Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

We have an opportunity to make this a truly progressive Bill, one that understands multiple circumstances in which domestic abuse arises. Disabled people have not been well served in recent years, and the pandemic has shone a spotlight on discrimination by indifference. Let us not endorse that again in this Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and to support her in her wish to include carers within the scope of the Bill. As she said, this set of amendments would bring the relationship between a disabled person and their carer, whether paid or unpaid, within the definition of “personally connected”.

As the noble Baroness has said, the Joint Committee on the Bill recommended that carers should be included, after receiving significant evidence from the charity Stay Safe about the level of abuse within these highly personal and close relationships. I remain puzzled as to why the Government are not agreeing to do this. As the noble Baroness said, part of the reason is that the Government believe the group covered by these amendments is fully protected by existing legislation, primarily within social care Act safeguarding measures. However, I challenge that. As Stay Safe East has said, disabled women are three times as likely to experience domestic abuse, and four times as likely to report abuse from multiple perpetrators, as non-disabled women. It does not look as though the safeguarding measures are preventing that. Disabled women are also up to three times as likely to experience domestic abuse at the hands of family members, some of whom will also be their carers. We also know that disabled people also experience abuse from paid and unpaid carers or personal assistants.

The noble Baroness has also referred to the opinion from Bindmans LLP. The summary of their opinion is very clear:

“a. The relationship between disabled people and their carers is analogous to the other relationships which fall within the definition of ‘personally connected’ for the purposes of clause 2(1) of the DA Bill.


b. None of the existing legislation identified by Government provides equivalent protection against domestic abuse for disabled people so as to make it unnecessary for the relationship between disabled people and their carers to be brought within the scope of clause 2(1), and thereby the substantive provisions of the DA Bill.


c. Failing to bring the relationship between disabled people and their carers within the scope of clause 2(1), and thereby the substantive provisions of the DA Bill, is likely to result in unlawful discrimination against disabled people contrary to Article 14 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)”.


If the Minister is relying on existing legislation and safeguarding measures, I am afraid that the evidence is that this is not sufficient. That is the reason why the noble Baroness has argued so persuasively for this amendment, and I very much hope that she presses it to a Division.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, for tabling these amendments, and am grateful for the earlier work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

I will start by commenting on the relationship between a disabled person and their carer. It is difficult for someone who is not disabled to understand the intimate nature of that care which has to be given, and the relationship which inevitably builds up, whether the carer is paid or unpaid. The language talks about a “lived experience”, which trots glibly off the tongue, but it is not easy. At best, it is a relationship of trust, where the carer supports and enables the person being cared for to live the life that the disabled person wants to live themselves. But there are some cases where the behaviours of the carer are not beneficial, but are controlling, coercive or physically abuse, yet they fall outside the domestic abuse definition. That is why it is so important that the definition of “personally connected” is recognised. It is such a neat solution, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has pointed out, it is vital that the definition is similar to the definition in the Serious Crime Act. She is right: they are complementary and will provide consistency and coherence between the Bill and the 2015 Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his excellent speech just now, referred to the excellent work of Stay Safe East. One of the women helped by Stay Safe East said:

“They think just because I’ve got a learning disability, I don’t know it’s wrong to treat me like that. I just want to be safe and live my life.”


Mencap points out that people with learning disabilities can be abused by any type of personal carer, not just in establishments such as Winterbourne View. The problem with private care at home is that often it is not visible at all. That is why these amendments are so important. The Bill needs to understand that the relationship between disabled people and their personal carers is akin to the familial and relationship definitions used elsewhere in domestic abuse legislation.

I hope the Minister will take on board the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and the large number of disabled Peers speaking to her amendments, and the wider community of disabled people who need this protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I feel a sense of frustration. There are so many issues that one wants to pursue, but it is not the first Bill where we will experience that. In Committee, we had a series of amendments regarding the role of the domestic abuse commissioner. Almost all of them were concerned with ensuring that the job is not so constructed as to preclude the commissioner making her own decisions on how to go about her work. I put it that way to distinguish it from the content of the work.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, put it very succinctly. He said that the whole thrust of certain clauses is a worry because it appears that the Secretary of State wants to pull all the levers. Our debates largely boiled down to the commissioner’s autonomy. I did not entirely follow the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson; he said that our amendments focused on independence but then set about how the commissioner should fulfil the role. Independence was a particular focus on this part of the Bill, although naturally noble Lords had been keen to draw attention to a variety of issues. That tension has been a bit of an issue today, of course, but that is perhaps by the by.

Independence is a hugely important component of the role. The Government have been arguing today that that is so in resisting some amendments; they certainly did that in Committee. It is a component, as far as possible, given that the commissioner’s position is that of a statutory officeholder funded by the Secretary of State with no separate legal persona. The framework agreement between the commissioner and the Secretary of State will be very important in this regard.

As well as the commissioner’s freedom to select her own staff—following due process, of course—in Committee we had quite extensive debate about the advisory board. Different noble Lords argued for members of the board with particular backgrounds and experience. The Bill provides for at least six members and spells out whom each of the six is to represent. I have to say that the term “represent” still troubles me. I think there is a danger of muddling representation and advice. The maximum under the Bill is 10 members. Why? Clearly, there is a huge range of problems and situations relevant to domestic abuse and so a range of individuals and organisations with a range of experience and expertise, including experience of the whole sector and its interconnecting parts, is needed.

In our view, the commissioner should have the scope —and this is a matter of her autonomy—to appoint such a board to advise her, or, in the future, him, as she considers appropriate. At this stage, I am not arguing with the interests that the six are to represent under the Bill, although I remain concerned that they will be the Secretary of State’s pick, but if the commissioner wishes to bring in more than four further people in the capacity of advisory board members she should be able to do so. There seems no good reason to impose the restriction on numbers.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that this was

“to ensure that the board can operate effectively and efficiently.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1711.]

That is what we all want, but efficiency and effectiveness is about more than numbers. It is about what each member contributes and how the board as a whole operates and that should be a matter for the commissioner. The commissioner can and may well seek advice from elsewhere. I dare say she can bring people into board meetings as a one-off. I am not sure whether she can co-opt—I cannot see that there is a restriction on that. However, those individuals should be afforded the respect of a permanent role if that is warranted and not be limited as the board proposes. This issue encapsulates our concerns about the commissioner’s autonomy and independence and that is why we have chosen it as the one to pursue at this stage. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has brought this matter back to the attention of your Lordships on Report. Clearly, the idea of an advisory board is welcome and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have no objection to the range of interests which the Bill specifies must be represented on the board itself.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, although it is not the subject of the amendment, I am still very surprised by the term “representative”. I know that this is an advisory board, rather than a governance board, but having the notion of representatives is very bad corporate governance. People should be appointed for what they can contribute, not for whom they represent. I hope that that does not make it more difficult to have an effective advisory board.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the numbers to be appointed. I accept that 10 is a reasonable figure, but there may be circumstances where the commissioner would want to go above that. I fail to see why we cannot leave it to her good sense to be able to do so, if she wants to. I hope the Government will accept this very sensible and modest amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 44. This vital amendment was put forward by my noble friend Lady Helic—who was brilliant at speaking and introducing this amendment—along with the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Listening just now, I am in admiration of his speech.

As has been discussed, this amendment will introduce mandatory training on domestic abuse for judges and magistrates hearing family cases. I thank my noble friend Lady Helic for her work on this amendment and her commitment to improving the safety of family courts for survivors of domestic abuse.

The case for this amendment is very clear, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lady Helic. The Government’s own harm panel report collected overwhelming evidence on the systemic failings of our family courts to properly account for and guard against domestic abuse. Government Ministers have stated that they support the aims of this amendment and the principles which sit behind it, so I am left wondering why they will not take this clear and decisive step to improve and modernise the culture in the family courts and place this on the face of the Bill.

Instead of repeating points that have been so eloquently made by others during the passage of the Bill, I want to use my time to share the story of a survivor I met a few months ago. I hope her experience will again serve as a reminder of why we are here and who we are fighting for.

This victim took the courage to leave a violent, abusive relationship shortly after her baby was born a number of years ago. However, she remained controlled, harassed, stalked and humiliated by her abuser, who has been enabled by the family courts. Despite an extensive non-molestation order being in place, this victim has been through four years of family court proceedings and has been to court 17 times, including during the Covid lockdown periods. The abuser in this case has significant financial resources and so has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on his legal team, who rushed her to court multiple times knowing full well that she had no funds to access legal representation and no legal aid.

The court enabled further abuse by allowing him ongoing control and granting supervised contact. Risks to her safety should have been identified as the non-molestation order had been granted on the basis of his violence towards her. Nevertheless, the victim was ordered by the court that she could not take her phone with her during the supervised contact time. She was told that if he hit her or was otherwise violent towards her, she could wait until after the visitation was over to call the police.

The court has reputedly ignored evidence of the abuse against her and her son, who is now living with his violent father. She has lost all contact with her child because a judge declared that her decision to have another baby in a new relationship was a form of parental alienation.

The amendment we are now debating could have helped this survivor and many others I have heard about in a number of ways over a number of years. Mandatory training would have equipped our judges with the knowledge to understand the implications of a non-molestation order and the ongoing risks posed by a violent abuser. It would have supported judges to identify the pattern of aggressive litigation as another manifestation of the abuser’s controlling behaviour, and it would have helped judges to come to safer decisions around child contact arrangements or even to revoke the presumption of parental involvement in the context of a previously violent relationship.

The case I have outlined is particularly shocking because the abuse was easily evidenced and had been confirmed in other areas of the justice system, yet the family courts still failed to protect this survivor and her child. But as we know, other forms of abuse are less overt, more insidious and can be less clearly quantified. What hope do the courts have of identifying abuse when they are not being used legitimately but as a tool to continue control and abuse? Regular mandatory training by experts is required.

I am afraid that we too must consider our responsibilities in cases like this one. As a society and as a Government, we urge survivors to find the courage to leave abuse. We have promoted campaigns which tell survivors, “You are not alone.” But once they do leave, we abandon them at the gates of the family courts where we know that their safety and the safety of their children cannot be guaranteed and the risk of abuse is likely to be overlooked.

For too long, too many of us have turned a blind eye to what is happening in our family courts. We have gathered the evidence and have heard countless stories, so we can no longer claim not to know what is going on. The family courts are failing the survivors of domestic abuse and this landmark legislation will not live up to such a title if it leaves a gaping hole in protection and support by not introducing mandatory training on domestic abuse in family courts. Basically, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

As someone with a background of working in our courts, when I became the other side, the safety net is not as strong and supportive for victims and their families. I therefore urge my noble friend the Minister and the Government to take the necessary action and support this amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, although I will speak to Amendment 15, I should say this on Amendment 44: who could not be moved by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove? In many ways the issues that she, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, have developed are consistent with those raised by my noble friend Lady Armstrong.

At Second Reading, my noble friend described the challenge of supporting women who are at risk of losing custody of their children, where the main need was identified as domestic abuse. Supporting women who are facing multiple disadvantages requires a workforce with the skills, knowledge, and awareness to understand the range of experiences women have faced. It requires funders, commissioners and policymakers to value the workforce and be prepared to support the development of their expertise. This is particularly so for those who have lived experience—an important point made by my noble friend. Unfortunately, that is not always forthcoming. Many practitioners have reported that the ongoing training and awareness raising needed to support this type of practice was often the first thing to be cut to save money. There are other challenges in the wider workforce; evidence shows that public services are failing to pick up domestic abuse and respond appropriately. This means that many survivors are passed from service to service before finally getting the support they need, causing years of preventable hurt and even putting lives at risk. The need for effective investment in training and support for staff is overwhelming.