Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee

Thursday 18th June 2026

(began 3 months, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:36
10:37
10:38
10:38
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

You very much for inviting me here. Um, it's a real pleasure to be here and speak to you all about the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act. Um, I think it's important to stress from the beginning that a key aim behind the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act, which I'm going to refer to as dasa, uh, for short, was to expand legal understanding of domestic abuse in order to reflect the true experience of victims and provide recognition of the cumulative impact and consequences of all types of abuse, physical and emotional and psychological, including patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour.

Das are also aimed to encourage a shift away from an incident, focus on individual incidents or episodes of violence towards this recognition of the ongoing patterns of abuse, which many survivors are subjected to, and hence better reflect the impact that domestic abuse has on survivors. Psychological and emotional health. So essentially what Dasa did was it created a distinct, gender neutral offence of domestic abuse against a partner or an ex-partner, which requires that the perpetrator subjects the victim to a course of abusive behaviour. Now, unlike the English Welsh Domestic Abuse Act 2021, there's no age limit imposed in this legislation.

The act applies to both victims, to victims and perpetrators of any age. For the offence to be committed, a reasonable person must consider that the course of behaviour would first of all be likely to cause the victim to suffer psychological or physical harm, and second, that the person perpetrating it intends to cause that harm or is reckless to whether it causes harm. And the key element here, um in in Dasa is the emphasis on the course of behaviour, which is defined as behaviour on two or more occasions.

And again, this is different to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which applies to a single incident or a course of conduct under Dasa. The the course of behaviour can include behaviour directed at the victim in a personal manner, but also that which makes use of the third party or even that aim to and. In thinking about domestic abusive behaviour, this includes any form of physical, verbal, sexual or psychological abuse which would be considered by a reasonable person to be likely to have the effects of rendering the victim dependent on the perpetrator.

Isolating the victim from their friends or support networks, controlling or monitoring their day to day activities. Just. Inscribing their um or restricting their freedom of action and and frightening them or humiliating them. There is a long and a non a long non-exhaustive list, but the nest is next. The net is cast widely in. Terms of the particular. There's particular aspects of the act which I think are quite um. Different from the English and Welsh equivalent.

Now although the Scottish approach drew upon the concept of coercive and controlling behaviour as underpinning an abusive course of conduct in the designing of the of the legislation, the decision was taken to use the term abusive behaviour rather than coercive control. So the Scottish framing is therefore created a slightly different threshold for understanding, identifying or evidencing a course of behaviour of domestic abuse. The Scottish approach it doesn't rely exclusively on a legal definition of coercive control to understand domestic abuse as a course of behaviour, and this, um potentially provides greater flexibility in engaging with ongoing domestic abuse, even if coercive control is likely to remain central to that understanding.

And and general dynamic. And the second thing that I would mention, and then I'll hand over to, to, to Mark is that is that the narrower remit of Dasa as compared to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021?Das replies to behaviour perpetrated only on partners and ex-partners. Different. Uh to to to the Domestic Abuse Act in 2021, which includes a much wider range of relationships between the perpetrator and the victim and. This tighter remit of Dasa is considered very helpful for narrowing the focus.

For example, for the policing of domestic abuse and allows for a police response which is suited to the victim perpetrator relationship and the and the and the broader case context. So I think those are those are really some kind of key differences between the two pieces of legislation that might be interesting to you.
10:43
10:43
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Okay. Right. Well, first I have to start by saying that I'm not a lawyer. Uh, I I'm a forensic psychologist, and my expertise is mainly around risk assessment, investigation, and then decisions about management. Um, of course, that's wrapped in the, the legislation which we have here. Uh, we have different states and territories with broadly similar legislation, but I'm based in Queensland, where I'm most familiar with the legislation here. Uh, what we have is we have a range, uh, we have a domestic and family Violence Protection Act, uh, which can produce domestic violence orders.

And that seems to be very similar to the Domestic Abuse Protection notices. So these can be brought, uh, by, uh, a victim. Survivor personally or by police without necessarily the involvement of, of a victim survivor. Uh, they can be temporary. And then once they have gone through court, they can be made for up to five years and they can have quite strong powers about excluding someone, for example, from visiting a house or contacting someone specifically to prevent abuse. Criminal code, which includes the things that you.

You would expect like assault, grievous bodily harm, stalking, which of course, all can be aspects of domestic and family violence. Uh, we also have new legislation in two areas. Uh, one concerns a specific offence of choking, suffocation, or strangulation in a domestic setting. And, uh, I guess very similar to the legislation Michelle's discussing since May 2025, we've had coercive control legislation about patterns of offending.
10:45
10:47
10:48
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Right.
10:48
10:49
10:49
10:51
10:51
10:52
10:54
10:54
10:55
10:55
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Um, um what I would say is that, I mean Scotland has long had a, had a very broad definition of domestic abuse which acknowledges this combination of psychological and, and physical dimensions and the manipulation of power and control. And in fact, from the year 2000, uh, this broad definition of domestic abuse was adopted across a range of a range of different policy areas. Das are incorporated. Much of that broad definition in terms of, um, kinds of behaviour that falls underneath it. Um, and I, and I think that there are considerable strengths in the, um in.

The broad understanding of domestic abuse. Um it, it, um it, it. Enables victims to, to, to recognise that they're experiencing abuse and validates their experience. It may also empower them to um. Seek help and prevent further escalation. But the expansiveness of a definition so broad also has some weaknesses. Um, I've already mentioned that proving a course of behaviour, being psychological. Abuse, for example, requires very highly complex investigations and presents quite significant challenges.

Evidentially and research undertaken by myself and colleagues shortly after the introduction of Das uh found very limited awareness or understanding of the dynamics of the gendered dimensions of. Of control by the police and a growing concern that this. Investigations to determine this course of conduct would prove much more time consuming, particularly when police were already dealing with such a high volume of domestic abuse cases. Um, these cases are requiring police to manage very large amounts of information drawn from multiple police systems, partner agencies, digital sources, etc., including from crime reports and, and body worn video and intelligence records and so on.

Um, and this must all be reviewed and assessed to inform, to make informed decision making. But so this makes it very challenging. And police described feeling overwhelmed by the volume of cases as well as by the volume of information available to them. And similar findings were found in the Operation Bright Light research, which I think the chair was referring to earlier, which I was part of, which looked at, um, the police investigation of domestic abuse in an English force, um, where their officers reported lacking the specialist skills required to manage these much more complex domestic abuse investigations.

Um, and so I think that one of the things that has happened here in Scotland is that there is a, there is a gap that has been identified between this sort of statutory definition of domestic abuse as a course of behaviour and its operationalization in practice. And there remains a tendency by the police to default to incident based reasoning, which does risk obscuring the coercive control and cumulative harm. Cases, in terms of, uh, you mentioned training, I mean, in when the Dasa was first implemented, this was accompanied by a raft of quite extensive training called Domestic Abuse Matters, which was rolled out, uh, to literally tens of thousands of police in police Scotland.

Um, but there has been relatively little follow up on that, uh, and I think there is a common view, um, certainly from the Scottish Police Authority as well as our researchers, that there is a need, a clear need for ongoing training, um, for police and judges actually on the nature and the dynamics of domestic abuse and its gender dimension. Um, this training really needs to recognise. Victims and the effects of trauma to really address address some outdated um, attitudes about domestic violence, domestic abuse, that it's kind of just a relationship issue.

Um, there's also, I think I might add, because I think this is very important. There's also a need to understand more about safety planning. Um, I think, um, it's really important for safety planning for victims. And indeed often their families as well. This is a critical aspect of the response to domestic abuse. And, and, and there is a need for a, to develop a kind of consistent recording method for safety plans.
11:00
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you very much.
11:00
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Um.
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:01
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Thank you.
11:01
11:01
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

Yes.
11:01
11:02
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Yeah. Um, das are also introduced new statutory provisions with the aim of making children more visible in the prosecution of domestic abuse. But it's important to note, though, that Dasa doesn't position children as the direct victims of the primary domestic abuse offence, which is defined as abuse directed at a partner or an ex-partner. Rather, it protects children under 18 by introducing a statutory aggravator, which essentially increases the severity of the offence if the perpetrator involves or negatively affects a child. And this can take a number of forms.

It could be direct behaviour towards the child, such as using um, uh, demeaning or abusive language about the victim, which causes the victim to feel humiliated, or whether there is a threat of violence towards a child to control or perhaps frighten the victim. Um, so it has a kind of wide application and, and the aggravation applies to any child, the involvement of any child in, in, in the offence. So this could be the victim's own child. It could be another child. Um, living in or simply visiting the household or a neighbour's child and so on.

Um so in, in terms of how this is working. I mean, the specific inclusion of children has been very much welcomed, uh, in Dasa, but some researchers and some children's advocacy groups have criticised the act for failing to conceptualise children as a, as a joint victims um, relying instead on this statutory aggravation. So they wanted the act to go a little bit further. We don't have much evidence how the about how the child aggravator is operating in in practice, the Scottish Government has been tracking data to monitor how often children are adversely affected, either by witnessing a.

By being targeted directly. Um, and the numbers of people convicted with the specific child Aggravator included has been growing steadily. But is is lower than expected given what we know from other research about the presence of children in domestic abuse households or contexts.
11:04
11:04
11:05
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

What is an.
11:05
11:06
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you.
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:07
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

has it got worse?
11:07
11:07
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Oh we don't.
11:07
11:07
11:07
11:08
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Um, okay. Thank you.
11:08
11:09
11:11
11:11
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

But no, I mean.
11:11
11:11
11:13
11:13
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Um.
11:13
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Well, one of the things that, that, that, that might be interesting and actually I was thinking about this in relation to the question in relation to children and, and partly the sort of reduced budgetary um concern. Have been a contributory factor to this. And this is, this is in relation to the, the ongoing work in Scotland to develop something that we call the bairns who's, that?Scotland's approach to the Icelandic Arnar house, which means children's house. So barn house offers or is is is being under development and and is starting to offer in some areas a holistic kind of child centred support for children, victims or witnesses of abuse, as well as children under the age of criminal responsibility as behaviors caused harm.

So Barnes House is all about connecting services around the needs of the child by collaborating across agencies and disciplines, bringing together, for example, child protection, health, justice and recovery services in one setting. So this is a really very promising, um, development and, and bringing, bringing together a range of services to, to, to work, uh, around the safety and, and protection of the child. Um, but the broader funding landscape in, in Scotland is quite precarious. Um, it's, it's, and it does limit the operational effectiveness of Dasa.

I would say there's a number of pertinent factors there. Um, I've already mentioned domestic abuse in Scotland as in England and Wales is a, is a very large volume crime. Um we're seeing increased um in numbers of reports, increases in the complexity of cases, but a reduced capacity of specialist support services to meet that demand. So um, you know, the, the budgets for frontline services are being reduced, uh, funding streams are ever more precarious. This has led, uh, one result. This has led to longer waiting lists for advocacy and refuge space, leaving victims vulnerable and often traumatised by the delays and long wait times.

Um, and I think in terms of the police as well, who are also, um, um, experiencing. Budget constraint constraints. I mean, this increasing number of cases and in fact His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland estimate that the police receive notification of a domestic abuse incident every eight minutes, which is extraordinarily high. And these numbers are placing significant pressures on Police Scotland to respond to domestic abuse. And alongside these kind of ongoing challenges related to budgetary constraints, as well as challenges in recruitment and retention, for example, mean that police systems really struggle to allocate and follow up cases appropriately.
11:15
None Portrait Speaker 12
-

Thank you very much.
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:16
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Nice racism and deep seated fear and mistrust of police and criminal justice can prohibit reporting. And. Survivors and it affects their active justice. Um. There are language barriers. There are fear of authorities due to concerns about community marginalization or retribution. And a key factor, as you probably know, is immigration status. We have a wealth of research to establish that if monitors victims have have insecure immigration status, they're much likely, much less likely to report or indeed gain a positive outcome from the criminal justice system.

But legislative definitions also play a key part here, and the narrow parameters of Dasa, which focuses on abuse towards partners and ex-partners, doesn't take account of extended family or so-called honour based violence, which is not explicitly covered by the Scottish Act. This is a recognised failing and there are moves to consider a statutory definition of honour based abuse to capture extended family abuse. Um and um and to account to for sort of more um multi perpetrator structures that may be found in minoritized cases. Um we.

In terms of. Approaches, we in Scotland suffer from, I think, which is a common problem across many jurisdictions. It's the failure to systematically collect data on ethnicity in relation to criminal justice, which means it's impossible often to know the numbers of how many domestic abuse cases involve minoritized victims. And some police. Police forces collect data, um, or others don't. And, um, but this lack of coherent and systematic data collection across the whole country is a failure of long standing.

There are some positive steps, though. The recent Domestic Abuse Protection Scotland Act, um, which was. Introduced in 2021 but is being implemented in stages, recognises that for minoritized women fleeing a home often carries the threat of destitution. Community exile or a loss of secure immigration status linked to their residence and provisions under this act, which have yet to be rolled out. Um allow social landlords, rather than the victim themselves, to apply to courts to a strip an abuser of their tenancy and legally transfer it to the victim.

So this kind of can provide a vital safeguard for women who can't risk initiating high profile legal actions against a perpetrator for for, for whatever reason.
11:19
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you.
11:19
11:19
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Yes. I think we've got very similar issues here. Um, 30% of our population were born overseas. So we have a very diverse communities. Um for us because we have people from more than uh. From more countries than there are countries, uh, because for people from countries that don't even exist anymore, uh, we, it's difficult for us to descriptive for every country. And so I think kind of what's very important is that people get cultural advisors, get cultural advice for that, for that particular community, uh, to find out what the key issues are.

Uh, as Michelle pointed out for, for some of these things, we have problems with visas going both ways. In fact. Um, and people feeling vulnerable about that. We do have provisions to give people, um, permanent residency if they are the victim of, of um, domestic and family violence. And many people do avail themselves of, of that for, although for some people they're not aware of it. Um, we, we, our biggest, um, overrepresentation is our first nations population, uh, we're a first Nations woman is six times as likely to be murdered by her partner as someone who's non-first nations.

And that's a huge problem for us, compounded by the fact that many of our First Nations communities live in really rural communities. Well, not even rural, rural communities, remote communities where there's very little resources. We also have the issues around trust language barriers. Um, we also have a large LGBT. Q plus, uh, a. Plus community as well. And there's, uh, some unique challenges for police in that community as well.
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Yeah, please.
11:24
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

In the year 2024, 2024 to 2025, the Scottish Police recorded almost 65,000 incidents of domestic abuse, um, which was an increase from from previous years. And just over a third of them um went on to be. Recorded as domestic abuse, aggravated crimes and offences. Um which so what I mean here is they're recorded, for example, as, as common assault or threatening and abusive behaviour with an aggravator attached. But crimes recorded under Das accounted for just 6% of the domestic abuse, aggravated crimes and offences recorded that year.

This percentage is increasing, but very, very slowly, and I think that's really important to note. And there are a range of reasons about that. Um, that I can I can go on to talk to you, but in terms of the geography point, um, you know, geography is really important in, in Scotland, um, the highest number of domestic abuse incidents are perhaps unsurprisingly recorded in urban areas and a far less lower number in Scotland's expansive remote area areas where there are lots of reasons for this. And beyond population density questions, there's a much lower police presence in in more remote areas, for example, in Highlands and across the islands, specialist support services are spread much more thinly.

So there's also less access to intelligence from other potentially safeguarding partners such as health and education, from whom evidence may be gained in relation to courses of conduct. Um and in relation to children in in domestic abuse settings, for example, information may may come from education in other, in other environments. These conditions in the more remote areas create challenges for the identification of previous incidents, for example, and and ongoing cumulative harms in domestic abuse contexts and also impede understanding of the wider risks that might be present.

So geography is really very important, but I think that must be placed against this relatively low, um um uptake or usage of the Dasa legislation.
11:25
11:26
None Portrait Speaker 13
-

Um, it's not.
11:26
11:26
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

If I, Lord Russell.
11:27
11:27
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:29
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Apologies.
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you. Anybody?
11:32
11:33
11:33
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you very much.
11:34
11:34
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Enjoy the much time.
11:40
11:41
11:41
None Portrait Speaker 16
-

So, um, the strategy seeks to operate, operationalize, um, the intention of the act. And obviously it's not the first strategy, um, since the act came into force. Um, but the strategy also seeks to go further and rightly so because, um, a response to a complex problem like domestic abuse can't be contained in a piece of law. Um, it is always going to be something much more comprehensive than that. And that's what the strategy seeks to do. And it seeks to speak in areas where the act is silent.

For example, involvement of the health system. Um, but between the two of them, they um, do fail to address some key areas, um, in particular, um, provisions around migrant women. Um, and insofar as the strategy seeks to operationalize the act, um, and also the strategy seeks to. Achieve this big government ambition of halving Vawg. Um, it also does, I'm afraid, whilst making good progress, um, fall significantly short of both those things of operationalizing the act and of um being a likely method of halving vawg.

And that is because of um a mix of um, a resourcing issue. Um, because the strategy is um inadequately. Resourced now, um, there's good reasons for that. We know that um, you know, the country. You know, that that many areas of political life, uh, need resourcing. Um, but certainly more resources will be needed to meet the ambition of both the act and the strategy and the government's manifesto commitment. Um, there are also commissioning decisions, um, which need great improvement and I'm sure we'll talk about today.

Um, but which mean that even with existing resources, they're not having the impact that they could have. Um, there's the age old problem of cross Whitehall working, which I think is improving, um, but was highlighted by previous committees like the National, well, the National Audit Office report, for example. Um, and I would say in some areas there is um a. Paucity of ambition and I think the particular bit there is around children as victims in their own right. So we do have that quite ground, um element of the Domestic abuse act.

Um, that's so important. We, and we know these things take real time. I was really involved, um, in the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act. This is not something that happens overnight at all. Um, but the things to follow to really support children as victims in their own right, they are not yet there. And hopefully we'll have more chance to talk about that today.
11:44
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

Thank you Ellie.
11:44
None Portrait Speaker 17
-

Thank you. I don't I don't have a huge amount to add. I largely agree with Veronica, but yeah, I think that the violence against women and girls strategy can be seen as a, a sort of logical next step from the Domestic Abuse Act. It is more ambitious. It is broader. Um, I think really importantly, it is a violence against women and girls strategy and centres, the gendered reality of violence against women and girls. There was a lot in the sort of as the Domestic Abuse Act went through, there was a big push for that to be a violence against women and girls action.

And it wasn't. But I think it's it's right. And it's good that we have a strategy that sees the sort of continuation, the continuum rather, of violence and abuse that women and girls, um, largely face in this country. I mean, like Veronica children is the huge omission in, in the strategy. I think there was an expectation that the strategy would take forward the children as victims in their own right, which I know the committee has heard time and time again, hasn't sort of led to much more than than words on paper so far.

Um, and I would highlight the sort of ambition around prevention that's in the strategy as a really crucial element. Again, there's some sort of ambitious words. And what sits behind that I think is still really in its infancy. But, but it's important that that that is there. I would say the Domestic Abuse Act wasn't sort of hugely kind of focused on on prevention, much more on response. So yeah, a logical next step. I think it takes us further, um, implementation will be key, as Veronica has already said, there's very, very little funding attached to the violence against women and girls strategy.

In our view, you know, a huge omission considering the, the level of ambition that this government has around halving violence against women and girls. You know, we we weren't expecting billions. We know that the sort of economic reality. But do you think it is telling how little money the government found to to put alongside its violence against women and girls strategy?
11:47
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

Thank you.
11:47
11:47
None Portrait Speaker 17
-

Yeah. Thank you. So at refuge, we're really fortunate to have a dedicated tech facilitated abuse team. Team used to kind of handle cases where there was a tech element. Now that is true in basically every single case. So they handle some really complex cases and they enable the rest of the organization to support survivors of tech enabled abuse in day to day practice. I would agree with your analysis that we've got a kind of jigsaw, um, a jigsaw with some big pieces missing.

And I think that that's part of the problem. There's no coordination around tech facilitated abuse. There's no clear leadership, there's no plan. We've had sort of bits and pieces of a response. So it refuge we we campaigned for the threatening to share intimate images offence to be in the Domestic Abuse Act. Um we worked with colleagues across the the Violence against Women and girls sector on the Online Safety Act. So that had some measures around violence against women and girls.

And we've seen lots of sort of reactive, um, bits of legislation, which is really welcome. Recently, I would say that the Grock scandal and then the government acted around sort of image based abuse and takedown, but it's all been very piecemeal and that is what we are left with. We've got kind of bits and pieces, no clear coordination or ownership, and there's some real gaps. I think we've had some some changes to the criminal law, although there's a question around the extent to which those offences are sort of well understood and implemented, which I won't go into right now.

And we've had some online safety regulation, although I would really want to emphasize that the violence against women and girls guidance, that's part of the Online Safety Act, is guidance. We have mandatory codes around children. We have mandatory codes around terrorism. We haven't. We we've got a voluntary code on violence against women and girls. And that is something I think there's a really clear argument that that needs to be upgraded and upgraded quickly. What we don't have is sort of the other element of tech facilitated abuse, which is the devices and the software.

Smart enabled devices, doorbells, fridges, that kind of thing. Surveillance software, the ease with which sort of parental control type. Software is used to just completely monitor and track everything a woman does. It's often quite clear in the design of those of that technology that that's what it's purpose is for. We have sort of silence on that. The Vawg strategy has some sort of vague commitments around safety by design, around some of these things. But I think we need to go much further in terms of the regulation of, of everyday technology that can be used to monitor and surveil easily and for pennies.

So I think that's where we're really lacking. Plus some coordination because we really need to be proactive in this area. It's all too little, too late at the moment.
11:51
11:51
None Portrait Speaker 16
-

I think the bit that I'd like to add, perhaps two bits is around the pressure that this is putting on services. Ellie's just mentioned how almost all cases are coming with some element of tech related abuse. Um and obviously that has also great impact on young people, children as victims of their own. Right also affected. Um, but just also that pressure to keep up with whatever the newest kind of crazy, um, iteration of misogyny is in the online space. So for our members, um, in our annual audit, we ask about emerging trends and threats and the, in our last, most recent audit, we found that slightly over 15% of our services and, um, we have, um, just under 200 member.

Member organisations, um, throughout England. So 15% of them reported that their service um survivors in their service had disclosed being coerced into participating in OnlyFans. So OnlyFans is a. People may well you've heard about it through through this committee no doubt, but essentially their partners are monetising their abuse and the. The potential for the monetization of misogyny is is just horrendous. So I'm without wanting to be too doomsday, I don't think we've seen anything yet. And to take the.

When we look at the resourcing of the strategy and we look at the likely surge linked with this completely, this technical revolution that we're all going through, the two do not match, sadly. Um, and I think it's probably time for us to start considering, you know, how do we actually get more resources?These, these huge tech companies, they're making money. I mean, even, even, for example, on the OnlyFans example, depressingly enough, the, you know, the, the people posting those pictures, they do make money, but also so do the platforms, you know, so how can actually particularly, for example, through Ofcom fines, for example, and other ways, how can we get some of that hugely commercialised environment where people are breaking the law and fines are being levied?How can we pour some of that money back to support these frontline services, like our colleagues at refuge, like ourselves, um, like the whole domestic abuse sector which are picking up the pieces of this misogynistic, um, use of, of technology day in, day out.
11:53
11:54
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Um. Yeah. Um.
11:54
11:55
None Portrait Speaker 17
-

So if I start with the, the misogyny question and then and then move into the next one, I think so refuge we a while ago now sort of work with others around making misogyny a hate crime. It was a real gap in terms of sort of hate legislation that that criminal activity motivated by hatred of women and girls wasn't really there. I know there have some some recent changes around aggravating factors and which we welcome. I think, um, I wouldn't, I don't have a sort of comprehensive knowledge of where are the existing gaps.

I think the criminal law has a role to play there, but I think where the perhaps the most, the greatest benefit stand on going back to that tech element and the way in which, um, sort of algorithms. Is really sort of put on steroids, misogynistic content. We, we did some research recently with the End Violence against Women coalition that that hasn't yet been published. But, but asked how many people were receiving unprompted, misogynistic content and it's, it's pretty high. I think that's where we really need to look at the regulation of these online spaces, really push tech companies on their algorithm because as Veronica says, you know, they're not neutral actors.

They are profiting and, and adding fuel to the fire. So I think it needs to be a combination. Like, yes, the criminal law has an important role to play, but I think it, it, it's tech where we where we could stand the chance to gain the most in. Terms of does the Domestic Abuse Act support the Halfing violence against Women and Girls mission?I think my answer is yes. A little bit like there's. There's a lot in the Domestic Abuse Act that is to be welcomed.

For example, the duty around safe accommodation and the additional funding that came from that, that is really significant. There are problems with it, which I'm sure we'll go into, but it has increased the sort of sustainability of safe accommodation, which is absolutely vital if we are to have violence against women and girls. Women need a place to go. I think where it really needs to go further is looking at community based services as well. We need a similar framework where we can learn from the issues we've had with accommodation to really shore up community based services and end this patchwork of of services in terms of, you know, geographical areas, but also, you know, a service will be commission for 18 months and they'll change it a bit.

And so we really, I think that's where we need to, that's the next step from the Domestic Abuse Act around around that. I wanted to talk about depots a little bit. The you know, you've heard lots about them. The new orders that are still being piloted soon to be implemented. I don't think in and of themselves, depots will enormously contribute to to halving violence against women and girls. But I do think there is some potential is if the implementation of those orders is really used to drive up police practice, that really does involve resourcing.

We've heard from like the Louise Casey Review and others that public protection that responds to the domestic abuse callouts, every 20s or however many it is now, is often really poorly resourced with the least experienced officers that rotate around very quickly. I would love to see us using the rollout of depots to really try and and fix some of the core problems that that lead to really patchy and sometimes quite poor police responses. Vital, but alone. It's not enough. It's about the resourcing and the leadership and the focus.

Um, so yeah, there are elements where we could really use the Domestic abuse act, the sort of limited impact it's had to really push forward on its own. You know, it's, it's helpful, but it's not going to be a game changer in terms of halving violence against women and girls.
12:00
None Portrait Speaker 16
-

Um, for your additional question, I'm afraid I'm going to rely on Ellie's, um, excellent response for the for the wider question, I would say the, the act is a necessary but insufficient part of, um, getting to the halving. Vawg um ambition. Um the strategy I think really does make some, some good progress. I think it is the most cross-government strategy that that has been published yet. Um, and the involvement of the NHS, although um, I think it's still not quite clear what the funding attached to that is.

And certainly the named funding in the strategy is, is, is tiny for the NHS, but that involvement is very significant and very important, as is um the new commitments, as are the new commitments on, on education, um and on, on prevention. And I think these are these help build a far more comprehensive approach, um, than we have had yet. Um, but um, there are some key elements that I'd like to highlight that I think will be really important in getting us closer towards that halving. Vawg.

Um, ambition. Um, so one is around the improved recognition of black minoritized and migrant survivors. All our data shows, um, that, um, these groups have a much harder time accessing services that the services that are appropriate for them really struggle to get commissioned, that the children of migrant survivors have a particularly difficult time in getting the absolute basics, you know, safe accommodation when they need it. Um, and including in the online world, the experiences of black and minoritized, um, women. Are, um, systematically worse than white women.

Um, and these factors should, you know, are inadequately addressed, I would say in the strategy and certainly, um, whilst the act itself does um talk, um about. Migration, um about um the sharing of information, for example, um there is a lot more to do on protecting particularly migrant women in terms of the sharing of information. And I'm sure you'll have heard over the course of your evidence, um, people talk about the firewall that is needed between police and survivors to give survivors the confidence, migrant survivors, the confidence to report to the police.

Um, without fearing that their immigration status is going to be damaged in some way. And I know work is happening on that, but I think there's a lot more to do. So that black minorities and migrant survivor element is, is one that we think needs, needs uplifting. And the second, as we've already talked about, is children as victims in their own right. I think we come to that later on in this evidence session. We could talk about it in more detail.

Um, but essentially the strategy focuses on prevention very important for children, but less on services. Provision of services for children as victims in their own right. Uh, and there's amazing experience in the house on this, you know, people who will talk to their experiences of having grown up in families where there has been domestic abuse. And I think, societally, we are only just starting to understand quite how important that is. And the services that are needed. Um, in response.

Um, then there is the implementation of part four and I'm sorry, I know I'm going on at length here. Um, but that implementation of part for the safe accommodation, accommodation duty, um such an important.
12:04
12:04
12:05
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you.
12:05
12:05
None Portrait Speaker 17
-

Yeah. So I think, um, the safe accommodation duty is such an important element of the, of the Domestic Abuse Act. And as I said before, it has had a noticeable impact on, if not necessarily the number of refuge spaces, the sort of sustainability of a lot of those spaces. So we, we welcome it. I think, in terms of the violence against women and girls strategy, I think. A really important element is that it puts some additional money towards it, sort of 19 million over over three years.

Um, there's still a shortfall. I think it's at Women's aid calculations that estimate it's still around a kind of £55 million gap in what is needed to make that duty work and what we have. But still, I think it was important. There was some some funding there. I think a challenge with the violence against women and girls strategy is that it assumes that that the part full duty is being implemented perfectly, and we can sort of take that as read that.

That's fine. And we'll do other things, which unfortunately isn't isn't the case. There are a few kind of key issues in, in my view, with the implementation of the part four duty, I think the fundamental one is that that refuges need to be a national system. Survivors move, um, to be safe. Refuges often aren't for local women, but it's reciprocal. People are moving around the country to be safe. But this system is being implemented locally with very, very limited national oversight.

There's really not a clear understanding still of of how many refuge spaces there are and where they are and where are the gaps. So that's a real challenge. And, and refuge. We, we provide refuge services directly around 70 at the moment. And over the last few years, we've seen it's been a real. We're having to really make the case quite, quite fully to lots of local authorities. Again, that you do need to invest in these services.

Okay. They might not be for women from your area, but the women from your area are going over there and you need to have some. That's how it works. And that feels like we're going backwards again. We used to make that argument all the time. I would say it got a little bit better after the passing of the Domestic Abuse Act, but it's a real struggle again, and it's it's clear why local authorities are under a lot of strain, and they're looking for where they can cut.

And with the duty where we see where the duty falls on in in the slightly more complicated local arrangements, where there's a sort of tier one authority and a tier two authority, and the tier one authority holds the duty. But usually it's the tier twos that have historically commissioned these services. We're starting to see the money that was in the system fall away. So now it's only the kind of central government, domestic abuse, safe accommodation funding that is being spent, if that makes sense.

So whilst the duty was designed to be additional and more. There's no real levers to to make that happen in practice. So what we have seen there's a few exceptions of authorities that say, I know we don't have to spend this money on this, but we really, really want to, and we value it. But we are seeing some services, for example, in London, that are at risk because the boroughs are saying we don't have to fund these anymore. And we're being told by our, you know, leaders that this isn't what we're spending money on, go to kind of the the GLA.

And if not, then I'll have to close. So there's some real sort of a lack of kind of grip in terms of the implementation and a real gap where we need some national oversight that can kind of pull together, um, the differences across local authorities and, and step in when needed.
12:09
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Thanks to add to that.
12:09
12:10
12:10
None Portrait Speaker 16
-

Um, I would like to refer to my team for a more detailed answer to you on that, if that's okay. Um, yes. Um. Some of those rejections. So, um, people with no recourse to public funds have particular challenges. Um, and I wanted to highlight, um, that, uh, children's services for where families have no recourse to public funds. We found that children's services have refused to provide safe accommodation in 85% of cases, which just really brings home just how desperate, um, some of those families are.

I think the other thing, just to add is around ring fencing. So there's a ring fence for the, um, safe accommodation duty money that sits alongside homeless, sits inside a wider homeless ring fenced within a wider. Sorry, I should get my technical terms right. The wider grant is is is ring fenced. So um part four and homelessness together. Um that does mean that there could be fluidity between the two. So you could see domestic abuse related money seep into addressing other homelessness needs.

Now obviously there are, there are great kind of crossovers between the two, but it's just something to be aware of and, and a potential risk. And I think the other ring fencing point is just that there isn't a ring fence for, by, and for services. And that would be really welcome. By that I mean services that are run by and for specific populations. Um, and we know that for black and minoritized women and deaf and disabled women and LGBT, um, plus survivors, those kind of services, um, really do make a difference.

Um, those that are run by and for those groups. Um, so for example, 67% of black and minoritized survivors wanted a specialist service run by their own community and without the ring fence, those services really struggle. I know we're going to talk about commission shortly, but those services really do struggle to get commissioning to get commissioned just because of the barriers and the way the commissioning systems, um, set up.
12:13
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Thank you, thank you.
12:13
12:13
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Yes.
12:13
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

So that.
12:13
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Segues perfectly to. To the funding question, which you've both given us some really specific, um, very helpful points. And I think it's something which across all the sessions that we've had, it's come through really clearly as an issue. Um, I think kind of in addition to the points that you've already made, are there other things that you want to drill down into very specifically?I mean, I've got a couple of points that I think I would find it helpful if you could address.

Um, and I think, Veronica, the point you ended on there around specialist services, I think if you could say a little bit about what you think the answer is there, that would be helpful. In addition to that, if you've got examples of cross Whitehall commissioning where you think it's actually working and best practice that we can look at, I think that would be really helpful. Um, and then also the first session I think a bit to that point of yours, Veronica. Um, we heard evidence about which discussed the kind of hierarchy where the funding went, first of all, to government and to the, um, local governance.

Services. And then it was the, the kind of specialist services, community, voluntary sector services got kind of just whatever was left over. And I think if you've got any comments on that hierarchy and what can be done to actually structure the system so that you've got more nuance around looking at the appropriate places to channel funding for different things rather than that hierarchy. If you think that that does exist here.
12:15
12:15
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

Um, so I think on commissioning, I think we would say that, um, there does need to be a statutory duty, um, on funding community based services. Um, if that halving vawg is going to be achieved, um because an accommodation only approach is not going to have um that, that impact, um very important, but you know, um required but not sufficient. Um and then the wider questions around commissioning, including, you know, solutions, what can be done?Um, I think. There's a need for more robust oversight.

So there is actually some really good commissioning guidance already out there. And the government is going to publish is doing a review of commissioning, as you know, at the moment. And we hope that that guidance will be even further improved. The important thing though, is, um, things like the national statement of expectations, although good, have not really had any teeth. So how can you actually back them up and really hold commissioners to account for actually delivering on those standards that are envisaged centrally?And I think more work needs to be done on that.

And it could be to do with statutory duties. You know, um, I guess this is a thing for legislators, perhaps more than us in terms of figuring out what are the tools that would work. But, you know, perhaps a statutory duty to, um, have regard for, um, for the guidance, um, but. I think at base there is a, a real challenge with the, um, um, too often. Use of competitive, um, market commissioning based decision making, competitive procurement. Um, so you have, you know, commissioners behaving as though they are, you know, trying to commission the next iteration of Trident when actually what they're doing is spending, you know, £30,000 on a local service.

Um, and there is no competitive market really in domestic abuse services. There's not sufficient provision for there to be any choice for survivors. They can't vote with their feet like you would in a market. Let's not pretend that there's a market and let's actually not waste public money, on expensive, lengthy commissioning procedures, which effectively exclude small organisations from participating because they involve so much upfront time, but actually make much better use of grant making. Grant making is entirely legal as long as the contracts are under £700,000, including VAT, which I'm sad to say is virtually all domestic abuse related contracts.

So, um, you know, grant making should be um, much more used by commissioners. And we very much hope that the government, in this next round of commissioning reviews, will be reminding commissioners that they should be proportionate in the systems they're using and that they can, um, make. Grants. And that would be particularly helpful for, by, and for who would also benefit from a by and for ring fence. Just a couple.
12:18
None Portrait Speaker 15
-

Of things to, to add there. So completely support and echo the fact that we really need something substantial around community based services. That's a missing piece of the puzzle. Commissioning can be far too complicated and resource intensive and disproportionately so. So that mix between competitive tendering is probably appropriate in some cases. But as Veronica says, it doesn't need to be the default. And it is. But there are also some sort of really basics.

That we're still failing to get right. So for example, we still see really short term contracts for really complicated services. Um, you know, provide a. Abuse service for accommodation and community based services for all forms of vawg for all different groups, for quite a small amount of money for 12 months. You know, these things just aren't realistic. And we're still seeing that. I would say it has got marginally better in recent years, sort of the 3 to 5 year contracts, which we would say should be a minimum.

We see a few more more of those, but we still haven't got away from these. I think, as you articulated it, Baroness Porter like whatever's left, we've got a little bit left. Let's see if a local charity will do something for a year. You know, that is not a way to commission life saving, crucial services for survivors of violence against women and girls. Um, because of this kind of complex procurement process, we often come up against as refuge. We're trying to bid for a service, but sometimes it's a service we already run.

We're trying to bid to run it again. But now we've got to kind of demonstrate our social value. So we're having to do things like ask our staff to like volunteer in the community, even though they're, you know, sadly, relatively poorly paid. Um, on the front line. There's not much money in this work, uh, working extremely hard, handling huge levels of risk. And now we've got to kind of, it feels sort of performative and just, um, silly in terms of applying what's, you know, there for these like big public sector, private company, you know, billion pound contracts to.

So I think these things should be easy to fix. And I think with, with a, I know that the Home Office and others are working on new kind of commissioning guidance. If that is developed with a bit of ambition and a bit of oversight, we should be able to kind of just make the system work a bit a bit better. But, you know, without some some sort of major changes around community based services and the level of funding and the system, which is still, you know, when you kind of, um, you know, compare the scale of the problem, the cost to society, it's still relatively small.

I don't think any of us are expecting that to change overnight, but we do need to keep in our sight that improving the system can only do so much when it when it is sort of chronically underfunded. Um, but yeah, it's that element. Let's make the system. We've got better, but also we need to be ambitious. If we really want to get to a state which refuge we really want to wear, a survivor can access the service she needs at the point that she needs it.

That's still far too hard for, for lots of women across the country.
12:22
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Yes.
12:22
12:23
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

Um.
12:23
None Portrait Speaker 15
-

There are we have some, some examples. So I suppose it's, it's not quite pooled, but the, the way in which sort of London has works to kind of like pull resources from the boroughs and commission across the city. There are some really great examples, I think, of good practice there. So for example, at refuge with a lead partner at the moment in the Pan-london Floating support service, which involves, I think, about ten different partners, lots of small by and for organisations that couldn't go for that contract on their own.

But together we could. And that commissioning process, I think, was designed to facilitate small organisations to kind of get together. I think that is a good example. We also saw with the the part for duty coming in um in Warwickshire, for example, that local authority saying, how can we use this to really increase provision and increase sort of diversity in the people that can access that. So they work with us to um source. Lots of individual properties and have what we call dispersed refuges, which aren't the kind of classic one big house model that's been really brilliant in terms of supporting survivors with larger families, trans survivors, survivors might have substance misuse issues, which could could make communal refuges challenging.

You know, they were quite kind of creative. And how can we use this to pull some some budgets together?Um, so I think there are pockets of good of good practice. Um, but they're the exception rather than the norm. I would say.
12:24
12:25
12:25
None Portrait Speaker 15
-

Sure. Had the impact that we all might have hoped for, I still think it's significant that that children are victims in their own right. We have seen a little bit of sort of practice change amongst some, some parts of the the system in terms of the Vawg strategy, I do think it's quite a big omission. There's not much in terms of, um, what is what changed?We want to see in, in response to child survivors of domestic abuse, the. Work around prevention.

Yes. It's thinking about children. It's thinking about schools. But but really that that doesn't cover it. We're talking about different children. In a sense, this is too late. By the time that they've, um, experienced a been subject to domestic abuse, I think what's interesting in the vawg strategy and I think the children's victims in their own right sort of led to is this review of the, the age limit for, for domestic abuse. Um, at the moment it is.

16 and the Home Office are currently looking into whether that should be reduced further. And there are real arguments in favour of doing so that we know that, that children are being subject to domestic abuse at quite high rates in their earliest, um, intimate relationships. So I think that, that it's important that we look at that in terms of what refuge thinks about that. We're a little bit nervous that reducing the statutory age at which you're considered a survivor of domestic abuse could. Sort of do what children as victims in their own right did and kind of change it on paper, but but not really in practice.

And, and children will need different responses depending on their age, the abuse they're being subjected to, who they're being abused by. So I think the strategy has a few sort of seeds or areas where we'd really and will work to kind of really push the government on in understanding the needs of different children, including children that are being abused in their early intimate relationships. But we really need a response to sit around that from from social services, from support services, um, and other parts of the statutory sector.

Where we, we see, um, you know, some elements of good practice and I'm thinking of a, of a service we run that is a children's aid service, but I think the age group that, that quite small service works with is supposed to be like 5 to 21, you know, the needs of, of, of those, those, they're not even all children, but the needs of those, those people are so different. We need a whole different model of risk assessment. We'll need lots of coordinated working between different agencies.

So, so my hope is that we can use that that review of, okay, what, what age should we, we consider and think about and respond to children. Um, as survivors of domestic abuse. But it's going to need to go a lot further than sort of changing the number from 16 to 13.
12:28
12:28
None Portrait Speaker 14
-

Yeah, sure. So yeah, in the strategy, good to see the stuff around prevention. There's a bit of money in there for, um, training for, um, for, for delivered by external providers, 5 million, 3 million for teach training. These are important. They're quite small really for, you know, a nationwide response. Um, so a start there, um, an encouraging start, but much more will be needed in terms of the services, which I agree with. Ellie is the, for those already experiencing domestic abuse, that does feel like the big gap.

Um, we did a survey, um, you know, a. Statistically rigorous survey in 2023, which found that 70% of children and young people said that they would seek support if affected by domestic abuse. But 61% said they didn't know where they would go. Um, and in terms of the provision of services, um, only about half of community based services in our annual audit had a dedicated children and young people service. And as I've said, the provision for children of, for migrant children is particularly dire.

Um, and um children's services provide fail to provide adequate support um for children. Um, uh, in our, in our 2025. Nowhere to turn report. We found that the, um, inadequate support, um, in 61% of cases, um, the other thing that I just wanted to draw attention to was about. Children is linked, but, but completely separate, which is around the family courts. And I think, um, the recognition of children in their own right has stimulated some change. And certainly we really glad that the government, um, is working on removing the presumption of parental involvement, um, a presumption which has been incredibly frightening and sadly linked to the deaths of some children who have had um, court.

Encouraged contact with dangerous um perpetrators. Um that presumption is part of the Courts and tribunals bill, which we very much hope will um make its way through so that that can be finalised, but that, that change doesn't kind of fix the problem. There is still very much a pro contact culture, um in courts and we think much more in family courts, much more training is needed and funding for that. I know that there's always an issue with the separation of powers that this place can't tell, you know, the judiciary, what they should and shouldn't be doing.

But certainly funding does help. You know, it's one less barrier, um, one less reason for them not to do training. Um, so we'd love to see that.
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:34
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

Okay. Thank you.
12:34
None Portrait Speaker 15
-

And Ellie. Yeah, I'd echo those points and I suppose just also flag that, that while we still have the no recourse to public funds, like the ability for someone to have no recourse to public funds, that that migrant survivors with no recourse to public funds are going to be hugely vulnerable. And I think we know that. And, and the Vawg strategy, um, doesn't do enough to change that. So we really, at the very least need for everyone on all visa types to be eligible for, for some of the sort of safety net, the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession.

Um, I think we really need that at a minimum. Otherwise, we know that survivors with no recourse to public funds are going to face enormous hurdles getting the help that they need. Um, and. I lost my train of thought there. Yeah, that that's really crucial. And also we need to take a look at the, the other reforms that are going on sort of around this, you know, from, from the same department we've had the violence against women and girls strategy, but also the proposals around sort of urban settlement, very long, um, very long periods of time before people can apply for indefinite leave to remain the, the way in which sort of any sort of reliance on the state or use of public funds could, could limit future chances of settlement.

That's going to really impact migrant survivors and make them highly vulnerable. So we also need to kind of link this work, the the hugely welcome ambition to half the likes. We've talked about the the downsides. But it's important, important work in here. But at the same time, we've got to have that broader view because yes, we desperately need the services. But if women aren't going to come forward in any way, because any interaction with the state means that they're going to have, um, increased vulnerability in their status, then they're not going to receive the help they need.
12:36
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
None Portrait Speaker 15
-

There was something I wanted to sort of go back to tech. Something I missed out is around AI and AI chatbots, but also AI more broadly, as another missing piece of the jigsaw. Um, there was a sort of gap in the, the most recent King's speech where we're sort of hoping for an AI regulation bill that the government suggested it was going to bring forward, but which hasn't hasn't materialized. Um, so I think that that is something that we really need to think about in terms of, um, both.

In terms of sort of chatbots, particularly younger survivors, the promotion of misogyny, but also things that at refuge, our tech team haven't seen yet, but think they're going to see around, um, AI audio or visual, um, material being used by perpetrators, um, to sort of use the system against them that we know that perpetrators sadly are often very good at doing. So. I suppose there's just a bit of a AI that needs to be thought about that I would like to, to mention, um, and actually Veronica has just touched on it, but I think that the family courts, um, and the is still when, when, say, Mike visiting services at refuge, it's often the number one thing survivors talk about just what an awful time they're having in the family courts and how it feels like an extension of the abuse and that they're sort of petrified about the unsafe conditions that their children are being put into.

We've had some really important progress around the in the Domestic Abuse Act, the the stopping cross-examination, the presumption is really important, but we really need to take a broader look at that system. Um, there are challenges, of course, but I think at a very basic level, like increased transparency, we really need to understand what's going on in the family courts. Um, because survivors are telling us every day that they're being, met, their experiences are being belittled and minimized. Um, and that, that it's not a, it's not a safe or efficient, um, system.
12:39
12:39
12:40
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page