Domestic Abuse Act 2021 Committee
Thursday 16th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week, 6 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Anything less than a billion and they don't care. Sort of thing. So don't worry. I asked for more than that all the time. What's in a letter wrote that said, you can give me this free thing or you can give me £3 billion. You choose. Um, but, um, they that that was not. And that is what I would suggest going forward in the next CSR. If we're truly going to try and do it jointly.
But that, that doesn't make commissioning happen jointly on the ground. Uh, so you need both, you do need joint commissioning on the ground and the violence against women and girls strategy does commit to doing a proper, um. Centralized guide. And I don't like the word guide. I want it to be, I want it to be completely and utterly mandatory for commissioning.
But that, that doesn't make commissioning happen jointly on the ground. Uh, so you need both, you do need joint commissioning on the ground and the violence against women and girls strategy does commit to doing a proper, um. Centralized guide. And I don't like the word guide. I want it to be, I want it to be completely and utterly mandatory for commissioning.
10:56
10:56
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
There should be, there should be. There should have been a joint bid across government for a pot of money. That was. And I asked this is this was not not asked for. It was asked for repeatedly, um, to, to do the violence against women and girls strategy. Yeah. Because it covers every government department. It's very hard when you go to secretaries of state who've got a prison crisis or, um, immigration or everybody's got an iceberg, send whatever it is, pick your poison.
Every government department has got an iceberg in it. Um, and so then you are, um, you are asking you, it felt a lot of the time while I was, we were getting to the end of writing the strategy that I was Wes Streeting said to me that it felt like I was holding him upside down and shaking out his pockets. Um, he said it in a charming way, but, uh, that that was what it, that was essentially what it was. It was.
Every government department has got an iceberg in it. Um, and so then you are, um, you are asking you, it felt a lot of the time while I was, we were getting to the end of writing the strategy that I was Wes Streeting said to me that it felt like I was holding him upside down and shaking out his pockets. Um, he said it in a charming way, but, uh, that that was what it, that was essentially what it was. It was.
10:57
10:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
They're more than happy to do it. Um, but that, like that was, that became like my job to do that. The Prime Minister, to be fair to him, he, he, he would regularly convene meetings of the cabinet, but there was never like, you know, never anyone saying, well, you've got to give a certain percentage of your budget or whatever, like, and, and everybody would come for that treatment if I got it. Um, so it was a lot of shaking people down, some with success, some with not, not with success.
But I have to say, the Department for health admittedly get a better settlement than anyone else, uh, apart from the Ministry of Defence who also put their hands in their pockets. The Department for health. What is written into the strategy is the thing I am proudest of, actually, because it shows it shows a forward looking, complete cultural change. So it became all the children's sexual abuse services, including the bit that is courts and police going in and, and into these multi-agency centres is being.
The bill is being funded by the Department for health for the first time, and they are paying money into the Ministry of Justice victims pot because I managed to win the argument that they should pay for what they use. Um, and also they are the icbs will all be given money to do specific domestic abuse and to fund domestic abuse specialist community based services. So they were the ones who took the mantle, the greatest. And they came on the, the farthest journey actually. Um, but it is, I mean, so much of that, I have to say, the credit needs to go to good leadership from Wes in putting Jess Asato, uh, and another woman with, who's not afraid to hang people upside down and has a huge amount of knowledge.
It's like a characteristic of being called Jess in this building. Um, in, in Dar um, to really, really do a sort of task and finish piece of work. And that is what every government department needs. They need a Jess whether me or her.
But I have to say, the Department for health admittedly get a better settlement than anyone else, uh, apart from the Ministry of Defence who also put their hands in their pockets. The Department for health. What is written into the strategy is the thing I am proudest of, actually, because it shows it shows a forward looking, complete cultural change. So it became all the children's sexual abuse services, including the bit that is courts and police going in and, and into these multi-agency centres is being.
The bill is being funded by the Department for health for the first time, and they are paying money into the Ministry of Justice victims pot because I managed to win the argument that they should pay for what they use. Um, and also they are the icbs will all be given money to do specific domestic abuse and to fund domestic abuse specialist community based services. So they were the ones who took the mantle, the greatest. And they came on the, the farthest journey actually. Um, but it is, I mean, so much of that, I have to say, the credit needs to go to good leadership from Wes in putting Jess Asato, uh, and another woman with, who's not afraid to hang people upside down and has a huge amount of knowledge.
It's like a characteristic of being called Jess in this building. Um, in, in Dar um, to really, really do a sort of task and finish piece of work. And that is what every government department needs. They need a Jess whether me or her.
10:59
10:59
10:59
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Mhm. Um and not focusing on the pattern of behaviour that is coercive control and actually all domestic abuse. Um, so I just wondered, um, what do you think needs to be done to change this and will the formation of a national police force be an opportunity or not?And then I've got a third little thing. So we heard yesterday from survivors and they, they, it was a small group. So but they all agreed that um. They felt that day matters.
Training is out of date now. Um, so what, bearing those three things in mind, National police force, the da da matters. Um, what do you think needs to be done to get that focus on the pattern?
Training is out of date now. Um, so what, bearing those three things in mind, National police force, the da da matters. Um, what do you think needs to be done to get that focus on the pattern?
11:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, look, there is a real opportunity with police reform. Um, and I say this tentatively, not knowing whether that will go out or not. We're all in a sort of weird limbo. Um, but, um, there is a real opportunity to take a blank piece of paper and start again. Regards to, and actually my experience of working with chief constables across the country is that they want to do that. There is no shortage actually, I'd say at grassroots policing and, um, at the very top of policing in a desire to improve the police response, I think there is a sort of a, there is definitely a problem with promotion and middle management is, uh, is where I, um, perceive most of the issues.
Um, and who is held accountable within police forces for failures. And we're not talking about trouble is when you start to talk about policing failure, you get into like people being kicked out and suspended because they're sex pests or like they do terrible, uh, things and domestic homicide reviews. I am talking much, much, much more pedestrian, just not the not doing a good enough job, really. Now, I have to say, I feel for police forces across the country in the manner in which there's a number of things that you could do that around promotion, around training.
Um, and I'm absolutely here to hear that the Da matters training is potentially, I mean, if you just include the online space, which most police officers, if they sat in front of you now would say that the digital element of violence against women and girls is the biggest problem in the workplace at the moment. And they don't really have the tools and resources. Lots of them are working on various different technologies to try and overcome that. Um, but, uh, all there is, there needs to be a better accountability about just good service.
I'd say, uh, with regard, and that can be done by, uh, what the home office monitors. And there is always a balance when you want to collect data. Um, you want to monitor performance of not making a two burdensome system for a copper on a call out because I want them to actually act like a copper with curiosity and spend time with the woman. Um, so like you have to try and find a fine balance, um, in. That place, if the police were sitting here, what they would say to you is that the reason that they don't, uh, like, you know, like it's getting a coercive and controlling charge over the line would be much, much harder.
Uh, looking at patterns of abuse is not actually how the court system works. Not certainly not with speed. So the vast majority of people actually have become much police forces have become, in a good way, much more focused on safeguarding the victim. So get them an order. Get the person in front of a court tomorrow. Like, you know, it's become much more safeguard the situation than it has about following the lines of inquiry about the perpetrator. Now, Operation Soteria has done some of the work in looking at that in rape and looking at much more at following lines of inquiry in rape.
But we need essentially a similar operation. Soteria for Dia and the National Centre. And I have discussed this. So we are the the government funds a new National policing centre for Vawg. Um and we have had this discussion even about like what the risk assessments that they use, let alone the training, what are they fit for purpose to, to, but we want to keep doing the safeguarding, but also follow the lines of inquiry. And I think that lots of us around this table have campaigned so much for like, let's get this woman quick and safe.
Like I take some I take some of the blame for actually that it has moved away from lines of inquiry into pattern and onto immediate rescue. So I think that that we need to look at what risk assessment and that work is, is, is being, is being done at the moment by the National Centre, about training about, um, about risk assessments and, and, and secondary risk assessments as well. Um, in, in other sort of crime types beyond the dash or the risk assessment, which is the names of the risk assessments that, that most agencies in the field use.
Um, but it, uh, yeah, but I also think that that, and an accountability framework that is that you have opportunities to create, uh, also. You shouldn't ever be able to get promoted.
Um, and who is held accountable within police forces for failures. And we're not talking about trouble is when you start to talk about policing failure, you get into like people being kicked out and suspended because they're sex pests or like they do terrible, uh, things and domestic homicide reviews. I am talking much, much, much more pedestrian, just not the not doing a good enough job, really. Now, I have to say, I feel for police forces across the country in the manner in which there's a number of things that you could do that around promotion, around training.
Um, and I'm absolutely here to hear that the Da matters training is potentially, I mean, if you just include the online space, which most police officers, if they sat in front of you now would say that the digital element of violence against women and girls is the biggest problem in the workplace at the moment. And they don't really have the tools and resources. Lots of them are working on various different technologies to try and overcome that. Um, but, uh, all there is, there needs to be a better accountability about just good service.
I'd say, uh, with regard, and that can be done by, uh, what the home office monitors. And there is always a balance when you want to collect data. Um, you want to monitor performance of not making a two burdensome system for a copper on a call out because I want them to actually act like a copper with curiosity and spend time with the woman. Um, so like you have to try and find a fine balance, um, in. That place, if the police were sitting here, what they would say to you is that the reason that they don't, uh, like, you know, like it's getting a coercive and controlling charge over the line would be much, much harder.
Uh, looking at patterns of abuse is not actually how the court system works. Not certainly not with speed. So the vast majority of people actually have become much police forces have become, in a good way, much more focused on safeguarding the victim. So get them an order. Get the person in front of a court tomorrow. Like, you know, it's become much more safeguard the situation than it has about following the lines of inquiry about the perpetrator. Now, Operation Soteria has done some of the work in looking at that in rape and looking at much more at following lines of inquiry in rape.
But we need essentially a similar operation. Soteria for Dia and the National Centre. And I have discussed this. So we are the the government funds a new National policing centre for Vawg. Um and we have had this discussion even about like what the risk assessments that they use, let alone the training, what are they fit for purpose to, to, but we want to keep doing the safeguarding, but also follow the lines of inquiry. And I think that lots of us around this table have campaigned so much for like, let's get this woman quick and safe.
Like I take some I take some of the blame for actually that it has moved away from lines of inquiry into pattern and onto immediate rescue. So I think that that we need to look at what risk assessment and that work is, is, is being, is being done at the moment by the National Centre, about training about, um, about risk assessments and, and, and secondary risk assessments as well. Um, in, in other sort of crime types beyond the dash or the risk assessment, which is the names of the risk assessments that, that most agencies in the field use.
Um, but it, uh, yeah, but I also think that that, and an accountability framework that is that you have opportunities to create, uh, also. You shouldn't ever be able to get promoted.
11:05
11:05
11:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I have to tell you, I did a thing on banking once and it was middle management. That was a problem about not promoting women to higher levels. Yeah. And I said, all you have to do is you introduce into the middle management that one of the things that will determine what bonus they get is what they've done to promote, but.
11:05
11:05
11:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Don't have any, any I don't know why it wouldn't be possible if you were running like a unit in Birmingham of the, the, the Public Protection Unit, you were working on child abuse and Da and you had nationally a much worse. No further action rate or you. You know, like or even, I don't know, ask the people you're serving how it was for them, you know, crazy idea. Um, like I don't know why that shouldn't mark against you for promotion. I also don't think you should ever be able to become a chief constable unless you've worked in public protection.
I don't think that you. And actually, the pathways of promotion within policing are far greater. If you hold a gun than if you hold a baby in your arms and rescue it. That's not acceptable. You shouldn't ever be able to be a chief constable if you have not done a good, reliable, uh, good job in public protection.
I don't think that you. And actually, the pathways of promotion within policing are far greater. If you hold a gun than if you hold a baby in your arms and rescue it. That's not acceptable. You shouldn't ever be able to be a chief constable if you have not done a good, reliable, uh, good job in public protection.
11:07
11:07
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. I want to ask you about tech and online. Obviously you talked about that in your introduction and also shared some of your frustration on that and your resignation letter. And we've heard lots of evidence about the growth of it all. You talked a bit about, you know, the police talking about not being able to address that, but what are your thoughts on where we need to go forward from here?
11:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Um, I think that there is needs to be a whole scale rethinking about, you know, I'm quite old school. I was trained 20 years ago, 25 years ago now in the field when this was completely and utterly not part of the issue. And I would say that across the board of all agencies. Is that so?I met with all of the clinical leads for the Sox around the country. For example, uh, whilst I was a minister, um, and I said to them, so how much, uh, how many referrals are you getting for online child sexual abuse?So all of the children's parks around the country, and they were like none.
Like our system is not. Technically it's not like, you know, and if you were to, if a kid is, has images shared around the school of her, um, and she goes to a teacher and talks to them about that. At the moment there is not proper. The guidance is currently being updated because myself and Josh had started to work on it. Just the Minister for children. Um, and Josh McAllister should give everybody their full names. Um, but the like, there is no way that people react the same way to online abuse.
As a harm to a person in the way that they would if they said, my uncle raped me last night, actually. As well, you have an age problem in that as well, because we don't react in the same way. If a young person says a young person has raped them or a young person has abused them, that that that falls into it because they're much more likely to be as a part of their abuse, be as they're digital natives to be. There is a cultural problem with not recognising online harm as actual harm.
Now, as a person who has suffered huge amounts of online harm, I of course, don't think that the kind of harms that I have suffered should ever, in any strategy, trump the idea of like, you know, domestic abuse, refuge, of course, don't think that. However, we, I think that that attitude that even of people like me has missed a moment in time where online harm became really, really bad and really, really dangerous. So there is a need for a sort of culture shift amongst all agencies dealing with this.
The police, I would say, are crying out for it. I cannot sit in front of, you know, whether it is the local sergeant in my local force, right up to, you know, the head of the met without them just being like, oh my God, like so many of the cases that are coming into us are online, harm are child abuse online?Are they are like desperate that there are technological solutions that can be done in this space. But I do think that, like, there needs to be a much more fundamental regulation of the online space as well that I mean, look, the Online Safety Act, I think doesn't say women in it anywhere.
Like our system is not. Technically it's not like, you know, and if you were to, if a kid is, has images shared around the school of her, um, and she goes to a teacher and talks to them about that. At the moment there is not proper. The guidance is currently being updated because myself and Josh had started to work on it. Just the Minister for children. Um, and Josh McAllister should give everybody their full names. Um, but the like, there is no way that people react the same way to online abuse.
As a harm to a person in the way that they would if they said, my uncle raped me last night, actually. As well, you have an age problem in that as well, because we don't react in the same way. If a young person says a young person has raped them or a young person has abused them, that that that falls into it because they're much more likely to be as a part of their abuse, be as they're digital natives to be. There is a cultural problem with not recognising online harm as actual harm.
Now, as a person who has suffered huge amounts of online harm, I of course, don't think that the kind of harms that I have suffered should ever, in any strategy, trump the idea of like, you know, domestic abuse, refuge, of course, don't think that. However, we, I think that that attitude that even of people like me has missed a moment in time where online harm became really, really bad and really, really dangerous. So there is a need for a sort of culture shift amongst all agencies dealing with this.
The police, I would say, are crying out for it. I cannot sit in front of, you know, whether it is the local sergeant in my local force, right up to, you know, the head of the met without them just being like, oh my God, like so many of the cases that are coming into us are online, harm are child abuse online?Are they are like desperate that there are technological solutions that can be done in this space. But I do think that, like, there needs to be a much more fundamental regulation of the online space as well that I mean, look, the Online Safety Act, I think doesn't say women in it anywhere.
11:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So one of the things that, um, certainly in the House of Lords that we've, we heard evidence about in the course of recent legislation going through was about grooming of children being done by bots online. Um, and, and, and the challenges that presents to a legal system that's not been prepared for that. And so, I mean, those challenges are really significant. Is there a sense that in government of, of how, how that should be?
11:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So it's well, look, there is both. So any policy around the online space sits. I'm going to be completely honest with you quite uncomfortably between the Home office and D sit you uh I'll speak, I'll speak really really really frankly. Now there is a there is. I've rarely I wouldn't say this about the ministers or certainly the Secretary of State. I never found particularly that I always found we were. Me and Liz Kendall were always on the exact same page, so that when the machine starts to look at it, the priorities that sit within DC, the Department for Science and Technology.
You can't want growth from online, right?And also be responsible for policing it. It is it is completely and utterly at. Odds with each other. And so the relationship between the Home Office and that department in trying to progress anything which, you know, as Lords around the room, you know, I remember some of the disastrous issues around, uh, pornography and. Terrible outcomes, I have to say that were stupid. Um, are. It. It is is because there is this, there is a, there is a problem.
And so it's whether the government departments that lead on growth in that sector. I mean, I would argue, of course, that like, you know, we could have loads of growth in our country if we went back to slavery. Um. You shouldn't any growth that is made on the backs of child abuse is not something that I think that should ever be particularly, uh, um. Welcomed. Yes. Um, so yeah, there is a, there is a fundamental problem.
So some of the solutions sit in regulation that sits in the RSA that sits with DC, and then the Home Office will stream in quite rightly when they're not happy with that and start making lots of criminal law. And then you go to um the, the point that you're saying is who's responsible if it's a bot, how do you follow the money?If it were.
You can't want growth from online, right?And also be responsible for policing it. It is it is completely and utterly at. Odds with each other. And so the relationship between the Home Office and that department in trying to progress anything which, you know, as Lords around the room, you know, I remember some of the disastrous issues around, uh, pornography and. Terrible outcomes, I have to say that were stupid. Um, are. It. It is is because there is this, there is a, there is a problem.
And so it's whether the government departments that lead on growth in that sector. I mean, I would argue, of course, that like, you know, we could have loads of growth in our country if we went back to slavery. Um. You shouldn't any growth that is made on the backs of child abuse is not something that I think that should ever be particularly, uh, um. Welcomed. Yes. Um, so yeah, there is a, there is a fundamental problem.
So some of the solutions sit in regulation that sits in the RSA that sits with DC, and then the Home Office will stream in quite rightly when they're not happy with that and start making lots of criminal law. And then you go to um the, the point that you're saying is who's responsible if it's a bot, how do you follow the money?If it were.
11:13
11:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It is about how do you follow the money?How do you find out the platforms?And then the home office gets all like, well, we'll put these people in prison. And then you get once again into this argument where the like that, oh, they'll defend everything in the UK. Um, anyway, like it's just a snapshot of the insanity that some of the meetings that had to live through and my frustration with them. Um, but like the, there is a need for considerably stronger regulation, uh, I would say, and I think that we, it starts to get into a massive mess.
Of course, the actual perpetrators of it. So in the thing that I resigned over, um, like the platforms regulating the platforms will make 91% of that abuse stop. Now of the 9% that is done by adults to children, that is the responsibility of the Home Office. That is the responsibility of law enforcement to just focus on that part of it. And you need the regulation to do. The other side.
Of course, the actual perpetrators of it. So in the thing that I resigned over, um, like the platforms regulating the platforms will make 91% of that abuse stop. Now of the 9% that is done by adults to children, that is the responsibility of the Home Office. That is the responsibility of law enforcement to just focus on that part of it. And you need the regulation to do. The other side.
11:14
11:14
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I look, I think it's still also a bit too early to say isn't it like I. I was with somebody from a child abuse online charity yesterday and I just put the simple question, do you think that because we're arguing for similar things for women as exist for children and terrorism within Ofcom, that's, that's like, you know what, people who want to see this improved have been arguing for ten years in the build up act. The trouble is, is I'm not sure it's made child abuse online better.
So so the simple question I asked was, do you think that the safeguards within the Online Safety Act have made child abuse online better?And the answer is no, not really. It has made some places safer. Um, but. But and I think it, you know, I think that the big mainstream platforms act much quicker on child abuse on their sites than they ever would before, and that they have put in safeguards to try and stop them. Um, however, uh, I don't think that the regulatory framework, um, as it is currently works, uh, at the moment.
No. And I think that that's lots of the work that went into the violence against women and girls strategy was trying to look at different ways that we can regulate to prevent rather than detect.
So so the simple question I asked was, do you think that the safeguards within the Online Safety Act have made child abuse online better?And the answer is no, not really. It has made some places safer. Um, but. But and I think it, you know, I think that the big mainstream platforms act much quicker on child abuse on their sites than they ever would before, and that they have put in safeguards to try and stop them. Um, however, uh, I don't think that the regulatory framework, um, as it is currently works, uh, at the moment.
No. And I think that that's lots of the work that went into the violence against women and girls strategy was trying to look at different ways that we can regulate to prevent rather than detect.
11:15
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
We're specifically looking is, I personally would say, you can't disentangle these things because the overlap, the the violence against. Women and girls policies and, and efforts to deal with that seep into the whole business of domestic violence, abuse and violence. And so we, you know, but we are dealing with the Domestic Abuse Act. Um, but it's the extent to which new technology is, is if you like, as an enabler and in fact, an expander of abuse, because we've had the evidence in relation to, you know, um, sexual violence against partners using drugs to, to, to, um, uh, make people comatose so that you can have the kind of sex that a woman might perhaps not agree to.
Also have the whole business of people being able to be followed and pursued in ways and, and for basically knowing what women are doing because of access to their phones and to their technology. Um, I mean, do you see that as being one of the, one of the areas that we've got to get the science and technology committee to, to engage with?
Also have the whole business of people being able to be followed and pursued in ways and, and for basically knowing what women are doing because of access to their phones and to their technology. Um, I mean, do you see that as being one of the, one of the areas that we've got to get the science and technology committee to, to engage with?
11:16
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, absolutely, like, and, uh, what the strategy commits to in that is that Dennett wrote into it. I don't want to like make out like, they didn't want to do anything. Um, that they, they absolutely did is the idea of safety by design. Uh, and that it has to be designed into the system like, you know, like. If you go to America, you see those, those stupid, um, massive cars that are Tesla that just you, you won't see them in Europe because the regulation wouldn't allow for this weird box to drive that looks like a fridge to drive around.
Like it's that like, actually, I don't think that glasses that can record you. I mean, you might as well just call them pervy glasses. Like what?I mean, I can't imagine what the use for a pair of glasses to record. You could be for other than harassment of one form or another, like, you know, like I'm sure, you know, meta have a completely different view. Um, but like anyone, if they had had any woman in the meeting about that, you would have said, hang on a minute, that's a bit pervy.
So of course there is that we need to make sure that the things that go to market and unfortunately, the greatest lie that was ever told by tech companies and I could absolutely I wish I could go back in time. Is that that our phones are ring doorbells?They made you safer. They absolutely didn't. They didn't solve any crime. They didn't they didn't make your neighborhood any safer. People walking dogs makes your neighborhood safer. Um, but what they have been used to do is surveil everybody and make everybody feel frightened.
And I think that the latter is an important point as well, because you cannot domestically abuse somebody unless they feel frightened of their environment. Um, and so much has been done with technology to advance the causes of stalking. I say, I won't ask you for a raise of hands. I don't do this. And I'm the only one of my friends who doesn't do this. I don't survey my children. I don't know where they are. I don't watch them on a map, but every single one of my friends does that to every single one.
And every parent thinks that when they gave their kid a phone, it made them safer. And what it did was opened a room to a load of paedophiles. You basically said, oh, there's a scout group down there that's run by paedophiles. Why don't you go and join it?Like that, like, absolutely. We have to like. Face down. The fact that that we can't put that genie back in the bottle. But we should massively regulate what is the the if it can.
Be used to domestically abuse and like there has to be at least it shouldn't be allowed or there has to be specific safeguards put in place.
Like it's that like, actually, I don't think that glasses that can record you. I mean, you might as well just call them pervy glasses. Like what?I mean, I can't imagine what the use for a pair of glasses to record. You could be for other than harassment of one form or another, like, you know, like I'm sure, you know, meta have a completely different view. Um, but like anyone, if they had had any woman in the meeting about that, you would have said, hang on a minute, that's a bit pervy.
So of course there is that we need to make sure that the things that go to market and unfortunately, the greatest lie that was ever told by tech companies and I could absolutely I wish I could go back in time. Is that that our phones are ring doorbells?They made you safer. They absolutely didn't. They didn't solve any crime. They didn't they didn't make your neighborhood any safer. People walking dogs makes your neighborhood safer. Um, but what they have been used to do is surveil everybody and make everybody feel frightened.
And I think that the latter is an important point as well, because you cannot domestically abuse somebody unless they feel frightened of their environment. Um, and so much has been done with technology to advance the causes of stalking. I say, I won't ask you for a raise of hands. I don't do this. And I'm the only one of my friends who doesn't do this. I don't survey my children. I don't know where they are. I don't watch them on a map, but every single one of my friends does that to every single one.
And every parent thinks that when they gave their kid a phone, it made them safer. And what it did was opened a room to a load of paedophiles. You basically said, oh, there's a scout group down there that's run by paedophiles. Why don't you go and join it?Like that, like, absolutely. We have to like. Face down. The fact that that we can't put that genie back in the bottle. But we should massively regulate what is the the if it can.
Be used to domestically abuse and like there has to be at least it shouldn't be allowed or there has to be specific safeguards put in place.
11:20
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
To be. Baroness Nikki, thank you. Thank you very much. Um, so I'm going to take you back. You mentioned this already as a growing problem. Uh, at the beginning of your introduction. So my question really is about the statutory definition requires that both the perpetrator and the victim have to be over 16. Yeah. And we know now in order for domestic abuse to apply. But we've we've heard lots of evidence now, and we know far more now that this this fails to capture domestic abuse in teenage relationships, which is a huge, huge issue for those who are under 16.
Um, do you think there's anything more, if anything, the government would like to do or should do to address this?
Um, do you think there's anything more, if anything, the government would like to do or should do to address this?
11:21
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah, well, obviously the answer is, is to take the age limit out of law. The seemingly that is the answer, except that the definition of, um, domestic abuse is that for 16 and 17 year olds. And none of the data suggests that when we and as a person who moved the amendment, um, I think I moved most of the amendments on the domestic abuse bill. Um, but, um. We haven't seen a massive increase in services for 16 and 17 year olds.
We haven't seen, uh, a massive increase in the, um. Charging in that I don't think that police forces have been particularly trained in how to deal with cases where it's a 16 and 17 year old or even just let's go 16 to 25, even 16 to 25, where you're not living in the house with the person, like a different sort of relationship. Obviously not me. I'm just child bride, but, um, but the. Yeah. Like just changing the law.
And I would take, take, take the age out of it. I'm absolutely fine with that. I don't think that that will just work on its own. There is a far bigger piece of cultural work. And actually, I think that before we do that, we should try and focus on why we've not improved anything for 16 and 17 year olds who are included in the definition. I don't like that. There has been no there's no like where I live.
There isn't suddenly lots of teenage relationship abuse services. Um, or like, you know, strategies for the police. There isn't a team of police officers or people in the CPS specifically looking to become specialists in teenage abuse. So we have to be really, really careful in this building of thinking that our job is done when we change a law. Um, because so actually, I don't, I don't recognise the age and actually the vast majority, the only thing it stops you from doing, there are some things where changing it would make it better.
One is domestic homicide review. So you would you would get a domestic homicide review. If so, Holly Newton is the case that of course most people will know. And I've met Holly Newton's uh, mum many times. She's an absolutely brilliant woman. Um, because children's safeguarding starts to do the review. It's not that you don't get a review, it's that children's safeguarding. And I have to say, having spoken, um, to Holly, to Holly Newton's mum about this, like she didn't feel that that was involving her and her family in the same way a domestic homicide review has absolutely built into it.
So yeah, getting rid of the age would improve the domestic homicide review system. No doubt about it. Uh, in that in that area. But everywhere else, it would just, we would just end up, I'm sure you are likely to come on to this later. It's the exact same place where we wrote into the law that children were victims of domestic abuse in their own right. Yeah. Which is just nice words, isn't it?
We haven't seen, uh, a massive increase in the, um. Charging in that I don't think that police forces have been particularly trained in how to deal with cases where it's a 16 and 17 year old or even just let's go 16 to 25, even 16 to 25, where you're not living in the house with the person, like a different sort of relationship. Obviously not me. I'm just child bride, but, um, but the. Yeah. Like just changing the law.
And I would take, take, take the age out of it. I'm absolutely fine with that. I don't think that that will just work on its own. There is a far bigger piece of cultural work. And actually, I think that before we do that, we should try and focus on why we've not improved anything for 16 and 17 year olds who are included in the definition. I don't like that. There has been no there's no like where I live.
There isn't suddenly lots of teenage relationship abuse services. Um, or like, you know, strategies for the police. There isn't a team of police officers or people in the CPS specifically looking to become specialists in teenage abuse. So we have to be really, really careful in this building of thinking that our job is done when we change a law. Um, because so actually, I don't, I don't recognise the age and actually the vast majority, the only thing it stops you from doing, there are some things where changing it would make it better.
One is domestic homicide review. So you would you would get a domestic homicide review. If so, Holly Newton is the case that of course most people will know. And I've met Holly Newton's uh, mum many times. She's an absolutely brilliant woman. Um, because children's safeguarding starts to do the review. It's not that you don't get a review, it's that children's safeguarding. And I have to say, having spoken, um, to Holly, to Holly Newton's mum about this, like she didn't feel that that was involving her and her family in the same way a domestic homicide review has absolutely built into it.
So yeah, getting rid of the age would improve the domestic homicide review system. No doubt about it. Uh, in that in that area. But everywhere else, it would just, we would just end up, I'm sure you are likely to come on to this later. It's the exact same place where we wrote into the law that children were victims of domestic abuse in their own right. Yeah. Which is just nice words, isn't it?
11:25
11:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. I mean, arguably arguably it arguably it is captured by that and in, in, in, in lots of cases you could argue for a domestic homicide review in a case of a relationship of somebody under the age of 16, you could probably argue as the person who sat over and said yay or nay to various different domestic homicide reviews, I was quite lax. Uh, I would let most of them through. I was like, yeah, that seems like one. We should do it.
Um, so it's um. Uh, but it, it's how it interacts with children's services. That's the thing when, when the domestic abuse bill was going through as well, that was the argument that always constantly came back to, to, to much chagrin on my part because I thought, oh my gosh, I'm talking to a minister who's clearly never made a children's safeguarding referral, because if you try and make one on the basis of domestic abuse, unless somebody has got a machete to your kid's neck at that exact moment, there's no way you're going to meet the threshold.
So how it interacts with the children's safeguarding system. Uh, and the review systems that go on in that it's, it. That that is the fundamental problem in that space. I think where we end up with an both being unsatisfactory, actually. And actually, if only we could say we could all work together, that would be better. But, you know.
Um, so it's um. Uh, but it, it's how it interacts with children's services. That's the thing when, when the domestic abuse bill was going through as well, that was the argument that always constantly came back to, to, to much chagrin on my part because I thought, oh my gosh, I'm talking to a minister who's clearly never made a children's safeguarding referral, because if you try and make one on the basis of domestic abuse, unless somebody has got a machete to your kid's neck at that exact moment, there's no way you're going to meet the threshold.
So how it interacts with the children's safeguarding system. Uh, and the review systems that go on in that it's, it. That that is the fundamental problem in that space. I think where we end up with an both being unsatisfactory, actually. And actually, if only we could say we could all work together, that would be better. But, you know.
11:26
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
And because we've got, you know, limitations on time, I'm going to I'm going to pause this. But that was a very interesting answer there about children's safeguarding and the interaction with this Domestic Abuse Act and how that could be much more effectively used. So I'm holding on to that thought. And we may come back to you about ideas around that, but I'm anxious that we let everyone have their opportunity to ask you specific questions. Um, Baroness Porter.
11:27
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. Um, we've had lots of evidence from people about the Domestic Abuse Prevention Order pilots. Could you say a little bit about your views on the upcoming rollout, what you think will work won't work. We've heard specific concerns around things like enforcement, the extent to which there's even within the pilots, there's adequate resourcing for the positive requirement provision services.
11:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So yeah, yeah. So, um, all of those, I imagine it was, um, Nicole. Spoke to you?Obviously she and I talk about it, uh, quite a lot. Um, so look, the first thing I'd say is positive is that the difference I have seen in the domestic abuse protection orders, uh, playing. And again, it goes back to my obsession with culture. Um. Is one that I feel very, very positively about. So in the first initial stages of the rollout in Greater Manchester, parts of Greater Manchester and boroughs in London, um, there were two things that I saw happening in that pilot that gave me real hope for the future.
Um, the first one was a case in the Metropolitan Police where they had turned up to a, I think it was like a drink driving thing. He'd crashed his car, they turned up and the sun, it was an adult son had said something like, oh, well, he was always like this. And you know, when he's not drinking, he's beating up my mum up or like and had made a passing comment to the police officer who on that day it was when the depot started, had then sat down with a woman and said, would you like a domestic abuse protection order?And it was done on the basis of coercive and controlling behaviour, not on violence, which is obviously a good thing and a culture change.
And so there was this idea of like inquiry because they had a tool they were interested in and wanted to try and use. And that woman never like just in that case. And another case where I was in Greater Manchester where um a man had um breached his order. So they gave him a domestic abuse protection order and he then breached that order, not by going back to her, but like not being at the right address when they were doing the offender management and went to prison for eight months for breaching the order.
And in both of those cases, when I say that culture matters, the woman never left her house. We didn't rely on the free labour of women. The woman never left her house, never went into a courtroom. A man ended up in prison, and a woman never had to step foot in a courtroom. And that to me, that, like the police taking the responsibility to keep people safe and actually doing that without the woman ever having to do a moment's piece of admin is.
Like that is manna from heaven to me that you could, within a week of you getting an order, have somebody in prison and you've not set foot inside a courtroom is like, I can't let go of how much hope that gives me. Um, that it isn't the responsibility of that woman to take. It is the responsibility of the police to take that. That said, in the rollout, it was very clearly found that the stuff around positive requirements that is part of the legislation was not working because it wasn't mandatory.
It is now. We have made it mandatory in the legislation. It's very strong feedback, I have to say, from Greater Manchester, where all our overlords come from now, so I'll say nice things about them. Um, the. Um that they were really, really, really keen, uh, keenly, uh, feeding back to us that basically without it being mandatory and being able to be forced by a judge, um, that it didn't work. So we have changed the legislation. The rollout has been different.
It is almost all police at the moment. It is almost all police. Hardly any is being done in the family justice. And that is because it doesn't cover children. Uh, and so Alex Davies-jones and I, uh, one of our last acts was that we have drafted up the legislation to make it include the protection of children so that it can be used in the family court. Uh, and we were seeking to get it into the sentencing bill and not sentencing.
What's the one that's going through at the moment?The piece of all about juries and everyone's having a row. Um, that's the one the courts bill. We were seeking to get that legislative change into that piece of legislation. Uh, and that came from meetings with the judiciary, uh, who really, really specifically just the family court, um, bench were basically like, it's just no one's going to use it in family court unless that is in there. So that legislation that, that when, when I left it, that legislation was due.
And frankly, I don't need to be a government minister to amend legislation. No.
Um, the first one was a case in the Metropolitan Police where they had turned up to a, I think it was like a drink driving thing. He'd crashed his car, they turned up and the sun, it was an adult son had said something like, oh, well, he was always like this. And you know, when he's not drinking, he's beating up my mum up or like and had made a passing comment to the police officer who on that day it was when the depot started, had then sat down with a woman and said, would you like a domestic abuse protection order?And it was done on the basis of coercive and controlling behaviour, not on violence, which is obviously a good thing and a culture change.
And so there was this idea of like inquiry because they had a tool they were interested in and wanted to try and use. And that woman never like just in that case. And another case where I was in Greater Manchester where um a man had um breached his order. So they gave him a domestic abuse protection order and he then breached that order, not by going back to her, but like not being at the right address when they were doing the offender management and went to prison for eight months for breaching the order.
And in both of those cases, when I say that culture matters, the woman never left her house. We didn't rely on the free labour of women. The woman never left her house, never went into a courtroom. A man ended up in prison, and a woman never had to step foot in a courtroom. And that to me, that, like the police taking the responsibility to keep people safe and actually doing that without the woman ever having to do a moment's piece of admin is.
Like that is manna from heaven to me that you could, within a week of you getting an order, have somebody in prison and you've not set foot inside a courtroom is like, I can't let go of how much hope that gives me. Um, that it isn't the responsibility of that woman to take. It is the responsibility of the police to take that. That said, in the rollout, it was very clearly found that the stuff around positive requirements that is part of the legislation was not working because it wasn't mandatory.
It is now. We have made it mandatory in the legislation. It's very strong feedback, I have to say, from Greater Manchester, where all our overlords come from now, so I'll say nice things about them. Um, the. Um that they were really, really, really keen, uh, keenly, uh, feeding back to us that basically without it being mandatory and being able to be forced by a judge, um, that it didn't work. So we have changed the legislation. The rollout has been different.
It is almost all police at the moment. It is almost all police. Hardly any is being done in the family justice. And that is because it doesn't cover children. Uh, and so Alex Davies-jones and I, uh, one of our last acts was that we have drafted up the legislation to make it include the protection of children so that it can be used in the family court. Uh, and we were seeking to get it into the sentencing bill and not sentencing.
What's the one that's going through at the moment?The piece of all about juries and everyone's having a row. Um, that's the one the courts bill. We were seeking to get that legislative change into that piece of legislation. Uh, and that came from meetings with the judiciary, uh, who really, really specifically just the family court, um, bench were basically like, it's just no one's going to use it in family court unless that is in there. So that legislation that, that when, when I left it, that legislation was due.
And frankly, I don't need to be a government minister to amend legislation. No.
11:32
11:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So I think that now that it is mandatory, the positive positive requirements are mandatory. We will see a greater uptick. The other problem that you raise is that there isn't where I live. There isn't a perpetrator program schemes that well, certainly not ones that I would trust. Um, so that is a problem. So the Home Office, at the same time as this is all happening, the Home Office is commissioning the drive programme.
Across the entire country. That is only for high harm. So in some of these cases, uh, we're going to get into, uh, high.
Across the entire country. That is only for high harm. So in some of these cases, uh, we're going to get into, uh, high.
11:33
11:33
11:33
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Uh, I'm intrigued of this whole conversation. You know, there's no point us legislators putting down or enacting laws that are then just not going to be followed through. Now, you talked about the amendments you put down. Well, Lord Russell and I put a load of amendments down to, and we succeeded in getting children on the face of the bill. But I just. Ask you, I mean, a was it worth it?And B, what else does the government need to be done to protect children?
11:34
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Yeah, I mean, I do I mean, I was going to bring in Baroness Barron um because generally um this was considered to be. And there was some sense of celebration to have produced such an effective piece of, of, of law. And while law doesn't always deliver everything, it is an important thing. You do need law. It is a glue that kind of. And, and if you're talking about culture, it has a role to play in the creation of culture shifts within society.
So it's vitally important that it's not continuing to do the old tropes about, you know, women bring these things on their own heads, etc., all of that, um, all of that stuff. But, um, I just wondered if, you know, I take Lord Paulet first, but I'm just giving you a little warning. It would be quite useful to talk about, um, the things that you feel were real gains and that shouldn't be forgotten in the discussions about all of this. And Lord Pollock, would you like to ask about children first?
So it's vitally important that it's not continuing to do the old tropes about, you know, women bring these things on their own heads, etc., all of that, um, all of that stuff. But, um, I just wondered if, you know, I take Lord Paulet first, but I'm just giving you a little warning. It would be quite useful to talk about, um, the things that you feel were real gains and that shouldn't be forgotten in the discussions about all of this. And Lord Pollock, would you like to ask about children first?
11:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So yeah, I mean, look, was it worth doing. Yes. Because it eventually will change. The culture just doesn't do it very fast. Coercive and controlling behaviour. When the domestic abuse bill was going through had been on the statute books for, I think at that point, six years. Uh, and it in that year, uh, in fact, and in some of the years after 56 people went to prison for more than 12 months. So, you know, like it takes now there's a better story to tell.
It does take time, I have to say. And look, I was certainly, you know, part in the commons of making sure that that got into the legislation as well. So I feel very, very keenly that it was the right thing to do and that it will change culture. I just don't think that people have a very in the field or so. What we haven't seen, for example, is children being able to take cases against their fathers. For example, we haven't seen a case where a mother won't do it, but a child who has lived in that.
And arguably, if the child is a victim of domestic abuse or a certain sort of crime, then they should be able to do that. We have not seen any of that, and there hasn't been any sort of case law. There hasn't been any that that hasn't shifted. And that was the real worry, I have to say, of the civil servants at the time, they were like that, oh my God, what happens if this happens?And I was like, yeah, that's not going to happen.
But okay. Um, but so we, but we also, we haven't seen a large uptick in the commissioning of domestic abuse services for children, uh, which actually, I think if those two things had happened together and that the provision, the reason why not always perfect. The brilliant thing about the bill, which is part four of the Domestic Abuse Act, which makes a statutory duty to fund refuge accommodation like that, has had a cultural change in every local authority. That's like there were some that had none, like it's not perfect.
Loads of work needs to be done on how you make those standards. And good. But it did do that. And it did that because it was given a amount of money from government to do it. There should have been the same thing around the children that could have. Then, at the same time as the law changing, started a sort of whether it's pilots on what would work or cultural, uh, like stuff doing in local authorities saying that, you know, it's not okay really, that every children's services in the country doesn't have, uh, like a referral pathway for children's counselling in cases of domestic abuse like that, that seems like that's a thing that should exist.
It doesn't exist anywhere in 80% of children who are victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence get turned away from Camhs for being too, um, complex. So like, you know, like those things should have happened at the same time. And they didn't, uh, and that I think has been a failing, but it's not, it was definitely worth putting in there because we can do it now and then we can get some like snazzy kid to take a like legal case when it's not done properly. That's what we need is more kids who like judicial reviews.
It does take time, I have to say. And look, I was certainly, you know, part in the commons of making sure that that got into the legislation as well. So I feel very, very keenly that it was the right thing to do and that it will change culture. I just don't think that people have a very in the field or so. What we haven't seen, for example, is children being able to take cases against their fathers. For example, we haven't seen a case where a mother won't do it, but a child who has lived in that.
And arguably, if the child is a victim of domestic abuse or a certain sort of crime, then they should be able to do that. We have not seen any of that, and there hasn't been any sort of case law. There hasn't been any that that hasn't shifted. And that was the real worry, I have to say, of the civil servants at the time, they were like that, oh my God, what happens if this happens?And I was like, yeah, that's not going to happen.
But okay. Um, but so we, but we also, we haven't seen a large uptick in the commissioning of domestic abuse services for children, uh, which actually, I think if those two things had happened together and that the provision, the reason why not always perfect. The brilliant thing about the bill, which is part four of the Domestic Abuse Act, which makes a statutory duty to fund refuge accommodation like that, has had a cultural change in every local authority. That's like there were some that had none, like it's not perfect.
Loads of work needs to be done on how you make those standards. And good. But it did do that. And it did that because it was given a amount of money from government to do it. There should have been the same thing around the children that could have. Then, at the same time as the law changing, started a sort of whether it's pilots on what would work or cultural, uh, like stuff doing in local authorities saying that, you know, it's not okay really, that every children's services in the country doesn't have, uh, like a referral pathway for children's counselling in cases of domestic abuse like that, that seems like that's a thing that should exist.
It doesn't exist anywhere in 80% of children who are victims of domestic abuse or sexual violence get turned away from Camhs for being too, um, complex. So like, you know, like those things should have happened at the same time. And they didn't, uh, and that I think has been a failing, but it's not, it was definitely worth putting in there because we can do it now and then we can get some like snazzy kid to take a like legal case when it's not done properly. That's what we need is more kids who like judicial reviews.
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Very quickly. Um, so I mean, there are programs, you know, as well as I do for children and for children and non abusing parents together, that could quite easily be commissioned and rolled out. But um, we've heard evidence that they're among the most vulnerable parts of community based domestic abuse services. And I just wondered what you thought about that. And I also have a question about one of the things we've heard. We've really heard it yesterday from the survivors, is that women are being held responsible for protecting their child in a domestic abuse situation.
Yeah. And I just wanted you to talk about that a bit. And in relation to the child being a victim in their own right and the the potential, uh, kind of danger in that space. Yeah.
Yeah. And I just wanted you to talk about that a bit. And in relation to the child being a victim in their own right and the the potential, uh, kind of danger in that space. Yeah.
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Of course. And that is and they're not wrong. That it's not it's not it's not an irrational fear. It's a completely regular fear. Yeah. That will be, uh, played out. So yeah, so there is a number of things that, uh, the, there was quite a lot of concern at the time that making children direct victims, that the failure to protect them would be used on a legal basis against, uh, those women. I have to say, I'm not sure that the, the family court and the manner in which it treats victims of domestic abuse could needed any extra tools, uh, for, uh, how to, uh, quite so badly fail.
Um, in my view, and actually, one of the failings of the Domestic Abuse Act was the failure to get any real advancement in the change in family courts, which has been put subsequently into other bills. Um, and, uh, and I'd say quite a lot more attention on it now. Uh, however I, that you're absolutely right, there is a fundamental problem. And I think that the new way that the government, the Department for education is looking to do the sort of families first, uh, and sort of like rebranding of the children's centres in there is a real opportunity to try and shift the ideal.
And it is a fundamental ideal that is taught to social workers. And I've trained them myself. I've trained many, many social workers in my time on the front line because, you know, they all come and do their periods of practice with you when they're being trained. Um, is the, the quite rightly, after a number of whether it's um Victoria Climbié or child P or whatever it is, is this, this idea of the sort of focus on the child, there is a fundamental failure of children's social care.
And therefore the agencies that sit around it to recognise that happy mothers make happy children, and that the protection of your the the woman in this circumstance is as important. And there is a. Myself I was in when I was a minister, we were on a round table about a a serious case review of a baby. That's the sort of famous case of the. The aristocratic woman who's gone on the run. Um, and the, the baby's death in that case, the real need for interventions, early interventions that are supportive of mum, not punitive towards her.
And also for those systems, we can't do it until we've built it. So we're trying to build it. We're trying to build a perpetrator system across the country. Because where I live, if you're a victim of domestic abuse, you get sent on a course. Now, I'm not saying anything against the freedom programme in Birmingham, which is brilliant and run by some of the most amazing women, and it gives succour to those women. And I would I personally just attend because it's good fun.
Uh, and it's a lifeline for those women. However. Know their perpetrators aren't sent on courses. There's, there's no system in the country that says, actually, you're the one doing the problem. You're the person making the errors. You're going to lose your children. And I tell you what, you're going to lose them. And we're going to do everything we possibly can to support your misses, to find a lovely, a nice house, and she will be away from you.
We don't do that. They don't even attend the conferences like dads are missing from the conversation. Always. And like wherever I live. Fair enough. They don't have a thing to refer them to. Whereas they do have the freedom programme because they rely on the free labour of women, um, to provide the services. So they just refer them to that and then don't pay for it. So we end up back where I started.
Um, in my view, and actually, one of the failings of the Domestic Abuse Act was the failure to get any real advancement in the change in family courts, which has been put subsequently into other bills. Um, and, uh, and I'd say quite a lot more attention on it now. Uh, however I, that you're absolutely right, there is a fundamental problem. And I think that the new way that the government, the Department for education is looking to do the sort of families first, uh, and sort of like rebranding of the children's centres in there is a real opportunity to try and shift the ideal.
And it is a fundamental ideal that is taught to social workers. And I've trained them myself. I've trained many, many social workers in my time on the front line because, you know, they all come and do their periods of practice with you when they're being trained. Um, is the, the quite rightly, after a number of whether it's um Victoria Climbié or child P or whatever it is, is this, this idea of the sort of focus on the child, there is a fundamental failure of children's social care.
And therefore the agencies that sit around it to recognise that happy mothers make happy children, and that the protection of your the the woman in this circumstance is as important. And there is a. Myself I was in when I was a minister, we were on a round table about a a serious case review of a baby. That's the sort of famous case of the. The aristocratic woman who's gone on the run. Um, and the, the baby's death in that case, the real need for interventions, early interventions that are supportive of mum, not punitive towards her.
And also for those systems, we can't do it until we've built it. So we're trying to build it. We're trying to build a perpetrator system across the country. Because where I live, if you're a victim of domestic abuse, you get sent on a course. Now, I'm not saying anything against the freedom programme in Birmingham, which is brilliant and run by some of the most amazing women, and it gives succour to those women. And I would I personally just attend because it's good fun.
Uh, and it's a lifeline for those women. However. Know their perpetrators aren't sent on courses. There's, there's no system in the country that says, actually, you're the one doing the problem. You're the person making the errors. You're going to lose your children. And I tell you what, you're going to lose them. And we're going to do everything we possibly can to support your misses, to find a lovely, a nice house, and she will be away from you.
We don't do that. They don't even attend the conferences like dads are missing from the conversation. Always. And like wherever I live. Fair enough. They don't have a thing to refer them to. Whereas they do have the freedom programme because they rely on the free labour of women, um, to provide the services. So they just refer them to that and then don't pay for it. So we end up back where I started.
11:46
11:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Oh, a. Times worse. Women are treated like pariahs. There is also a growing issue. I would say, um of women being criminalized for being victims of domestic abuse. I would say I am, I am just on an anecdotal basis as a person who holds a caseload always of around 100 cases at any one time, I am seeing again and again, just in my own constituency, the amount of women, uh, being charged with harassment and the criminal justice system being used against them as a, as a tool of control.
So it's what has happened in the family justice system for decades is creeping into the criminal justice system.
So it's what has happened in the family justice system for decades is creeping into the criminal justice system.
11:47
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Very interesting. Now, I wanted to bring in a shyster if you would come in. Yes. Hello. My question is on migrant victims of domestic abuse. So we've heard that their situation is made worse when they've got indefinite, when they've got a don't have indefinite leave to remain. Um they can't access funding, they can't access accommodation. And then with a lack of firewall between the police and enforcement agencies. And now we're hearing that there will be asked for permission to enforce, to let enforcement agencies know.
And I'm not sure how freely informed that consent is going to be. So I'd like to know what you think, how that issue can be addressed, but I'm going to add something else on as well. I feel that when it comes to minority ethnic women, that they tend to be put into a bucket of, um, you know, migrant women who have an insecure immigration status or minority ethnic women who experience honour based abuse. You know, so many letters to you about this. I declare my interest.
Their forced marriage, honour based abuse, a large number of minority ethnic women will not fit into those categories. British born speak English and not experiencing honour based abuse, forced marriage or experiencing intimate domestic abuse. Intimate partner abuse. And they tend to get ignored. So how are we going to domestic abuse for those women?Is that a cultural shift that needs to happen?
And I'm not sure how freely informed that consent is going to be. So I'd like to know what you think, how that issue can be addressed, but I'm going to add something else on as well. I feel that when it comes to minority ethnic women, that they tend to be put into a bucket of, um, you know, migrant women who have an insecure immigration status or minority ethnic women who experience honour based abuse. You know, so many letters to you about this. I declare my interest.
Their forced marriage, honour based abuse, a large number of minority ethnic women will not fit into those categories. British born speak English and not experiencing honour based abuse, forced marriage or experiencing intimate domestic abuse. Intimate partner abuse. And they tend to get ignored. So how are we going to domestic abuse for those women?Is that a cultural shift that needs to happen?
11:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean, look, there needs to be far greater by and for services. I mean, actually, if you were talking about minority ethnic women that are, um, less served in like with specialist services in domestic abuse, actually black women, for example, uh, don't you know, there will be all sorts of reasons why they would need a specialist approach. Um, and, uh, there is nothing to do with migrants. There is absolutely nothing to do with forced marriage. There is nothing to do with like, but that they absolutely might need, um, a like real specialist from people within their own community.
And look, you know, we live in the same place, so I don't need to, uh, we literally live very close to each other. Um, so like, I don't need to tell you, but the, the. There is a far, far greater representation where we live of South Asian women's services and that, that undoubtedly than there is for black women or other Polish women. Um, newly settled women from Romania, which have a really, really, really key, uh, issue around exploitation. Um, and there aren't those specialist services that exist in the same way.
Um, and that is almost certainly led by commissioning that is done on the basis of this many percentage, because obviously where we live, there's a very high percentage of South Asian people. So those, those services in a very brutal way of commissioning goes. Okay, 28% will go to South Asian women's services. So we do really, really need to look at then where there are gaps in local commissioning, how do the national how do how does nationally, uh, does that get commissioned through whether it's helplines and advocacy because like, we don't have a lot of military people where we live in Portsmouth, you absolutely need a new dawn.
Uh, the organisation that focus on, uh, on that. Whereas like, there might be somebody there where I live, but they can't get a Portsmouth. Um, so you do need to then look at how nationally you offer at least a base level support service to everybody, uh, in those sort of minoritized and specialist groups that is run by those, those people and those organisations while making sure that commissioning is done better on the ground with regard to migrants. See, obviously the firewall, um, is it's under development with the sector at the moment about how it will look.
Um, I saw many wild iterations of what it could look like that went through, um, various, uh, different people, but it essentially it, there will be a firewall between that we're, we're quite late in the day in solving a problem that doesn't exist quite as much as it did. The fear exists there. The fear exists within the community. So, and one of my one of my constituents, um, was part of the that's why I'm looking for kids to do a judicial review. Uh, was part of the super complaint and the judicial review because she was sent to Yarl's Wood Detention Centre when she rang up because her husband had threatened to kill her.
Um, and, uh, so, but we haven't seen that those sorts of cases are not happening anymore. There has been a shift in, uh, in, in that. So we see that much less now. However, the fear that it did exist exists. And that's a problem as well. So the firewall, hopefully that will be created will create that. Now, as somebody who has handled thousands of these cases, uh, as have you. The issue of the consent that you talk about is important to get people's consent is that the vast majority of women who I have dealt with in that circumstance are interacting with immigration services.
They just they already are because they're part of trying to get visas and like it would. So when when in my head, what that consent means is, have you got an open immigration case?And would you like me to help getting in touch with them to say that you're in trouble?That is what that means to me, which I do all the time. I seek that consent from victims, migrant victims that I work with all the time. Um, so that that is how I perceive that idea of consent.
But the vast majority will already be in the immigration system somewhere anyway, as you know, like I. Do a million immigration cases a week. Um, so that's how I perceive that that being rolled out.
And look, you know, we live in the same place, so I don't need to, uh, we literally live very close to each other. Um, so like, I don't need to tell you, but the, the. There is a far, far greater representation where we live of South Asian women's services and that, that undoubtedly than there is for black women or other Polish women. Um, newly settled women from Romania, which have a really, really, really key, uh, issue around exploitation. Um, and there aren't those specialist services that exist in the same way.
Um, and that is almost certainly led by commissioning that is done on the basis of this many percentage, because obviously where we live, there's a very high percentage of South Asian people. So those, those services in a very brutal way of commissioning goes. Okay, 28% will go to South Asian women's services. So we do really, really need to look at then where there are gaps in local commissioning, how do the national how do how does nationally, uh, does that get commissioned through whether it's helplines and advocacy because like, we don't have a lot of military people where we live in Portsmouth, you absolutely need a new dawn.
Uh, the organisation that focus on, uh, on that. Whereas like, there might be somebody there where I live, but they can't get a Portsmouth. Um, so you do need to then look at how nationally you offer at least a base level support service to everybody, uh, in those sort of minoritized and specialist groups that is run by those, those people and those organisations while making sure that commissioning is done better on the ground with regard to migrants. See, obviously the firewall, um, is it's under development with the sector at the moment about how it will look.
Um, I saw many wild iterations of what it could look like that went through, um, various, uh, different people, but it essentially it, there will be a firewall between that we're, we're quite late in the day in solving a problem that doesn't exist quite as much as it did. The fear exists there. The fear exists within the community. So, and one of my one of my constituents, um, was part of the that's why I'm looking for kids to do a judicial review. Uh, was part of the super complaint and the judicial review because she was sent to Yarl's Wood Detention Centre when she rang up because her husband had threatened to kill her.
Um, and, uh, so, but we haven't seen that those sorts of cases are not happening anymore. There has been a shift in, uh, in, in that. So we see that much less now. However, the fear that it did exist exists. And that's a problem as well. So the firewall, hopefully that will be created will create that. Now, as somebody who has handled thousands of these cases, uh, as have you. The issue of the consent that you talk about is important to get people's consent is that the vast majority of women who I have dealt with in that circumstance are interacting with immigration services.
They just they already are because they're part of trying to get visas and like it would. So when when in my head, what that consent means is, have you got an open immigration case?And would you like me to help getting in touch with them to say that you're in trouble?That is what that means to me, which I do all the time. I seek that consent from victims, migrant victims that I work with all the time. Um, so that that is how I perceive that idea of consent.
But the vast majority will already be in the immigration system somewhere anyway, as you know, like I. Do a million immigration cases a week. Um, so that's how I perceive that that being rolled out.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So apologies. We're going to go back to family courts again, just briefly, but say, yeah, I think we can all agree from a variety of evidence that we've heard about the significant issues there. More positively, we have heard some good things about the Pathfinder court pilot. They're great to be renamed Child Focus Courts when they're rolled out nationally. So what do we do to ensure the positives from those pilots are retained and developed in that rollout?
11:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We absolutely. We have Pathfinder Court in Birmingham. Um, and, uh, I'm sure she wouldn't mind me saying, uh, there is, you know, I can be quite a cynic, but the woman who runs Birmingham and Solihull Women's Aid, Maureen Connolly, is the greatest cynic on earth. Uh, and about, you know, whether new things will work. And she absolutely loved the Pathfinder court. So I feel like if it had her, um, sign of approval, we're okay. Uh, we like it just needs to be available everywhere.
And we have to make sure that whatever pressure can be put on the Ministry of Justice to make sure that the Pathfinder system is available everywhere. I would also say similarly, what we also have in Birmingham, which is, um, we have the drug and alcohol courts and we have the women's specialist courts as well. And. I have seen a lot of things in my life, but the, the brilliance of the women's. And the drug and alcohol court that exists in Birmingham and, and you're talking 80% of it is da I mean, like, like so much of it is in both the drug and alcohol court and in the, um, in both of those institutions.
And this is a proper, uh, like wrap around the amount of people who were like the men. And it's all done, frankly, on a wing and a prayer of a bit of commissioning from good police and crime commissioners, a little bit of money from the Ministry of Justice. Um, like, but that. The benefit I have seen to women and children in the community of those three courts existing in Birmingham should not be underestimated. And frankly, actually the drug and alcohol courts and the women's courts, you're talking like £5 million from like each government department that is involved in it.
It's peanuts. Seriously. And it would make such a massive difference.
And we have to make sure that whatever pressure can be put on the Ministry of Justice to make sure that the Pathfinder system is available everywhere. I would also say similarly, what we also have in Birmingham, which is, um, we have the drug and alcohol courts and we have the women's specialist courts as well. And. I have seen a lot of things in my life, but the, the brilliance of the women's. And the drug and alcohol court that exists in Birmingham and, and you're talking 80% of it is da I mean, like, like so much of it is in both the drug and alcohol court and in the, um, in both of those institutions.
And this is a proper, uh, like wrap around the amount of people who were like the men. And it's all done, frankly, on a wing and a prayer of a bit of commissioning from good police and crime commissioners, a little bit of money from the Ministry of Justice. Um, like, but that. The benefit I have seen to women and children in the community of those three courts existing in Birmingham should not be underestimated. And frankly, actually the drug and alcohol courts and the women's courts, you're talking like £5 million from like each government department that is involved in it.
It's peanuts. Seriously. And it would make such a massive difference.
11:55
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I mean, we went to see the court, um, um, the other day and what's clearly vital for it is that you have this real integration of organisations and women. Usually, as you say, who've got real experience in the field and a really good program coordinator to pull all together and to work with the prosecution people, to work with the probation service, to be working with the court administration, the whole thing. And it was it was it was really great to see the clerks as well.
11:56
11:56
11:56
11:56
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Jess, for brilliant insights. Um, and sharing your expertise so generously with us. I'm just speaking as a kind of ingenue in court systems. I've got a nursing background, so I'm just struggling to understand why the family courts seem to fail in these instances. You know, courts. Seem to have different distinctive cultures and M.O. modus operandi. What is at fault with the family courts?Why are they.
11:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Feeling two things. The first one is patriarchy. Okay. I mean, like that's the reality of the situation. These are patriarchal institutions built on the basis of the idea of the supremacy of man in a family, uh, like, you know, like that. Like I'm sure that none of the judges, none of the clerks, none of the people at Bull Street in Birmingham think that, that they think that yet they're in the entire institution is built on that basis. And it is.
11:58
11:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
From here as well. So this building similarly is very, very anxious about that. Like the, the idea you'd be surprised about how sort of Christian and traditional family values go through. Absolutely. Every part of Values go through absolutely every part of public policy. Um, and, you know, you have to untangle some of those. And I don't say Christian in any derogatory sense.
11:59
11:59
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. No, no no no, but I mean, we have like a sort of patriarchal Christian because this building, we're we have a state church. The idea of traditional family values. Of course, is so fundamental to our law making that, uh, that. It's that has, uh, I, it is the, the other thing is secrecy. So other courts are much more, um, are much more. Yeah. You can, you know, like judges say some things I don't agree with and, and it gets written in a newspaper and, but like, you know, and they get pilloried or whatever.
I don't like any of that particularly, but there is an element that the, the lack of scrutiny over the family court just means it's sort of going on just in total secret. So and look, I want to pay absolute tribute to the past two heads of the Family Court division who definitely recognize that this is a problem. Like there's absolutely that they are not showing me any patriarchal. They are absolutely like, it's too secret. So, uh, mom, be absolutely tried to get rid of the secrecy and the family court.
I don't like any of that particularly, but there is an element that the, the lack of scrutiny over the family court just means it's sort of going on just in total secret. So and look, I want to pay absolute tribute to the past two heads of the Family Court division who definitely recognize that this is a problem. Like there's absolutely that they are not showing me any patriarchal. They are absolutely like, it's too secret. So, uh, mom, be absolutely tried to get rid of the secrecy and the family court.
12:00
12:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Absolutely. And as you came to is what I always like is when anyone is coming to their end of their tenure, a bit like the Prime Minister, get a lot of stuff done at the end of your tenure, don't you?There's often a swan song, and there was a whole lot done at the end of mummies. We were like rushing, let's get him to do all this stuff. Um, but it was but but but but, you know, also the, there is definitely an appetite for improving the family court amongst a like, but we have to change the law in this country.
So at the moment the law is the presumption of contact and the bond between a parent and a child. And the idea, the very fundamental idea that a child seeing. Having two parents is the very best thing for it. Like these are these are not when I say it's patriarchal, you're raised to think that you're born. It's in the. It's in your bones that you think that. But where I worked, the absolute opposite was true.
Um, so it was definitely better to just to have the one parent. Uh, so that's, that's the fundamental, but we are seeking the bill that's passing through will change the presumption of contact. And hopefully that will do some of the work, but also the, we need to really, really regulate the kind of people who can call themselves an expert in the family court.
So at the moment the law is the presumption of contact and the bond between a parent and a child. And the idea, the very fundamental idea that a child seeing. Having two parents is the very best thing for it. Like these are these are not when I say it's patriarchal, you're raised to think that you're born. It's in the. It's in your bones that you think that. But where I worked, the absolute opposite was true.
Um, so it was definitely better to just to have the one parent. Uh, so that's, that's the fundamental, but we are seeking the bill that's passing through will change the presumption of contact. And hopefully that will do some of the work, but also the, we need to really, really regulate the kind of people who can call themselves an expert in the family court.
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:03
12:03
12:03
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Um, now I think, um, I think we've covered the terrain and it really has been, um, a wonderful having you come, um, and the whole wealth of your experience has been great to hear. Um, and if you could, you know, I've got to end this session and let me just say that the, this has been an invaluable, um, piece of time. Jess Phillips thank you very much indeed. And the public session is now concluded.