have a strategy that supports quality-assured programmes such as these, we can prevent abuse, reform perpetrators and save lives.
My final point is a call for the Government to ensure that funding is available for such programmes consistently and universally. Local authority budgeting cycles or geographical location should never prevent such provision being available. The consequences are simply too profound for postcode lotteries. Domestic abuse is unfortunately ubiquitous and, if we are to attempt to eradicate it, our support programmes must be too.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group but I will focus my remarks on Amendment 167, to which I have added my name. This is a good Bill and it contains many well thought out provisions to help victims and survivors of domestic abuse, but it deals almost exclusively with the support of those victims after the abuse has occurred. That is commendable, but it is not enough. Surely we also need measures to stop abuse happening, so that there are fewer victims and there is less harm done to them and their children.
Amendment 167 focuses on the perpetrator rather than the victim to prevent repeat occurrences with the same victim or, as often happens, with fresh victims. If we want to reduce domestic abuse, we need to change the focus. Instead of asking “Why doesn’t she leave?”, we should be asking “Why doesn’t he stop?” We should be changing the dynamics of abusive relationships, making it clear that responsibility lies with the perpetrators of domestic violence and giving them tools to deal with their behaviour.
We already know, and we have heard again today, that high-quality interventions can substantially reduce or even stop violence and coercive control, which leads to happier and safer lives for victims, their children, and future generations. Amendment 167 calls for urgent research on the assessment and identification of perpetrators. Domestic violence does not come from nowhere. It often builds over time until outbursts of violence become commonplace. For example, we already know that non-fatal strangulation is a common signal of future, more serious violence and even murder. This research should lead to an increasing number of high-quality rehabilitation programmes, which should be checked for quality and based on best practice. The opportunity to make use of such a programme should no longer be a postcode lottery based on whether an appropriate charity is funded in your area. It currently amounts to a postcode lottery as to whether the one or two women who will be killed this week by their partner will be you, your daughter, your sister or your mum.
We should be ambitious in tackling the foothills of domestic abuse issues. Specialist work that challenges abusive attitudes and behaviours should be part of every school curriculum, so that every child knows what an abusive relationship looks like. We can teach the next generation to recognise the warning signs, so that they can avoid ever entering into such a relationship —either as an abuser or a victim. For those children who know all too well what domestic abuse looks like, we can give them the vocabulary and a place to talk about it, and chances to seek help to stop it.
We know that working with perpetrators brings success. The University of Bristol’s three-year study of over 500 cases, as we have heard earlier, shows an 82% drop in physical abuse and an 88% drop in sexual abuse. Similar dramatic drops in stalking and controlling behaviours are also seen after high-quality perpetrator programmes.
Domestic abuse leads to whole families living with the constant presence of fear at home. It leads to victims in a constant state of high alert, concealing physical and emotional damage, terrified almost every moment of every day, but with nowhere else to go. It leads to children feeling frightened, powerless, confused and angry, and their taking responsibility for events over which they have no control. They are unable to concentrate at school, unable to make friends, afraid to go home and afraid not to.
Domestic abuse leads to abusers feeling that the only way they know of staving off loneliness is to carry on controlling, beating, hurting, screaming, shouting and threatening, because no one who had a choice would ever live with them. Perpetrator intervention can reduce and even eliminate this pain, violence and death which leaks from relationship to relationship and generation to generation. We know this and now we have the chance to act on it. Amendment 167 is that chance, and I hope the Government will accept it into this Bill.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, one is always left stunned and moved when listening to my noble friend Lady Newlove. I rise to support Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bertin and others. I congratulate her on her clear and persuasive introduction.
As I said last week when moving Amendment 176 in my own name, to truly tackle domestic abuse we must be bold. We need to take a holistic, whole-family approach, with targeted interventions to support adult victims to rebuild their lives, to support children experiencing domestic abuse and to ensure that perpetrators have access to quality programmes to prevent offending and reoffending. It is the quality programmes for perpetrators that Amendment 167 is addressing.
We know from MARAC data that there are at least 53,000 high-harm perpetrators in England and Wales at any given time. We know too that the Drive project which noble Lords have spoken about, set up by Respect, SafeLives and Social Finance, is probably the best-funded perpetrator intervention programme. It has suggested that it is working with just over 2,000 of the highest-harm perpetrators who pose a risk of murder or serious physical harm. It is important, it is praiseworthy and it is life-saving work, but 2,000 out of 53,000 is not even scratching the surface. As my noble friend Lady Newlove explained, so many are in danger now.
This timely and vitally important Bill is very welcome and has so much support, but this amendment is crucial. It is crucial that efforts are made to improve and enhance current perpetrator programmes, but it is also crucial to dramatically increase the number of programmes. I look to my noble friend the Minister to find a way to welcome this amendment, as it will enhance this vital legislation. As my noble friend Lady Bertin rightly said, it has support not only across this House but from countless organisations on the front line, from children’s organisations to the police, LEAs and—perhaps most tellingly—survivors themselves.
Lord Farmer (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am also pleased to speak in support of Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bertin. I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Polak in his encouragements for this amendment to be made law, particularly because of the emphasis on prevention as well as perpetrators in the strategy. It is essential to focus adequately on perpetrators, but this is late intervention. It needs to be properly matched with a root-and-branch approach to early intervention, preventing, where possible, the precursors to violence and abuse from developing into full-blown perpetration.
There is very little mention of prevention in the Bill as it currently stands, yet adopting a prevention paradigm is indispensable for reducing the staggeringly high levels of domestic abuse reported in this country over the long term. This requires acknowledging that in this area of policy, as in so many others, people cannot be treated as individuals, because their identity, health and well-being fundamentally depend on their relationships. As well as being a crime, domestic abuse is a problem with a relationship or set of relationships, and if we are ever to get ahead of its dreadful curve, a cross-government approach to strengthening families before, during and after abuse occurs is utterly foundational.
I could substantiate this in very many ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, when she led the Government’s troubled families programme, highlighted the ubiquity of domestic violence in the families being helped. Evidence suggests that the most powerful contributors to domestic abuse in our society are rooted in the relationships people have and are witnesses to when they are young. This needs to be addressed in a prevention paradigm. Childhood exposure to domestic violence and child physical abuse are two of the most powerful predictors of both perpetrating and receiving domestic abuse as an adult. Domestic violence between parents increases the likelihood of violence in their children’s later relationships by 189%. The public understand this. Polling carried out by the Centre for Social Justice, albeit in 2011, found that most of the population—73% of adults—think that if we want to tackle domestic abuse, we have to recognise that many perpetrators have themselves been victims of abuse.
Childhood neglect can mean that individuals enter adult life unable to regulate their emotions and communicate with others. They often have intrusive memories of violence, think badly about themselves or others and are at risk of struggling profoundly when they become partners and parents. Obviously, there are other cultural influences, such as misogyny and enduring beliefs that it is okay, under certain circumstances, to resolve arguments with violence. These can be tackled also with social marketing. In Hull, they put up posters with slogans such as “Real Men Don’t Hit Women”.
Low income is consistently associated with, and indeed worsened by, domestic abuse. Victims’ ability to work is hampered by psychological and physical effects, and restricting their access to work is a form of abuse of economic control. Money worries make conflict about finances more likely to trigger aggression. It can also threaten men’s identity where lack of money is associated with lack of male power. Men denied power through social status can seek it in violence, social control and subjugation of women.
Alcohol and drugs are also massive drivers. In almost two-fifths of domestic violence incidents, the perpetrator is under the influence of alcohol; in one-fifth of cases, under the influence of drugs; and sometimes, both. Substances hamper social and problem-solving skills and the ability to control emotions and they lower inhibitions, but the link between alcohol and violence is socially learned. This and the other factors cited above, including adversity in childhood, are never excuses; they simply help to explain. Many men and women with the most desperate back stories never resort to abuse. They may even determine to alchemise adversity into kindness towards themselves and others.
Finally, if we are to prevent revictimisation, we have to recognise that victims are often unable to break free of the psychological drivers embedded in their past experiences. These can contribute to them becoming enmeshed in an abusive relationship in the first place, and help explain why they feel so ambivalent towards the perpetrator and end up in other abusive relationships. Between 40% and 56% of women experiencing domestic abuse have had a previously abusive relationship. In one study, 66% of refuge residents had previously left and returned to their abusive partner; 97% of these women had done so on multiple occasions. These are sobering statistics because the impact of abusive relationships is cumulative; so much of the harm associated with domestic abuse is due to multiple victimisation.
I hope that I have given the Government a steer as to what a prevention strategy would look like. It would acknowledge the effects of low income, substance misuse and culture, but primarily focus on early intervention in families and be explicit about the relational character of domestic abuse. It would highlight the role of family hubs as places people can go to get help in this area, including when early signs of violence are seen in children and young people. In summary, families and family relationships can no longer be neglected in solutions to this most heinous of social problems.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Lib Dem group strongly supports this group of amendments—noble Lords might have already guessed that from the number of Liberal Democrat speakers we have had already this afternoon—so I shall try to be brief. It is a hugely important group of amendments because it takes us off the back foot in dealing with perpetrators and gives us a chance of keeping track of them, preventing further offending and helping them to change their behaviour for good. We have heard several harrowing examples, and several noble Lords have made the point in respect of Amendment 167 that it is the perpetrator who must change, not the victim.
Amendment 164 strengthens the ability of the law to register and track serial stalkers and domestic abusers so that they can be registered on ViSOR, the violent and sex offender register, and be subject to supervision, monitoring and management through MAPPA. I add my thanks to Laura Richards, founder of the Paladin group, for her excellent briefing. Domestic abuse and stalking are the only areas of offending where serial abusers are not routinely and proactively identified and managed by police, probation and the prison service across the UK. This has serious consequences for the safety of women and children. There are many pockets of excellent good practice across the country but no systematic approach and no systematic tracking—a failure of systems so tellingly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. Her story of Cheryl Gabriel-Hooper will stay with me for a long time.
My noble friend Lady Brinton strongly argues that we desperately need a strong, national, co-ordinated approach, and cited several harrowing examples, including her own, to prove her case. She calls this “murder in slow motion” and talks about under-reporting and inaccurate reporting on the MAPPA database, as have several other noble Lords. As things stand, the stalker or abuser can remain one step ahead, free to pick his next unwitting victim with a head start on the police, whose response between different forces is patchy. This is not good enough: now is the time and this is the place to lay down legislation to get on the front foot—legislation based on facts, not ideology, as urged by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Amendment 167, to which I have added my name, requires the formation of a national perpetrator strategy. I understand that the Government instituted the first ever fund for perpetrator work last October, but I gather that there are big teething problems. Will the Minister update the Committee on this, and particularly the fact that part of the fund allocated for research must be spent by the end of this financial year, but the research bodies have only just been informed of their grants and have not even received the go-ahead to start spending? Can the Minister confirm that this deadline will be extended?
I and many other noble Lords are very grateful to the Drive Project for its briefing. It shocks me to learn that Drive, whose work has already been commended, including by my noble friend Lord Strasburger, says that only 1% of perpetrators get a specialist intervention that might help prevent further abuse, yet research shows that one perpetrator in four is a repeat offender, and some have up to six victims. It is a vicious cycle. Drive’s work has shown how perpetrator interventions can stop this cycle, which not only blights whole families, but spreads like a canker down the generations.
We invest huge amounts of money in dealing with the damage perpetrators have wrought, but that is next to nothing compared to stopping the vicious cycle and enabling perpetrators to turn their and their families’ lives around. Investment now will benefit untold numbers of people, not just those directly affected today. Let us pass this amendment, and reap the rewards today and into the future.
Amendment 177B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is very similar to Amendment 167 but is more generous to the Government, giving them two years to establish a comprehensive perpetrator strategy. If the Government will commit to two years today, that is a done deal as far as I am concerned.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, like others, I thank Laura Richards for her excellent briefing, which has been a precursor to an excellent debate on these amendments. I fully support Amendment 164, proposed by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, with my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Brinton, as I do Amendment 167 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, which I was delighted to sign, and Amendment 177B tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
With these three amendments the Government have effectively been given a whole range of options to choose from. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath’s Amendment 177B would require the Government to lay before Parliament a national perpetrator strategy within two years of the Bill passing into law. I agree with my noble friend Lady Royall that my noble friend Lord Hunt is probably being a bit too generous to the Government in allowing them two years. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, would require a comprehensive strategy focusing on prevention and how to deal with perpetrators within one year of the passing of this Bill into law. The lead amendment in this group from my noble friend Lord Hunt sets out a comprehensive framework in which to deal with perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalkers, and would require a report to be laid before Parliament within six months of the Bill being enacted.
It was good to hear my noble friend set out a range of organisations that support this multiagency approach. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon for her years of work on this issue. She has raised these matters again and again, and we are all very grateful to her for that.
We have heard previously that domestic abuse, coercive control and stalking are escalating crime: the behaviours can persist over many years and escalate, and more crimes of increasing levels of abuse and harm are committed. This amendment raises the need for joined- up, multiagency working in tackling and managing perpetrators in the community. My noble friend Lord Hunt highlighted two horrific cases where a proper, all-encompassing approach is needed to deal with these perpetrators.
I recalled, while listening to this debate, the day I spent at the domestic violence unit of the Metropolitan Police in the Royal Borough of Greenwich—I still recall the horrific acts of violence I was apprised of. I was so impressed with the officers in the unit and the way they worked closely with the local authority. It is quite clear that, by working together, the council and the police officers of the unit were helping victims and saving them from further abuse and, in some cases, the risk of being murdered.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, who spoke about this multiagency approach and referred to research by Durham University and London Metropolitan University. It was good to see that violence inflicted on victims reduced when that work took place. I also endorse her comments on internet companies and platforms. I know we will come to this in another Bill, but these companies, which are making a lot of money, really need to step up to ensure that their tools are not used to aid abusers. We need to deal with that very soon.
As many noble Lords mentioned, we need a culture change. We need to get to a situation where these offences are viewed as totally unacceptable and as the disgusting, evil acts they are. That culture change is what this strategy is all about. We must break the cycle where children witness abuse—I think the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned this—and risk becoming the abused or abusers many years later. To do that, we need effective action.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, mentioned drink-driving, I remembered watching a programme featuring Barbara Castle, who got death threats for introducing the breathalyser. She appeared on a programme called “The World This Weekend”, where the journalist said to her that it was a rotten idea to bring in the breathalyser. He said, “You’re only a woman; you do not drive; what do you know about it?” Thankfully, things have changed, but I hope we get to a point where these disgusting offences are viewed as we view drink-drivers today, who now face bans and fines, risk imprisonment in serious cases and at best are viewed as completely reckless, irresponsible, stupid idiots. That is the sort of culture we need here: let us get to a place where we can have that, because women’s lives will be saved, we will have better men and better, happier relationships, and we will not have children witnessing abuse and becoming abusers or victims in later life. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, also referred to that in her contribution.
My noble friend Lord Rooker talked again about breaking silos in government. He was a Minister for many years in the previous Labour Government and knows all about how government works. I very much agree with him. I have a similar problem campaigning to get these GP letters banned: I am tackling the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I have four departments trying to get it sorted out, but I hope that we will finally get somewhere on that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, said we need to get the outcomes right. I fully support that.
It is always a privilege to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. Her story about Cheryl Hooper was harrowing, but sadly not unique. As I said, when I went to the domestic violence unit at Greenwich they gave me a number of redacted statements to read. What struck me in reading about these awful events was that they were not some story, but were happening to real people—the most appalling things being done by one human being to another. It was dreadful. All these things started off with, “I met someone; we were happy; then the abuse escalated.” It gets to the point where people are at real risk of losing their lives.
I did not agree with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Of course perpetrators can be rehabilitated—we want people to be rehabilitated —but what we are proposing is about protecting victims and developing a strategy to control perpetrators, help victims and save lives, and to stop the years of abuse that victims can suffer. Some may not be killed, but can undergo years of abuse and a terrible life. We must stop that.
I also do not agree that there is some suggestion or implication in the briefings or from noble Lords’ comments that this offence is committed only by working-class people. I think I have been here for most of the debates and I have not seen that. I do not believe it either. I come from a working-class background, having grown up on a council estate near Elephant and Castle, and I just do not believe that is the case. I have also been told by the police that, when they get the perpetrators in, they are from all walks of life—they can be very rich people with well-paid jobs who are doing very well, such as lawyers. All sorts of people across the spectrum can be victims or perpetrators. That is one of the things about this offence; it does not affect any one group, and we need to ensure we get that right.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, about the determining factor with children; we must stop that. We can all point to things that have happened. The one thing that was a real shame was disbanding the Sure Start programme from 2010 onwards. That was a mistake. The centres are the family hubs that he talks about.
This has been a good debate and I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response. I hope at the next stage of this Bill we can come forward with the strategy to put in it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that this has been a very good debate. I join noble Lords in commending the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who has done a huge amount of work in this area and with whom I have worked over several years now. I think she would join me in paying tribute to John Clough—his daughter met her death at the hands of a serial stalker—and his family. I also pay tribute to Cheryl Hooper; I had not heard that story until my noble friend Lady Newlove talked about it today.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, that it is a classless crime. When I visited my noble friend Lady Barran’s charity, SafeLives, way back when and heard the various testimonies, it really underlined the fact that it does not matter who you are or where you are from: this can affect you. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also gave a very moving testimony. I also echo my noble friend Lord Farmer’s point about the cycle of abuse. I join him in paying tribute to the troubled families programme which, as its name suggests, takes a whole-family approach to the issue of domestic abuse.
I will deal first with Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. This seeks to amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 so that individuals convicted of more than one domestic abuse or stalking offence should automatically be subject to management under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements. Management under MAPPA may result in these individuals being recorded on ViSOR, the dangerous persons database.
The amendment also seeks to place a duty on the Government to issue a report six months after Royal Assent to review these changes to the Criminal Justice Act. This review would include details of consideration given to assessing and managing the risks of domestic abuse or stalking posed by perpetrators convicted of offences other than those outlined in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for stalking or an offence for behaviour that amounts to domestic abuse within the meaning of Clause 1 of the Bill.
I agree with the intentions behind this amendment. We want to make sure that we have the right systems in place to allow the police and partner agencies to identify the risks posed by high-harm, repeat and serial perpetrators and to act accordingly to protect victims. However, the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 already provide for these offenders to be managed under MAPPA arrangements.
Individuals who are convicted of offences listed in Schedule 15 to the 2003 Act and sentenced to 12 months or more are automatically eligible for management under MAPPA category 2 when on licence. These offences include domestic abuse-related offences such as threats to kill, actual and grievous bodily harm, and attempted strangulation, as well as harassment and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress within the Protection from Harassment Act. There is also discretion for people who have been convicted of other domestic abuse or stalking offences and who have been assessed as posing a risk of serious harm to be managed under MAPPA category 3.
Guidance makes it clear that MAPPA should be actively considered in every case of domestic abuse. The guidance specifies that offenders should be considered for category 3 where they demonstrate a pattern of offending behaviour indicating serious harm, such as domestic abuse, that was not reflected in the charge on which the offender was actually convicted, are convicted of the controlling or coercive behaviour offence, or are serial domestic abuse perpetrators. My instinct is that instead of amending the current legislation, there is probably more value in making better use of the existing MAPPA framework and related police systems and we recognise the need to strengthen the use of these. Listening to noble Lords, I do not think that they would inherently disagree with that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out what she saw as some of the deficiencies undermining it.
It is also true that not all victims of domestic abuse call the police and not all victims wish to pursue a criminal justice outcome against their abuser. There are many other statutory agencies involved in families’ lives, not just the police, which is why effective multi-agency working is so vital to ensuring that the risks faced by victims of domestic abuse and their children are properly identified and assessed. I do not think noble Lords would disagree with that either. That is why the package of non-legislative action that underpins the Bill covers the full range of front-line professionals with a role to play in protecting and supporting victims of domestic abuse, including schools, children’s social care, job centres, the NHS and local authorities.
My noble friend Lady Newlove and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned Clare’s law, otherwise known as the domestic violence disclosure scheme. It already provides a system for the police to inform partners and ex-partners of a person convicted of domestic abuse-related offences about that person’s offending history. Importantly, that is from both a right-to-know and a right-to-ask point of view. Clause 70 places the guidance for the police on the DVDS on a statutory footing. This will help to improve awareness and consistent operation of the scheme across police forces.
Work has already begun on improving existing police information systems. I am pleased to say that we have already completed the first phase of work, looking into the current functionality of ViSOR. The College of Policing has issued a set of principles for police forces on the identification, assessment and management of serial or potentially dangerous domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators. More generally, as part of the £10 million funding announced by the Chancellor in last year’s spring Budget, we have now allocated £7.2 million—the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to it—in 28 funding awards to police and crime commissioners for the introduction of perpetrator programmes for domestic abuse, including stalking, such as the Drive Project that noble Lords have been referring to so positively.
There are also existing provisions in the Bill that will help to improve the management of the risk posed by domestic abuse perpetrators. The new domestic abuse protection orders—DAPOs—will provide an additional tool for managing the risk posed by perpetrators by enabling courts to impose a range of conditions, including electronic monitoring, or tagging, and positive requirements. DAPOs will also require perpetrators subject to an order to notify the police of their name and address and any change in this information, and that will help the police to monitor perpetrators’ whereabouts and the risk that they pose to victims.
Regarding stalking specifically, in January of last year we introduced new civil stalking protection orders, which can also impose positive requirement conditions on perpetrators. These orders, which were welcomed by most stalking charities, enable early police intervention pre conviction to address stalking behaviours before they become deep-rooted or escalate. Therefore, while we agree with the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendments, we do not feel that it is necessary to accept them at this stage.
I am similarly supportive of the intention behind Amendments 167 and 177B, which call on the Government to prepare a domestic abuse perpetrator strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has been more generous in his time than my noble friend Lady Bertin, and that has been spotted and pointed out already, but the substance of the two amendments is the same. The Government are clear that we must hold perpetrators to account for their actions, and we are ambitious in our aim to prevent these destructive crimes happening in the first place. My noble friends Lord Polak and Lord Farmer spoke very eloquently about that.
I am also sympathetic to the aims outlined in the calls to action for a perpetrator strategy, which are reflected in the amendments. We recognise that more work is needed to improve the response to perpetrators, and in particular to increase the provision of effective perpetrator interventions. I assure the Committee that we already have a programme of work under way to address the issues raised by the amendments and by the calls to action.
What we are not persuaded of is the need for an inflexible legislative requirement for a perpetrator strategy, but the Government of course endorse the need for such a strategy. Indeed, I can inform the Committee that, later this year, the Government will bring forward a new, ambitious strategy to tackle the abhorrent crime of domestic abuse. This strategy will be holistic in its approach to tackling domestic abuse and will outline our ambitions not only to prevent offending but to protect victims and ensure that they have the support they need. It is right that we have a strategy that takes a holistic approach to tackling domestic abuse.
In the meantime, we are building our evidence base to inform this work. As part of his spring Budget last year, the Chancellor allocated £10 million to fund innovative approaches to tackling perpetrators and preventing domestic abuse. As I have said, more than £7 million of this has been allocated in 28 funding awards to PCCs from all areas of England and Wales to support the adoption of a range of domestic abuse perpetrator-focused programmes in their area. To strengthen the evidence base of what works in preventing reoffending, as part of this funding, PCCs will be required to conduct an evaluation of their project to measure outcomes for perpetrators, victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
We value the importance of research in helping to improve our understanding of perpetrators of domestic abuse. That is why we will also be funding a range of research projects that focus on topics including drivers and aggravating factors, and what works in preventing offending, identifying perpetrators and improving understanding of underrepresented groups to further aid our understanding of perpetrators of domestic abuse. I will provide the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, with more details on this, but I know that the contracts have gone out today. I think she will agree that the findings from this research will play a key role in helping to shape the domestic abuse strategy.
In addition, the designate domestic abuse commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, has already begun mapping the range of interventions currently available for non-convicted perpetrators who are showing signs of abusive behaviour, which will allow us to better assess where there is unmet need for this cohort.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister: from the noble Lords, Lord McCrea and Lord Kennedy. First, I call the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, acknowledging that rehabilitation programmes are an essential part of tackling these abhorrent abusive attitudes and actions, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House who will take the lead in any co-ordinated approach, bringing together such a multiagency strategy so we can ensure that any programme will not be cosmetic but meaningful and productive?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Clearly, the Home Office will take the lead, but I acknowledge the challenges in trying to work across government to try to bring it all together. Of course, the Department for Education will take the lead for schools.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I may have misheard the Minister, but did not she say that one of her reasons for not accepting any of the amendments was that it would be restrictive to place these things in the Bill? You can perhaps argue that Amendment 164 is a bit more prescriptive, but the other two amendments, other than setting a time limit for a report, set no restrictions at all. They would just steer the Government to get on with the matter in good time. Beyond that, I do not see that they are restrictive at all.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The point I was trying to make—and I hope the noble Lord will accept it—is that we do not need to put it in the Bill, because you are always restricted by primary legislation. But I voiced my intention that the Government want to do this.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to speak on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and to my noble friend Lady Royall for her fantastic work in this challenging area. It has been an extraordinary debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, said, perpetrators have for too long been ignored and it is those very perpetrators who must change their behaviour—not the victims.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke about the importance of changing the culture. That was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who talked about the changes in culture—but, as he said, they need to go further. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, spoke about good practices in his local patch but, as he said, funding has been vulnerable; it is too patchy and we need national action.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was very effective in referring to Laura Richards’s powerful and shocking report. As she said, murders do not happen in a vacuum. Never again should a woman be murdered following a report by her to the police about the perpetrator.
My noble friend Lord Rooker, echoed by my noble friend Lord Kennedy, stressed the importance of cross-Whitehall action. He said that it is not easy. I agree with him. However—my noble friend Lord Rooker will have experienced this—when we had public service agreements across government departments, it brought them together. I commend that approach to the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said that Amendment 164 was needed to ensure that new partners who know nothing of the past behaviour of a perpetrator are informed and protected. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as a former Victims’ Commissioner and also personally, spoke movingly about her husband’s murder and the systematic failures that we still seek to confront. Then there was the moving case of Cheryl Gabriel-Hooper. I am so grateful to Georgia Gabriel-Hooper for allowing her story to be quoted by the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, disagreed with my assertion that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour and is worried about state incursion. We know enough to suggest that we need a more proactive approach. On her suggestion of a lack of evidence, I suggest that evidence-based research should form part of the perpetrator strategy that we are all calling for.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Strasburger and Lord Farmer, who stressed the importance of a preventative approach and early intervention. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, spoke about the need for us to get off the back foot and change the law to give us the ability to track serial abusers and stalkers. My noble friend Lord Kennedy echoed my tribute to my noble friend Lady Royall and spoke about the need for joined-up agency working. I agree with him about Sure Start also. Finally, the noble Baronesses, Lady Wyld, Lady Eaton and Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, spoke forcefully in favour of a strategy.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her very considered response. She said that she agreed with the intention behind my noble friend Lady Royall’s Amendment 164 but that existing provisions already provide what my noble friend is seeking to achieve. Ministers clearly think that more value could be made by the better use of MAPPA as it is now. I certainly agree that improving the way in which we do things under the current legislation and guidance would help. However, from all the submissions that we have seen, improvements to the current system will not be sufficient. Nor does £7 million, welcome as it is, seem anywhere close to what is needed.
On Amendments 167 and 177B, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that she was sympathetic but did not want legislative provision and that work would proceed without it. However, legislative back-up in relation to a strategy would be a visible sign of its importance.
On the merits of the three amendments, all I would say is that they are consistent in embracing the detail contained in the amendment of my noble friend Lady Royall, with stress on a strategic approach in Amendments 167 and 177B. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, it is not about the drafting but the outcome. We need a new MAPPA and category 4, and a new strategy and resources. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 165. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 165
Baroness Greengross
“Duty to report suspected abuse
A local authority must ensure that, where any of its employees suspects in the course of carrying out a financial assessment for adult social care that a person is the victim of domestic abuse, the employee reports the suspected abuse to a relevant social worker or the police.”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We can hear you. Carry on.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
Thank you very much. I beg to move the amendment and speak also to Amendment 166. I have tabled these amendments to strengthen the Bill to protect older adults at risk of domestic abuse. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for adding their names to both amendments.
Historically the abuse of older adults has been underreported and, sadly, all too often it is not viewed as a serious crime. It was nearly 30 years ago that I, as director of Age Concern England, with the help of the Department of Health, set up the charity Action on Elder Abuse, now Hourglass, of which I am proud to be a patron. However, it is with regret that I say that, after all these years, the prevention of abuse of older people is still not prioritised, despite one in six people over 65 in the UK having experienced some form of abuse. This is shocking, and the aim of these amendments is to improve the reporting and prevention of this crime.
Amendment 165 places a duty on local authorities to report suspected abuse. The financial assessment for adult social care carried out by local authorities is one area where the financial abuse of older people can be detected. The amendment would reinforce existing safeguards practised by local authorities and the duties of care detailed in the Care Act 2014. Figures from Hourglass show that 40% of calls to its helpline involve financial abuse. Often this is carried out by a family member or carer who is trusted by the victim, who is unaware that the abuse is taking place. Or perhaps the victim relies on the perpetrator for support and therefore feels unable to report the abuse.
Reinforcing the duty of local authorities to report this abuse through the amendment is essential to safeguarding adults at risk. This is particularly so for those who need social care, as they are often more vulnerable and may not be able to speak out. I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia. Dementia is a condition that 850,000 people in the UK live with. Further, one in three people born in the UK this year will likely develop some form of dementia at some point in their life, according to Alzheimer’s Research UK figures. People living with this condition are much more vulnerable than most to financial and other forms of abuse, because they may not be aware of what is happening—or, if they are, they may not be considered a reliable witness if they report the abuse. Therefore, strengthening the duty on local authorities to report while carrying out adult social care financial assessments is crucial to preventing the financial abuse of older adults at risk.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to put my name to the noble Baroness’s amendments. She has been such a tireless campaigner for older people over many decades, and she has pinpointed a very important issue in her amendments.
The aim of the first amendment in the group is to create a duty on local authorities to report suspected abuse, such that the local authority must ensure that, where any of its employees suspects in the course of carrying out a financial assessment for adult social care that a person is the victim of domestic abuse, the employee must report that suspected abuse to a relevant social worker or the police.
As Hourglass has pointed out, we know that the manifestations of abuse are often multiple and interacting. Financial abuse has typically been the most common abuse reported to the helpline—40% of calls in 2019. This rarely occurs without corresponding physical and/or psychological abuse. The financial assessment referred to in the amendment is a vital access point where abuse can be identified. The amendment could reinforce existing safeguards practised by the local authority and the duties of care detailed in the Care Act 2014. For older people, for whom domestic abuse is often viewed solely through a health and social care lens, the measure could join up the delivery of justice to survivors.
The second amendment in the group concerns the ability of social workers to gain entry for the purposes of identifying and supporting victims of domestic abuse. We know from a King’s College social care workforce research unit report in 2017 that, in current safeguarding practice in England, access to an adult at risk can be obstructed by a third party. This is referred to by King’s College as “hindering”. The study focused on those situations in respect of adults who are thought to have decision-making capacity because there are powers permitting professionals to access a person lacking a decision-making capacity. The study was also concerned with cases where professionals are unaware of the capacity of the adult at risk because of problems in gaining access.
Why then are third parties being obstructive? Practitioner interviews identified an array of scenarios. Sometimes family members were being arguably overprotective, often in cases involving an adult at risk with learning disabilities. Some third parties were thought to be fearful that the social worker would disrupt an established relationship.
While complex hinder situations appear to be rare, practitioners report that they are usually resolved by good social work and multiagency working. Social workers appeared to be creative in their approaches to gaining access to the adult at risk, but in a small number of cases, gaining any access can prove to be very difficult and sometimes impossible. Such cases take up an awful lot of time and resource, and may mean that adults at risk suffer abuse or neglect for long periods. In such cases, many social workers support the introduction of a power of entry and some of the other powers available in Scotland, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, refers.
This sets a very helpful context to the two amendments and I hope that the Government will prove to be sympathetic.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to follow two such experts in this field as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I pay tribute in particular to all the work that the noble Baroness has done over the years. In fact, it was her speech at Second Reading, reminding me of the problems connected with elder abuse in reference to domestic abuse, that gave me the inspiration to jointly sign this amendment with the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who will follow—all of whom have much more expertise in this field that I do. I am not entirely sure that elder abuse of the kind that has been discussed—particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned, among dementia sufferers—is given quite the same impetus as in other forms. I feel strongly that we should be looking at this.
I will not detain the Committee long. There are many other speakers with much more expertise in this field. I have discovered that provisions similar to those suggested in these amendments already exist in Scotland and Wales. It seems strange that we do not follow them in England. I would be interested to hear my noble friend the Minister explain why the Government cannot accept these amendments. Call me psychic, but I have a feeling there will be some reason why not. I urge the Government to accept them. If not, perhaps they could come back on Report. Let us take this issue as seriously as we all agree it should be.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 165 and 166. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for her tireless work over so many years, as other noble Lords have done. I thank her too for tabling these amendments and for her excellent introductory remarks. She knows so much about these issues.
Abuse against older people is widely assumed to be a problem in care homes. In reality, the vast majority occurs in the elderly person’s home and the perpetrators tend to be family members. Too often, one of the offspring happens to live near the surviving parent, as happened in my family. This person finishes up taking on the care responsibilities. Often the relationship between the two—the elderly person and the slightly less elderly person, who may also be elderly—can have been quite problematic for many years. The fault may lie on either side, or the word “blame” may be completely inappropriate. The child, who may be aged 60 or even 70-plus, can find themself having to do all sorts of personal and unpleasant jobs, day after day for many years. Generally, there is no financial reward, although this may be irrelevant. It is not surprising that resentment can build up and there is abuse in some form or other.
My only comment on the wording of Amendment 165 is that I should prefer the reference to reporting to be limited to a social worker and not to include the police. I do not want to speak against police officers. They can be good and sensitive in these situations. However, in my experience, relationship conflicts are generally best handled with empathy on both sides, rather than with an immediate reaction based on victim and perpetrator. Of course, if a crime has been committed, the social worker could—and would—report the situation to the police. This option is available, but I worry about the police becoming involved too early when it may not be appropriate. If the Government accept the amendment, I should like to see guidance that makes it clear that intervention will need to be made with an open mind to the position of both parties.
I also support Amendment 166, which provides for a registered social worker to be given a legal right of entry if they suspect domestic abuse of an elderly person in their own home. Many years ago, I practised as a psychiatric social worker. We had powers of entry. I never used them, but I am aware that, where people are frightened of the authorities and may prevent access, the only way to provide the much-needed help is to explain that you have the legal right of entry and, if necessary, would involve the police. There is then no question about it: as I understand it from colleagues, the door is then opened, and you can begin to make progress.
Oh dear, I seem to have lost my sound.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We can hear you, clearly. Carry on.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
Sorry. My machine went off. I have nearly finished anyway.
Abuse of the elderly by relatives is much neglected. If the Government support resolving these problems in principle, I hope the Minister will see these amendments as helpful and constructive.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking on this group because I respect the experience and judgment of the signatories to these two amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned the resentment that can grow after a long period of caring for a family member. I would add the sheer exhaustion and the discovery that the person who is being cared for does not seem to be the person they once were.
The first amendment on the duty to report reminds me of debates we held not so long ago about a mandatory duty to report and act on the abuse or neglect of children. This amendment does not go that far. It seems to be cast as a contract of employment. I am not sure what the outcome would be in the case of non-compliance. It may be too detailed at this stage when we are discussing principles.
This is another aspect of awareness and the culture change, which have been discussed quite a lot this afternoon. The amendment is worded as if someone is carrying out a financial assessment. Would that person have more access than someone carrying out an occupational health assessment of the needs for adaptations? I accept that a financial assessment is about more than paperwork, but there will be clues, such as, “Oh, my daughter deals with all that”.
The amendment is linked to the amendment introduced on the second day of Committee about mandatory awareness training for professionals. Its focus was on front-line professionals, but all the points made then apply here too. When the House looks again at that amendment, as I am sure it will, can we think about how it is relevant to this situation? In that debate, my noble friend Lady Burt talked about co-ordination between agencies. The Minister, who gave a sympathetic and detailed response, referred to guidance from different agencies. As the mover of that amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, said,
“there is plenty of guidance but no means of making sure that it is always translated into action.”–[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1741.]
Despite the Scottish and Welsh examples about the power of entry, I am rather leery of going down this path. I do not know the extent to which professionals, other than the police and social workers, can apply for an order, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned. I am too much of a Pollyanna in wanting to start from a position of sympathy with both sides and to take a gentler approach, but I know that gentleness and nuance do not always work. Adult safeguarding is complex, especially if access is blocked. All this raises issues around privacy and the importance of building relationships.
I realise that the life and limb threshold for the police to gain entry under PACE is high. I also appreciate that there has been work on this issue, although, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I could not get past “page not found” when I searched for it this morning.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is a doughty campaigner and advocate. I appreciate I have been a bit picky, so I make it clear that I share the concerns which lie behind these amendments, although I have some reservations about their detail.
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.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. Once again, she has identified an area which is absolutely right for an addition to the Bill. I would be very interested to know whether the Minister has had a chance to study how these provisions have operated in Scotland and Wales. If they have operated effectively there, as it would appear, it seems timely of us to introduce them at this stage of the Bill, or certainly on Report.
As other noble Lords have rightly identified, how we can better protect older adults, particularly those receiving social care in their own homes—we know that that number will grow over the next 20 to 30 years —is worthy of attention. This is a good opportunity to tackle abuse and raise awareness of potential abuse among older people. I have no hesitation in commending Amendments 165 and 166 to my noble friend and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and her co-authors on bringing them forward and allowing us the opportunity to support them today.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, these two small but important amendments are perfect examples of what I have been banging on about throughout the Bill and what my noble friend Lady Brinton kindly alluded to: the need for a joined-up approach on the part of all services to work together to help victims, particularly, in this instance, older people. Amendment 165 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and other noble Lords requires local authorities’ staff who suspect abuse to notify social services or the police. I am grateful to her and to Hourglass for all the work that they do. As she said, Hourglass says that 40% of the calls it received in 2019 related to financial abuse—the most common type of abuse reported—but it often goes hand in hand with physical and psychological abuse. When victims reach out for financial support, those in the local authority must be trained not just to process the claim or recognise the signs of abuse, but to report it to a relevant social worker or the police.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, illuminated the Committee with her telling description of how real-life long-term relationships can escalate, a point echoed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who linked back to the day-to-day regarding the need for training professionals.
Amendment 166, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, tackles the issue of when a social worker is refused entry to premises and suspects that domestic abuse is being perpetrated. As we have heard, at present the social worker would need to ask the police to obtain a magistrate’s order, but there are several benefits of their being able to obtain entry themselves, not least not having to further burden an already overstretched police force. Research by King’s College, which has already been mentioned, identified that this could prevent escalation to the point where a more drastic intervention by police was needed and speed up the process of safeguarding inquiries. This power has already been trialled. As several noble Lords have mentioned, it was introduced in Scotland in 2008 and in Wales in 2016. It seems to work well and creates a greater expectation of compliance, which may obviate the necessity of obtaining an order at all. Obstruction of entry is rare but, on the occasions when it is needed, this no-messing early intervention can save lives.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 165, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would require that where a local authority employee
“suspects in the course of carrying out a financial assessment for adult social care that a person is the victim of domestic abuse, the employee reports the suspected abuse to a relevant social worker or the police.”
Amendment 166 would allow “A magistrates court” to
“make an order permitting a registered social worker to enter premises specified … by force for the purposes of identifying and supporting victims of domestic abuse”.
I will be interested to hear the government response on the specifics of these amendments. We definitely support the general aim of making sure that older victims are focused on and protected and, like so many noble Lords, we recognise the truly immense contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has made in drawing attention to and highlighting older victims of abuse. After all, the Bill will achieve its aim only if it works for all victims. Older victims are too often invisible—metaphorically speaking—can suffer different forms of abuse, and are at increased risk of adult family abuse. Amendment 165 raises the importance of staff being taught to recognise the signs of abuse and who to raise their concerns with when they see it. The amendment refers to an employee possibly reporting suspected domestic abuse direct to the police, an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I am not sure whether that would be only with the victim’s consent. The amendment also raises the importance of joined-up working so that, where abuse is suspected, it gets acted on and victims are offered support.
The Local Government Association has raised the need for clarity on information sharing between agencies. In its consultation response on the Bill, it said:
“There is still not a clear and consistent understanding about what information professionals can share within agencies and across agencies … Given the changes introduced through the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), the LGA thinks it is crucial for the Government to issue guidance on how”
those changes affect
“safeguarding and information sharing arrangements, particularly the impact on domestic abuse victims.”
Like other noble Lords, I await with interest the Minister’s response to both amendments on behalf of the Government.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, will not get a big head when I again pay tribute to her for highlighting the plight of elderly victims of domestic abuse. She has such experience in this area. These very well-intentioned amendments seek to tackle the scourge of elder abuse. My noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger said that the way we treat our elderly reflects us as a society; I agree.
Local authorities are well equipped to identify, investigate and address suspicions or cases of domestic abuse where the individual has existing care and support needs or is known through other means. There are mechanisms and clear professional responsibilities in place to ensure the safety of suspected or known victims. I am not convinced that these amendments will add value to existing rules and processes or improve outcomes for elderly people experiencing domestic abuse, and I will explain why.
On Amendment 165, local authority employees are expected to undertake safeguarding training to ensure that they are able to identify and act on any concerns about exploitation or abuse in any circumstances, including when carrying out financial assessments for adult social care. Existing mechanisms will be in place to ensure that training is effective and that employees are able to escalate any issues. Escalation may include making a report to the police or making a referral under Section 42 of the Care Act 2014, which places a duty on local authorities to make inquiries, or to ask others to make inquiries, where they reasonably suspect that an adult in their area is at risk of neglect or abuse, including financial abuse.
Turning to Amendment 166, the police have existing powers of entry which ensure the protection of victims of domestic abuse and other instances of exploitation and harm where appropriate. We do not think that social workers require powers of entry separate from those of the police, who already effectively carry out this function. It is appropriate for the police to lead on any steps which may require gaining entry to a home where there is a serious threat from a perpetrator of domestic abuse. Extending this power to social workers risks placing them in dangerous situations which they are not equipped to deal with.
In addition, introducing a power of entry applicable to instances of domestic abuse risks creating a hierarchy of the different categories of exploitation, harm and abuse that are set out in the Care Act 2014. To take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the police, and health and social care professionals, will have local arrangements in place to enable joint working with one another and other partners to investigate all instances where an adult or child must be safeguarded, including instances which may require police to enter a home. It also plays to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made about data protection when information sharing. I think that joint working, certainly in the case of the troubled families programme, gets round those data protection issues.
Where there are concerns that an individual with a mental disorder is being ill-treated or neglected, including through domestic abuse, approved mental health professionals have special powers of entry set out in Section 135 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This allows for the approved mental health professional to present evidence at a magistrates’ court to obtain a warrant authorising the police, an approved mental health professional and a registered medical practitioner to gain entry to the premises, for an assessment to take place there and then or for the person to be removed to a place of safety.
Local authorities have the power to investigate under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 if they have cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. These inquiries will determine whether they should take action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Furthermore, social workers may make an application under Section 44 of the Children Act 1989 for an emergency protection order. Where an emergency protection order is in place, the court can authorise a police officer to accompany the social worker if they are refused entry to the premises. Where the police have cause to believe that a child is likely to suffer significant harm, under Section 46 of the Children Act the child can be removed to suitable accommodation.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that there are practices and procedures in place to identify and tackle domestic abuse where financial assessments are being undertaken for the purposes of adult social care, and that there are existing powers of entry, exercisable by the police and others, that can be used where necessary. Having initiated this important debate, I hope that the noble Baroness is happy to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, whom I now call.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest, as set out in the register, as chair of the National Commission on Forced Marriage. I ask the Minister that any guidance on training that is given to local authorities has added to it that some women may be victims of forced marriage and may therefore need some specialist support.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can certainly look into that for the noble and learned Baroness and ask that it be included.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I am most grateful. The understanding and special knowledge that many of them shared was very helpful and gave me a lot of hope for the future. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because, as I have known for many years, he is aware of all the problems involved, physical, financial, et cetera.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, pointed out that there is less impetus in reporting these issues than those of younger people, and we must ask why. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, identified the complexity of these issues and how existing relationships sometimes determine what is happening and what is reported. I was aware of her reluctance to involve the police, but my experience with the Met in London is that it is often the police who uncover aspects of bad care, no care or, worse, abuse that other people do not know about, so we disagree on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had some reservations relating to a lack of awareness about these issues. I agree with her. As she pointed out, cultural change is needed. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, emphasised how training is essential because many older people unfortunately face issues, as we have heard about in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, highlighted that the family is not always as loving and supportive as in the ideal situation that we are talking about and would like to see, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, emphasised how professional input is needed, whoever reports these issues. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, pointed out that we need to give attention to this problem, which we must tackle. It has been tackled better in Scotland and in Wales, which is quite unacceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said that we must not leave older people out, which I am afraid has happened so often until now. I am not sure that without some measures we will do enough to protect the people to whom these two amendments apply.
The Minister emphasised how local authorities are well equipped and should deal with this problem, and how the police have the right of entry when necessary. But I have to say to her that, in spite of the fact that they have the right of entry and that local authorities are well equipped, there are problems, and I hope that I have highlighted them in a way that means that your Lordships will understand that they need highlighting.
As many people have said, I have worked on these issues for many years, and I feel that what we have in place is just not sufficient to make the system work well and ensure that older people have the rights to the protection of society and to the bringing to justice of perpetrators of abuse that they should have. Whatever our age, we are adults and are part of this country’s population, and we must not leave this huge number of people with fewer rights to help and care than other, younger people have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but hope that this matter will be taken further.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 171. As usual, I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 171
‘‘Repeal of provisions about defence for controlling or coercive behaviour offence
In section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship), leave out subsections (8) to (10).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to repeal the ‘carers’ defence’ for the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate or family relationships.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the previous group. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has had many decades of campaigning for older people. I know that she had a long-standing friendship with my father, both when he was a Member of this House and in his days in local authorities, and that it was of great benefit to him.
Amendment 171 looks at another group of people—those who suffer from some form of disability—who are also disproportionately affected by domestic abuse. The amendment would repeal what has been labelled by some as the “carer’s defence” under Section 76 of the 2015 Act. Domestic abuse of disabled people has not been discussed as part of the Bill so far, and it is not generally discussed.
When abuse against disabled people is discussed, it is usually in the context of safeguarding issues. The disabled people are labelled as vulnerable adults and the carer’s defence is that their behaviour is reasonable and justified, given the nature of their caring responsibilities. The defence in the carer’s defence is that there could be a wrongful conviction of a carer for coercive and controlling behaviour when the carer was acting in the disabled person’s best interests. They might say, “I did it for their own good”—an expression often used by abusers who are also carers, and the courts might let them off with that defence.
The statistics on the abuse of disabled people are frightening and grim, and I imagine that we will hear more of them from my co-signatory, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, but I will give a couple of statistics which have been brought to my attention.
Disabled adults are at least one and a half times more likely to be a victim of domestic abuse than non-disabled adults. Disabled women are up to three times more likely to experience domestic abuse from their family members. Some of these abusers will also be their carers. I believe it is highly likely that those figures are an underestimate, as disabled people often find reporting crime difficult, and DA survivors often find it more difficult to access the help that they need.
There is a proper place for a carer’s defence. Genuine carers must be able to protect themselves from malicious allegations, but I argue that other Acts do this better—namely, the Care Act 2014 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Both provide proper protection for genuine carers.
This Bill is about domestic abuse and how to tackle its many manifestations and protect victims. Too often, disabled victims are ignored. Through the Bill, the Government have an opportunity to show that they are listening to disabled victims, who can be fully acknowledged with this landmark legislation. With the carer’s defence being found in other legislation, my amendment would not dilute the central message of the Bill, which is that all forms of domestic abuse are unacceptable. Disabled victims, too, need to be fully reflected in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my declaration of interests, and I am vice-chair of the Local Government Association.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for comprehensively covering the reason for tabling the amendment, and I am delighted that my name is added to it. It is a very difficult issue to raise. There are many, many kind carers out there, but we should recognise that some are not. I know that some people have difficulty with this being debated as part of a domestic abuse vehicle and question whether it is the right vehicle for raising the issues, but I argue that it is, because many cases of abuse occur in a domestic situation.
It is incredibly difficult for disabled people to raise these issues when not only personal care but control of transport and money and the ability to get out might be at stake. We know from various pieces of work that it is very difficult for disabled people to raise these issues. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, in its work from November 2020 entitled Survival, Recovery and Justice: Specialist Services for Survivors of Domestic Abuse, said that disabled women are already disproportionately impacted by domestic abuse. In its 2017 report, SafeLives says that they are
“twice as likely to experience domestic abuse as non-disabled women”
and
“four times more likely to report abuse from multiple perpetrators”.
The charity Stay Safe East, which supports disabled survivors of domestic abuse, considers that the defence has the potential to prolong the abuse of disabled victims, to prevent victims getting justice and to disadvantage disabled victims of coercive control. This is particularly concerning in a context where disabled survivors already experience abuse for longer before seeking help. According to the SafeLives work from 2017, called Disabled Survivors Too, on average disabled victims wait for 3.3 years before accessing support, compared with 2.3 years for non-disabled victims.
A statutory framework is already in place to involve professionals where a person might lack capacity and require medication or confinement—for example, the procedures under the Mental Capacity Act or the Mental Health Act—and there is protection from criminal liability for carers of people who lack capacity. Should a person not lack capacity, they have the right to refuse medication or other treatments or restraints. Nobody should be subject to coercive or controlling behaviour by a spouse or carer, and the law should not provide lesser protection just because somebody is disabled.
There is a high bar for the crime of coercive control. Behaviour must cause a victim serious alarm or distress and have a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities. We should consider the best-interests defence and the risks of it, as it could enable potential abusers to justify that behaviour by claiming that they were acting in the disabled person’s best interests. It also risks feeding into the stereotypes of disabled people, which suggest that they lack autonomy.
We are living in an increasingly paternalistic and ableist world. I know from my personal experience of the pandemic, because I have not been out every day and carrying out my normal line of work, how much resilience disabled people need to deal with their day-to-day experiences, when they are not being believed or having their views accepted. This applies to simple things. Even before our first lockdown, when I was travelling on public transport people felt able to ask me whether I was able to make the right decision about whether to get on a bus or Tube in London, whether to wear my coat out or what I should do with my purse in a shop.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who so eloquently and movingly spoke on this amendment. I am starkly aware that this afternoon is the first time that we have heard these figures on domestic abuse against disabled people. Disabled women are three times more likely to be abused by family members. This is deeply shocking and makes us pause for thought.
I am aware of the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as an active and practising magistrate. My question to him and the Minister relates to this point. If we pass this amendment, which appears attractive in the way it has been moved and reads, and repeal provisions in the legislation for the so-called carers’ defence to the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate or family relationships, should cases be brought to court under the legislation, practitioners would be scrabbling around for other legislation, such as the Mental Capacity Act and other Acts to which noble Lords have referred. There is a certain neatness and ease of reference from keeping the defence in its place, although I hope that it does not have cause to be used.
I am conscious of the huge shortage of carers in the country at the moment, particularly those looking after vulnerable and disabled people. They have a sensitive and caring role to play, so the background to this amendment is particularly sensitive. With those few remarks, I would be interested to know, from the Minister, what the position would be if we removed this defence and, from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, whether he thinks that it would cause a difficulty for practitioners.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for raising this. Amendment 171 seeks to repeal the so-called carers’ defence in coercive and controlling relationships. I am grateful to Stay Safe East for its excellent briefing. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, highlighted the frequency of disabled people being abused compared to non-disabled. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, was shocked by these figures and so was I.
As we have heard, the so-called carers’ defence clause reposes in the 2015 Serious Crime Act. This defence can be employed by the carer if she can prove that she believed that she was acting in the victim’s “best interests” and that
“the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable”.
Stay Safe East maintains that this Act discriminates both directly and indirectly against disabled victims. It says:
“The purpose of legislation on domestic abuse is to protect survivors, rather than to defend the rights of abusers or alleged abusers.”
It is already hard enough to get a case involving a disabled victim to court, as so many difficulties and barriers stand in the way. To abuse a disabled person in the cause of their own “interests” surely must be one of the most patronising and demeaning excuses for perpetrating coercive control of the victim. It piles insult on injury, can prolong the abuse and ultimately denies justice to the victim. I do not need to add to the cogent and clear description, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, of what this form of coercive control looks like and how it makes the disabled victim feel. Let us shut that loophole and give disabled victims justice and their dignity back.
A carer can already claim the “best interests” defence without our having to enshrine it in law. I listened carefully to the remarks of the Minister on Monday and she seems to have prejudged the amendment without listening to the arguments, which is most unusual for her. In response, I say that the arguments that she uses can be used in favour of the amendment. She said:
“As is the case with all legal defences, it is for the courts and juries to decide merit on a case by case basis”.—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 123.]
Why not take this patronising defence out of English law and let the courts decide, as she suggests?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I start by commending the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, because she spotted something that nobody else noticed on Monday evening, which is that I spoke in response to this amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, had not moved it at all. That might be why I sounded as if I had prejudged a bit. I will reiterate some points on this occasion, but I apologise for being a bit previous with my comments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, Amendment 171 addresses the so-called carers’ defence within the controlling or coercive behaviour offence. Subsections (8) to (10) of Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 allow for this limited “best interests” defence, where the accused can demonstrate that they were acting in the best interests of the victim. The defence is not available in situations where the victim fears that violence will be used against them. I must be clear on that. For this defence to apply, the accused would also need to demonstrate to the court that their behaviour was reasonable in all the circumstances.
The defence was designed to cover cases where the accused is genuinely acting in the best interests of the victim. The first example that comes to my mind is a situation where the accused is looking after an elderly partner or parent with Alzheimer’s disease and must ensure that that person does not leave the house for their own safety. In these circumstances, it is entirely possible that the accused’s behaviour, while it might be considered controlling in a different context, is reasonable given the nature of their caring responsibilities.
As we have heard today, proponents of this amendment fear that it may enable the abuse of disabled people. However, there is a real risk that, without such a defence—and bearing in mind the example that I have just given—a person may be wrongfully prosecuted for and convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour, when in fact they were acting in a person’s best interests.
Ultimately—and I am repeating my words from the other night—it is for courts and juries to decide merit on a case-by-case basis, whether or not the threshold for the defence has been met. It should also be noted that similar or equivalent offences in Scotland, such as Section 6 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, and the proposed new domestic abuse offence in Northern Ireland, in Clause 12 of the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill, which has recently completed its passage through the Northern Ireland Assembly, also contain a similar defence.
I hope that, in the light of my explanation—for the second time—of the necessity of this defence, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which has been a short but important one.
The central point I took from the intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is that the Carers Trust wants better support and wants the support of carers to be a more suitable focus rather than this potential loophole for wrongly accusing carers of some form of abuse.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, was much more robust in her language than I have been. She called it a patronising defence and said that the courts should decide. Essentially, that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said; the courts can decide because the charges can be brought with other legislation, as she acknowledged in her intervention.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, argued that the neatness and ease of reference may be a deciding factor in keeping this defence in this legislation and that putting it in other Acts would create difficulty for practitioners. That is the point that I think both the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Grey-Thompson, would not have agreed with, because this Bill is about domestic abuse; it is not about giving potential defences to abusers that are already covered in other legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, opened her comments by saying that nobody noticed. I am sorry to disappoint her, but we did notice—but there was no easy way of informing the authorities that she had given an answer to these points on Monday evening. Nevertheless, this is a probing amendment and we will consider our position. I think that it shows that people with disabilities want to be fully represented in this landmark legislation. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 173. Again, I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 173
Baroness Gale
“Duty of the Secretary of State to take account of matters relating to gender
It is a duty of the Secretary of State in performing functions under this Act to take account of the evidence that domestic abuse affects women disproportionately and is a subset of violence against women and girls.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause establishes the gendered nature of domestic abuse in statute.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to move Amendment 173 in my name in this group of amendments.
It is a fact that domestic abuse disproportionately impacts women. More than one in four women in England and Wales will experience it at some point in their lives, compared with one in eight men. When we take a closer look at these statistics, we see that it is clear that the relationship between gender and domestic abuse is much deeper than the present statistics indicate, as the data on domestic abuse collected and published by the ONS does not take into account coercive and controlling behaviour. These are the best statistics that we have at the moment, but academics working in this field estimate that the gender disparity of experience of domestic abuse would significantly increase if coercive control were considered in these statistics.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 185 in my name is a modest, simple amendment that would require the statutory guidance to take account of the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy alongside the existing requirement that the guidance takes account of the fact that the majority of domestic abuse victims and survivors are female. The latter was introduced by the Government in response to criticisms of the non-gendered nature of the Bill’s definition of domestic abuse, which my noble friend has been talking about so ably. The amendment has the support of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, to which I am grateful for its work in this area and its support, as I am to noble Lords who have signed the amendment. It also has the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and of the commissioner-designate, who has welcomed the amendment as ensuring that efforts to prevent and address domestic abuse are linked to an integrated and co-ordinated response to VAWG.
The coalition gives numerous examples of how domestic abuse is often experienced in the context of other forms of violence so that the two cannot be neatly separated out, especially in the case of black and minoritised women. These include the one-third of rapes going through the criminal justice system that were carried out in the context of domestic violence; forced marriages, which may involve coercive family control and abuse, rape and domestic violence; migrant women who have suffered domestic abuse, coercive control, sexual violence and financial exploitation combined; and the abuse of disabled women and girls, which also often involves rape and sexual violence.
While I support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Gale, I see my amendment very much as a bottom line. It goes a small way toward meeting the recommendation by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill that
“there should be greater integration of policies on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls to reflect the realities of the experience of victims.”
As my noble friend pointed out, the Joint Committee made it clear that this did not mean excluding men, boys and non-binary people from domestic abuse protection. The Joint Committee suggested that:
“The legislation and practice in Wales provide useful lessons in this area.”
In their response, the Government agreed that
“it is vital to integrate policies on domestic abuse with wider VAWG issues, and our situation of domestic abuse policy within our VAWG Strategy demonstrates our recognition of the gendered nature of domestic abuse.”
In similar vein, as my noble friend observed, the 2020 report on progress toward ratification of the Istanbul convention placed the Domestic Abuse Bill firmly within the context of VAWG.
Yet it is now clear that the Government, far from integrating the two strategies, intend their revised VAWG strategy, on which they are currently consulting, to be separate from their domestic abuse strategy. This has caused consternation among women’s organisations and others working to end VAWG in all its forms. They see it as breaking a 10-year cross-party consensus around the need for an integrated approach to tackling domestic abuse and other forms of VAWG. That is rooted in an understanding of the reality of women’s experiences and of the kind of integrated services provided by specialist services, particularly those by and for black and minoritised women. They fear it will accelerate a shift to a more gender-neutral approach to domestic abuse and violence.
The separation also goes against the EHRC recommendation that there should be:
“A single new cross-government VAWG strategy that addresses VAWG in all its forms, recognising domestic abuse as a form of VAWG, and the value of specialist by and for services”.
Furthermore, it is arguably at odds with Article 7(1) of the Istanbul convention, which requires Governments to adopt
“comprehensive and co-ordinated policies encompassing all relevant measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention and offer a holistic response to violence against women.”
There is a clear consensus among those who work on the ground and other key organisations that this separation is a retrograde step. Ministers are well aware of the strength of feeling yet insist that they are right. Moreover, they have not even included this key change of policy in the consultation that they are currently conducting on the new VAWG strategy. Could the Minister explain why the Government are so sure that they are right that not only are they refusing to listen to key stakeholders but they have not even included this issue in the consultation?
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I stand to support Amendment 185, also in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her very able introduction and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for her support. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I raised this issue at Second Reading. I also declare an interest due to my involvement in the APPG on Women, Peace and Security and the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and both those agendas. My work on these issues has demonstrated to me, time and again, that women and girls across the world, not just in the UK, are more likely to suffer from violence and abuse and form the greater proportion of victims. It is, sadly, a gendered crime. While men can and do experience abuse, women are disproportionately impacted.
It is important that legislation results in practical and workable solutions on the ground. This means policies and strategies need to be joined up and not left to act in their own silos. Many other crimes covered by the Ending Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, such as rape, forced marriage, FGM and stalking, overlap and are connected with domestic abuse. It is remiss that we are discussing this very welcome and progressive Bill to help combat domestic violence and yet there is no mention of the VAWG strategy. It is something that a number of organisations working in this space have highlighted as a gap. This short amendment neatly remedies this issue and would also help ensure compliance with Article 7 of the Istanbul convention. It is win-win, and I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider it favourably.
Before I sit down—or metaphorically sit down—I would like to add a comment about Amendment 186, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which is also in this group. In his very moving speech at Second Reading, he reminded us that
“one third of victims of domestic abuse are men, but only 4% of victims being supported by local domestic violence services are men.”—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 36.]
It is important that we work hard to uncover the extent of all hidden abuse and, as I have said before, have a zero-tolerance response, regardless of age or gender.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I metaphorically rise to speak to Amendment 185. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for outlining the issues so clearly. It is a real honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and I am delighted to have added my name to Amendment 185. I do not want to repeat what they have eloquently said already, all of which I agree with.
The UK is party to international treaties and conventions that make it clear that we must deliver a co-ordinated response and integrated measures to end violence against women and girls. Amendment 185, as we have heard, simply seeks to ensure good join-up: the statutory guidance issued alongside the Bill must be linked to any violence against women and girls framework.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for a good meeting recently to discuss the need for statutory guidance to include an understanding of different faith contexts regarding violence against women and girls, as there is much good work being done, not least by the Faith and VAWG Coalition, which is well-known to the domestic abuse commissioner-designate. I am grateful to the Minister for her deep listening and I look forward to faith groups continuing to work with officials and Ministers.
With Amendment 185, I ask that similar attention is paid to joining up the vital work of the Ending Violence Against Women and Girls strategy and the Domestic Abuse Bill. It is vital that this is done, as we have heard.
Baroness Featherstone (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 186 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As before, this addresses the same cause as our previous amendment that applied to the guidance. As debated before, domestic abuse experienced by men, and abuse in same-sex relationships, can be of quite a different nature. Just as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, is trying to ensure a recognition, with her Amendment 173, that the sort of abuse that women in heterosexual relationships experience is of a different nature and volume from others, we are trying to ensure that, even though less in quantity and different in nature, the needs of men experiencing domestic abuse and abuse in same-sex couples are in the guidance, so that matters that pertain to their circumstances are addressed in the particular.
This amendment iterates that one-third of those facing abuse are male. I remember being surprised the first time I heard that figure by the level of domestic abuse directed towards men, when this was in my portfolio at the Home Office and I visited male refuges and services. Of course, women suffer two-thirds of domestic abuse, and perhaps we are more familiar with that scenario, but we think it is important to have the proportion on the record, for what is not counted may not count. If our earlier amendment and this are incorporated, it just becomes a statement of fact and is there to simply meet different needs, not to reduce the importance of the gendered aspects of violence against women.
Guidance is tremendously important, regardless of numbers or proportions. As the experience is so very different for men or those in same-sex relationships, it therefore requires very different support and different solutions. Women in heterosexual relationships who are being abused have a different experience: often, their abuse is repeated and severe, and it often includes sexual violence. However, men’s experience where their female partner abuses them is often complicated by old male norms, where “real men don’t complain”, or they are afraid that it makes them less of a man. This is not always the case, but it is clearly a very different scenario for men in that situation.
For those in same-sex relationships, domestic abuse is actually more likely to occur in homosexual couples than in heterosexual couples. Again, the issues and the remedies must be differentiated and addressed. Even today, with the vast strides forward, from civil partnerships to same-sex marriage, members of the LGBT community can experience a level of stress that is relevant only to LGBT people.
A gay, male American victim of domestic abuse said, “I never identified it as domestic violence due to the images out there being about domestic violence only being an issue experienced by heterosexual women”. While I recognise that the Government are trying to steer clear of gendering the Bill and understand their desire to do so, the experiences of those who suffer domestic abuse, be they men or women in heterosexual relationships, same-sex or other relationships, require specific and different guidance to address their experiences and their needs.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 186, and I would also like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for being so honest and open about his own experience.
At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords spoke about Erin Pizzey, who set up the first ever refuge for women and deserves much credit for doing so. It was good to see her being acknowledged in the context of this Bill, because the truth is that you do not hear much about Erin Pizzey anymore. Once she began campaigning on behalf of male victims of domestic abuse, she was pretty much airbrushed out of history. This is not the time to get into the whys and wherefores of that, but it shows how the facts were forgotten as the debate became more politicised.
As far as I can see, this amendment is simply stating a fact. It does not ignore the reality that the majority of victims are female; it simply seeks to acknowledge
“that one third are male, and that some are in same sex relationships”.
Of course, this figure may change, so it could be difficult to be so specific on the face of the Bill. But I think the aim is a good one—to make sure that in recognising that women are disproportionately affected we do not forget that there are other victims of domestic abuse. We do not want inadvertently to diminish the voice of others or discourage them from coming forward, as was mentioned by the last speaker. Let us not forget that the aim of this Bill is to encourage and protect all victims of domestic abuse.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on an earlier day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, said:
“The Bill seeks to raise the profile of domestic abuse in all its forms, and the wide definition should therefore help to clarify that wide-ranging nature for all involved in the criminal justice system.”—[Official Report, 3/2/21; col. 2286.]
I am increasingly concerned that this notion of profile-raising and these wide definitions are doing the opposite of clarifying and may unintentionally muddy the waters and see the legislation opened up as a vehicle to push a wide range of politically driven ideologies and hobby horses.
Here, we have what looks to be straightforward: the linkage of domestic abuse to the violence against women and girls agenda. These may seem obvious things to link. Certainly, I am of an age that I remember when this was a feminist issue. In some ways, it was simpler and there was more clarity when we talked of domestic violence—not abuse—and “battered wives” and “battered women.” I understand this legislation wants to be scrupulously gender neutral, but I have felt at times that this approach means erasing the reality that women are predominantly the victims of abuse, especially violent abuse. But I understand the Government’s desire to ensure equality under the law and to avoid as unhelpful the group victimhood of women or the labelling of all men as potential perpetrators. Also, we have greater knowledge now. We know that male partners can be victims, that women can be perpetrators and that same-sex relationships can be abusive. All that means we have a more inclusive approach.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, these three short amendments bring together some very big debates around the Bill—much as the overall Bill has been welcomed from all sides of the House. I state my position as a feminist, as I have been since age five—and that is a trans-inclusive feminist.
I will begin with what I think is the easy amendment of this group: Amendment 185, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. It concerns joining up government policy and ensuring that any strategy to end violence against women and girls is thought of in the guidance around this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, said, this is a bottom-line, very simple approach. It asks that government thinking be joined-up and not be split into silos.
The Istanbul convention, which the Government are explicitly trying to comply with through this legislation, seeks
“to promote and protect the right for everyone, particularly women, to live free from violence in both the public and the private sphere”.
This amendment is very much in line with that approach.
We come now to Amendment 173 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. I very much agree with and support the broad intention of this amendment, particularly the first part of it. It is important to ensure that the Bill is not gender-neutral. The Bill must make it clear that domestic violence and abuse are perpetrated overwhelmingly by men against women. I am indebted to the Women Against Rape and the Support Not Separation coalitions for drawing my attention to figures from the Office for National Statistics from 2018: in the year ending in March, 92% of defendants in domestic abuse-related prosecutions were men, while 83% of victims were women and 95% of calls to domestic abuse hotlines were made by women. Gender-neutrality is at risk of hiding the nature of violence and the nature of our patriarchal society, and enabling perpetrators, sometimes in tit-for-tat claims, to then suggest that they are victims themselves.
However, on the wording of Amendment 173, I am not comfortable with the final phrase, which identifies domestic abuse as
“a subset of violence against women and girls.”
This is where I come to Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I agree with his broad intention, because the fact is that there are significant numbers of male victims of domestic abuse. I share with others the concerns about expressing that statistic—and the statistic in the amendment is very much contested—although I acknowledge that the figures I read out earlier may be influenced by a lack of understanding of domestic abuse against male victims and by social stereotypes.
None the less, I think we need to not be gender-neutral in this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, said, the Government are trying to steer clear of gendering the Bill, but we are a society in which gender is a major characteristic. This has huge impacts on people’s power, access to resources and risk of domestic abuse. If the Bill does not recognise that fact, then I suggest it is failing to meet our obligations under the Istanbul convention.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, the first and perhaps most obvious thing to say is that, following the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, scratching from this group, I am the only man speaking here. If the Committee will allow me, I am going to take this very carefully.
I thank my noble friend Lady Featherstone and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Sanderson of Welton, for their support. I want to carefully go through what the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said, before getting on to my substantive remarks. She said that domestic abuse disproportionately affects women. Clearly, it does. She also felt that the ONS figures took no account of coercive control. On where men are likely to be able to use their power to exert control over women, there are certain circumstances where coercive control is more in the hands of the man than the woman. However, on the other hand, it does not require physical strength, for example. I am not sure how much including coercive control would change the dial on the statistics. Speaking for myself and the abuse that I suffered, coercive control was the major part of that abuse.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, talked about higher levels of femicide; I will talk about homicides where there are male victims in my main remarks. She talked about violence directed against women because they are women. Clearly, that is the definition of violence against women and girls, but my position is that that is not the definition of domestic abuse—and this is the Domestic Abuse Bill. Agreeing almost completely with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I would say that an accurate description of domestic abuse is not, to use the expression of the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, that it is a subset of violence against women and girls.
I accept far more the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. She explained that her amendment would mean that the guidance should take into account any strategy to end violence against women and girls. I agree that it makes no sense for any guidance issued under this Bill not to take account of any strategy to end violence against women and girls, as there is a substantial, but not exclusive, overlap between the two.
Amendment 173 requires the Secretary of State to take into account the evidence that domestic abuse affects women disproportionately and, as I have just said, is a subset of violence against women and girls. I accept that two-thirds of the victims of reported domestic violence cases are women and that, as a result, it can be said that domestic abuse disproportionately affects women—there is no dispute about that. It is also therefore a fact that one-third of victims of domestic abuse are men. Domestic abuse is not a subset of violence against women and girls in the sense that it is not exclusively, or even overwhelmingly, the result of male violence against women.
It has been suggested that you cannot rely on the statistics. Noble Lords will be familiar with the alleged connection between lies and statistics, but I will give the Committee some more. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, talked about wanting incontrovertible facts. In the area of domestic violence, I do not think that incontrovertible facts exist. We know that domestic abuse is common, but it is often hidden and difficult to quantify. Half of male victims fail to tell anyone that they are the victim of domestic abuse.
I was a senior police officer when I was subjected to domestic violence that caused cuts and bruises, where I was kicked and punched by my abusive partner—legally, an assault causing wounding, punishable with a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. I did not report it to the police, and I did not even tell my own parents, such was the shame and fear of retribution from my abusive partner that I felt at the time.
The information that I have been provided with—I am grateful to the ManKind Initiative for its work in this area—shows that male victims are far more likely to report that the perpetrator of domestic abuse was female, in 60% of cases, compared with 1% of cases where the abuser was male. Of course, female victims were more likely to report that the perpetrator was male, in 56% of cases, but also that more than 2% of perpetrators were female. The Crime Survey for England and Wales for 2017-18 recorded 695,000 male victims of domestic abuse, compared with 1,310,000 female victims. If these statistics are correct, a significant amount of domestic abuse is perpetrated by women.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 173 in the name of my noble friend Lady Gale, who has done so much to support and defend the rights of women during her career in Wales and in the wider United Kingdom. She made many powerful points in her speech, urging an holistic and joined-up approach to this issue, and she remains steadfast in her support for the adoption of the Istanbul convention. I also closely associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I, too, was a feminist from my early childhood years, having been raised single-handedly by a resourceful and formidable Welsh man.
Wales has already adopted a gender definition in relation to domestic abuse. The Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 includes all forms of violence and abuse against women and girls, including domestic abuse, rape and sexual violence, stalking, forced marriage, so-called honour-based violence, FGM, trafficking and sexual exploitation, including through the sex industry, and sexual harassment in work and public life.
At a global, European and national level, violence against women, including domestic abuse and sexual violence, operates as a means of social control that maintains unequal power relations between women and men, and reinforces women’s subordinate status. It is explicitly linked to systematic discrimination against women and girls. Failing to make the connections between the different violence that women and girls experience and how it is explicitly linked to their unequal position in society can hinder the effectiveness of interventions and prevention work. It is also important to recognise that different groups of women experience multiple inequalities, which lead to further marginalisation.
There are significant differences in the frequency and nature of abuse experienced by men and the abuse experienced by women, notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I take on board many of the points that he raised. However, the gender of both victim and perpetrator influences the behaviour, risk and severity of harm caused. Abuse perpetrated by men against women is a quantitively and qualitatively distinct phenomenon. Women and girls experience violence and abuse in their everyday lives at higher rates.
As we have heard, though it is worth repeating, more than 1.7 million women in the UK have experienced domestic sexual assault and rape. That is more than 12 times the number of men who have experienced this trauma. In 2019, five times more women than men were killed by their partner or ex-partner. Over the past few years, over 96% of women killed in domestic homicides—almost all—were killed by men. Of the men who were killed in domestic homicides, more than half were killed by other men. We know that domestic abuse impacts everyone: men, women and children. But we also know that it is women and girls who suffer the most frequent and severe abuse. It is important to acknowledge that to enable practice and support to be tailored to the specific needs of the person experiencing abuse, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach.
I also speak in support of Amendment 185 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister, which requires the statutory guidance to take account of the Government’s strategy on violence against women and girls, alongside the existing requirement that the guidance takes account of the fact that the majority of domestic abuse victims and survivors are female. As she said so expertly and with much learned experience in this field, it is clear that the Government intend their revised VAWG strategy, currently going through consultation, to be separate from their domestic abuse strategy. Many supporters feel that a 10-year cross-party consensus on the need for an integrated approach to tackling domestic abuse and other forms of VAWG is now broken. Amendment 185 would allow that position to be reversed. I urge the Government to listen to my learned noble friend Lady Lister and adopt her amendment, along with the amendment of my noble friend Lady Gale, who has done so much to enshrine the rights of women becoming the law of our lands.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate because between them they have achieved the impossible of getting the balance right. It is very difficult to recognise that most victims are female while getting the legislation and guidance right.
I mention in particular the words of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who is my friend. As the only man speaking on this group, he recognised that the Bill would not be here if it were not for women. His personal accounts are always really moving and it takes tremendous bravery to recount them. Many people are still too traumatised to even speak about abuse and many accounts will remain unheard. We are very lucky to hear his account.
We know that victims’ needs must be at the centre of our approach to domestic abuse. They are individuals with individual needs. That includes an understanding and appreciation of their gender and, of course, sexuality. The latest Office for National Statistics report showed 4% of men aged 16 to 59 experienced domestic abuse. Of course that figure, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, will be much higher as domestic abuse is so often a hidden harm, and it is too often underreported.
For a multitude of factors, including often misplaced cultural norms of masculinity, and how that is perpetuated, male victims sadly feel they cannot report their experiences, whether to specialist support services or the police. There are also some very specific issues that are unique to the experiences of LGBT victims, which include but of course are not limited to the threat of disclosure of sexual orientation or gender identity to family.
This is one of the reasons we have a gender-neutral definition. This approach is absolutely critical to ensuring that all victims and all types of domestic abuse are sufficiently captured, and that nobody—absolutely nobody—is inadvertently excluded from protection, support or accessing the help that they need. As an aside, the Istanbul convention definition itself is gender neutral. That is why, in the statutory guidance provided for in Clause 73, we detail the unique considerations among other issues, including expanding on the range of abuse and the forms that it can take, and on specific communities and groups, such as male victims and those in same-sex relationships, as well as, of course, minority ethnic and migrant groups.
It might be an opportunity to read out Clause 73, which gives powers to the Secretary of State
“to issue guidance about domestic abuse, etc … The Secretary of State may issue guidance about … the effect of any provision made by or under”
certain sections of the Bill, as well as,
“other matters relating to domestic abuse in England and Wales.”
Clause 73(3) states:
“Any guidance issued under this section must … take account of the fact that the majority of victims … (excluding children treated as victims by virtue of section 3) are female.”
I would like to reassure noble Lords that there has been extensive engagement on the statutory guidance. This is exactly why we published it in draft in July. A series of thematic working groups has been undertaken, where the focus has been on the unique needs of male victims, and separately on LGBT victims. This engagement and consultation on the guidance will continue following Royal Assent. I would like to thank all noble Lords for providing feedback and for their thoughts on the guidance to date. Let me be clear; this approach in ensuring that we are taking into account all victims is one we will consider beyond the Bill in the forthcoming domestic abuse strategy.
Amendment 185, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, seeks to build on the provisions in Clause 73 by seeking to ensure that any guidance issued under this clause takes into consideration any strategy to end violence against women and girls adopted by a Minister of the Crown.
Noble Lords will know that in 2016 the Government published the violence against women and girls strategy, which ran until 2020. The Government intend to publish a new violence against women and girls strategy, followed by a complementary domestic abuse strategy. We launched a call for evidence to inform a new VAWG—as we call it—strategy on 10 December and we very much welcome contributions from noble Lords.
The main argument raised by proponents of the amendment centres around the gendered nature of domestic abuse and the Government’s decision not to produce a single, integrated violence against women and girls strategy to include domestic abuse, in recognition of the gendered nature of domestic abuse. Proponents argue that this approach ignores the reality of women’s experiences and threatens to undermine specialist service provision, which takes an integrated approach to domestic violence and other forms of violence against women and girls. Concerns have also been raised that the domestic abuse definition is not gender specific.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister—from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I call the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly agree with the Minister that domestic abuse should be gender neutral. I particularly support the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in what she said about Amendment 186. But I ask the Minister to take into account in the proposed strategy that some gay men suffer from serious coercive control from family members trying to force them into a forced marriage.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I fully recognise that point. I also recognise that conversion therapy might take place, not just in certain cultures but in this country as well, to try to convert gay men. A lot goes on, including, as the noble and learned Baroness said, families forcing people down a route against their wishes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received another request to speak. I will call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, first, and then the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that he is not alone. I support the powerful speeches made by my noble friends Lady Gale and Lady Wilcox, without detracting in any way from what the noble Lord had to say.
I want to raise with the Minister the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made about the Government’s desire for this to be a gender-neutral Bill. The Minister spoke on this very carefully and said within the forthcoming strategy there would be gender-specific elements. The question I want to put back to her is: if it is okay to have gender-specific elements in a strategy, why on earth can that not be covered in the legislation?
This is prompted by the publication of the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill that is being debated in the Commons tomorrow. That Bill excludes the words “women” or “mothers”, instead referring to a “person” who is pregnant and a “person” who
“has given birth to a child.”
My question to the Minister is about whether the Government have decided not to use the term “woman” in future legislation. Does she share my concern that there is a risk of delegitimising specific concerns about women, and that women’s hard-won rights over the past six decades are in danger of dissipation as a result?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just said could be the subject of a Question for Short Debate or even quite a long debate in your Lordships’ House, so complex is what he has just said so simply. By making reference to gender in the guidance but also having a gender-neutral definition, we recognise two things: first, that domestic abuse is mainly perpetrated against women, but taking into account that men, such the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who outlined his story so eloquently, can also be victims of domestic abuse. I said at the beginning of my speech that our aim is to protect and support all victims of domestic abuse, so I hope that what the Government have done, notwithstanding the legislation in the Commons, has struck that balance right.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much appreciate the Minister’s sensitive response to the amendment, but I asked her two questions and I do not think she really answered them. First, when all the stakeholders—all the people working in this area—think that it is a retrograde step to separate, even if they are complementary, domestic abuse and VAWG strategies, why do the Government think that they are right and everyone else is wrong?
My other question was why the Government think that separate strategies will be more effective than an integrated strategy, which could have separate strands within it? The Minister said that my amendment—or our amendment, because it is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, to whom I am very grateful—is not necessary, but she has not said anything that convinces me that there is an argument against including it in the draft guidance. It is not about just gender neutrality; it is about integration, coherence and a holistic strategy.
I do not know how much she can say now, but it suggests that we may have to come back with this in order to get a more plausible answer about why this should not go into the guidance alongside what has already been put in it by the Government on gender.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I understand what the noble Baroness says. She made a point about VAWG versus DA. Of course, domestic abuse is a type of violence against women and girls, although violence against women and girls goes far wider than domestic abuse. We are going to be bringing forward a domestic abuse strategy later this year. I can see the noble Baroness shaking her head, and I do not think I am going to convince her at this stage.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I also thank Refuge for their briefings and support. As the Minister said, I think we have got the right balance in our debate today. I totally agree with my noble friend Lady Lister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester speaking in support of Amendment 185. They were criticising the Bill for being a non-gendered one, or gender neutral, when most people have spoken in support and said we should recognise that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, first for being the only male voice—although my noble friend Lord Hunt was able to put his views in, and I thank him for that. I agree with a lot of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said. He said that it is not anybody’s intention to say that men do not suffer from domestic abuse and are not victims, because they are, and we know that women can be perpetrators. I do not want to undermine that in any shape or form. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, was raising this issue very strongly and was absolutely right: we should recognise all victims of domestic abuse.
The purpose of the amendments today was to illustrate that it is a gendered crime. Women are the majority of victims and men are the perpetrators, but that does not exclude recognising that there are male victims and female perpetrators. We have had a very good debate today. I am pleased with everyone who has taken part and put their views forward. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 174. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 174
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“Code of practice: employer’s duty of care
(1) In this section—(a) “worker” means an individual who has entered into or works under a contract of employment or any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual; and(b) “employer” means the person to whom the worker undertakes to perform the work or services in question.(2) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice (a “code”) containing provision designed to ensure that persons affected by domestic abuse who are workers receive appropriate care and support from their employer in relation to their work.(3) A code may include provision requiring an employer to make reasonable adjustments for the purpose of ensuring that persons affected by domestic abuse are not, by reason of being so affected, placed at a substantial disadvantage in relation to their work in comparison with persons who are not so affected.(4) The Secretary of State may revoke or amend a code.(5) Before issuing, revoking or amending a code the Secretary of State must—(a) issue proposals, and(b) consult the Commissioner and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.(6) Failure to comply with a provision of a code does not of itself make a person liable to civil or criminal proceedings; but a code shall be—(a) admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings, and(b) taken into account by a court or tribunal in any case in which it appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant, including (in particular) any case in which a question arises as to whether an employer is in breach of a duty of care owed to a worker.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice containing provision designed to ensure that persons affected by domestic abuse who are workers receive appropriate care and support from their employer.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 174 standing in my name spells out the duty of care that any reasonable employer might expect to undertake in looking after an employee suffering from domestic abuse in a code of practice which the Secretary of State must issue.
Work is often the only respite for a victim from abuses that they are suffering at home and the only opportunity they might get to contact help agencies. Work provides, as well as financial reward and escape, a sense of purpose and self-worth which can be severely undermined at home. Workers are more productive and effective when they can bring their whole selves to work. Employers have a duty of care which they would be expected to exercise in other circumstances, such as sickness or bereavement, and give time off accordingly.
This amendment is not stipulating any additional cost requirement in terms of time off. It is laying down the expectation on the part of workers that, in these circumstances, the employer will make reasonable adjustments and not disadvantage them further because what they are going through may not enable them to achieve peak performance—just as if they were ill or had been bereaved, and so on. It does not seek to criminalise or penalise any employer who does not comply with the code, although it can be taken into consideration in any subsequent court case where they have not exercised their duty of care.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 174, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. As she explained, the amendment will require the Secretary of State to
“issue a code of practice … containing provision designed to ensure that persons affected by domestic abuse who are workers receive appropriate care and support from their employer”.
There is an important issue here: as the noble Baroness told us, work may often be the only place where a victim can escape their abuser. An abuser, of course, may want to disrupt and cause the victim as many difficulties as possible, maybe with a view to driving them out of work, to make them more economically dependent on them or to drive them to destitution, so they are forced to rely further on the abusive partner.
The code is important because it will provide guidance to employers on good practice, on what the employer should be doing to get this right. Paragraph (6) of the proposed new clause puts this on a statutory footing and underpins the intent of the amendment. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of employers will want to do the correct thing and support their employee who is having difficulties, struggling and being abused, but they may not know what they could or should do. In that sense, the code is an important tool, because it will give the employer the guidance and direction needed to make, as the noble Baroness, said, those reasonable adjustments to support their employee.
My Amendment 182 seeks to put a requirement in the Bill that guidance provided by employers should include what support they should give the victims of abuse, including, as we have heard, the provision of paid leave. This is only guidance: in some ways, it is trying to do something similar to what Amendments 174 is doing but with the addition of paid leave, through guidance, rather than a code. It may or may not be more attractive to the Government; we will wait and see.
We must help victims of abuse. If they want to be in, or remain in, work, we have a duty to help them do that. It helps with their economic security, financial stability and even financial independence. When we talk about the issues in the Bill relating to domestic abuse, it is all about control—making people unable to be independent and completely dependent on their abuser. One of our tasks with the Bill must be to identify the points where the abuser seeks to take control and stop them exerting that control.
The relationship between employers and employees is important. The way in which employers can take reasonable action, make reasonable adjustments and take reasonable steps for victims of abuse on their payroll must be central to the aims of the Bill.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 174 and 182.
In my former role as Victims’ Commissioner, I had the pleasure of meeting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, but it saddened me to hear that their workplace was the only thing that let them down, with no support from their colleagues. As has already been said, the workplace should be safe and somewhere where they feel they can escape from domestic abuse and coercive control. It should feel like a safe haven.
I have also met many victims who have gone back to work because, financially, they cannot afford to take time off. I was amazed to hear the story of a victim who was so upset that one of her colleagues went to the boss, saying that she could not cope. The victim was called into the office and asked to kindly keep her emotions to herself, as she was upsetting colleagues in the workplace. That story has never left me. It is hard enough to hold a job down, especially with the global pandemic, as we do not know what we will face when the lockdown is lifted and we are all able to go back to some kind of normality, but during the lockdown, victims of domestic abuse have experienced life in a pressure cooker environment. Therefore, we need to look at the workplace, and that is why I support both amendments.
There is a duty of care in the workplace. Workspaces, including the desk, the chair and the height of the monitor, have to be assessed. Surely it would be good if the designate domestic abuse commissioner worked with the Secretary of State on a code of practice to ensure that employers have a duty of care to give support to a person who is suffering domestic abuse.
We know that financial independence gives victims a way of empowering themselves and that a lack of such independence makes leaving a violent home a hard struggle. I know from speaking to victims who have left their home and gone into a refuge that they have had to give up their businesses and their independence. If they have money, they still have to pay the mortgage, and that is a hold that the perpetrator has on them.
A few years ago, I had the pleasure of going to a very early breakfast meeting with Jess Phillips from the other place. We had a meeting with the New Zealand MP Jan Logie, who was fighting to get paid leave for domestic abuse victims. I do not want to make too heavy a point about that but I applaud her success in getting that through the New Zealand Parliament after seven years of struggling to have her voice heard. She received applause in Parliament for getting that measure passed. Unfortunately, we know only too well that perpetrators like to use a pincer movement on their victims, especially with coercive control. As I have said in other speeches, they want to part their victims from their family and friends.
Our workplace is supposed to be somewhere where we can have open conversations. There might be a safe mentor whom you can talk to and unload the pressure so that you can go back to your home and relationship, having had some of the stress removed—albeit you will go through the same cycle again.
I support the amendments. I ask the Government to look at producing guidance on this issue, because we will see more and more people suffering financially, physically and mentally, and the perpetrator will enjoy every bit of that unless we empower the victim.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to put my name to my noble friend Lord Kennedy’s Amendment 182, but I also welcome Amendment 174 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. I see the two as complementary. I remind the Committee of my membership of Unison. I am pleased that we are returning to debating these really important workforce issues.
Experiencing domestic abuse can significantly affect a person’s work life as well as their home life. Victims may have to relocate, which impacts on their ability to get to work, and the effects of the abuse may affect their performance or ability to work at all. As I said in the debate on the group of amendments beginning with Amendment 57, domestic abuse is a trade union and workplace issue as much as any other form of abuse that affects workers’ conditions and income. Home and work issues cannot always be neatly separated, and abusive, violent behaviour does not take place only in the home; it frequently crosses over into the workplace, where victims experience stalking, threats, harassment and sometimes worse.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, just said, work can equally be a lifeline to independence and survival for victims of domestic abuse. They are able to leave their homes to go elsewhere and can maintain a level of income independent of the perpetrator. All victims should surely feel safe in the knowledge that they can take action to put their lives back on track, with their employment secure, and that they are protected while at work. I agree with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, which seeks the issuing by the Secretary of State of a code of practice. I would also like to see a guarantee that employers will be provided with guidance about the provision of paid leave, which is reflected in my noble friend’s amendment. Guidance really does go hand in hand with a code of practice.
Granting paid leave is one of the most effective actions an employer can take to support workers who are the victims of domestic abuse. Time off allows them the time and space to address the impact of the abuse, such as by receiving medical treatment, finding safe accommodation and attending court or police dates. The great thing is that some employers understand this. During the lockdown, we saw the introduction of safe spaces for the victims of domestic abuse by businesses across the UK, including Boots, Superdrug and Morrisons. This demonstrates the huge impact that businesses can have in supporting victims of domestic abuse. Some employers have policies in place that introduce other practical measures. For example, Vodafone plans to offer up to 10 days’ paid leave to victims of domestic abuse and to provide specialist training for human resources managers to enable them to support employees experiencing violence or domestic abuse.
Hestia is part of a coalition of domestic abuse charities and organisations carrying out a programme called Everyone’s Business, which aims to encourage as many employers as possible to consider how they can support employees being impacted by domestic abuse, so there is something to build on. Despite this, only 5% of employers have in place a domestic abuse policy of any kind. A provision in the Domestic Abuse Bill to make it mandatory for employers to provide care and support for employees suffering abuse has the potential to make a significant practical difference to victims and survivors alike. The domestic abuse commissioner supports the inclusion in the Bill of paid leave and guidance, and I hope very much that the Government will give this further consideration.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I agree with him that these two amendments, Amendment 174 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and Amendment 182 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Hunt, are complementary and, I would add, an essential part of the Bill to make it the complete package. Your Lordships are trying to make the Bill the best that it can be.
I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in reflecting on the valuable advice given by the designate domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales throughout the Bill. That advice noted that, while the BEIS best practice guide offers suggestions and advice that pretty much reflects these two amendments, its recommendations are only voluntary. Yet if we look around the world and, as we so often do, at New Zealand, we see an example of a place where this is part of the statutory provision that gives workers the protection they need.
I note the TUC submission to that BEIS review of this issue. It included something that is probably covered by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, if not explicitly spelled out: the need for flexible working arrangements. We can well understand that, in the turmoil of surviving and escaping domestic abuse, flexible work might well be essential.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is pretty hard pressed and overloaded, so it is interesting that it chose to work on the subject of domestic abuse at work in conjunction with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development—the human resources professional body—from which we had a helpful briefing.
We spoke earlier about the impact of domestic abuse at work, about the workplace being a haven, about workplace culture and the importance to both employer and employee of dealing sensitively, appropriately and helpfully with domestic abuse. I regard this as part of occupational health and safety. As has been said, neither amendment seeks direct legislative provision.
Proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 174, with regard to a code of practice, uses the terms
“appropriate care and support from their employer.”
It is not looking for the employer to solve the problem but to enable access to professional support and give flexibility to accommodate the needs of a victim or survivor. As the CIPD says in respect of its guide, Managing and Supporting Employees Experiencing Domestic Abuse, what employer support could look like includes
“recognising the problem, responding appropriately to disclosure, providing support, and referring to the appropriate help.”
One good outcome of the pandemic is the greater alertness to the various situations in which employees find themselves. I include in that senior staff right up to the top. We sometimes talk as if “the employer” is not made up of human beings. We will all be aware of, or work with, organisations that have a huge range of policies applying to employment and the workplace. They are, in effect, codes of practice. Both amendments identify a gap that should be filled.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and I join those who have already wished the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, a happy birthday. She has had a busy birthday in your Lordships’ House today. I hope that we will finish in time for her to celebrate before the day is over. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for setting out their amendments in the way they did. They bring us on to the role that employers can and should play in supporting employees who are victims of domestic abuse.
The Government agree that employers can play an important role, and that there is more that can be done in this area by working with them to help lift the lid on this often-hidden crime. However, as noble Lords have noted, this is a sensitive area and it is vital to ensure that we have the right approach. That is why, in June last year, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy launched a review into support in the workplace for victims of domestic abuse. This comprised a call for evidence, a literature review and discussions with interested parties and groups to explore the issues in greater depth. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull noted, we published the report from this review last month, on 14 January.
The findings in this report show that, for people experiencing domestic abuse, the workplace can be a place of safety and respite. As my noble friend Lady Newlove said, it is somewhere where they might have a trusted mentor or confidant. They can make the arrangements that they need there and perhaps use a work telephone to contact refuges or other services, which can help them escape their abuser. The review also highlighted the importance of employers responding with empathy and sensitivity to disclosures of domestic abuse, asking the right questions and ensuring that the workplace is a safe place for people to come forward.
The evidence provided to the Government made it clear that victims may also need flexibility to engage with services such as refuges, healthcare, the police and the courts, during their regular working hours. Sometimes that might mean changes to their working location or the type of work that they do in order to ensure their safety. We expect employers to respond with empathy and flexibility to such requests. No victim should need to worry about their employment while they are seeking to leave an abusive situation.
Where victims of domestic abuse need to change their working patterns or locations, they may be able to make use of the existing right to request flexible working, which noble Lords noted. Our review into how employers can support victims of domestic abuse generated some valuable insights, which will be considered when we take forward the commitment that we made in our manifesto to consult on making flexible working the default.
The Government recognise that there is much merit in providing guidance and support to employers on how to support victims of domestic abuse. The review that I mentioned found that, while employers want to support their staff, they may lack the awareness, understanding and capacity to do so. My noble friend Lady Newlove gave an example of an employer who, sadly, got it wrong. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, companies are made up of people; this is first and foremost a human interaction. People want to get it right, but they need to be given the right advice on how to do so. It is also clear that domestic abuse can bring difficult challenges for employers, for example where victims and perpetrators work together in the same place.
The Government want to ensure that employers have the tools and support that they need to support their staff. As set out in our report, therefore, we will work with representatives of victims, employers and workers alike to bring forward proposals in this area. We welcome the positive action that we have already seen across the country. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, mentioned Vodafone, which is one of many employers, including Lloyds and many more, which are showing the way by adopting policies that support victims in the workplace and by raising awareness of domestic abuse as a workplace issue. We will continue to encourage employers to follow suit wherever possible.
In doing that, we recognise and value the good work being done by a variety of organisations, some of which have been mentioned in our debate, to provide support and guidance for employers: for example, the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, Hestia, Public Health England, Business in the Community, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development all provide resources for employers free of charge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, said, they are all over this, and trade unions are doing important work in this area, as well.
Through our review, the Government have set out a clear course of action to help employers to support victims of domestic abuse. It creates a firm basis on which to make progress. Given that commitment and the findings of the report from last month which I mentioned, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief but very important debate today. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, made the point that paid leave is guidance only. That is a very helpful thing; at this incremental stage we are seeking to win over employers rather than beat them down and require them to pay employees who are suffering from domestic violence.
I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, put it very elegantly when she said that we have a code to make the work environment safe and happy, so the code we are talking about would create a good emotional work environment to go with the good physical one. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made many very good points. He said that domestic abuse is a work issue. It crosses over. As I said in my earlier remarks, you have to be able to bring your whole self to work; you cannot just leave the sad and difficult bits at home.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised the need for flexible working in these difficult circumstances. I was pleased by the Minister’s comment that the Government will be bringing forward proposals and are consulting on making flexible working the default. I will be delighted when that day comes and I hope it will not be too far away. My noble friend Lady Hamwee said that these two amendments have identified a gap that should be filled.
I am delighted with the cautious comments of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, saying that the Government are working with bodies to bring forward proposals. I hope that progress will be forthcoming and less than glacial. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we come now to Amendment 175. Again, I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull.
Amendment 175
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“School admissions code: duty of Secretary of State
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months after this section comes into force, secure that the school admissions code issued for England under section 84 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 (“1998 Act”) contains such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary to achieve the objective set out in subsection (5).(2) The Secretary of State must secure that the Commissioner is consulted about any proposed provision under subsection (1).(3) The Welsh Ministers must, within six months after this section comes into force, secure that the Welsh Government school admissions code issued under section 84 of the 1998 Act contains such provision as the Welsh Ministers consider necessary to achieve the objective set out in subsection (5).(4) The Welsh Ministers must secure that the Commissioner is consulted about any proposed provision under subsection (3).(5) The objective is that—(a) oversubscription criteria for admission to any school to which the school admissions code applies give the same priority to children falling within subsection (6) as to looked-after children (within the meaning of section 22(1) of the Children Act 1989), and(b) the Code contains appropriate guidance about admission of children who have moved home to avoid domestic abuse or who are otherwise affected by domestic abuse.(6) A child falls within this subsection if the child—(a) is in the care of, or provided with accommodation by, a body exercising a function which, if the body were a local authority, would be a social services function of the kind mentioned in section 22(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989, or(b) has moved home as a result of being affected by domestic abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the duty on local authorities to provide school places for “looked after children” to children who are forced to change schools as a result of domestic abuse.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 175 does the equivalent for school places as my Amendment 52 does for NHS waiting lists. Both look to ensure that children fleeing with a parent from their abuser should not be further disadvantaged in terms of health and education. Specifically, Amendment 175 requires the school admissions code for England to be changed to give children fleeing domestic abuse in a refuge or other similar accommodation, or who have moved home because of domestic abuse, the same priority as looked-after children when there is a waiting list for school places. The equivalent actions should be afforded in Wales and an equivalent amendment provides for that.
I know that in some areas there is huge demand for places in popular schools. Nevertheless, after all they have been through, if these children need to be settled in school, they should not be disadvantaged even further by going to the back of the queue. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 175, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, would extend the duty on local authorities to provide school places for looked-after children to children who are forced to change schools as a result of domestic abuse. We support this amendment and its objective, which was raised by Jess Phillips MP, the shadow Minister, during the Commons proceedings on the Bill.
The average wait for children who move to obtain a new school place is between four and six months in cases of domestic abuse. That is four to six months away from their peers, without the routine and safety of school, while living in an unfamiliar house or refuge. The alternative would be to continue to attend the school, which is quite possibly an impossible distance away in a location deemed too dangerous for that child to live in. Many parents of such children do not have the required resources or technology to home-school their children—particularly not when they are in a domestic abuse situation, living in temporary accommodation, where children of varying ages and needs can be sharing one room, as may well be the case in a hotel, for example.
The impact of Covid-19 has also demonstrated the importance of schools for not only education, but the provision of food. It is estimated that some 1.3 million children are now dependent on food parcels from their school. Children not enrolled in school cannot access the food parcels provided by them. Schools have remained open for children with special educational needs and those with an education, health and care plan. Schools are integral to referring those with special education needs to the local authority so that they can receive an EHC plan. However, children who are not enrolled in a school do not have access to that safety net and the support that can be provided by schools.
Children who are impacted by domestic abuse and have to move because of it already face enough trauma without also losing out on their education or the safety and security of being in school. I hope we will find from their response that the Government agree.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for taking part in this short but important debate. We firmly believe that all vulnerable children, including those who have been affected by domestic abuse and are currently receiving care or who have had to move home as a result of domestic abuse, should be able to access a school place quickly. We believe that any gaps in their education must be kept to an absolute minimum.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, previously raised the issue of NHS waiting lists where children are compelled to move area as a result of domestic abuse. Amendment 175 seeks to address the issue of changing schools by focusing on the application process for a school place in the normal admissions round—for instance, at the start of reception or year 7. However, children fleeing domestic abuse are more likely to be applying at other times, which, in the current drafting—with the usual caveats about this being a Committee amendment—Amendment 175 does not currently provide for.
The Department for Education has recently consulted on changes to the School Admissions Code to improve the in-year admissions process and fair access protocols to ensure that vulnerable children, specifically including children on a child in need plan or a child protection plan, and those in refuges or safe accommodation, can secure a school place quickly and keep the disruption to their education to an absolute minimum. The new School Admissions Code will provide detailed requirements and guidance for all, particularly vulnerable children moving in-year. The Department for Education proposes to publish this new guidance on fair access protocols, which provide a safety net for the most vulnerable children moving in-year.
We think that these changes and this action, rather than giving joint-highest admission priority alongside looked-after children for the main admission round, will have the greatest impact in achieving what I think lies behind the amendment: ensuring that all vulnerable children can access a school place as quickly as possible, including those who have been affected by domestic abuse. Given the work being undertaken in this area, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for rounding out some of the information as to why we need this small amendment. The average waiting time of four to six months for a child who has fled with a parent from domestic abuse is not acceptable. He outlined very clearly all the reasons why that is the case.
I was quite pleased with what the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said regarding the new School Admissions Code on fair access protocols. I think he is reasonably confident that this will have the required effect; I very much hope so too. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to Amendment 177A. Once again, I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 177A
Baroness Benjamin
“Impact of online pornography on domestic abuse
(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commission a person appointed by the Secretary of State to investigate the impact of access to online pornography by children on domestic abuse.(2) Within three months of their appointment, the appointed person must publish a report on the investigation which may include recommendations for the Secretary of State.(3) As part of the investigation, the appointed person must consider the extent to which the implementation of Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 (online pornography) would prevent domestic abuse, and may make recommendations to the Secretary of State accordingly.(4) Within three months of receiving the report, the Secretary of State must publish a response to the recommendations of the appointed person.(5) If the appointed person recommends that Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 should be commenced, the Secretary of State must appoint a day for the coming into force of that Part under section 118(6) of the Act within the timeframe recommended by the appointed person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require an investigation into any link between online pornography and domestic abuse with a view to implementing recommendations to bring into effect the age verification regime in the Digital Economy Act 2017 as a means of preventing domestic abuse.
Baroness Benjamin (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 177A in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord McColl, and the noble Baroness, Lady Healy. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to commission a person to investigate the impact of access to online pornography by children on domestic abuse. It further requires that the appointed person must publish a report on the investigation and that, if they recommend that Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 should be implemented, the Secretary of State must appoint a day for that part coming into force, under Section 118(6) of that Act.
Some may ask why this amendment is central to the Domestic Abuse Bill. During its passage through the other place, the Bill was amended to embrace what is now Clause 65, which very properly removes the defence of consent in cases of rough sex when someone suffers serious injury or death. Embracing this provision, the Bill before the Committee rightly makes it plain that sexual violence is part of domestic abuse. One of the striking things about the debate in the other place that gave rise to Clause 65 is that it was informed by material that made it plain that there is a connection between an interest in experimenting with rough sex practices and the prior consumption of pornography depicting such practices.
Louise Perry of We Can’t Consent to This, the key group that campaigned for Clause 65, said:
“We can’t really ignore the porn factor … It’s there at a click of a button and can be accessed at such a young age. And the algorithms push you into a rabbit hole of more and more extreme stuff.”
The argument for Clause 65 was also informed by Savanta ComRes, which polled 2,049 men in Great Britain between 7 and 10 February last year for Radio 5 Live and BBC Radio Scotland. The polling asked the following question:
“Thinking specifically of times you performed slapping, choking, gagging or spitting during consensual sexual activity, to what extent do you think pornography influenced your desire to do so?”
The answers were striking: 57% of those questioned said that it did, of whom 20% said that it influenced them “a great deal”.
I am very pleased that the other place amended the Bill to insert Clause 65, which addresses problems resulting from rough sex practices. However, to date, Parliament has only followed through on the logic of Clause 65 taking rough sex seriously at the level of dealing with the consequences of this form of domestic violence. We have not exhibited the same level of concern in relation to the steps that can be taken to prevent this form of sexual violence in the first place.
We need joined-up thinking here. We need action to prevent injury or death through rough sex, as well as criminal justice measures to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. One of the most basic strategies of prevention in that regard is to protect under-18s from material that normalises the expectation of violence in sexual relationships. Taking the step proposed in the amendment would constitute strategic investment in the next generation to ensure that as children enter adulthood, they do not do so believing that violence is a natural part of sexual relationships, with all that that means for their adult behaviour.
The irony, of course, is that Parliament has passed legislation that protects under-18s from such material on commercial pornographic websites, but the Government have refused to implement it. Had the Government implemented Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 in 2019, under-18s would now be protected from exposure to pornographic content on pornographic websites, including significant rough-sex material. An interviewee said in a recent government report: “On ‘Pornhub’ you don’t have to look in the rough sex category to get rough sex. They’re just standard videos of men having sex with women by grabbing them by the throat”.
Of course, when the Government announced that they were not going to implement Part 3 in October 2019, they acknowledged only one downside to that approach—that of delay. They suggested that having to wait was worth while because the forthcoming online safety Bill would provide better protection from commercial pornographic sites than Part 3. However, in December 2020, when responding to the online harms consultation, the Government conceded not only that there would be a huge delay in providing protection to under-18s—probably until 2023, possibly even later—but that the alternative means of protecting children from commercial pornographic sites would also be much weaker. In the first instance, the Government confirmed that, unlike Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, the protections afforded under the online harms Bill would engage only with user-generated, not non-user generated, content. In the second instance, the detail that the Government provided about enforcement did not provide the reassurance required.
Noble Lords will recall that when Parliament scrutinised the Digital Economy Act, the point was made that of the 50 most accessible pornographic websites in the UK, none were based in the UK. Consequently, the only way to gain leverage over the sites in other jurisdictions in relation to enforcing age-verification blocks would be through IP blocking. A site accessing the UK market from Russia without robust age-verification checks would be told by the regulator to put those checks in place within a certain timeframe or risk being blocked. The site would then have to decide either to put in place those robust checks or lose significant UK revenue as a result of blocking.
However, in responding to the online harms consultation in December last year, the Government proposed fines as the main means of enforcement and seemed to entertain IP blocking only as a last resort, which is very concerning. At Second Reading, I raised those concerns, along with the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord McColl and Lord Morrow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. Since that debate, the Government have taken two steps that only amplify the difficulty. First, on 26 January, the noble Baroness the Minister wrote to Peers to address the points we made in relation to pornography at Second Reading. However, rather than addressing the presenting problem, the letter simply repeats it and makes it plain that unlike the Digital Economy Act, the online harms Bill will only engage pornographic sites that
“host user generated content or facilitate online user interaction”.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in returning to an issue that I raised at Second Reading, it is a particular pleasure to support Amendment 177A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I support what she said about the protection of children and young people and the harmful effects on their formative influences to which they are exposed. She said it so eloquently and powerfully; I think the whole House will be deeply appreciative of that.
In 1994, while a Member of another place, I tabled an amendment to the then criminal justice Bill. It set out to make it an offence to show gratuitously violent videos to children. At the time, against the opposition of the Home Office, it was supported by 80 Conservative Members of Parliament—including Sir Ivan Lawrence, then chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs—along with colleagues from all sides of the House and the Labour Front Bench; the shadow Home Secretary at the time was Tony Blair MP. After facing the prospect of defeat, the Government agreed to introduce an amendment in your Lordships’ House and the law was changed.
One of the things that united left, right and centre was the publication of a report by a group of 25 leading child psychologists who said that they had been, in their words, “naive” in denying a link between violent videos and violence by youngsters. The report was led by Professor Elizabeth Newson, an eminent psychologist and head of Nottingham University’s child development research unit, and was drawn up in the aftermath of James Bulger’s murder by two 10 year-old boys. At the boys’ trial, the judge said that their actions might have been encouraged by scenes in the horror film “Child’s Play 3”.
In two days’ time, on 12 February, it will be 28 years since the tragic death of James Bulger. Although I had raised the issue of the link between gratuitously violent material and behaviour prior to James’s death, what happened there in Liverpool, the city which included my parliamentary constituency when I served in another place, no doubt caused a proper, detailed examination of the factors which led to his appalling murder.
I last referred to those events in your Lordships’ House four years ago next month, on 20 March 2017, when I spoke in the debate on age verification of pornographic websites. It is with some sadness that, in intervening to support the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I still feel it necessary to argue the case for mitigating the effects and impact of graphic imagery on children and young people. I said:
“The evidence of the damage being done to children and young people through easy access to pornography is deeply disturbing and should give us all pause.”—[Official Report, 20/3/17; col. 21.]
More importantly, I quoted the then Justice Minister, who said that the internet was,
“driving greater access to more worrying imagery online. In the extreme, the sexualisation of youth is manifesting itself in younger conviction ages for rape”.
Given that statement, and the comments of the Joint Select Committee which considered the draft Domestic Abuse Bill about the distortion of relationships engendered by violent imagery—to which I referred at Second Reading —the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, should be accepted by the Government and the House. It is long overdue.
The Government argue for an evidence-based approach to making policy. Four years ago, the Government and Parliament were of the view that children and young people needed to be protected from graphic and distorting images. The links between such imagery and domestic violence were raised in the debate on 20 March 2017 by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lord Listowel and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Paddick. Yet the seminal legislation that we debated and passed then has not been implemented. As we have heard, during the past four years, notwithstanding the will of Parliament expressed in the Digital Economy Act 2017, a whole cohort of teenagers has been growing up without any requirement for the relevant websites to reduce access to those under 18.
In an article published online on 21 January 2021, the magazine Teen Vogue implied that:
“Porn that portrays nonconsensual sex, for instance, isn’t necessarily misogynist if it centers all characters’ pleasure and agency.”
I hope your Lordships will allow what is being said there to sink in. There was an outcry and the article now refers instead to:
“Porn that portrays fantasies about nonconsensual sex”.
We are having this debate just a few days after last week’s UK Sexual Abuse & Sexual Violence Awareness Week. I am not convinced that women who have suffered rape or other sexual violence will agree that changing the wording to refer to fantasies is sufficient to reduce the harm that those messages give.
Noble Lords will remember that at Second Reading, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, I asked the Government about research that they had commissioned on
“exploring legal pornography use and its influence on harmful behaviours and attitudes towards women and girls”.
It was due to have been published in autumn 2019, but was actually published on 15 January—last month. Of course I welcome this, but find myself extremely disappointed in three ways. First, when Mrs Fiona Bruce, the MP for Congleton, raised the publication of this research last summer, the Minister in the other place reassured her that the publication would be “soon”. In reality, it took another six months. Secondly, the published reports make it plain that the research was concluded in February 2020. It should have shed light on the Bill before us today, both when it was being debated in another place and during our own Second Reading. Thirdly, although I asked the Government Front Bench specifically about this research on Second Reading, the subsequent letter to Peers, dated 11 days after the publication of the research, did not mention it.
The truth is that the reports were published very quietly. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I know of them only by chance; in my case, a friend accidentally stumbled on them and sent them to me. Perhaps I can be forgiven for thinking that the Government, while recognising that they had to publish these taxpayer-funded reports, rather hoped that no one would notice them. There has certainly been zero media pick-up, although I hope that will change thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 177A, to which I have added my name. I very much echo what has been said about Clause 65 and the acknowledgment that sexual violence is an important part of domestic violence. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I do not believe that it is sufficient to seek to deal with the consequences of rough sex after it has happened. It seems to me that any credible domestic abuse Bill must seek to prevent domestic violence, as well as dealing with its consequences. As the evidence marshalled for Amendment 65 made very plain, there is a connection between watching depictions of rough sex practices in pornography and the incidence of such practices.
In my judgment, one of the most important ways in which this matter was first drawn to the attention of Parliament was through the seminal 2018 Women and Equalities Committee report on sexual harassment. The report stated:
“We asked Dr Maddy Coy whether there is a link between men viewing pornography and the likelihood of them sexually harassing women and girls. Dr Coy told us: ‘There is a meta-analysis of research that shows that. It was pornography consumption associated with higher levels of attitudes that support violence, which includes things like acceptance of violence, rape myth acceptance and sexual harassment”.
Moreover, one of the report’s conclusions was that:
“There are examples of lawful behaviours which the Government recognises as harmful, such as smoking, which are addressed through public health campaigns and huge investment designed to reduce and prevent those harms. The Government should take a similar, evidence-based approach to addressing the harms of pornography.”
In their response, the Government stated:
“We have already begun work to identify whether links exist between consuming pornography and attitudes to women and girls, and harmful behaviours. Through qualitative research with frontline providers and a review of the existing evidence base, we aim to build our understanding of relationships between pornography use and harmful attitudes and behaviours.”
As noble Lords have noted, the fruit of that research has been a long time coming. Given its huge relevance to the debate on this Bill, I find the way that it has been released—for all the reasons expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton—deeply unfortunate.
The research consists of two papers in response to the Women and Equalities Committee’s sexual harassment report. One is the literature review and the other consists of interviews with front-line workers who are working with individuals who either have exhibited harmful sexual behaviours towards women or are at risk of doing so, aged 16 to over 60. The literature review makes some important statements regarding the content of the Bill. It states that
“pornography use has been associated with an increased likelihood of committing both verbal and physical acts of sexual aggression. With the correlation being significantly stronger for verbal rather than physical aggression, but both were evident. The use of violent pornography produced a stronger correlation.”
The report concludes that
“there is substantial evidence of an association between the use of pornography and harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours towards women.”
It is clear that a relationship exists, and that is especially true for the use of violent pornography.
The second report, based on interviews with front-line workers, states:
“The majority of Frontline workers spontaneously mentioned pornography as an influential factor for harmful sexual behaviours towards women and girls”,
and that:
“This was especially the case for participants working with younger audiences … The view that pornography played a role in their clients’ harmful attitudes and/or behaviours was undisputed.”
Front-line workers recognise that there are a variety of factors contributing to violent behaviours, in relation to which pornography was felt to be a key contributing factor for many clients.
The second report also states:
“Participants believed that increased ease of access to pornography, lots of which includes violence towards women, was problematic for many of their clients … there was a widespread belief in the need to address the role that pornography plays, as part of the approach to minimising harmful sexual behaviours towards women.”
The front-line workers also reported on harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours that they had observed, including physical aggression during sex such as choking, slapping and hair pulling—that is, rough sex. This research is hugely important. It raises major questions about pornography consumption in the round, quite apart from by children and young people.
If we return to the proposed recommendation of the Women and Equalities Committee’s report—namely, that the Government should consider approaching pornography, as they do smoking, from a public health perspective—it is now plain that the new research completely validates that approach. In recognising that, we must acknowledge that the imperative for that is greatly compounded by the fact that the public health risks arising from pornography consumption are not limited to violent behaviours.
There is also the completely separate additional public health argument about taking action because of the problems raised by pornography addiction, which are similar in many ways to those caused by gambling addiction. The Government recognise that while for many gambling is not linked to harm, for some it has a very destructive effect through gambling addiction. This creates what is in a very real sense a form of social environmental pollution, where government pressure the polluter to pay. The gambling industry is asked to make a significant financial contribution to try to help people suffering from gambling addiction.
Given the social carnage left in the wake of pornography addiction, the polluter in this case should also be required to pay, yet the polluter in this instance is not so compelled. This is particularly odd when one has regard to the fact that whereas gambling facilitates gambling addiction, where the gambler damages his life and that of his family around him, pornography not only leads to these problems through addiction but is implicated, as we have seen, in actions taken by some consumers of pornography where they inflict violent acts on other people. In this context, it seems that there is a strong case for tough legislation on online pornography generally.
However, what is incontrovertible is that any further delay in protecting under-18s from accessing this material on pornographic websites, including depictions of rough-sex practices that normalise in their eyes violence as part of sexual relationships, is absolutely indefensible. It amounts to a perverse investment in the lives of the next generation that will make them think that an important aspect of domestic violence that the Bill is seeking to combat—sexual violence—is normal and appropriate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I would point out that all the speakers in this group so far have spoken for considerably over 10 minutes. Noble Lords would appreciate brevity, so that they can all have an opportunity to take part.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—rough sex and domestic violence and implement Part 3 as quickly as possible.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this amendment raises important issues in relation to domestic abuse. It is relevant to Amendment 184 in the next group, on teenage relationships, to which I shall speak. And I shall be brief.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, passionately described the situation in relation to helping prevent domestic violence in the next generation. We must maintain this passion. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Istanbul convention are powerful statements and calls to action, but of course calls to action must be taken at the national level, and we must do so.
The Council of Europe’s Lanzarote convention, which the UK ratified in 2018, continues to provide new insights into violence against children, including sexual violence and any form of exploitation. It was the first convention to address violence in the home. I declare an interest as the UK representative on the Council of Europe, and I attend the Lanzarote Committee. Its central tenet is:
“No violence against children is justifiable. All violence against children is preventable.”
Violence in teenage relationships, in whatever form, is violence against children: they are under 18. We need to consider how violence might be inspired. This amendment suggests that there is much concern about the influence of child viewing of violent and/or pornographic material, which may have a detrimental influence on the development of children’s brains and emotional behaviour. This is well documented.
A recent report from the Children’s Commissioner looked at the range of online platforms used by children, from social media to gaming and messaging. Digital technology is now a feature of children’s lives. One in three internet users around the world are children, and half of all 10 year-olds in the UK have their own smartphone. Of course, the digital world has much to offer, such as communicating with family and friends and accessing information. However, the digital world has not kept pace with keeping children from harm. In the digital age, people, including children, are influenced by what they see in the media, particularly if they are vulnerable in the first place. There is also evidence to show that some children watch this material at home, sometimes with parents. Children watching unsuitable material online has increased during Covid, not surprisingly.
Research has shown that perceptions of body image are susceptible to online images, especially among girls, leaving them feeling underconfident and inadequate. Violence in sexual relationships is sometimes presented online as normal, and there is evidence to show that teenagers, male and female, take it as such, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said. What does this say about how they will develop healthy relationships? What does it say about them becoming a possible perpetrator of violence, or a victim of violence, accepting such behaviour as normal?
The online harms Bill may be some way off, and we cannot wait to act. This amendment asks the Secretary of State to commission an investigation of the impact of access to online pornography on children and how this may encourage abuse. An age verification virtual conference took place in June 2020, with evidence from over 20 countries. It included a discussion of the effects of substantial online exposure on the adolescent brain. There is much research to work with, but there is more to do, specifically in the UK. I hope the Government will act on this.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 177A, so ably proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.
Protecting children from pornographic websites is no less important now than it was in 2015, when the seminal Conservative manifesto commitment was made to
“stop children’s exposure to harmful sexualised content online, by requiring age verification for access to all sites containing pornographic material”.
Similarly, protecting children from pornographic websites is no less important now than when the Digital Economy Bill became an Act of Parliament in 2017.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others have eloquently covered many points I wished to make, and therefore I will not repeat them. However, I would like to make two points.
First, in understanding the full significance of Amendment 177A, it is important to see it as an investment to reduce the incidence of domestic violence in the future. A significant proportion of online pornography depicts sexual violence, and if Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act is not implemented, under-18s will be exposed to this content and will conclude that violence is a normal part of sexual relationships. This will, in turn, inevitably impact behaviour, not only among under-18s now but as they grow into adulthood. Protecting children from access to this pornography is not just about impacting them today; it is about impacting their development because of the consequences that it will reap tomorrow, when they are adults, in levels of domestic violence.
Secondly, I observe that the challenge we face is not unique to the UK. A US survey of 2,227 men and women aged 18 to 60 years old, published in 2020, found that
“the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant. … Clinicians need to be aware of recent potential shifts in sexual behaviors, particularly those such as choking that may lead to harm.”
The authors also said:
“We were struck that one-fifth of women … reported having been choked as part of sex.”
In this context, it seems the 2015 Conservative manifesto was ahead of its time.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 177A. Along with other speakers, I was not at all reassured by the Minister’s letter in which she confirmed the central concern that many noble Lords set out on Second Reading; namely, that unlike Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, which equally engaged user-generated and non-user-generated content on pornographic websites, the online safety Bill will narrow its concern to user-generated content. I also thought the Government’s response rather missed the point that I and other noble Lords sought to make on Second Reading. What the Minister wrote was couched in the terms of the original Digital Economy Bill debate. Those concerns are of course important, but are not the presiding context of this debate.
The point made at Second Reading and, indeed, today is very much about the fact that much online pornography depicts sexual violence, including the rough sex practice that is the subject of Clause 65. In this context, the key point is that if Part 3 is not implemented, under-18s will be exposed to pornographic material on pornographic websites, including depictions of rough sex, and this will foster the thought that sexual violence is just part of the norm of sexual relationships. Moreover, and crucially, this will not only impact on under-18s as under-18s, but shape their thoughts and attitudes as they move into adulthood, making sexual violence and domestic abuse more likely.
In this context, the key problem with the Government saying that we should abandon Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act in favour of an online safety Bill that will target only user-generated content is the fact that depictions of sexual violence occur in non-user-generated pornography as well as in user-generated pornography. We must target, as Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act does, both user-generated and non-user-generated content on pornographic websites.
In this regard, it is interesting to note that Savanta ComRes polling from last September showed that 81.5% of people in Northern Ireland thought that the Government should implement Part 3 immediately and simply add additional protections in relation to other online harms when the online safety Bill is passed. The UK figure was 74% if the “don’t knows” were removed. It is not hard to imagine what would happen if that polling was repeated today, presenting people with the fact that the Government are seeking not only needlessly to delay the provision of protection for children from pornographic websites, but to narrow that protection down to pornographic websites with user-generated content.
My concern at the Government’s failure to engage with Part 3 from the perspective of the presenting issue in this Bill is greatly compounded by the fact that the letter inexplicably makes no reference to the two reports that the Government published on 15 January that highlight the connection between pornography consumption and behaviour, including male sexual violence. I very much hope that when the Minister responds to this debate she engages with Amendment 177A and Part 3 from the perspective of the domestic violence concern that informs our discussions today.
There are two other things about the Minister’s letter that cause me real concern. First, it contains the statement:
“Under our proposals, we expect companies to use age assurance or age verification technologies to prevent children from accessing services which pose the highest risk of harm to children, such as online pornography.”
This is a very clear shift from the previous language “we will require”, which is the essence of legal compulsion. Why the change?
Secondly, the letter’s final paragraph states that the online harms Bill will be more robust than the DEA because it will cover not only extreme pornography. Part 3 of the DEA was never just about protecting under-18s from extreme pornography or pornographic websites. It was about protecting them from all pornography on pornographic websites, that which is legal as well as that which, like extreme pornography, is illegal. If I have misunderstood what the Minister means by the final paragraph of the letter dealing with pornography, will she please explain when she responds to the debate?
One of the other concerns that I have about the idea that the online safety Bill would be better than Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act at protecting children from material that normalises sexual violence relates to enforcement. When the Digital Economy Bill was introduced, the primary means of enforcement was through fines. However, Parliament pointed out that of the 50 most popular pornographic websites in the UK, none was based in the UK and that enforcing fines in other jurisdictions would be impractical.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Benjamin, who introduced Amendment 177A in such an inspiring way and for whom I have the greatest admiration and the highest respect, has been a passionate campaigner her whole life on protecting and nurturing children. In her own inimitable style, she says, “Childhood lasts a lifetime”. I am very glad that she got that in, even if it was in the penultimate sentence of her speech. She is absolutely right. What happens in childhood impacts people for the rest of their lives, potentially with devasting consequences, and accessing pornography is one of those influences that can have an adverse impact on children.
In this Bill we are addressing domestic abuse, and many children grow up in households where domestic violence is a regular occurrence. I was at the same time impressed and saddened when I visited the only young offender institution in Scotland. The young people there were engaged in sessions with someone from a domestic abuse charity who taught them that the abusive home environment in which many of them had grown up is not normal and that it is not what a healthy, loving relationship looks like, despite it having been the lived experience of many of them. Living in an environment where you are surrounded by violence normalises violence as a way of life, and accessing harmful violent pornography is part of the landscape viewed by many young people.
As a police constable I was called to a disturbance. We were presented with a couple, a room that looked as though it had been ransacked, and a broken glass-top table. The woman had red marks around her neck. We found a ligature and a plastic bag with the impression of her face on it, like a mask. We arrested the man for attempted murder and took the victim to hospital. At court the next day, the accused’s lawyer claimed that it was consensual rough sex and the victim—I thought reluctantly—agreed, and the case was dismissed. To this day, those images haunt me, as does the nagging doubt about the extent to which the woman had really consented to what was done to her.
I am glad that this Bill finally, over 40 years later, is going to address this issue, but we have to ask ourselves where people get these ideas from. Some 57% of people in the BBC survey that my noble friend referred to said it was from pornography. Any means of preventing young people from accessing such harmful pornographic content should be implemented, so it seems quite extraordinary that the Government should work for a number of years with the British Board of Film Classification to develop a system of age verification for pornographic websites and pass legislation in the Digital Economy Act to enable such a system to be put into place—only to abandon it.
Age verification systems are not a panacea. There are numerous and easily accessible ways for a determined teenager to bypass them. I am not sure how many read Hansard, but I do not intend to publicise them. The means of enforcing age verification systems on the operators of pornographic websites is not without difficulty. Many are free to view and hosted outside the UK. Asking UK internet service providers to block websites that fail to comply with age verification rules would also block adults in the UK, who should be able to access legal pornography, if they so wish, from accessing them.
The measures to prevent young people from accessing pornography on some social media sites have improved, with users being prevented from posting pornography. This is effectively policed and enforced by website operators such as Facebook and Instagram. There are exceptions. The measures to prevent young people from accessing pornography on Twitter, for example, are somewhere between weak and non-existent. However, that does not mean we should not do all we can, despite the limitations, to encourage, cajole and use every legislative means possible to put pressure on these websites to introduce age verification for UK users and, in the case of social media, to ban pornographic content unless they can prevent children from accessing it.
We also have to work on the basis that a determined teenager is going to find a way around the system and that even curious younger children may try and succeed in accessing pornography. Comprehensive and compulsory personal, social, health and economic education—PSHE—including healthy relationship and age-appropriate sex education, is vital to combat what children might see and hear if they access online pornography, and what they might see and hear in their own homes.
It is particularly important that children of all ages are taught as early as is they learn what a loving, caring relationship between two people looks like, so that they see this as the norm, rather than anything that they might see online or experience when they are growing up. It is particularly important in this male-dominated, patriarchal society that children are taught that treating women and girls with dignity and respect and as equals with men is essential.
We are all impacted by our experiences and I have said some things in debates on this Bill as a survivor of domestic abuse to remind the Committee not to forget male victims and survivors who are or were in same-sex relationships. That is not intended to diminish the real issues that society must address in relation to the inequality between men and women in general and male violence against women and girls in particular. Some online pornography reinforces that inequality and glamorises male violence. We must do all we can to prevent the harmful impact this can have, particularly on children and young people. We support this amendment to require an investigation into any link between online pornography and domestic abuse.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have heard powerful speeches in this debate. I shall start my contribution with the things I would question in the amendment. I should make it clear that I support the amendment in principle, but I question whether simply making the Government commence Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act is the right solution. I question also whether the British Board of Film Classification is the right body to lead on this, whether the technology would work, and whether privacy concerns have been adequately answered.
As we have heard from other speakers, the worst material is generated outside the UK and we would have no legislative ability to control or curb it. The Government have consistently refused to take powers to block internet service providers from carrying material that harms children or glorifies domestic abuse. They have also not taken powers to prevent credit card issuers making payments for illegal content. So I will be interested in the Minister’s answer to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that an interim arrangement could be made to bring in Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act until more substantive legislation is put in place.
The speeches we have heard were extremely powerful, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who spoke with real passion and knowledge on this issue. My noble friend Lady Massey is clearly playing a leading role in the Council of Europe in setting international standards because, of course, our problem in the UK is not unique and all our friends in Europe and indeed across the world are grappling with these issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, also spoke with real knowledge. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, had it right when he said that education is the key to addressing this issue. That is a wider point and one that he has made in other groups, both today and on previous days in Committee, but it is a point that is worth repeating.
I was not here last Wednesday for the fourth Committee day because I was sitting as a magistrate. I was dealing with a sex case and I had reason to read two reports on a young offender which had been written by more than one specialist. The reports both commented on the use of porn by the offender. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the use of porn influences the way people behave, and that the influence is bigger if the users of porn are younger. We have really been led on this by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond as favourably as she can to that leadership.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, explained, Amendment 177A requires the Government to undertake an investigation into
“the impact of access to online pornography by children on domestic abuse”
and to review the commencement of Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which all noble Lords spoke about.
We share the concerns raised in both Houses by parents and those advocating on behalf of children’s safety online that a large amount of pornography is available on the internet, often for free, with little or no protection to ensure that those accessing it are old enough to do so. In turn, this is changing the way that young people understand healthy relationships, sex and consent.
In October 2019, the Government announced that they will not commence Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. We propose to repeal those provisions and instead deliver more comprehensive protections for children through our proposals for a wider online harms regulatory framework. Protecting children is at the heart of our plans to transform the online experience for people in the UK, and the strongest protections in our forthcoming online harms framework will be for children.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office have now published the full government response to the online harms White Paper consultation, which sets out the new expectations on companies to keep users safe online. These new laws will mean that companies must tackle illegal content on their platforms and protect children from harmful content and activity online. Major platforms will need to be clear about what content is acceptable on their services and enforce the rules consistently.
I am pleased that Britain is setting the global standards for safety online, with the most comprehensive approach yet to online regulation. Ofcom will be named in legislation as the regulator, with the power to fine companies failing in their duty of care up to £18 million or 10% of annual global turnover. It will also have the power to block non-compliant services from being accessed in the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, asked whether the provisions in the online harms framework will be as robust as those in the Digital Economy Act. Through the online harms framework, we will be able to go further than the Digital Economy Act’s focus on online pornography on commercial adult sites. We will be able to protect children from a broader range of harmful content and activity across a wider range of services. The online safety duty of care will not just be for sites with user-generated content; it will also be for sites that facilitate online user interaction, including video and image sharing, commenting and live-streaming.
The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Ponsonby, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord McColl all asked why, given that the online harms regime is years away, the Government cannot commence the Digital Economy Act as an interim measure. It is important that we take the time to deliver the most comprehensive approach for protecting children online, which will ensure that robust protections are in place for generations of young people to come. Through the online harms framework, we will be able to go further than the Digital Economy Act’s focus on online pornography on commercial adult sites, as I said. We will be able to protect children from a broader range of harmful content.
One of the criticisms of the Digital Economy Act was that its scope did not cover social media companies, where a considerable quantity of pornographic material is accessible to children. The Government’s new approach will include social media companies and sites where user-generated content can be widely shared, including the most visited commercial pornography sites. Taken together, we expect this to bring into scope more online pornography that children can currently access than the narrower scope of the Digital Economy Act. We will set out, in secondary legislation, priority categories of legal but harmful content and activity posing the greatest risk to children, which will include online pornography.
The Government expect that the regulator will take a robust approach to sites that pose the highest risk of harm to children. That may include recommending the use of age assurance or verification technologies where the risk is highest, including for sites hosting online pornography. Companies would need to put in place these technologies or demonstrate that the approach they are taking delivers the same level of protection for children. We are working closely with stakeholders across the industry to establish the right conditions for the market to deliver age assurance and age verification technical solutions ahead of the legislative requirements coming into force. The online safety Bill will be ready this year; in the meantime, we are already working closely with Ofcom to ensure that the implementation period that will be necessary following passage of the legislation will be as short as possible.
On the point about the Government sitting on the research, we were not seeking to suppress its results. Given the number of comments from noble Lords about the letter, I had better write again on the points there were clearly not satisfactory to them. My ministerial colleagues in the DDCMS will continue to engage with parliamentarians as we prepare for the vital legislation. I hope I have provided reassurance that Amendment 177A is not necessary and that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister and, accordingly, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.
Baroness Benjamin (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their powerful speeches. I listened very carefully to the Minister, but I have to say that I have a very heavy heart tonight. I am so disappointed by her response. I do not accept for one moment the argument that we should simply wait for the online harms Bill: that is too long. The Government must recognise, for all the reasons outlined by noble Lords in their powerful speeches during the debate, that this approach is not remotely credible.
On the non-implementation of Part 3 and the proposed delay of another three years or so, just think about the harm and damage that will be done to children and their future. This is simply not acceptable when the House has already passed legislation that could easily be implemented now and could, as a minimum, be used in the interim between now and the proposed online harms Bill, for which I cannot wait. When that Bill has been passed and is ready for implementation, so be it. I thank the noble Baroness for what she said will happen in that Bill; I will fully support it and I look forward to it.
There is one thing worse than not taking action to prevent the indoctrination of children and young people into thinking that violence is a normal and natural part of sexual relationships, and that is having the capacity to address the problem, as we do now through Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, and not bothering to use it. This is deeply concerning and disturbing. It is tragic that, having led on the issue from 2015, the Government should now have performed such a radical turnaround and be dragging their feet. We have to wait three years or more for any action to be taken.
In spite of the Minister’s official response, it is my sincere hope—yes, I am an optimist—that the Government will study the speeches in this debate carefully over the next few days and review their position. I am very happy to meet the Minister, along with other interested Peers, to discuss this matter further. It is important that we do so, and if progress is not made over the next couple of weeks, I will certainly bring this amendment back on Report. With a heavy heart, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 178. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister’s reply should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any of the amendments in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 73: Power of Secretary of State to issue guidance about domestic abuse, etc
Amendment 178
(i) in England, and(ii) so far as not relating to Welsh devolved matters, in Wales.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the Minister’s amendment at page 58, line 28 would ensure that guidance issued by the Secretary of State under clause 73(1)(b) about matters relating to domestic abuse in Wales does not relate to matters that are devolved in relation to Wales.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I can be brief with the government amendments in this group. Clause 73 enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the effect of certain provisions in the Bill, but also about
“other matters relating to domestic abuse in England and Wales”.
It is the UK Government’s view that, with the exception of Clause 73, the provisions in the Bill relate to reserved matters in Wales. We acknowledge that the power to issue statutory guidance about any matter relating to domestic abuse encroaches on devolved matters in Wales. It is for that reason that Clause 73 requires the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers in so far as any guidance relates to a devolved Welsh authority.
Following discussions with the Welsh Government, these amendments narrow the power to issue guidance under Clause 73(1)(b) so that any such guidance does not relate to Welsh devolved matters. Guidance relating to Welsh devolved matters is properly a matter for the Welsh Ministers and not the Secretary of State. As I indicated, these amendments have been discussed and agreed with the Welsh Government. I will respond to the other amendments in this group when winding up but, for now, I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 180. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for adding their names to it. Most of all, I thank the Ministers for their extraordinary forbearance on this very long day.
A key aim of this amendment is to prevent domestic abuse in the future. How should we do it? First, we should ensure—perhaps surprisingly, you might say—that primary school children who exhibit symptoms of severe psychological disturbance receive the professional psychological help that they urgently need if their mental health is to be restored and if long-term problems, for them, society, their own children and future spouses, are to be avoided. The amendment makes it clear that, wherever possible, parents should be involved in that therapy. Much quicker and more sustained improvements for the child can generally then be achieved. Having been involved in family therapy work many years ago, I know just how powerful and beneficial it can be for all members of the family.
The second part of the amendment would ensure that effective preparation for adult relationships—sex, marriage and, most particularly, awareness of domestic abuse and its consequences—was provided across the country for all senior schoolchildren in the last years of their schooling. I will return to this briefly at the end of my remarks; I want to focus mainly on primary school children.
This amendment is probably not the polished article. If we proceed to Report on these important matters, relevant lawyers and, I hope, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, might help to get it into shape. But why is the amendment so important? It is because domestic abuse is rooted in childhood and is such a big problem. The Children’s Commissioner suggests that 831,000 children in England are living in households that report domestic abuse. The mental health of all those children will be adversely affected, in some cases very seriously. Many will go on to become domestic abuse perpetrators, as we have said before. Action for Children tells us that 692 assessments are carried out every day that highlight domestic abuse as a feature of a child’s or young person’s life.
The problem is very serious, for the children as well as for their future spouses and children. The consequences of domestic abuse on children range from negatively affecting brain development and impacting cognitive and sensory growth to developing personality and behavioural problems, depression and suicidal tendencies. Analysis of data from the Millennium Cohort Study found that children whose parents experienced domestic violence when their children were aged three reported 30% higher than average anti-social behaviours aged 14, for example committing physical assault. Sensible, preventive interventions with children will save taxpayers’ money on police, courts and prisons, quite apart from saving the lives of the individuals involved from the miseries of criminality and becoming perpetrators of domestic abuse, with all that those things involve.
Baroness Featherstone (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 180, to which I have added my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and I could not agree more with everything she said. She has far greater knowledge and wisdom in this matter than I but I feel strongly that prevention and reaching children at an early age is vital, otherwise everything else in the Bill will just deal with what is, as opposed to prevention for the future.
We know that changes in behaviour, health, the ability to learn, attitude and appearance in a child can often mean that they may be witnessing domestic abuse. Schools need to be able to recognise and address that. Of course, our teachers are already aware of, and on the lookout for, behavioural signs of things not being right at home. However, Amendment 180 would ensure the provision of services to every primary school to support it in identifying, treating, supporting, and helping children who are showing signs of witnessing abuse.
Refuge states:
“All children living with abuse are under stress”,
and advises that stress can lead to withdrawal, aggression or bullying, tantrums, vandalism, problems in school, including truancy, speech problems and difficulty with learning, attention-seeking, nightmares or insomnia, bed-wetting, anxiety, depression, fear of abandonment, feelings of inferiority, drug or alcohol abuse—hopefully not at primary school—eating disorders or constant colds, along with headaches, mouth ulcers, asthma and eczema. So many things affect children but our primary schools need support to be provided to address the issue properly and, where appropriate, involving parents is vital. That can be of great benefit—not always—but parents suffering domestic abuse, or perpetrating it, do not always realise the effect that it has on their children. Not all children show such obvious signs of stress; some have adopted coping mechanisms or hide it.
Obviously, primary schools need support in identifying children who are suffering, as well as those who are demonstrating less obvious signs of what is occurring at home. A child could be jumpy, or be avoiding situations or people. They may be withdrawn or simply have a stomach-ache. They may react badly to something that reminds them of what is going on at home. As this amendment suggests, support is needed to identify and treat children who are unusually aggressive or manipulative.
To see the many terrible effects that witnessing domestic abuse has on children, just do a Google search for Refuge, the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, the NSPCC or others. The information out there is crystal clear in demonstrating how necessary this amendment is, and how damning to the future well-being of children non-attention and leaving the issue unaddressed is. A great proportion of the children, if given proper help, are resilient. The sooner this problem is addressed, the better.
Amendment 180 would deliver
“the provision of services … to identify and treat children”
coming from homes where domestic abuse is occurring. It is necessary and right to put that protection and provision into the Bill as early as is humanly possible.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is having connection problems and so I call the noble Lord, Lord Farmer.
Lord Farmer (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 183 in my name. As I said in my explanatory statement, my amendment,
“would require the Government to provide information on the evidence-based differences between the motivational drivers of different types of abuse.”
Clause 73(2)(a) covers the range of behaviours that amount to abuse. We have, thankfully, moved a long way from thinking purely in terms of physical violence and there is welcome recognition that non-violent abusive strategies inflict profound psychological harms. These include but are by no means limited to: imposing isolation; stalking; subjecting partners to public and private humiliations; taking over all control of finances, social life and family matters; and often forcing compliance with those and other abuses by threatening, if not actually perpetrating, violence. I would expect those issues and many others to be covered in the guidance under subsection (2)(a).
However, what also needs to be included—hence my proposed new paragraph (c)—are distinctions between the different types of violence, which are essential for planning nuanced and effective interventions. Indeed, many social scientists consider that it is no longer scientifically or ethically acceptable to refer to domestic violence without making the type of partner violence clear.
Four types of relationship violence have been extensively recognised in research: coercive controlling violence—also known, more evocatively, as intimate terrorism; violent resistance; situational couple violence; and separation-instigated violence. While every form of abuse is completely unacceptable and the responsibility always lies with the perpetrator, it is essential to hold a relationship-based understanding of domestic-abuse intention along with the fact that abuse is a criminal act. We need to recognise the drivers of abuse as well as ensuring that the police and courts have all the powers they need to hold perpetrators to account.
A relationship-based understanding challenges the notion that abuse always stems from a power dynamic within couples, which typically means the male partner is seeking to control the female. In other jurisdictions such as the United States, policymakers have taken on board research from, for instance, Professor Michael Johnson, Professor Nicola Graham-Kevan and Professor Nicky Stanley, which has exposed the diversity of underlying motives. They emphasise that while male domination and coercive control are important elements of intimate terrorism, which occurs in 2% to 4% of heterosexual couples, and in what Stanley refers to as a sizeable minority of same-sex relationships, situational violence is the far more prevalent form, occurring in 12% to 14% of heterosexual couples and termed “common” by Stanley in same-sex relationships.
In situational couple violence, the violence is situationally provoked as the tensions or emotions of the circumstances that a couple find themselves in lead one or both of the partners to resort to violence. Conflict leads to arguments, which escalate to verbal aggression and ultimately to physical violence. It can also be perpetrated, say, after a bad football result and a lengthy drinking session. Johnson argues that the perpetration of situational couple violence is roughly gender-symmetric, and as likely to occur in same-sex as in heterosexual relationships. Typically, rather than a power imbalance, it occurs when one or both partners are struggling to control their emotions. However, even when violence is mutual, women often fare worse because they are physically weaker. It is terrifying to be a child in the middle of a physical fight between their parents. Through its threats to the child’s caregivers, all violence and abuse between parents profoundly threatens a child’s sense of safety.
A typology of violence does not downplay any one form of violence—it all has to stop—but understanding what is driving it will help that to happen. However, treating all violence as the same freezes out the possibility that some partners, where there has been situational violence, can safely stay together with specialist relationship and other support. The viability of providing specialist relationship support for couples where there is situational violence has been thoroughly researched by trusted providers such as Tavistock Relationships. Again, without victim-blaming or perpetrator-absolving, it points out:
“It is extremely rare for services to identify and respond to the dynamic processes within the couple relationship and other important contributory factors that influence the prevalence of inter-personal violence.”
There is UK evidence that the relationship-focused parenting intervention Parents as Partners reduces violent problem-solving. This and other approaches, such as Sandra Stith’s joint couples therapy in the US, give couples the opportunity to work together on their difficulties and help them to establish better ways of dealing with stressors in their relationships. This is never about forcing victims to stay with violent partners; blame lies solely with the perpetrator.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 184, to which I have added my name. This amendment focuses on the issue of abuse in teenage relationships, which is very worrying and more common than we may think. Teenagers are children, and should be treated with all the protections offered to children in law and practice. I define children as expressed in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—that is, any person aged 18 or under is considered to be a child.
I am familiar with the government view that abuse between children below the age of 16 is child abuse and should be dealt with under child protection. I suggest that this may be a somewhat redundant view. The system was designed to protect children from abuse within the home, not from outside. Many children aged 14, for example, are not always in the home, but some may be, and suffering from abusive relationships. They would therefore not be deemed suitable for statutory intervention.
As we know, there are gradations to maturity in children, especially in adolescents, who are still children but going through emotional and physical changes. Some children are mature in many ways at the age of 13 and some are not. Some of 18 are still immature emotionally, if not physically. Children cannot be slotted into a particular category simply because of age. Sexual activity is one of those categories, much as we may wish it were not.
The Bill and action after it need to address the fact that teenage relationship abuse is not defined in any statute or routinely identified in the child protection system. Interviews with young people, particularly girls, show a high acceptance of what would normally be considered unacceptable behaviour in boys, including violence. Relationships and sex education in schools, referred to by several noble Lords, may produce many benefits to young people. Making this statutory may help to develop self-esteem concepts and ideas of what is healthy and unhealthy in relationships, for boys as well as girls. With Covid, such sensitive discussions are not possible in schools. I fear the outcomes of that.
I taught adolescent girls for many years. Some of those from vulnerable backgrounds, but not exclusively, said that they would accept bad behaviour and even violence from a boy and consider it normal. I thought things would have radically changed many years later, and they have among some young people and people generally, but less than I would have expected. This is possibly due to the influence of the media and other complex factors. Relationship and sex education may have a greater impact now. It is more high profile and generally better prepared for and acceptable.
Beyond education, we need services that support children to prevent and address teenage abusive relationship. Brook Advisory Centres, which I have been involved with for many years, offer free confidential advice for young people under the age of 25 from trained staff, not only on contraception, but on relationships and abuse. But not every town has a Brook Advisory Centre. It would help in all kinds of ways if communities had confidential health services for children and young people.
Statutory guidance must make it clear that, if a child is a victim of abuse in an intimate relationship, they should be entitled to specialist support services. Those services must be available, visible and confidential. Statutory guidance on teenage relationship abuse must be produced to cover both victims and perpetrators. I hope this will be considered by the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak chiefly to Amendment 184, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
It is very important that the Government consider the issue of teenage relationship abuse and the need to provide services and support to deal with it. The amendment talks about
“sufficient levels of local authority service provision”.
We know how stretched local authorities are and there is a need for resources attached to that. It is very telling that a lot of the research into this area has come in the last couple of years. A lot of the research and work has been done by NGOs and campaigning groups, and indeed a lot of the education work.
I note the excellent Women’s Aid #LoveRespect campaign and research around that, which found that one-third of teenage girls knew that they had been in an abusive relationship. However, when the remaining two-thirds were asked more detailed questions, it became clear that more than half of them had experienced abusive behaviour but had not recognised it as such. I will go to the words of someone with experience. Women’s Aid quotes its ambassador, the personal trainer, author and social media influencer Alice Liveing, who said:
“When I was 16 I found myself in an abusive relationship and felt so isolated and alone. I didn’t think that abuse happened to young people, and to be honest I had no idea that what I was experiencing was even abuse for a long time”.
I look also to the excellent work of the group SafeLives, which quotes the 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales reporting that 6.6% of males and 12.6% of females aged 16 to 19 had experienced domestic abuse in the past year, as well as a survey of 13 to 17 year-olds which found that 25% of girls and 18% of boys had experienced some form of physical abuse in a relationship, with the highest level of severity being no different from that suffered by adults.
To further add to the evidence on this, the research project From Boys to Men found that 49% of boys and 33% of girls aged 13 to 14 thought that hitting a partner would be “OK” in at least one of 12 scenarios that they were presented with. Clearly we have a problem here, and I believe it is really important that the Domestic Abuse Bill acknowledges this and accepts that there is a need to provide resources to deal with it.
I will briefly address Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others. I note that in introducing it the noble Baroness acknowledged that the wording perhaps needed some work, and indeed I found some of it rather surprising. However, the push in proposed new paragraph (c) for increased mental health support in primary schools is certainly something that is very important to raise, given the epidemic of mental ill health that has only been growing in our deeply unhealthy society.
However, proposed new paragraph (d) does not really acknowledge the fact that the Government have brought in compulsory sex and relationships education—I know a great deal about that because in the other place my honourable friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion has been at the absolute forefront of pushing for fully inclusive age-appropriate relationships and sex education. However, I find the final element of the amendment rather curious, with its focus on marriage. The privileging of one form of relationship over another in education is not a constructive approach.
I hope the Committee will forgive me if I take a brief moment for a final reflection, given that we are coming to the end of the sixth day of discussion of this important Bill. The debate has been thoughtful and thorough, and I hope it will be useful for the Government when they go away to consider it. I want to reflect on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in the debate on Amendment 173. He was paying tribute to all the feminist campaigners who came before us who brought us to this point. That led me to look back over the history of misogyny in your Lordships’ House, which drew me rather quickly to one of our predecessors, Lord Curzon—a man against whom many charges might be laid. Little more than a century ago he authored a pamphlet giving 15 reasons against women’s suffrage. I know that one of his descendants is with us today and I will not hold his family heritage against him. But there is an important lesson to be drawn from that reflection on history: the lesson that campaigning works. Over decades, feminist campaigners have transformed the place of women in society. The Bill is an important reflection of that, and that is something that we can take into Report to fortify us for the debates ahead on this truly important Bill.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I shall speak very briefly on Amendments 178 and 188. I thank the Minister for moving them and express my support.
In the traditional approach to domestic abuse, we looked separately at the responsibilities of local authorities, health authorities, the police, the courts and those responsible for offenders. We generally also legislated separately. The modern approach is to try to tackle domestic abuse by a combined approach that tries to ensure that all who have an interest in doing what can be done to see that domestic abuse is properly tackled and prevented—local authorities, health authorities, educational authorities, the police, the courts and those responsible for offenders—work together under a single piece of legislation, under a single strategy and with single guidance. For England the Bill will do that, and I believe it will do so better still when it is amended in the way urged in the many powerful speeches made and the careful amendments proposed in this House.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I might as well start by saying that as Baroness Fox of Buckley in North Wales, and with close family and friends who work in the area of domestic abuse, there is some tying up that we can bring together in my last contribution to this Committee stage.
All the amendments in this group, apart from the Welsh one, are about preventive measures that focus on children. Although I am not a fan of cycle of abuse theories, which I think are too fatalistic and deny agency, I want to address the broader question of education as a solution and raise some reservations before we get to Report. Of course, I am not in any way opposed to the resources and specialised service provision that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested, but I am more concerned about the way that sex and relationships education, or just education in general, is used as the solution. I think that can be problematic.
Indeed, the Minister earlier today—goodness know when; she probably will not remember because it has been a long day—made a point that summed up what a lot of people have been saying: that we need to teach pupils what healthy relationships look like. I thought, “Well, good luck with that.” I do not know whether the Government know the secret of healthy relationships or whether they have a blueprint for success. If so, I hope they will share it. But, in all seriousness, I do not know how appropriate it is for the state to suggest, let alone teach, that there is an agreed or right way of conducting one’s intimate, personal private life. This might be asking too much of teachers—I declare my interest as a former teacher. Practically every single social problem has been outsourced to schools at some time or another, with the thought that schools will solve it and, in some instances, with queueing curriculum priorities.
When it comes to relationships, there is a real problem. If you teach maths or physics, you might have the right answers. Even I, as a former English teacher, would say that teaching the moral complexity of a Shakespeare tragedy would be a doddle in comparison with teaching what a good relationship is. There just is not a right or wrong way to do it.
We have to be careful as we tread the line between socialisation and a coercive, even, kind of social engineering. I always worry when adults talk about the need to talk to children about how they should behave, because it is always easier to win an argument with them and manipulate young minds than to win an argument with adults. That makes me nervous as well.
Because this is the end of this stage of the Bill and some of the issues that have been raised are worth reflecting on in relation to the whole Bill, I would like us to think of the perils involved in how we view relationships and decide what a healthy relationship is. I do not know about other noble Lords but, for me, other people’s relationships are always a bit of a mystery. I know couples who, as far as I can see, spend all their time squabbling, arguing and fighting, and sometimes even shouting. To an outsider, that might look like an unhealthy relationship, but I know that they are families full of love and it is just the way that they express themselves.
I know some religiously conservative couples who have adopted a traditional approach to relationships in terms of gender: maybe a wife who is financially dependent on her husband has adopted a subservient demeanour or is very modest, and perhaps the man is the man about the house and strikes a certain macho pose. On the surface, according to some of what we have heard in Committee, those relationships might look problematic and there might even be signs where one might spot abuse, yet, in reality, these are consenting relationships between religiously conservative people and they are healthy and happy. I just make the point that, although these might not be my chosen types of relationships, it is not my business, and it should not be the business of the state either. Conversely, I know couples who have open relationships, where one or both of the partners are promiscuous. That is definitely not my thing but, in a free society, that is up to them. My point is that every relationship has its own dynamic. It is negotiated by the participants involved and that is their choice.
Let us then think about teaching children. If we teach pupils that those versions of relationships—the various distortions that I have cited—are toxic, and that their dad being macho might mean that he is abusive and that their modest, subservient mum is a victim, or that the fact that their divorcing parents are for ever fighting means that that is a sign of abuse, we risk alienating children from their parents.
Possibly, if we looked at it from a different angle and said that the teaching model should not be to say those relationships are wrong but, rather, it should be to describe unhealthy relationships with graphic images of violence and horrifying narratives of abuse, some of which we have heard during Committee, then I fear that we will feed the young with a diet of alarmist scaremongering that will put them off intimacy and relationships, which in most instances are the wonder of life—full of love and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked powerfully about the dangers of filling young minds with ugly visions when he was referring to pornography. I also do not want us to corrupt young minds by telling them that relationships are so damaging that they have to be scared all the time. In other words, the whole area feels like a moral minefield. We have to be careful when asking schools to be involved in this or saying that education will solve it that we do not fuel battles between parents and the state about which family values should be imparted and what model relationships should look like. We have to question whether that is what we want from this Bill.
My appeal to anyone, anywhere in the world, who is watching and who might be worried about the well-being of children and about them coping with the stresses of family life is that we demand that the Government open the schools as soon as possible, because that would really help. I thank noble Lords for their patience.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will start by talking to my Amendment 184. I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey of Darwen and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support and for their excellent and knowledgeable contributions. Amendment 184 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish separate statutory guidance on teenage relationship abuse. The amendment not only covers teenagers who experience domestic abuse but extends to those who perpetrate abuse within their own teenage relationships.
The Minister may say that this duty has no place in the Bill because of the statutory definition that domestic abuse occurs between two adults over the age of 16, but that definition does not stop it making provisions for people of all ages who are affected by domestic abuse. There is no suggestion that the age for domestic abuse or for criminalising anyone should be lowered. The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance that acknowledges that teenage domestic abuse is a reality and that special referral pathways are needed to stop teenager abusers and abused turning into their adult versions.
To miss out these youngsters would be to miss out a vulnerable, troubled and abused section of our young people, who are unseen, unheard of and, as a result, unsupported. Research by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that one in four young girls between the age of 13 and 17 reported some form of physical relationship abuse. That is pretty much the same as in the adult population. We need to ensure that help is available for our children now. What is the point of waiting until they are 16 to start trying to pick up the pieces?
The Government’s Working Together to Safeguard Children report makes no mention whatever of teenage relationship abuse. This oversight has led to policies and referral pathways that do not meet needs. Recent research by the Children’s Society found that only 21% of local authorities had a policy or protocol in place responding to under-16s, and policies and protocols really matter. It worries me that we have introduced compulsory relationship and sex education lessons in schools yet abuse among teenagers remains pervasive. If no services are available to tackle teenage relationship abuse now, we will see teenagers with a problem grow into adults with a problem.
Talking about the other amendments, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who made some thoughtful observations on devolution on government Amendments 178 and 188. Amendment 180 is in the names of my noble friend Lady Featherstone and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—as well as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who, regrettably, was unable to join us—and they too made knowledgeable and interesting contributions, which, in the interests of the time of night, I will not go into now. On Amendment 183, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, talked about evidence-based motivational drivers of abuse in his usual clear and authoritative manner.
I feel as though I have been through a bit of a masterclass this evening, but, the hour being late, I do not want to detain the House by elaborating further. As such, I will leave my last contribution of this stage for now.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, I will be brief, bearing in mind the time and the fact that much of what I would have said has already been said. I note what the Minister said on government Amendments 178 and 188, which would ensure that guidance issued by the Secretary of State about matters relating to domestic abuse in Wales does not relate to matters that are devolved in relation to Wales.
Amendment 184—which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and to which my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen added her name—would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish
“separate statutory guidance on … teenage relationship abuse”.
This would not just cover victims of teenage domestic abuse but extend to those who perpetrate abuse within their own teenage relationships.
We support the aims of Amendment 184, and in particular the emphasis on both providing support for victims of abuse in teenage relationships and looking at perpetrator behaviour in young relationships. Ideally, the aim must be not to criminalise very young people but to catch abusive behaviour early, challenge it and prevent it from continuing. The importance of good sex and relationships education, including empowering young people to recognise abusive behaviour, surely cannot be overstated.
I look forward to the Government’s response to Amendment 184 and to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in their amendments.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for explaining their amendments, which I will deal with in turn.
However, first, I will address the curious point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about Lord Curzon and women’s suffrage. I remind the Committee—this will not be lost on noble Lords—that Conservative Governments introduced this Bill, introduced marriage for same-sex couples, were part of the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality and ensured that women such as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, are able to sit in your Lordships’ House.
That aside, Amendment 180 from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, seeks further guidance in relation to “aggressive or manipulative” pupils and “relationship and sex education”. I agree with her that good behaviour in school is absolutely crucial if children are to learn and reach their full potential. As well as delivering excellent teaching, schools should be safe, calm and disciplined environments, free from the disruption that prevents children from learning.
However, I hope to persuade the noble Baroness that Amendment 180 is unnecessary, because there is already a framework of support in place for schools to identify and address the causes of misbehaviour in schools. Where a pupil’s difficulties are such that they require individual or specialist support, the process for this is already established through the special educational needs and disabilities statutory processes, in which the importance of the child or young person, and the child’s parents, participating as fully as possible in decisions is an underpinning principle.
All schools are required by law to have a behaviour policy outlining measures to encourage good behaviour and the sanctions that will be imposed for misbehaviour. Department for Education guidance on behaviour and discipline says that schools should consider whether this is as a result of a special educational or other need, where a multiagency referral might be necessary. Where a pupil’s difficulties are such that they require individual or specialist support, schools should refer to the special educational needs and disability code of practice, and set out the provision and support that they will put in place, including drawing on specialist support to meet the child’s needs. All schools are required by the Children and Families Act 2014 to have regard to the views, wishes and feelings of the child and their parents when making decisions about special educational provision and support.
Persistent disruptive behaviours do not necessarily mean that a child or young person has special educational needs. Where there are concerns, there should be an assessment to determine whether there are any causal factors, such as undiagnosed learning difficulties. If it is thought that housing, family or other domestic circumstances may be contributing to the child’s behaviour, a multiagency approach, supported by the use of approaches such as early help assessment, might be appropriate. In all cases, early identification and intervention can significantly reduce the use of more costly interventions at a later stage.
Amendment 180 also seeks to ensure that pupils have access to relationships, sex education and preparation for marriage classes. We want to support all young people to be happy, healthy and safe, and to equip them for adult life and to make a positive contribution to society. That is why we have made relationships education compulsory for all primary school pupils, relationships and sex education compulsory for all secondary school pupils, and health education compulsory for pupils in all state-funded schools.
To support schools in implementing these subjects, the Department for Education has published non-statutory implementation guidance, entitled Plan your Relationships, Sex and Health Curriculum, alongside teacher training materials. There is a specific training module on “families and people who care for me”, which has a section dedicated to marriage, cohabitation and civil partnerships. The training materials are all freely available on GOV.UK.
I turn to my noble friend’s Amendment 183, which is concerned with the drivers for different types of abuse. I commend my noble friend’s incredible work through his Family Hubs Network. As he rightly says, there is no simple or single cause of domestic abuse. It is multifaceted, complex and a very sensitive issue. It warrants a response that is equally sensitive and, as he pointed out at Second Reading, one that is nuanced.
Drivers of domestic abuse include the exercise of power, but it can also occur through the breakdown of a relationship. In addition, where an individual has particular vulnerabilities, such as those arising from substance misuse, which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, highlighted earlier in Committee and my noble friend talked about tonight, this can potentially make domestic abuse more likely. That is why we make specific reference to the characteristics and types of domestic abuse in the draft statutory guidance that we have published alongside the Bill. It will be regularly updated to allow for emerging trends and behaviours to be recognised. In preparing it last July, we engaged extensively with the domestic abuse sector and practitioners, and that engagement is continuing as we refine it ahead of the formal consultation process following Royal Assent.
The forthcoming domestic abuse strategy will afford a further opportunity to address the drivers and multiple causes of domestic abuse, highlighted by my noble friend, with a specific focus on prevention and early intervention. In short, I assure him that the issues he has highlighted will be addressed in both the statutory guidance and our forthcoming domestic abuse strategy.
Finally, Amendment 184 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, is concerned with the important topic of teenage relationship abuse. We know that it can be just as severe as abuse in adult relationships. We are clear that the impact of domestic abuse on young people, including those in abusive relationships, needs to be properly recognised, and we need to ensure that agencies are equipped to identify and respond appropriately. I therefore have no doubt about the intentions of the amendment.
However, under Clause 73, the Secretary of State must already publish guidance that concerns the effect of particular types of behaviour that amount to domestic abuse. This would include abusive teenage relationships, where the parties are at least 16 years old, and the impacts that these relationships have on victims. I therefore agree that the appropriate place to address this is the statutory guidance provided for in Clause 73, but I do not think we need to make express provision for this in the Bill.
In preparing this draft guidance, we have worked with the children’s sector to include the impacts of abuse in teenage relationships in the guidance. We will continue to work with the children’s sector to ensure that the guidance is as effective, thorough and accessible as it can be, before it is formally issued ahead of the provisions in Part 1 coming into force.
In addition, Clause 7 of the Bill expressly recognises the impact of domestic abuse on children and young people in the statutory functions of the domestic abuse commissioner. Moreover, the duty in Part 4 of the Bill on tier 1 local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse in safe accommodation expressly extends to victims and their children, so the need for statutory agencies to respond and recognise the impact of domestic abuse on children and young people, including in the context of relationship abuse among those aged 16 to 19, is already embedded in the Bill. I have already outlined that relationships, sex and health education is now a statutory part of the curriculum.
Clause 73 already affords the flexibility for the Secretary of State to issue guidance not only about specified provisions of the Bill but about other matters relating to domestic abuse in England and Wales. Such guidance should, however, complement rather than duplicate existing statutory guidance issued by the DfE and others.
I hope that noble Lords agree that, while they have raised important issues, these amendments are not strictly necessary.
“( ) For the purposes of this section something relates to Welsh devolved matters so far as it relates to—(a) any matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of Senedd Cymru, or(b) (so far as it is not within paragraph (a)), any matter functions with respect to which are exercisable by the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales, the Counsel General to the Welsh Government or the Senedd Commission.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s amendment at page 57, line 44.
Trade Bill
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text