Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee
Thursday 2nd July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 months, 1 week ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
One. Good morning and welcome to this meeting of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee, which is a committee that is looking at a piece of legislation passed in 2021. So five years ago. And we're looking at whether it is achieving all the things that had been hoped for at the time of it being legislated. And so this is what's called post-legislative scrutiny. And and we've been hearing evidence from many people. And today we're going to hear evidence from, um, the, the person who probably knows so much more than any of us, um, the Commissioner for Domestic Abuse.
And I'm going to introduce her to everyone. Um. Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales, um, was appointed um the first domestic abuse commissioner in 2019. And Dame Nicole Jacobs has dedicated her career to supporting victims and survivors. Uh, she's got nearly 30 years experience in domestic abuse services policy and intervention. And during this time, she's worked as an independent domestic violence advocate and coordinated the community response to domestic abuse in the United Kingdom. She also has been the CEO of Standing Together Against domestic violence and a lifetime's experience.
It's really wonderful to see you here, Dame Nicole, and and welcome. Now, um. They're given a call out, they arrive at a scene and they deal with that particular incident. Rather a quick backgrounder that we've consistently been hearing, uh, that the police still have a tendency to treat domestic abuse sort of instant by instant. You know, it's incident based. They're given a call out, they arrive at a scene and they deal with that particular incident rather than focusing on a pattern of behaviour and, uh, and.
Particularly, there's that issue of coercion and control, which was introduced into the legislation five years ago. And whether that is for a quick backgrounder that we've consistently been hearing, uh, that the police still have a tendency to treat domestic abuse sort of instant by instant. You know, it's incident based. They're given a call out, they arrive at a scene and they deal with that particular incident rather than focusing on a pattern of behaviour and, uh, and. Particularly there's that issue of coercion and control, which was introduced into the legislation five years ago.
And whether that is fully understood is one of the questions we are addressing. And so I wanted to know what you think needs to be done to sort of change the incident based aspect of this and turning it into more of an overall understanding of the history and the patterns of behaviour that might be in the background. Um, what needs to be done to ensure the, that our national police forces address the current regional variations in police response?Because we're, we're hearing evidence that there is a difference in different parts of the country.
And I'm going to introduce her to everyone. Um. Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales, um, was appointed um the first domestic abuse commissioner in 2019. And Dame Nicole Jacobs has dedicated her career to supporting victims and survivors. Uh, she's got nearly 30 years experience in domestic abuse services policy and intervention. And during this time, she's worked as an independent domestic violence advocate and coordinated the community response to domestic abuse in the United Kingdom. She also has been the CEO of Standing Together Against domestic violence and a lifetime's experience.
It's really wonderful to see you here, Dame Nicole, and and welcome. Now, um. They're given a call out, they arrive at a scene and they deal with that particular incident. Rather a quick backgrounder that we've consistently been hearing, uh, that the police still have a tendency to treat domestic abuse sort of instant by instant. You know, it's incident based. They're given a call out, they arrive at a scene and they deal with that particular incident rather than focusing on a pattern of behaviour and, uh, and.
Particularly, there's that issue of coercion and control, which was introduced into the legislation five years ago. And whether that is for a quick backgrounder that we've consistently been hearing, uh, that the police still have a tendency to treat domestic abuse sort of instant by instant. You know, it's incident based. They're given a call out, they arrive at a scene and they deal with that particular incident rather than focusing on a pattern of behaviour and, uh, and. Particularly there's that issue of coercion and control, which was introduced into the legislation five years ago.
And whether that is fully understood is one of the questions we are addressing. And so I wanted to know what you think needs to be done to sort of change the incident based aspect of this and turning it into more of an overall understanding of the history and the patterns of behaviour that might be in the background. Um, what needs to be done to ensure the, that our national police forces address the current regional variations in police response?Because we're, we're hearing evidence that there is a difference in different parts of the country.
10:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes. Thank you. Good morning everyone. Um, I'm really thrilled to be here and really pleased to see all the evidence you've gathered. So I won't go into all of what you already know about this issue. And I'll try to just target to your actual specific question. I think for coercive and controlling behaviour, you have to get over a couple of obstacles. One is, um, police have to get to know the victim, which sounds really obvious.
Um, and the victim has to be able to trust what the police are doing at this. Confusing moment where maybe they've called for relief, but they're not really sure particularly of what crime they're reporting. They may have a whole range of, of crimes they're reporting, but they won't know the actual, the actual names of those crimes, such as coercive and controlling behaviour. And, and there's. A, you know, a need to decipher both for from the victim survivors point of view, what they're reporting and also for the police.
And you've heard from um, operation Bright Light, um, Amanda Robinson in one of your committees and I, it's probably one of the most illuminating pieces of work that I think I could point you towards because what, what those academics who obviously you'll know, helped with bringing us operation Soteria have done in Avon and Somerset is they've interrogated exactly that, that early point of contact, and they've found that response officers, number one, don't have information in front of them. So they don't see the range of incidents and what the context is.
And that obviously puts the victim in further danger and possibly them. Um, they don't have the time and the training and the confidence to understand all of what there is presented to them at first response. And so we get very focused on conviction rates, which is, is very important. But there are hundreds of thousands of people who report to the police who in that very first instance, where you're trying to detect coercive and controlling behaviour, everything we do is setting the police up to fail.
You know, they don't have the information, they don't have the time and the confidence and the training, and they don't have, um, that. To build that bridge with the victim. So what you'd have to do about that is what they're doing actually in Avon and Somerset, which is they're having to reconfigure so much of how they organise their frontline response. So that is something the government should look at both in in the immediate term. You know, the National Centre could help with that.
The National Centre for Public Protection also, police reform has a huge role to play in that. Um and the other thing that government could do quite, quite imminently because it is in their gift is to look at um the referral pathways to specialist support again in Avon and Somerset. What they found was that, um, you know, you've got a police force who are looking at different local authorities, all seeing different referral pathways to that help and support for victims, the domestic abuse services, the sexual violence services, all slightly different, all interacting with the police in a different way.
That's confusing enough, but one of the other things they found was that because of our definition of domestic abuse, they have little to no referral pathway for wider family violence. Adult child to parent violence, for example, which they counted happening, you know, 20 to 25% of the time. So, so therefore you can't build that trust with victims. You can't spend time understanding what they need. And, and all of that results in not bringing the right information forward on coercive and controlling behaviour.
So what the police do is they will, you know, pick the most obvious crime that they think is committed, often an incident focused crime. And they record that and pursue that. Or they ask the victim, well, what do you want to do?And they may no further action it, which is the vast majority of the time. And so there are there are ways that you could add more. Um, coherent. Scaffolding in and around the police in those specialist services to make that um, understanding with the police and that trust building much easier for them to achieve.
So there's a lot there that is.
Um, and the victim has to be able to trust what the police are doing at this. Confusing moment where maybe they've called for relief, but they're not really sure particularly of what crime they're reporting. They may have a whole range of, of crimes they're reporting, but they won't know the actual, the actual names of those crimes, such as coercive and controlling behaviour. And, and there's. A, you know, a need to decipher both for from the victim survivors point of view, what they're reporting and also for the police.
And you've heard from um, operation Bright Light, um, Amanda Robinson in one of your committees and I, it's probably one of the most illuminating pieces of work that I think I could point you towards because what, what those academics who obviously you'll know, helped with bringing us operation Soteria have done in Avon and Somerset is they've interrogated exactly that, that early point of contact, and they've found that response officers, number one, don't have information in front of them. So they don't see the range of incidents and what the context is.
And that obviously puts the victim in further danger and possibly them. Um, they don't have the time and the training and the confidence to understand all of what there is presented to them at first response. And so we get very focused on conviction rates, which is, is very important. But there are hundreds of thousands of people who report to the police who in that very first instance, where you're trying to detect coercive and controlling behaviour, everything we do is setting the police up to fail.
You know, they don't have the information, they don't have the time and the confidence and the training, and they don't have, um, that. To build that bridge with the victim. So what you'd have to do about that is what they're doing actually in Avon and Somerset, which is they're having to reconfigure so much of how they organise their frontline response. So that is something the government should look at both in in the immediate term. You know, the National Centre could help with that.
The National Centre for Public Protection also, police reform has a huge role to play in that. Um and the other thing that government could do quite, quite imminently because it is in their gift is to look at um the referral pathways to specialist support again in Avon and Somerset. What they found was that, um, you know, you've got a police force who are looking at different local authorities, all seeing different referral pathways to that help and support for victims, the domestic abuse services, the sexual violence services, all slightly different, all interacting with the police in a different way.
That's confusing enough, but one of the other things they found was that because of our definition of domestic abuse, they have little to no referral pathway for wider family violence. Adult child to parent violence, for example, which they counted happening, you know, 20 to 25% of the time. So, so therefore you can't build that trust with victims. You can't spend time understanding what they need. And, and all of that results in not bringing the right information forward on coercive and controlling behaviour.
So what the police do is they will, you know, pick the most obvious crime that they think is committed, often an incident focused crime. And they record that and pursue that. Or they ask the victim, well, what do you want to do?And they may no further action it, which is the vast majority of the time. And so there are there are ways that you could add more. Um, coherent. Scaffolding in and around the police in those specialist services to make that um, understanding with the police and that trust building much easier for them to achieve.
So there's a lot there that is.
10:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Very practical. Pick up on one thing there that came out of some of the evidence that we heard. One of the suggestions that was made, and I don't know if this does happen anywhere, but is that, um, a call is made to the police. Um, my husband's just, uh, you know, uh, throwing his food at the wall and he's screaming his head off at me or whatever. And, uh, and wouldn't it be possible for. The person at the end at the call centre to do two things.
One, get onto a policing, get to number 43, Crescent Drive and then and then look up something on the computer that says, you've been called to this just to let you know you've been called to this address five times before and let the. Police who are going out to that one who may not know that his colleagues or their colleagues have been there on other occasions, but that that could be done at that early stage. And apparently it's not done very often.
One, get onto a policing, get to number 43, Crescent Drive and then and then look up something on the computer that says, you've been called to this just to let you know you've been called to this address five times before and let the. Police who are going out to that one who may not know that his colleagues or their colleagues have been there on other occasions, but that that could be done at that early stage. And apparently it's not done very often.
10:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That's right. And, um, in in addition to that, what's not done and this is what they found in, in this bright light work is that in Avon, in Somerset, what the academics could see is for those five times, you'd have to individually open them up. That would take, um, you know, 45 minutes to, and to understand the context of what happened in those five times. So what was, what was happening in Avon and Somerset?They could see is that the majority of the time.
That particularly women were being arrested, they were often victims earlier on in the police didn't understand a lot of the context of that. Um, those because if you hear five times you've been there, you don't really know why. And what was the kind of context of any of that?I'm sure that there are ways to do this that need to be urgently prioritized. You know, the use of AI, the use of better data systems to extract for the police the relevant information so that they show up knowing the full context, at least in summary.
And, and I hear that happening is in ideas. But, you know, that is something that the government could prioritize urgently. Um, is to make sure that, and I'm sure that the national centre is thinking about this, but the point is we, we can see that there's not a coherent, um, you know, push for what are the key changes we want to see in all 43 forces to drive these improvements?And the levers for that are very weak, frankly. And what I worry about in the context of police reform is we'll start to um.
Talk about police reform as it is, as if this will change at all, which it could with the right leadership. But that still is going to be quite a few years in the making. And so there's so much we should be doing right now. And I do not understand. I mean, I really applaud Avon and Somerset and others. Other forces are doing things like, um, you know, algorithms and there's, there is a lot going on. But I would argue that by the time you're, you know, hitting the algorithm for the victim, you're, you're way too late.
Um, y you're, you're hitting an algorithm because you've had how many call outs already. So I don't understand why we don't focus as early as possible on the quality of that interaction. And I'm not saying that every single victim will want to pursue a statement and it'll all, you know, we're looking for 100% conviction rate, but I think we have to achieve two things. Are the police doing everything they can at that point of early contact?And is it clear to the victim who is there to support them for that kind of wider support?And also, as I used to do many, many years ago now, is support victims, but also call the police, have a partnership with the police so that if things were happening and there was more information to be told, I knew who to call and how to facilitate that.
And we've really lost a lot of those really excellent working relationships between the police and wider support services. And that's something that government absolutely can construct and build towards, because they hold a lot of the commissioning, um, arrangements. So they could make that happen in the way they commission services and they could use funding to help achieve that. And that requires join.
That particularly women were being arrested, they were often victims earlier on in the police didn't understand a lot of the context of that. Um, those because if you hear five times you've been there, you don't really know why. And what was the kind of context of any of that?I'm sure that there are ways to do this that need to be urgently prioritized. You know, the use of AI, the use of better data systems to extract for the police the relevant information so that they show up knowing the full context, at least in summary.
And, and I hear that happening is in ideas. But, you know, that is something that the government could prioritize urgently. Um, is to make sure that, and I'm sure that the national centre is thinking about this, but the point is we, we can see that there's not a coherent, um, you know, push for what are the key changes we want to see in all 43 forces to drive these improvements?And the levers for that are very weak, frankly. And what I worry about in the context of police reform is we'll start to um.
Talk about police reform as it is, as if this will change at all, which it could with the right leadership. But that still is going to be quite a few years in the making. And so there's so much we should be doing right now. And I do not understand. I mean, I really applaud Avon and Somerset and others. Other forces are doing things like, um, you know, algorithms and there's, there is a lot going on. But I would argue that by the time you're, you know, hitting the algorithm for the victim, you're, you're way too late.
Um, y you're, you're hitting an algorithm because you've had how many call outs already. So I don't understand why we don't focus as early as possible on the quality of that interaction. And I'm not saying that every single victim will want to pursue a statement and it'll all, you know, we're looking for 100% conviction rate, but I think we have to achieve two things. Are the police doing everything they can at that point of early contact?And is it clear to the victim who is there to support them for that kind of wider support?And also, as I used to do many, many years ago now, is support victims, but also call the police, have a partnership with the police so that if things were happening and there was more information to be told, I knew who to call and how to facilitate that.
And we've really lost a lot of those really excellent working relationships between the police and wider support services. And that's something that government absolutely can construct and build towards, because they hold a lot of the commissioning, um, arrangements. So they could make that happen in the way they commission services and they could use funding to help achieve that. And that requires join.
10:50
10:50
10:50
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, I think it would help in that you would. Uh, be able to understand victims who've moved between force areas, um, that kind of thing. Um, whether you could achieve that in other IT solutions, I don't know, that would be outside of my understanding of, you know, if there is a technical way you could achieve the same thing. Um, but, but it is true that victims get lost in the system. I think this is exactly what you mean, which is I can't tell you if Nicole Jacobs reported to the police, you couldn't see how my my data proceeds from the police through to potentially CPS through to the court, through to the outcome.
And that holds us back considerably because we we only know the data in silos, so we can't figure out the demographic data. Um, any kind of intersecting issues that we would be very, very curious and to desperately know. So that would be one way to achieve the ability to do that would be, um, game changing without any doubt.
And that holds us back considerably because we we only know the data in silos, so we can't figure out the demographic data. Um, any kind of intersecting issues that we would be very, very curious and to desperately know. So that would be one way to achieve the ability to do that would be, um, game changing without any doubt.
10:51
10:51
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, it was going to be very similar question. So just a comment because there's so many echoes of what you're saying. In my own profession in general practice. This is moving from a relational based profession to a transactional, you know, and it sounds very similar for what you're describing, but even worse, because you haven't got a unique record because these are victims, not perpetrators of violence. So there isn't a, if you like, a criminal record, because I'm assuming for the perpetrators, the police don't spend 45 minutes.
It is a touch of a button with a summary care, a summary record, etc. but it's just the victims don't have a record. Is that right?
It is a touch of a button with a summary care, a summary record, etc. but it's just the victims don't have a record. Is that right?
10:52
10:52
10:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
There would be a summary record of incidents and it would be recorded in police systems, but it would be onerous to be able to open and get to and see, at one point, the only place you'd see like a very quick summary would be on something called the Police National Computer, which only records convictions. So the vast majority of what you'd want to know wouldn't necessarily be there.
10:53
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My question is, actually, we've heard a lot of evidence here, some very, very disturbing evidence about the rise of online and cyber, um, cyber abuse. And how is the system now adapting to. That and what's going on?How are we supporting victims with respect to that?What's your sense?How can we protect them.
10:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Specifically for victims of domestic abuse?I think because there's there's such a range of what we see going online that would fall under violence against women and girls. I'm sure you've heard a lot of that. But for victims of domestic abuse, I suppose the the thing to point out is often it's that part of the online abuse that is often ignored because it doesn't, um, it it is. Part of that wider kind of pattern of coercion and controlling behaviour. So it may not be as obvious.
Um, it may not be as clear. Again, just going back to what we've said, often what you hear in police responses is they will understand there's an online element, but because it's hard for them to get the cooperation from tech companies, it's hard for them. Um, they will pick something easier to record and pursue rather than the online elements.
Um, it may not be as clear. Again, just going back to what we've said, often what you hear in police responses is they will understand there's an online element, but because it's hard for them to get the cooperation from tech companies, it's hard for them. Um, they will pick something easier to record and pursue rather than the online elements.
10:54
10:55
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, there's several ways. I mean, I mean, there's no easy way because what what perpetrators do is they, they use the tools they have in front of them. So they or that they have access to. So tech, um, and all sorts of tracking devices and all of these instruments that are created for often other purposes, because they haven't had safety by design as a principle. Um, they are misused. And so that is very hard to detangle, but in, in the kind of here and the now there is something about, um.
The ability for victims very quickly to get the right advice. And we're not investing enough in that. I mean, there is advice they get from the police, obviously, but we've just talked about that. Um, and I think that that could be vastly improved. Um, in terms of, of taking that on as a topic rather than kind of sidestepping it, because that is essentially, I think what happens quite a lot with frontline police response. Um, but the other thing that is really critical that could be done here and now, I think you've heard from refuge, it's the organisation refuge, which has a tech kind of expertise.
We need much, much more expertise within specialist services about how they help with tracking devices, all the kinds of ways that victims are being, um, all these tools are being used. And that's exactly that has changed some of the current work of those front line services. On helplines in community based services coming into refuge, having to really do a tech kind of screening to make sure that all of that is taken care of. And that requires support. It requires expertise. I don't understand why, you know, there isn't some kind of movement, both in the private sector and in government, to help specialist services, um, to arm up for that, actually.
And that's the kind of immediate impact there's other, a couple of other things that government could do better. One is that d sit, you know, I spend a lot of time across all departments. Um, and I have a fairly good understanding of the activity. Um, and when we've had the VOG strategy published, um, you know, my team and I, and, you know, kind of tracked where is the activity across government that in each department where they're looking at their respective actions. And Dcit is one of two departments that doesn't have a working group.
So what that means.
The ability for victims very quickly to get the right advice. And we're not investing enough in that. I mean, there is advice they get from the police, obviously, but we've just talked about that. Um, and I think that that could be vastly improved. Um, in terms of, of taking that on as a topic rather than kind of sidestepping it, because that is essentially, I think what happens quite a lot with frontline police response. Um, but the other thing that is really critical that could be done here and now, I think you've heard from refuge, it's the organisation refuge, which has a tech kind of expertise.
We need much, much more expertise within specialist services about how they help with tracking devices, all the kinds of ways that victims are being, um, all these tools are being used. And that's exactly that has changed some of the current work of those front line services. On helplines in community based services coming into refuge, having to really do a tech kind of screening to make sure that all of that is taken care of. And that requires support. It requires expertise. I don't understand why, you know, there isn't some kind of movement, both in the private sector and in government, to help specialist services, um, to arm up for that, actually.
And that's the kind of immediate impact there's other, a couple of other things that government could do better. One is that d sit, you know, I spend a lot of time across all departments. Um, and I have a fairly good understanding of the activity. Um, and when we've had the VOG strategy published, um, you know, my team and I, and, you know, kind of tracked where is the activity across government that in each department where they're looking at their respective actions. And Dcit is one of two departments that doesn't have a working group.
So what that means.
10:57
10:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Department of Science, Information and Technology. So they would have the remit for the tech. Uh, you know, anything that relates to responding to the harms from technology, good and bad, but in this case, um, the, the harms and, you know, that government department needs to much more proactively bring together those on the front line and victim survivors to hear about these emerging trends because they are hearing them first. And, and that's the only way to try to get ahead. But what they tend to do is they're quite reactive and we're hearing about it later and they're not convening.
Um, those stakeholders who are trying to help victims in a systematic way and that is holding us back. And it means we're, we're reactive instead of proactive. And, um, the other thing I'd love for you to, to, I'm sure you've heard a bit about this is that on the prevention side of this with children and young people, um, there are some commitments within the, the violence against women and girls strategy. And right now the Department of Education has essentially taken its funding that it committed to, you know, £5 million fund and a £1 million fund.
And they've, um, delegated the Youth Endowment Foundation to start commissioning work in more work that relates to this in schools, more work that relates to this and building teacher confidence. But I think we'd all agree that that doesn't sound proactive enough. I mean, that that the level of harm that tech is causing, um, and the need to get to children and young people in a meaningful way, we need to accelerate that much, much faster. And those are modest commitments. I would say if you think of all of the schools and places we want to reach young people in England and Wales.
Um, those stakeholders who are trying to help victims in a systematic way and that is holding us back. And it means we're, we're reactive instead of proactive. And, um, the other thing I'd love for you to, to, I'm sure you've heard a bit about this is that on the prevention side of this with children and young people, um, there are some commitments within the, the violence against women and girls strategy. And right now the Department of Education has essentially taken its funding that it committed to, you know, £5 million fund and a £1 million fund.
And they've, um, delegated the Youth Endowment Foundation to start commissioning work in more work that relates to this in schools, more work that relates to this and building teacher confidence. But I think we'd all agree that that doesn't sound proactive enough. I mean, that that the level of harm that tech is causing, um, and the need to get to children and young people in a meaningful way, we need to accelerate that much, much faster. And those are modest commitments. I would say if you think of all of the schools and places we want to reach young people in England and Wales.
10:59
10:59
10:59
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I view that very much as my job to, to be interacting with, um, not only government, but and local government, but um, the statutory leaders. So I regularly meet with the CPS, I regularly meet with police leaders and um, you know, recently observed in police training at the met, I went and just a couple of weeks ago spoke to about 600 senior officers in the met. So the met is not the only example. It's just recent examples. But I meet with police and crime commissioners.
I meet with police leaders as much as I possibly can because I'm always looking for excellent practice. And what to gain understanding about what is needed.
I meet with police leaders as much as I possibly can because I'm always looking for excellent practice. And what to gain understanding about what is needed.
11:00
11:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That is, there's some vetting changes that have been made recently, which I really welcome. You know, that I feel like some from the time I've started in this role to now. The Home Office in various iterations have, you know, inched towards. And then in recent in recent times really race towards very practical changes in vetting and recruitment, things that should have been happening a long time ago. For example, if someone is charged with a related crime, I don't think any of us would have any expectation that you'd carry on in your policing duties.
And policing is such a special role and trusted role. Um, so, so things have really moved along there. But one thing that has not moved along, and again, I keep worrying that we're going to wait for police reform to hopefully fix all of this, but that will take a couple. Well, I don't know how many years that will take, but each, you know, in my own criminal justice report, we did we used the powers of our office to ask police forces, you know, what are you doing in result as a result of the super complaint about police perpetrated domestic abuse?Do you have a policy?Do you have independent support for victims who come to you?Um, and and do you have some kind of an arrangement for an independent oversight, maybe with another force or something that will allow for victims to feel that it won't be the officer's colleagues who are looking at some of these things.
And the vast majority of forces don't have anything in place. I mean, it's just the truth of it. And, um, there has been some forces who have brought in some independent support. The Met Police, for example. There are organisations like Hestia who are working in several police forces. So it's not to say absolutely nothing has happened, but I believe that, again, first principles, victims must feel supported in order to totally trust systems to to say all of what they are concerned about.
They have to be supported to trust systems that they're being taken seriously. So if you don't have that support in place and policies in place, um, how would you expect to any one of us wouldn't trust. Particularly, um, moving forward. So, so it's a really mixed bag and I have to say very slow progress in my view. Um, if you are a police leader thinking, what would you know you must fix?Those are just obvious things that you must fix in every force and it lets really good officers down.
And policing is such a special role and trusted role. Um, so, so things have really moved along there. But one thing that has not moved along, and again, I keep worrying that we're going to wait for police reform to hopefully fix all of this, but that will take a couple. Well, I don't know how many years that will take, but each, you know, in my own criminal justice report, we did we used the powers of our office to ask police forces, you know, what are you doing in result as a result of the super complaint about police perpetrated domestic abuse?Do you have a policy?Do you have independent support for victims who come to you?Um, and and do you have some kind of an arrangement for an independent oversight, maybe with another force or something that will allow for victims to feel that it won't be the officer's colleagues who are looking at some of these things.
And the vast majority of forces don't have anything in place. I mean, it's just the truth of it. And, um, there has been some forces who have brought in some independent support. The Met Police, for example. There are organisations like Hestia who are working in several police forces. So it's not to say absolutely nothing has happened, but I believe that, again, first principles, victims must feel supported in order to totally trust systems to to say all of what they are concerned about.
They have to be supported to trust systems that they're being taken seriously. So if you don't have that support in place and policies in place, um, how would you expect to any one of us wouldn't trust. Particularly, um, moving forward. So, so it's a really mixed bag and I have to say very slow progress in my view. Um, if you are a police leader thinking, what would you know you must fix?Those are just obvious things that you must fix in every force and it lets really good officers down.
11:03
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, just going back to talk about the statutory the statutory. You touched on this already. The statutory definition requires both the perpetrator and the victim to be aged 16 and over. As you know, in order for for the domestic abuse to apply. But we've heard um, quite a bit about how this fails to capture domestic abuse in teenage relationships. And also for those under 16, but also when the perpetrator in a family setting is under 16, it might be against the mother, for example.
So my question is really what advice would you give to the government on how this can be addressed?
So my question is really what advice would you give to the government on how this can be addressed?
11:04
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, I would first say it's it was a huge step forward. And some people in this room have been, were really instrumental in helping define children as victims in their own right. There are lots of ways I can see that has had a cultural, uh, impact in terms of family court, kind of our avenues into, um, being much more assertive for children in many areas that that is an achievement, but where we're still held back is, um, when you have violence within teenage relationships, as you have heard, you know, feeling that the definition doesn't fit them.
And the Home Office is undertaking some work about this because it's not quite as I believe. It's not quite as easy as saying it's a definite lowering of an age or not, because you obviously have then child safeguarding and all sorts of provisions of, of legal, um, remedy, support. Um, so there's something about, I guess the way it boils down to me is kind of two things to achieve immediately. One is, um, this being able to be understood in data. In other words, it's, it's tragic to talk to families where they're, they've even lost a child, um, in domestic homicide, for example, or serious.
There's been serious stalking, abuse and it's not kind of counted. It's like, I can't be a victim of domestic abuse. You hear?Well, that that is about the way we collect data. And we have to you know, that's one thing the government could correct very quickly is an expectation that the data is captured. But for me, what is the most important thing is operationally, what support do you give?So there's some really excellent examples. For example, Croydon setting up an adolescent, um you know, team within children's Social Care, Northumbria in their Mash, their early referral pathways, having someone who only, literally only, their only job is to make sure they're giving support and advice for teenage relationship abuse.
Like why are we not doing that in absolutely every children's social care, every single early help hub like that is what really would help in the here and the now. Um, if we were to try to only pass that in, you know, fix that through legislation, we would, I guarantee you would, would be sitting here in another year, another two years and, you know, waiting for some of that to happen. We, the government can do that and absolutely should be doing that in its plans. And when I say plans, I mean strategy, the violence against women and girls strategy within Families First, which is, you know, the big, huge reform for children's social care.
It should be really clear that every area should be, um, putting these kinds of positions in place. And again, the government could do that. They could require that and they could help areas learn from each other. That is, that is achievable.
And the Home Office is undertaking some work about this because it's not quite as I believe. It's not quite as easy as saying it's a definite lowering of an age or not, because you obviously have then child safeguarding and all sorts of provisions of, of legal, um, remedy, support. Um, so there's something about, I guess the way it boils down to me is kind of two things to achieve immediately. One is, um, this being able to be understood in data. In other words, it's, it's tragic to talk to families where they're, they've even lost a child, um, in domestic homicide, for example, or serious.
There's been serious stalking, abuse and it's not kind of counted. It's like, I can't be a victim of domestic abuse. You hear?Well, that that is about the way we collect data. And we have to you know, that's one thing the government could correct very quickly is an expectation that the data is captured. But for me, what is the most important thing is operationally, what support do you give?So there's some really excellent examples. For example, Croydon setting up an adolescent, um you know, team within children's Social Care, Northumbria in their Mash, their early referral pathways, having someone who only, literally only, their only job is to make sure they're giving support and advice for teenage relationship abuse.
Like why are we not doing that in absolutely every children's social care, every single early help hub like that is what really would help in the here and the now. Um, if we were to try to only pass that in, you know, fix that through legislation, we would, I guarantee you would, would be sitting here in another year, another two years and, you know, waiting for some of that to happen. We, the government can do that and absolutely should be doing that in its plans. And when I say plans, I mean strategy, the violence against women and girls strategy within Families First, which is, you know, the big, huge reform for children's social care.
It should be really clear that every area should be, um, putting these kinds of positions in place. And again, the government could do that. They could require that and they could help areas learn from each other. That is, that is achievable.
11:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I really want to understand what it is that at the heart of what you're saying, which is because because we've heard concerns about, you know, 15 year olds actually replicating some of the stuff that we see in adult relationships and battering their girlfriends, not just not just you can't go do this and you can't see her, and you've got to be friendly with that person. So not just control, but actually physical violence. And, and of course, it's not helped by the fact that there's so much pornographic material that displays that kind of thing.
So, um, what, what seemed to be coming through was a call for a revisiting of, of the lower age. But what you're saying is that's not the route to, to start going down, but to actually be looking at social services departments, having particular units that deal with this kind of violence inside relationships of between adolescents, basically. Is that right?
So, um, what, what seemed to be coming through was a call for a revisiting of, of the lower age. But what you're saying is that's not the route to, to start going down, but to actually be looking at social services departments, having particular units that deal with this kind of violence inside relationships of between adolescents, basically. Is that right?
11:08
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, I'm slightly saying a little bit of both. I'm pleased that the Home Office is taking this on to look at it and understand what the implications are of lowering the age. The action oriented person in me would say, that's great. While you're doing that, there's plenty you could be doing that would help, um, victims, uh, and young perpetrators, uh, to have much more targeted help and support like that is that is to me the priority. And I know that the government could do that if they had, uh, the willingness in certain ways because they have the opportunities in some of these larger programmes of work.
11:08
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Can I just push you a bit further on that, Nicole?Um, there seems to be a disconnect. I mean, when you as the domestic abuse commissioner, turn around and you mentioned two areas where things are being done. Well, and you say to the government, whichever bit of government that is, these are good. Let's let's roll this out. Where's the disconnect?Why is that not happening?
11:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Because some of the answer is, um, well, that should be happening. We have all we have committed and the violence against women and girls strategy in the families first kind of programme of work, you know, this will have this encourages much more multi-agency working, which encode to me means working with domestic abuse services. And um, so what we're trying to do in my office is be much more forensic about it. I mean, I've just been looking, thinking about, um, you know, each area has an implementation plan for families first.
This isn't just a few million pounds. This is, you know, two point something billion pounds for families first. That should be resulting in quite serious, um, movement in family hubs, all sorts of early help, the kinds of things that will address teenage relationship abuse that should be culminating in all of those things. That's what we've been promised. And so some of my job is to, to look at, um, and be provocative with ministers who I know, I know, want to achieve these things.
Um, but I believe that until you start really interrogating those implementation plans and seeing how things are kind of coming out in the wash, if you will, then then is the time to say this clearly is either cutting it or not. But I worry that the fact that I could name a couple of other areas, um, that. But I couldn't say that I'm absolutely confident that every area has got this coming. Um, and is planning for it. And that feels quite urgent.
This isn't just a few million pounds. This is, you know, two point something billion pounds for families first. That should be resulting in quite serious, um, movement in family hubs, all sorts of early help, the kinds of things that will address teenage relationship abuse that should be culminating in all of those things. That's what we've been promised. And so some of my job is to, to look at, um, and be provocative with ministers who I know, I know, want to achieve these things.
Um, but I believe that until you start really interrogating those implementation plans and seeing how things are kind of coming out in the wash, if you will, then then is the time to say this clearly is either cutting it or not. But I worry that the fact that I could name a couple of other areas, um, that. But I couldn't say that I'm absolutely confident that every area has got this coming. Um, and is planning for it. And that feels quite urgent.
11:11
11:11
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you. Um, we've heard a lot over the course of the last few months about the success of the drive programme and its focus on high harm, high risk serial perpetrators. But obviously outside of that, there's a lot of perpetrators who fall out of that group, which people have raised concerns as to whether they have got access to relevant programmes. The positive re requirements in the depot pilots the rollout of those nationally are obviously meant to be part of addressing that issue. Could you please say a little bit about how you see that working?And one of the things that I think would be quite interesting in your evidence today, you've brought out some of the pros and cons of both.
When things are provided at a national level, people's ability to access them, the simplicity, uniformity, but at the same time, also when those types of services and programs are provided at a very local level, there's a degree of experimentation, local needs. So there's lots of pros as well of very small organizations also providing them. So if you could say a little bit about that and therefore also your views on what the ramifications of that should be in terms of how some of the commissioning for this should be set up, as those programmes are rolled out.
When things are provided at a national level, people's ability to access them, the simplicity, uniformity, but at the same time, also when those types of services and programs are provided at a very local level, there's a degree of experimentation, local needs. So there's lots of pros as well of very small organizations also providing them. So if you could say a little bit about that and therefore also your views on what the ramifications of that should be in terms of how some of the commissioning for this should be set up, as those programmes are rolled out.
11:12
11:12
11:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I. Just taking on kind of overarching the kind of the drive, um, initiative, I have really welcomed that because it has been um and something that. The Home Office have supported that is to say in every area we want this kind of oversight for, um, as you said, high harm perpetrators, in other words, perpetrators who are very well known to the police, um, essentially. And one of the things that I think, um. Would be a positive step would be, and I do think you probably hear this a lot in this committee.
We, we place a lot of expectation on this new national Centre for Vogue and Public Protection. Um, and rightfully so. It's a huge issue and it needs the kind of resource and bandwidth to do this. But drive is not the only initiative. You know, there are ways that police forces are using algorithms. You know, I'm sure you've heard about the top 100 and there are there's kind of various tools and methods drive. And beyond, but I still feel need a real reconciliation, um, to be able to make it clear what does good look like in every single force area, regardless of how many forces were headed towards or local, um, response and kind of regional response.
And that requires, um. A real bringing together of these methods and kind of almost a decision between these. Varying methods that forces are using and how to bed that down into something that we would reasonably expect everywhere. So that that is just one thing. I would also say that there's so much that we do that doesn't that flies in the face of, um, holding perpetrators to account all the way, whichever ones, whether whether they're very well known to us or not, you know, constant breaches of orders that go on, you know, enforced.
Um, lots of issues that relate to not holding perpetrators to account. I mean, we're not talking about early release, but that is another emerging issue. Um, so there's, there's so much to do there that I think the home office needs to really get behind. Um, and has done, I know, but really invest in, um, not just drive, but kind of piecing that all together and that I feel is, is still missing. Um, as good of a step forward as that has been.
And then in terms of the range of work, I'm really pleased that organisations like respect are, you know, have had some funding for a centre of excellence. So we can see better. What do you do earlier and what do you, as you know, before it gets so, so bad, but I would really like to talk to a couple of minutes about depots. So depots are the order that we're in the act. You know, it was created in the Domestic Abuse Act.
And I am really concerned about um the. Piloting and the implementation of depots. So I see that as more like one tool that you use. If you were, if you were implementing drive, if you were implementing anything you that's a tool you would have potentially to use as it rolls out. And what's happened there is you've had a piloting of this type of order. Um, and the pilot ends in November this November. And the, the kind of stated commitment of government is there will be a rollout across England and Wales in January.
Um, and. What I would say to you about that is that there was an interim evaluation, which maybe you all have had some access to, but, but has not been, is not in the public domain.
We, we place a lot of expectation on this new national Centre for Vogue and Public Protection. Um, and rightfully so. It's a huge issue and it needs the kind of resource and bandwidth to do this. But drive is not the only initiative. You know, there are ways that police forces are using algorithms. You know, I'm sure you've heard about the top 100 and there are there's kind of various tools and methods drive. And beyond, but I still feel need a real reconciliation, um, to be able to make it clear what does good look like in every single force area, regardless of how many forces were headed towards or local, um, response and kind of regional response.
And that requires, um. A real bringing together of these methods and kind of almost a decision between these. Varying methods that forces are using and how to bed that down into something that we would reasonably expect everywhere. So that that is just one thing. I would also say that there's so much that we do that doesn't that flies in the face of, um, holding perpetrators to account all the way, whichever ones, whether whether they're very well known to us or not, you know, constant breaches of orders that go on, you know, enforced.
Um, lots of issues that relate to not holding perpetrators to account. I mean, we're not talking about early release, but that is another emerging issue. Um, so there's, there's so much to do there that I think the home office needs to really get behind. Um, and has done, I know, but really invest in, um, not just drive, but kind of piecing that all together and that I feel is, is still missing. Um, as good of a step forward as that has been.
And then in terms of the range of work, I'm really pleased that organisations like respect are, you know, have had some funding for a centre of excellence. So we can see better. What do you do earlier and what do you, as you know, before it gets so, so bad, but I would really like to talk to a couple of minutes about depots. So depots are the order that we're in the act. You know, it was created in the Domestic Abuse Act.
And I am really concerned about um the. Piloting and the implementation of depots. So I see that as more like one tool that you use. If you were, if you were implementing drive, if you were implementing anything you that's a tool you would have potentially to use as it rolls out. And what's happened there is you've had a piloting of this type of order. Um, and the pilot ends in November this November. And the, the kind of stated commitment of government is there will be a rollout across England and Wales in January.
Um, and. What I would say to you about that is that there was an interim evaluation, which maybe you all have had some access to, but, but has not been, is not in the public domain.
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I have asked for it this week. So it's I mean, I've asked for it again and again and again. But in anticipation of coming here. There should be a final evaluation. Um, post the end of the pilot. But again, I guess I want to point out to you, there's a bit of this rollout afoot and a commitment, but we haven't seen a lot of the evaluation. But one thing I do know, and that I wanted to raise with you, is, I think the first time before you started, we talked about this triage function.
So essentially police, police or family court identify need for a depot. They refer to it to get that started. That goes and they decide what positive requirements they think are needed. Should it be a mental health assessment. Should it be a behavioural change assessment, a substance misuse assessment?They refer that into a triage team. Um and I do have some information from a kind of a separate report from the triage team, which has been run by um the drive partnership, the same people who are rolling out drive, um, so have a lot of understanding and, and what really worries me about this data, I just want to point out it's quite, I just want to make sure I'm getting this right.
There were at the time that this reported there were 281 referrals. So from all these various pilot sites, referrals into the triage, 97% of those were from the police. So the question number one, why are the referrals not coming from the family court?That's they're designed to do that. There's got to be a reason why that's not happening. And that is a question that needs to be answered. Of those 281 referrals. Um. 147 times there were recommendations for this triage for positive requirements.
82% 82 of those 147 perpetrators attended the assessment, which means we had. What the pilots found is this early problem, which is that it was voluntary. They weren't mandated to attend. That's now been fixed in legislation by an amendment in in the Victim in courts bill, but that's not implemented yet. So the whole of the pilot we haven't had in place the mandatory attending to of an assessment. So we've got to test well, what happens when you mandate people to go to the assessment.
So that's really important for us to know. Um one of the 82 who attended, 51 people took on a positive requirement for the depot. So we've started out with 281. All that. We get very excited about the depots because of these positive requirements. 51 and have ended up with a positive requirement, 43% for behavioural change, 30 for drug and alcohol, less than any percentage for mental health assessment. And the question there is, they're only allowed to pick one positive requirement.
Why?
So essentially police, police or family court identify need for a depot. They refer to it to get that started. That goes and they decide what positive requirements they think are needed. Should it be a mental health assessment. Should it be a behavioural change assessment, a substance misuse assessment?They refer that into a triage team. Um and I do have some information from a kind of a separate report from the triage team, which has been run by um the drive partnership, the same people who are rolling out drive, um, so have a lot of understanding and, and what really worries me about this data, I just want to point out it's quite, I just want to make sure I'm getting this right.
There were at the time that this reported there were 281 referrals. So from all these various pilot sites, referrals into the triage, 97% of those were from the police. So the question number one, why are the referrals not coming from the family court?That's they're designed to do that. There's got to be a reason why that's not happening. And that is a question that needs to be answered. Of those 281 referrals. Um. 147 times there were recommendations for this triage for positive requirements.
82% 82 of those 147 perpetrators attended the assessment, which means we had. What the pilots found is this early problem, which is that it was voluntary. They weren't mandated to attend. That's now been fixed in legislation by an amendment in in the Victim in courts bill, but that's not implemented yet. So the whole of the pilot we haven't had in place the mandatory attending to of an assessment. So we've got to test well, what happens when you mandate people to go to the assessment.
So that's really important for us to know. Um one of the 82 who attended, 51 people took on a positive requirement for the depot. So we've started out with 281. All that. We get very excited about the depots because of these positive requirements. 51 and have ended up with a positive requirement, 43% for behavioural change, 30 for drug and alcohol, less than any percentage for mental health assessment. And the question there is, they're only allowed to pick one positive requirement.
Why?
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:22
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Mhm. And so the. Other thing that in this triage report, what they found was very often the victim. So we keep in mind we're doing this for the victim. You know, they found that often the victim needed safeguarding actions well before things got to triage. So again, if you think about the you know, the police come out or you go to there's the family court, possibly. And they then think we're going to do we're going to apply for a depot and get this in place.
We're going to recommend these positive requirements. We go through triage. That's taking about three weeks. And what the triage report has said is that those victims have needed some safeguarding much earlier. And and they're it's only getting kind of picked up at triage. Well, that's worse than where we started with all of this because you know, where you start with just a normal regular, um, you know, non-molestation order, you would hopefully be doing that quite quickly. So there's something about, you know, where is the family court?What are the timescale issues here in terms of getting support to the victim?Why only one positive requirement?Is that good enough?And also what kind of funding is genuinely required to get this right for England and Wales?Because keep in mind you only can do a positive requirement if you have a behavioural change programme in your area.
You know, there's so many. I feel like we're um. Have are are slightly kidding ourselves if I had to be really frank that we're ready for a rollout. We've got to take this, this measure seriously enough. If it is meant to be the Uber order much, much better for victims. We really have got to see what support is being put in place, what resource to get this right. And it is, I can tell I can see some of your frustration.
And I feel frustrated too. Um.
We're going to recommend these positive requirements. We go through triage. That's taking about three weeks. And what the triage report has said is that those victims have needed some safeguarding much earlier. And and they're it's only getting kind of picked up at triage. Well, that's worse than where we started with all of this because you know, where you start with just a normal regular, um, you know, non-molestation order, you would hopefully be doing that quite quickly. So there's something about, you know, where is the family court?What are the timescale issues here in terms of getting support to the victim?Why only one positive requirement?Is that good enough?And also what kind of funding is genuinely required to get this right for England and Wales?Because keep in mind you only can do a positive requirement if you have a behavioural change programme in your area.
You know, there's so many. I feel like we're um. Have are are slightly kidding ourselves if I had to be really frank that we're ready for a rollout. We've got to take this, this measure seriously enough. If it is meant to be the Uber order much, much better for victims. We really have got to see what support is being put in place, what resource to get this right. And it is, I can tell I can see some of your frustration.
And I feel frustrated too. Um.
11:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Because I mean, I mean, I mean the implementation. I mean, there's been some years now let's be this is not something that just happened last year. The bill came into existence in 2021. Um, well, you know, and then we had the business of, you know, some of these things have to be set up. But I mean, we're quite far down the line now, and we haven't had a report from, um, whoever this independent entity is that's supposed to be, um, overseeing this, the pilots and assessing them on the data.
And I mean, anyway, um.
And I mean, anyway, um.
11:25
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Can I just ask a very technical question with respect to you said it's not mandatory, but with respect to mandating someone to attend a mental health assessment or even a drug and alcohol treatment, I thought you cannot mandate unless it's covered in the Mental Health Act. Can you mandate is it a separate piece of legislation then that you're looking for?Because, yeah.
11:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think what was happening in the pilots was that there was this understanding that you couldn't do that. Um, and in an amendment that has just recently passed, but has not been implemented yet, that has been that loophole has been closed. To at least mandate the assessment, if that's the one that. That's right.
11:26
11:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Nicole, is there anything else that you'd like to see?I mean, obviously you're very concerned about the the whole business of how the dapple thing is developing and the prospectus of the prospect of having a roll out in January is looking very, questionable. So is there anything you want to add to that?Because that does seem concerning to me too.
11:26
11:26
11:27
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. Um, Will, we discussed a little before That will be before about 16 and 17 year olds. But of course, the Act has named children as victims in their own right. And we think that's right. But, you know, following on from the the previous conversation just now, um. Are they being looked after?I mean, what's what actions would you now say to the government that they need to take to make this more effective for children?
11:27
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I would say, um. You know, my starting point is if if it is true that the, the headline commitment within the violence against women and girls strategy has been families first, there's been the work in schools that I mentioned earlier and those commitments, which is now being implemented through the Youth Endowment Foundation. That. They should be really clear that that commitment is actually resulting in support for children, specifically about domestic abuse. I think my worry is and I do understand this ambition, is to say, we've done this big review of children's social care.
We're now putting all of our time and energy from the Department of Education's point of view in correcting those kind of basic services within children's social care. But what we know and what I know from doing the victims in their own right report is that most areas still don't understand, um, what, what we mean when we've made that definition change in terms of services that should be in place. And what children have said to me is they want specific, um, help for recovering and understanding domestic abuse that they've, that they've been through and has impacted them.
So it feels like I'm, I feel slightly out of, um, sync with government in terms of, of course, within families first, there's, there's family hubs, there's early help. The question would be, is that meaning that when those decisions at local level are being taken, is that resulting in, you know, co-location of domestic abuse services targeted for children and families in those family hubs?Is that happening?Are there counseling and support services for children like in theory, yes, but in actuality, I still question that because I do as I do with the police.
I mean, I do, um, we do spend a lot of time trying to make these connections in to the local in my office. And that's not what I hear consistently. And so there has to be something more provocative, I believe, with the Department of Education to say, you've got to show that and expect that. Um, and I don't think we're, we're there yet. And my, I still believe you need independent help for children. Um, in community based, um, support, specialist support.
We're now putting all of our time and energy from the Department of Education's point of view in correcting those kind of basic services within children's social care. But what we know and what I know from doing the victims in their own right report is that most areas still don't understand, um, what, what we mean when we've made that definition change in terms of services that should be in place. And what children have said to me is they want specific, um, help for recovering and understanding domestic abuse that they've, that they've been through and has impacted them.
So it feels like I'm, I feel slightly out of, um, sync with government in terms of, of course, within families first, there's, there's family hubs, there's early help. The question would be, is that meaning that when those decisions at local level are being taken, is that resulting in, you know, co-location of domestic abuse services targeted for children and families in those family hubs?Is that happening?Are there counseling and support services for children like in theory, yes, but in actuality, I still question that because I do as I do with the police.
I mean, I do, um, we do spend a lot of time trying to make these connections in to the local in my office. And that's not what I hear consistently. And so there has to be something more provocative, I believe, with the Department of Education to say, you've got to show that and expect that. Um, and I don't think we're, we're there yet. And my, I still believe you need independent help for children. Um, in community based, um, support, specialist support.
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
One of the things is that, you know, um. One of the fears of women, certainly in my experience of who are experiencing domestic abuse, is that their fear is that on the one hand, they wanted to stop. Um, and, um. And they're very concerned for their children. Um, but they also have fears about their children being taken away from them. Um, even, even on temporary bases. And so if, if the automatic thing is, um, I call the police, but social, they're going to immediately be letting the family hub and social services know, then there's a risk that we don't run at my door and they'll start sort of questioning my mothering and so on as well.
And I might find that they're all over, all over us. And like a rash and we will I will not be with my children. So a lot of women really are fearful of that as they are fearful of, you know, other kinds of consequences. So, um, what do you do about that?How do you how is that managed when you've got young police officers who are coming, you know, straight into the police force, a certain amount of training, but who may have never had direct experience of that kind of abuse or the fears that live in the hearts of mothers, of children.
And I might find that they're all over, all over us. And like a rash and we will I will not be with my children. So a lot of women really are fearful of that as they are fearful of, you know, other kinds of consequences. So, um, what do you do about that?How do you how is that managed when you've got young police officers who are coming, you know, straight into the police force, a certain amount of training, but who may have never had direct experience of that kind of abuse or the fears that live in the hearts of mothers, of children.
11:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I mean, I thank you for raising that because it's it is one of the the way you fix that in part, is you offer victims independent support. That doesn't mean support that wouldn't be flagging safeguarding concerns or addressing things properly, or who are not professional or trained well. But but situated in an independent service like specialist domestic abuse services, specialist services, because what victims will say and do say is I can I can trust you and I can that bridging of that getting over those hurdles of concerns.
And and that is what a lot of our serious case reviews, frankly, have said over and over and over is that when you have some of that independent community based very much, I'm a huge believer in by and for support, meaning the more specific community based support, the more likely you are. It's just a human being to feel you will be be able to talk to someone about your worst fears and concerns, and they will help navigate into these systems better. And we'll advocate for the victim if they feel they're being mistreated or misunderstood.
And we have to bake that in to. Our way of working, what we choose to prioritise in terms of funding. And we're not doing that well enough.
And and that is what a lot of our serious case reviews, frankly, have said over and over and over is that when you have some of that independent community based very much, I'm a huge believer in by and for support, meaning the more specific community based support, the more likely you are. It's just a human being to feel you will be be able to talk to someone about your worst fears and concerns, and they will help navigate into these systems better. And we'll advocate for the victim if they feel they're being mistreated or misunderstood.
And we have to bake that in to. Our way of working, what we choose to prioritise in terms of funding. And we're not doing that well enough.
11:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, we've we've heard from some groups, community groups who work with the police and who, when necessary, are working with social services departments and so on. But the it seems to me that the best outcomes are where they are very proactive. And we had a marvelous woman from Exeter who herself, you know, had very clear understanding of domestic abuse and who was absolutely marvellous in obviously, the way in which she could connect very quickly and easily with victims and gain their trust. And I think that that that piece is one of the essential bits of all of this, because once it becomes sort of, you know.
I'm the government, I'm here to help you is not. Something that people often relish. They would much rather.
I'm the government, I'm here to help you is not. Something that people often relish. They would much rather.
11:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I agree with you wholeheartedly. And there is a way. And this is something that, of course, was debated in the Domestic Abuse Act that failed was to continue, you know, to have that statutory provision of support, which we achieved in part for for accommodation based services. You know, there was a huge amount of work, which I very much supported, which was about creating a similar duty for community based support, children and community based support. That's what you're describing, exactly what that is.
And that has been rejected. And to this day is still that funding is still very, very fragmented. Um, and it gets to these local services and, and sometimes not. Um, but gets to them in various ways that, that could be vastly.
And that has been rejected. And to this day is still that funding is still very, very fragmented. Um, and it gets to these local services and, and sometimes not. Um, but gets to them in various ways that, that could be vastly.
11:33
11:33
11:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We've really we've really got to got to ramp that up and, and let people see why it's so important. Um, Baroness Goodyear, we've. Heard about migrant victims of domestic abuse. And their situation is worsened by the fact they have an insecure immigration status, can't access public funds. And then in turn, the knock on effect is they can't get safe accommodation. And then there's the issue of lack of a firewall between the police and enforcement and immigration enforcement. And then now we're hearing that actually the police will ask the victims for permission, um, to, to disclose.
Um, I don't even know. It would be good to know what you think in terms of how free and informed that consent is. So how can these issues be addressed?And specifically on accommodation, what is your assessment of part four of the act of the duty of local authorities to provide safe accommodation, and how well funded do you think it is nationally?
Um, I don't even know. It would be good to know what you think in terms of how free and informed that consent is. So how can these issues be addressed?And specifically on accommodation, what is your assessment of part four of the act of the duty of local authorities to provide safe accommodation, and how well funded do you think it is nationally?
11:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, on the issue that relates to the firewall, the. The, the issue of asking for consent, I, I disagree with that. Obviously, I don't think that works in practice. I don't think anyone who would, if you put yourself in the position of being, you know, the police have arrived. You're not sure you have all of these barriers. I mean, there's there's it's the imbalance. There is such that you there's so many ways that will go wrong.
Um, and it won't work. And so it needs to be straightforward. Just a clear firewall. Um, that clarity is the only way that you, you achieve anything there. Um, most police colleagues I talk to, in fact, I can't recall anyone I've ever talked to that said, Nicole, please don't argue for a firewall. They're totally, you know, they don't see any reason why they wouldn't have a firewall. I don't know why we don't just do that.
Um, and so, and certainly victims will say that. So I have I very strongly agree with that provision and the need to change this idea of the consent, um, being sort. And if. Well, I don't even want to go down the road, if you did do that, but what would have to be in place for you to really feel confident that there would be consent in terms.
Um, and it won't work. And so it needs to be straightforward. Just a clear firewall. Um, that clarity is the only way that you, you achieve anything there. Um, most police colleagues I talk to, in fact, I can't recall anyone I've ever talked to that said, Nicole, please don't argue for a firewall. They're totally, you know, they don't see any reason why they wouldn't have a firewall. I don't know why we don't just do that.
Um, and so, and certainly victims will say that. So I have I very strongly agree with that provision and the need to change this idea of the consent, um, being sort. And if. Well, I don't even want to go down the road, if you did do that, but what would have to be in place for you to really feel confident that there would be consent in terms.
11:36
11:37
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Part four. Again, the simple answer is it would be a lot easier to understand what's been achieved in part four if local areas were required to to submit that. And that was in a public facing clear document. Um and so that there is returns, there is kind of an exchange of information between Mhclg and local areas, but it doesn't culminate in, you know, let's have a look and see exactly what area, how many bed spaces, what kind of accommodation based activity, who is accessing those spaces and, and the demographics.
So we could make sense of it. That would make it much, much easier. It's been a step forward, but it's there's very valid concern about this in housing of the funds. Um, so taking again in the data return, you were given X amount of money. How much of it did you spend on what you know that is important to know. And that's not something we know because what we do hear from time to time is areas that have decided to commission something out, but not the full amount.
They've kept some in and we're, you know, what has that been used for?Um, so that is the, that is the simple answer to that.
So we could make sense of it. That would make it much, much easier. It's been a step forward, but it's there's very valid concern about this in housing of the funds. Um, so taking again in the data return, you were given X amount of money. How much of it did you spend on what you know that is important to know. And that's not something we know because what we do hear from time to time is areas that have decided to commission something out, but not the full amount.
They've kept some in and we're, you know, what has that been used for?Um, so that is the, that is the simple answer to that.
11:38
11:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes, I think it is a lot about the transparency of, um, you know, what practice directions are being used within the family court. Um, how often is that happening?Where is that happening?What kind of support is being put in place?You know, in terms of Fcdo and the, you know, some consulates will be very, very skilled and good. Is that clear that that's the case in all areas?Um, a lot of this is where I think for particular groups of people where very significant harm happens in smaller numbers, that very important, we have to have better transparency and oversight about what are those mechanisms and how are they being used, and how do we bring that much more to light.
Again, that's very achievable. Um, and it's just something that needs, needs. The, the, the encouragement and the priority.
Again, that's very achievable. Um, and it's just something that needs, needs. The, the, the encouragement and the priority.
11:39
11:39
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you. Um, we've heard that some victims experience a family courts can at times be as traumatising as the original abuse. And certainly when I was doing front line work with women, some of whom I accompanied, family court, I can absolutely recognise that characterization, unfortunately, however, we have also heard some really positive things about Pathfinder Court's pilot, which is going to be renamed the child Focused courts when they're rolled out nationally. But what needs to be done to ensure these positives are retained and then developed in that national rollout when it comes?
11:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes. Um, I'm building myself as kind of everywhere all the time, but I really have genuinely spent a lot of time on family court. You know, we've, we've done, we've published two reports I go to, I've been to the Pathfinder sites. Um, most of them, although they're rolling out more and more, they are very good news. The child focused courts, it's so important to have a child impact assessment done as quickly as possible. Like in some, it would be the way you would set up the family court if you were designing it now.
I mean, it's just important. And, and it allows you to have domestic abuse understanding quite early. So in order to maintain it. And I was just speaking at a family justice conference earlier this week of all the family justice boards. And I say this a lot to MoJ. And to be fair, I feel like it's quite an open listening. I mean, this is a part of government that is really, um, moving forward and quite open to these changes, which is I mean, I know I deliver a lot of bad news.
That's some very good news. Um, but what we have to do in the rollout is maintain the quality. So what's happening is that they turn out to be very efficient because lo and behold, you don't have people going down the road of very long, protracted adversarial proceedings. And that's a very good thing for everyone, including obviously, including the children. But if it becomes an efficiency pilot, you know that that's where we would go wrong because it's it was not set out to be an efficiency.
It was set out to fix the problems that were in the harm panel report, which were about not understanding domestic abuse. So the biggest advice I do give is in the rollout, the domestic abuse element of that assessment at the start has got to stay really robust. Um, it has to include the kind of funding and the join up to make sure those assessments are getting done. It really high quality. Um, and making sure that there's kind of that funding and the training for the rollout.
Because I, I think everyone would go to great pains to say that even the early sites were not places where everyone was in agreement and everything was fine. So there has been a lot of change. But I think the more we roll this out as business as usual, we want to maintain the quality and the the effect that it was intended to have, which is to understand the context as early as possible of each child so that that that's what the court focuses on. And we are and have agreed with the Ministry of Justice to do another iteration of our research.
Focused courts. And we'll be starting that in the autumn, um, so that we can maintain a little bit of oversight about how does it, how are these courts really, um, changing the way domestic abuse is addressed. And very importantly, we have the ambition and I hope we're able to do it, to speak to children directly and hear from children directly in that research. So, um, I'm very hopeful about that. Thank you. Thanks.
I mean, it's just important. And, and it allows you to have domestic abuse understanding quite early. So in order to maintain it. And I was just speaking at a family justice conference earlier this week of all the family justice boards. And I say this a lot to MoJ. And to be fair, I feel like it's quite an open listening. I mean, this is a part of government that is really, um, moving forward and quite open to these changes, which is I mean, I know I deliver a lot of bad news.
That's some very good news. Um, but what we have to do in the rollout is maintain the quality. So what's happening is that they turn out to be very efficient because lo and behold, you don't have people going down the road of very long, protracted adversarial proceedings. And that's a very good thing for everyone, including obviously, including the children. But if it becomes an efficiency pilot, you know that that's where we would go wrong because it's it was not set out to be an efficiency.
It was set out to fix the problems that were in the harm panel report, which were about not understanding domestic abuse. So the biggest advice I do give is in the rollout, the domestic abuse element of that assessment at the start has got to stay really robust. Um, it has to include the kind of funding and the join up to make sure those assessments are getting done. It really high quality. Um, and making sure that there's kind of that funding and the training for the rollout.
Because I, I think everyone would go to great pains to say that even the early sites were not places where everyone was in agreement and everything was fine. So there has been a lot of change. But I think the more we roll this out as business as usual, we want to maintain the quality and the the effect that it was intended to have, which is to understand the context as early as possible of each child so that that that's what the court focuses on. And we are and have agreed with the Ministry of Justice to do another iteration of our research.
Focused courts. And we'll be starting that in the autumn, um, so that we can maintain a little bit of oversight about how does it, how are these courts really, um, changing the way domestic abuse is addressed. And very importantly, we have the ambition and I hope we're able to do it, to speak to children directly and hear from children directly in that research. So, um, I'm very hopeful about that. Thank you. Thanks.
11:43
11:43
11:43
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Also, Nicole, for the clarity of your answers. Um, the government's been telling us that they're developing a number of specialist telephone support services, including for ethnic minority groups, the disabled and LGBT plus communities. I wondered if you made an assessment of these and what your view is of how they're actually operating on the ground.
11:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, I think helplines often get overlooked, actually. And I've been, um, I've been prone to that myself because you just think of them as a given. Um, but they're so important as a first point of contact for someone who's very worried about systems, worried about the perpetrator, worried about all sorts of things, just to have that ability to call and speak to someone. So the quality of those helplines are incredibly important. And, and what it seems that I mean, they're commissioning over the summer.
Um, you know, there's tenders out right now. And what it seems to me that they're trying to achieve. Um, this tends to be the, you might think it's a strange place to sit, but the Home Office holds the ring on those contracts. By and large, there's a little bit of MoJ as well. But what's been tendered over the summer is this idea that there would be a very clear, um, ambition that you would have more bespoke, more obvious, um helplines for particular groups.
And I think um as long as those, those helplines are working together and that's all in the way they'll be designing right now and bidding in together. Like that's, that's for them to decide how they coordinate. Um, or it could be a large organisation that tries to achieve all of those specialisms that will be in the tender to decide, but it is really important that particular groups know that they, I believe, know they have that pathway to support. So victims of honour based abuse, um, male victims, LGBT.
Q plus victims. It is, it is very true that those survivors often will think maybe I will call, especially if they see those overt signals that these are people who understand me. So I think that's a really great ambition. My you know, where I would pour some cold water on it is that obviously, helplines will always be very dependent on the services locally, that they have to be able to refer on to. And then we're back to your point and Lord Pollock's point.
Um, you know, there's tenders out right now. And what it seems to me that they're trying to achieve. Um, this tends to be the, you might think it's a strange place to sit, but the Home Office holds the ring on those contracts. By and large, there's a little bit of MoJ as well. But what's been tendered over the summer is this idea that there would be a very clear, um, ambition that you would have more bespoke, more obvious, um helplines for particular groups.
And I think um as long as those, those helplines are working together and that's all in the way they'll be designing right now and bidding in together. Like that's, that's for them to decide how they coordinate. Um, or it could be a large organisation that tries to achieve all of those specialisms that will be in the tender to decide, but it is really important that particular groups know that they, I believe, know they have that pathway to support. So victims of honour based abuse, um, male victims, LGBT.
Q plus victims. It is, it is very true that those survivors often will think maybe I will call, especially if they see those overt signals that these are people who understand me. So I think that's a really great ambition. My you know, where I would pour some cold water on it is that obviously, helplines will always be very dependent on the services locally, that they have to be able to refer on to. And then we're back to your point and Lord Pollock's point.
11:45
11:45
11:45
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Um, this follows on a question from Lord Pollock earlier. Um, your role obviously was established on a statutory footing within the act. So I just wondered, you know, if there's anything on that you change to enable you to fulfil your role more effectively. Are there any sort of barriers that the way it was set up has given you?And also you talked earlier about kind of working across so many departments. You mentioned Dcit and Justice, and I imagine there's health and education and, you know, so cross-cutting, how is your kind of ease of access to very senior levels of that department?Do you feel as though the way your role is set up sort of enables you to be able to, to take actions and get stuff done?
11:46
11:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes. Um, I mean, I received some very good advice about this early on, um which was to say, you know, Nicole, you will, everyone is individual in these roles. These are kind of quite unusual roles. It will be what you make of it. Um, and you really have got, and that is the, the kind of the wonderful thing about the role and also the kind of thing that always makes you feel like you haven't quite achieved everything because it's just. So how long, how much can you do?And so there is, there is that, I mean, on the access in it is, I feel really important to say I've not felt held back by, um, getting into meetings.
I want to be in asking for, for information by and large that I'd like to see, we talked about earlier, an exception, you know, some of the evaluation work, but that's a little more rare. I do meet across departments with ministers and with. I very much go out of my way to meet with civil servants because they will be implementing so much of what is going on and, and others. And so it's that part of it has not been difficult. I do understand when I'm meeting with with people who are genuinely engaging with me and wanting a good advice.
And when they're thinking, I know you're telling me you should do this, but I'm not intending to do it, you know, I mean, of course that happens and you try every lever you have, whether that's public influencing, whether that's aligning with others. I mean, we try very hard to use all of those levers, including the powers and the act. Um, so I think you should feel confident that the commissioner's role does get in there. Um, where we've had a lot of trouble in the last year is um, being as a commissioner, this hadn't happened for quite a while, but in the last year we've been caught up with constraints within the Home Office on budget where, um, you know, we've not been able to hire for vacancies.
We've not been able to spend, um, funds. And that has greatly frustrated me the entire year because I, it took me a while to realise because I frankly hadn't happened before. And the argument we have made is, um, if we're allocated a budget and as long as we're staying within it, we should be able to do that and we shouldn't be in any kind of cost cutting constraints that the rest of the department is in as an arm's length body. I mean, I appreciate if that has to happen, but but if we're allocated a budget, we couldn't we can't be an arm's length body on one hand and then considered part of the core on the other.
That's not the way it should work. So we are in the middle of revising our framework document. The act sets out that we must have a framework document, and we've also have a memorandum of understanding. On our end. We have fixed all of those problems and suggested how those things can be fixed, because, of course, I want my team and I want to be held accountable. Um, and I want that to work, but I don't want to be swept up into problems, wider problems and so on.
The Home Office, we they have not signed all of that off yet, but we have you know, I've been assured that that will happen. And, and.
I want to be in asking for, for information by and large that I'd like to see, we talked about earlier, an exception, you know, some of the evaluation work, but that's a little more rare. I do meet across departments with ministers and with. I very much go out of my way to meet with civil servants because they will be implementing so much of what is going on and, and others. And so it's that part of it has not been difficult. I do understand when I'm meeting with with people who are genuinely engaging with me and wanting a good advice.
And when they're thinking, I know you're telling me you should do this, but I'm not intending to do it, you know, I mean, of course that happens and you try every lever you have, whether that's public influencing, whether that's aligning with others. I mean, we try very hard to use all of those levers, including the powers and the act. Um, so I think you should feel confident that the commissioner's role does get in there. Um, where we've had a lot of trouble in the last year is um, being as a commissioner, this hadn't happened for quite a while, but in the last year we've been caught up with constraints within the Home Office on budget where, um, you know, we've not been able to hire for vacancies.
We've not been able to spend, um, funds. And that has greatly frustrated me the entire year because I, it took me a while to realise because I frankly hadn't happened before. And the argument we have made is, um, if we're allocated a budget and as long as we're staying within it, we should be able to do that and we shouldn't be in any kind of cost cutting constraints that the rest of the department is in as an arm's length body. I mean, I appreciate if that has to happen, but but if we're allocated a budget, we couldn't we can't be an arm's length body on one hand and then considered part of the core on the other.
That's not the way it should work. So we are in the middle of revising our framework document. The act sets out that we must have a framework document, and we've also have a memorandum of understanding. On our end. We have fixed all of those problems and suggested how those things can be fixed, because, of course, I want my team and I want to be held accountable. Um, and I want that to work, but I don't want to be swept up into problems, wider problems and so on.
The Home Office, we they have not signed all of that off yet, but we have you know, I've been assured that that will happen. And, and.
11:49
11:50
11:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
They make up a quarter of of domestic homicide rates. So in terms of the helpline funding, uh, it's about 900 zero zero £0 for the minority ethnic cohort, and that's over two and a half years. So that's about 350, 000 roughly per year. Mhm. How does that compare with the other groups. And is that enough?I mean is that seems like a tiny amount given the scale of the problem. I just wanted to get your opinion on it.
11:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's likely not enough. I think with the helplines in general they've said um to government over many years, most helplines are having to supplement with other funds and other kinds of income. And I know that the government has increased the kind of overall envelope in this round, but I'm quite certain it won't be enough. I mean, that's the whole point, is that the the better we're doing, the more you likely will have people calling. That would be a good thing. And so we should equip our services with the ability to, to scale up to that ambition.
And that requires a lot more. I mean, in this area in general, it just requires so much more ambition and focus from, I know funding sounds like, well, that's not the only thing, but but in an area where, where services are so chronically underfunded, um, we, we have to face up to that. And I think by, and for services, I would really encourage, you know, some of the work that, that we've published on by and for services. And I do say it all the time, but they are by far and away the most impactful of services for victims and survivors.
And they get the least amount of funding. And I do have figures about, um, you know, that we can make sure that you have about what kind of serious investment that requires because again, this is just a, the more we move to this idea of localism, uh, local, uh, governance. The, the more the risks of that will be that some of the most impactful services get lost because they won't have that ability to be successful as much as others at a local kind of local grant making.
That means government, if we know that, has to step in and mitigate that risk and make sure that we have regional national funds that are adequate for these types of services.
And that requires a lot more. I mean, in this area in general, it just requires so much more ambition and focus from, I know funding sounds like, well, that's not the only thing, but but in an area where, where services are so chronically underfunded, um, we, we have to face up to that. And I think by, and for services, I would really encourage, you know, some of the work that, that we've published on by and for services. And I do say it all the time, but they are by far and away the most impactful of services for victims and survivors.
And they get the least amount of funding. And I do have figures about, um, you know, that we can make sure that you have about what kind of serious investment that requires because again, this is just a, the more we move to this idea of localism, uh, local, uh, governance. The, the more the risks of that will be that some of the most impactful services get lost because they won't have that ability to be successful as much as others at a local kind of local grant making.
That means government, if we know that, has to step in and mitigate that risk and make sure that we have regional national funds that are adequate for these types of services.
11:52
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
And I just wanted to add that one of the things that has become very clear is that it is by contact with helplines, with community groups, that the women themselves then start finding the language to explain some of their experiences because, for example, women themselves are not likely to say to the police, I'm suffering from coercive control. They don't say that. But what they do say is, he's not letting me see my mother. He's not letting me visit my sisters. He's not letting me have friends over to visit me.
You know, all of that sort of thing. And they and they, they, they get a greater understanding of the ways in which their lives are shrinking as a result of behaviours.
You know, all of that sort of thing. And they and they, they, they get a greater understanding of the ways in which their lives are shrinking as a result of behaviours.