Domestic Abuse Bill

Public Bill Committee, 11 June 2020.

(Morning)

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Good morning. I have to remind people of social distancing. If anyone is uncomfortable with the social distancing, please let me know. It is most important. The other plea is that if you have notes for your speeches, please send them to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. That is a good idea. I have always found that my speeches improve enormously if I send the actual words to Hansard.

Support provided by local authorities to victims of domestic abuse

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 53, page 34, line 23, after “area,” insert—

“by all persons affected by domestic abuse regardless of status, duly taking into account the special situation of women and children, with reference to a national needs assessment,”.

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity about what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 68, in clause 53, page 34, line 24, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) prepare and publish a strategy for the provision of such support to meet the needs identified in its area by the assessment referred to in subsection 1(a) above, including sufficient specialist support for all persons affected by domestic abuse regardless of status,

(ba) in preparing and adopting any strategy, take account of any strategy to end violence against women and girls adopted by a Minister or Ministers, and”.

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity about what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 69, in clause 53, page 34, line 26, after “strategy”, insert

“and publish such evaluation in accordance with subsection (5)(a) and such regulation issued under subsection (8)”.

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity about what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 70, in clause 53, page 34, line 26, at end insert—

“(1A) The assessment and strategy referred to in subsections (1)(a) and (b) must, at a minimum, address the following matters—

(a) the prevalence of and trends in domestic abuse including that against women and girls, and the demographic of all persons in the area affected by domestic abuse;

(b) the needs for support, protection and safety of those who are affected by domestic abuse in the local population;

(c) the nature and extent of the need for and provision of specialist support in respect of those persons affected by domestic abuse with presenting characteristics including sex, gender, race, colour, language, religion,

(d) the specific needs of vulnerable persons including women and children regardless of status;

(e) the nature and extent of the need for and provision of specialist support to women who are affected by domestic abuse and their children;

(f) the need for and provision of refuge services in sufficient numbers to provide safe accommodation for victims, especially women and their children;

(1B) The relevant local authority shall allocate appropriate financial and human resources for the implementation of the strategy, including the arrangement of such specialist support as is set out in the strategy.

(1C) For the purposes of this section—

“domestic abuse support” means specialist support, in relation to domestic abuse, provided to victims of domestic abuse or their children, who reside in relevant accommodation, by organisations whose organisational purpose is to support victims and/or children and young people impacted by domestic abuse.

“relevant accommodation” means accommodation which is safe for victims and their children of a description specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. This must include refuge services, which are provided in separate or single-sex services within the meaning given in Part 7 of Schedule 3 of the Equality Act and the address of which cannot be made publicly available or disclosed.

“status” includes a status for the purpose of Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic abuse and combined forms of such status.

“national needs assessment” means the needs assessment prepared by the national oversight group referred to in section [National Oversight Group].”

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity about what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 71, in clause 53, page 34, line 39, after “area,” insert—

“(ba) any person, group or organisation providing support and services with those affected by domestic abuse in the local authority’s area, whether or not they are commissioned by the local authority,”.

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity of what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 72, in clause 53, page 34, line 42, after “appropriate” insert—

“to ensure equal representation and meet their equalities duties”.

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity of what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 73, in clause 53, page 35, line 1, after “strategy” insert—

“but only further to undertaking a consultation of the kind referred to in subsection (4) above and taking into account the needs identified in the assessment referred to in subsection (1)(a) and any population and support needs changes in the local authority’s area”.

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity about what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 74, in clause 53, page 35, line 1, at end insert—

“(ba) when undertaking a consultation to review or alter the strategy, must publish the timeframe for the consultation of the kind referred to in subsection (4)

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity about what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 75, in clause 53, page 35, line 16, after “strategy” insert—

“additional to those identified in subsection (1A)”.

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity about what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 76, in clause 53, page 35, line 21, after “strategy” insert—

“(f) how complaints about a local authority strategy will be handled;”.

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity about what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 77, in clause 53, page 35, line 25, after “authorities” insert—

“(ba) persons, groups and organisations providing support and services with those affected by domestic abuse locally, regionally and nationally,

(bb) organisations representing the interests of services providing specialist support for women and children affected by domestic abuse,”.

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity about what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 78, in clause 54, page 35, line 30, at end insert—

“(1A) The purpose of the board is to establish an equitable partnership that reflects the needs of those affected by domestic abuse in the local area and to deliver quality services that meet the needs of victims in the area identified in the assessment and strategy referred to in subsection (1) (a) and (b) of section 53.”

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity about what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 79, in clause 54, page 36, line 3, after “area” insert—

“, and (h) at least one person representing the interests of organisations working with or providing specialist support for women and children affected by domestic abuse”.

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity about what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Amendment 80, in clause 54, page 36, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) The domestic abuse local partnership board must establish a reference group of organisations delivering specialist support services to victims of domestic abuse and their children, and respond to recommendations made by the reference group in their decision making.”

This amendment strengthens the duty placed on Local Authorities by Part 4 and provides clarity of what Local Authorities will need to consider when exercising that duty.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

There is a huge number of different proposals in this group. I have tabled two alternative options with respect to part 4 of the Bill, and there is an element of cross-over. Ultimately, however, the purpose of each is different, albeit equally important. Due to the way in which the proposals are grouped, there will be some jumping around, but I will do my best to ensure that it is as easy as possible to follow.

To avoid confusion, I will deal with each option separately. The first serves to strengthen and clarify the existing part 4 of the Bill, and provides for a national oversight group. The second is a brand new broader duty to ensure support and protection from the Secretary of State and to provide for a commission of specialist domestic abuse support services.

I will begin with option one and amendments 67 to 80. These amendments set out to make a number of changes to the current duty on local authorities, dealing with what the Bill currently seeks to do to put a duty on local authorities. It would assess the need for accommodation-based domestic abuse services, prepare and publish a strategy for the provision of such support in the area, and create a local partnership board to oversee those functions.

Currently, the duty provides very little direction or guidance to local authorities in how to assess need for accommodation-based domestic abuse services and develop a strategy to meet their needs. I welcome the duty, for which I have fought for a long time. In fact, it predates the Minister’s elevation to her position, and she seems to have been here forever.

The current problematic trends in local authority commissioning and funding of refuges have led to disparate and inequitable provision across the country. From 2003 to 2011, support in refuges was largely paid for by Supporting People—a programme that was ring-fenced by central Government to local authorities, which funded a range of different accommodation-based support services or refuges. All refuges, my own included, received their funding through the Supporting People funding model.

The ring fence around Supporting People funding was removed in 2009, and in 2011 this funding was rolled into the general local authority revenue support grant. To be clear, this was a centralised funding pot specifically for not only victims of domestic violence, but all accommodation-based services, whether children with disabilities or offenders coming out of prison. They all used to be funded by that. That specialist funding was then rolled into the general revenue grant for local authorities.

The amount of support funding that refuge services receive from local authorities now varies significantly. In 2009 and again in 2011, I recall pointing out that this was going to happen if we removed the support in global funding. Here I am, some 11 years later. In 2019, over one in 10—13%—of refuges stated that they received no local authority funding at all. Many are now only able to deliver life-saving support through charitable funding.

At the same time as these significant changes in the budgets for supporting refuges have been made, there have been significant changes in how those budgets are administered. At the end of the last decade, as domestic abuse began to become a priority for statutory agencies, competitive tendering for service provision began to be used. This has in large part been toxic for specialist refuge services, as those procurement processes favour larger organisations and big contracts above small specialist women’s refuges that are expert in meeting the needs of local survivors.

It was probably the day before yesterday that I referred to Jacky Mulveen, who runs a local domestic violence service in Birmingham. I talked about how in her organisation, which is a three-woman band, she is everything: she is the fundraiser, the manager, the support worker, and she makes the baps when the women need something to eat. Over the past few years, the reality is that the organisations that are definitely best placed to provide these services have been put up against organisations that have teams of people writing commissioning documents. Specialist services run by, and for, black and minority ethnic women are systematically disadvantaged within competitive tendering, which favours larger providers. As a result of those damaging commissioning and funding trends, women are being turned away daily from the support that they need.

In 2019, there were 3,914 refuge spaces for women in England, which according to the Council of Europe recommendation is a shortfall of 30%. Demand for refuge services continues to exceed supply: in 2018-19, 64% of referrals to refuges responding to the Women’s Aid annual survey were declined, with lack of space or capacity to support the survivor cited as the main reason. For anyone who has never had to fill in that annual survey, it is a census of a day in refuge. Hundreds of refuges across the country are part of the Women’s Aid survey, and a whole range of data is collected from it: the refuge gives the number of women and children in its services, and also gives the number of people it has had to turn away. That survey showed that 64% of people who came forward on the day of the census had to be turned away from the service.

Data on bed spaces and demand in isolation masks the significant barriers preventing certain groups of survivors who face intersecting forms of oppression from accessing safety. There are currently just 40 refuges in England that are run specifically for particular groups of women, such as black and minoritised women. As documented by Imkaan, there is a long history of underfunding and political marginalisation of refuges led by and for BME women, which has impacted on the sustainability of their life-saving work. Services led by and for black and minority ethnic women report significant discrimination and disadvantage within commissioning structures and approaches to funding, because their specialism is often unrecognised, misunderstood and devalued.

I will put that in layman’s terms. From the perspective of a nine-bed refuge specifically for women from the south Asian community, if a local authority puts out a commissioning document saying that it wants refuges in the area and is commissioning 80 beds in the borough, what that nine-bed refuge has to offer cannot meet those targets, and it is very rare for such a commissioning document to ask for any specialisation in that particular issue. Next week—I am sure the Minister is looking forward to this—we will discuss some of the barriers to accessing services faced specifically by migrant victims of domestic abuse. This is just another layer. On top of that, the specialist services that cater for those victims are often faced with not being able to take part in more general commissioning rounds.

In 2018, Imkaan reported that just 11% of the income for services led by and for black and minority ethnic women that they surveyed was from local authorities, compared to 40% from trusts and foundations. In London, where the majority of those organisations are based, local authorities are estimated to have cut funding for refuge services led by and for black and minority ethnic women by 50% in the last seven years. The fact that most of those organisations are based in London is nothing to celebrate. It is lucky for London that many such organisations are based there, even though they appear not to be being funded, but the needs for such services outside London are equally great.

Many refuge vacancies are not accessible for women with specific support needs, including those with issues around mental health or drug and alcohol use, those who have children with them, and those have no recourse to public funds because of their immigration status, or lack of clarity about it. Just 5.8% of refuges in England were able to accommodate women with no recourse to public funds. It is essential that the Bill requires local authorities to assess need and develop a funding strategy in a consistent, effective way.

This series of amendments would ensure that local authorities do the following: make arrangements for the provision of all accommodation for all victims, regardless of their immigration status; base their local needs assessment on a national needs assessment for refuge services, which I will discuss the need for later; respond to the prevalence of trends in domestic abuse, including that experienced by victims with protected characteristics, including race, disability and sexual orientation, in the local area; ensure that at there is specialist support to meet the specific needs of women and children experiencing domestic abuse, including refuge services, in sufficient numbers; and provide sufficient funding to implement the strategy, including to specialist support services. Local authorities would meaningfully consult with local specialist domestic abuse and violence against women and girls services in developing, altering or replacing a local strategy. The requirements mirror much of the existing language in the Istanbul convention.

The Bill requires local authorities to establish local partnership boards to oversee how they are delivering their statutory duties. While in some areas strong multi-agency partnership arrangements between specialist services commissioners and other partners are well established, in others there will be significant challenges in setting up collaborative boards that meet the needs of survivors and children. Evidence has been presented to the Government of extremely poor practice in partnership working, including the exclusion of specialist services, particularly those led by and for BME women, in the planning and delivery of services.

The purpose of the amendments is to make it clear that the purpose of the local partnership board is to establish an equitable partnership that reflects the needs of those impacted by domestic abuse in the local area, and works to deliver quality services that meet victims’ needs. They would ensure that local specialist domestic abuse and VAWG services are represented on the board, require the board to establish a reference group of specialist service providers, and ensure that their views and recommendations are responded to in the board’s decision making.

I welcome the boards, but I want to see some safeguards about exactly who will be on them. When I was first elected to Birmingham City Council, the average age of a Birmingham city councillor was around 60. I could not help but be filled with jollity that they were the people who got to decide on youth services in the area. It is important to ensure that the right people are on local partnership boards.

Perhaps confusingly—things will soon become clear—I want to refer back to amendment 70, and particularly the definitions in proposed subsection (1C) that it would insert into clause 53. It is my view that the Bill’s definitions of “relevant accommodation” and “domestic abuse support” do not offer the level of support that the Bill purports to provide.

“Relevant accommodation” is not defined in the Bill, which states that the matter will be dealt with through the ever-vaunted regulations. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which I imagine might even have another name by the time the Bill is passed—I have to train myself not to call it DCLG—included, when concluding its consultation on the duty, the following accommodation types in its definition: refuge accommodation, specialist safe accommodation, dispersed accommodation, sanctuary schemes and move-on or second stage accommodation. Those definitions are potentially unclear, and therefore potentially unsafe. They carry a significant risk that temporary or generic accommodation-based services, with limited or housing-focused support for survivors and their children, which do not deliver a safe environment and the support that they need, could be commissioned and funded by the local authority.

In my area, and in fact in almost every area—certainly in the cities in this country; I have no doubt that what I am talking about is happening in Westminster as well as Birmingham—there will be houses in multiple occupation currently funded through housing benefit in the local authority area: that is, to fund support for a variety of homeless people. Included in the list of things that the HMO landlords put in their service specifications will be domestic abuse, but zero domestic abuse support will be offered there. There will not be key work strategies for the victims. There certainly will not be family support workers. There will be someone who comes and collects the rent, and that is it. Those HMOs operate all over London, Birmingham, Manchester and every city in this country. At the moment, the Bill could allow a council to say, “We have got domestic abuse victims accommodated in this provision.” Potentially, therefore, there is a risk under the Bill of people being put in unsafe accommodation.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. Yes, the Minister should not chunter, but equally I do not think we should widen the debate too far.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

Absolutely. Sheldon police station is no longer a police station, and there is now a planning application for it to become temporary accommodation. To return to the debate, police stations were often built in communities. My father was born in Sheldon, on the estate that the police station looks over. It is built on a sort of plinth, making it possible to see across the whole community. It can be seen from pretty much everywhere in the Garretts Green Chestnuts estate, as we call it colloquially. It is not hidden; it is not discreet.

The building was sold and, in the planning application that was put in for temporary accommodation, that accommodation was going to be provided for a list of people. One item on the list was victims of domestic abuse. Another was offenders. Another was people with drug and alcohol misuse problems. There was to be no specification about whether there would just be women in the place, or just men. Those people would be housed together. Every single council in the land will have a planning application exactly like this one, through which private landlords seek to make money by turning the property into temporary accommodation for victims of domestic abuse, even though it is completely unsafe. None of us would be happy to place them in such accommodation, but the Bill does nothing to prevent that from happening.

To avoid that situation, the definition must align with definitions established on Routes to Support, which is a UK-wide service directory, partly funded by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, relating to violence against women and girls. The only accommodation-based service on the Routes to Support model is a refuge service. I ran refuge services, and it was not just buildings with different flats in them. It was dispersed accommodation. We had about 18 flats in the community that were single-use, for all sorts of reasons, including the need to provide disability space and space for boys over the age of 14. In sex-based, women-only services, as boys become older there are safety issues involved in having males in a women’s refuge. So, for women with teenage boys—my teenage boy is nearly twice my size and he definitely looks like a man—we made sure that dispersed accommodation was available.

We are talking not just about refuges that people might imagine to be a house where lots of women live together. We are talking about refuge accommodation in its broadest terms, including shared houses, self-contained and dispersed accommodation. The amendment seeks to require that the relevant accommodation, as defined in the regulations, must be safe for survivors and their children.

Julie Marson (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

The hon. Lady mentions the relevant accommodation. I cannot help looking at subsection (2), which notes that

“‘relevant accommodation’ means accommodation of a description specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.”

What the hon. Lady is covering is covered there, and will be specified in the regulations.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

Hope springs eternal for what I am covering here being in the regulations. Had we seen the regulations, we would not have to debate whether it is going to be in them. Unless the regulations are drawn according to clearly defined grounds, I fear that there is a real risk that people will just say, “Yes, I am a provider for victims of domestic violence.”

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

I just draw the hon. Lady’s attention to subsections (9) and (10). Subsection (9) reads:

“The power to make regulations under subsection (8) may, in particular, be exercised to make provision about—

(a) the procedure to be followed by a relevant local authority in preparing a strategy;

(b) matters to which a relevant local authority must have regard in preparing a strategy;

(c) how a relevant local authority must publish a strategy;

(d) the date by which a relevant local authority must first publish a strategy;

(e) the frequency with which a relevant local authority must review its strategy.”

Subsection (10) states that, in making the regulations,

“the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,

(b) relevant local authorities, and

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

We are trying to be as open and transparent as possible in drawing up these regulations.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I absolutely agree, and I have no reason to doubt that there will be transparency in drawing up the regulations. However, I am not entirely sure why we cannot include in the Bill our opposition to that sort of accommodation. The amendment would require that the relevant accommodation, as defined in regulations, must be safe for survivors and their children and that the definition must include refuge services. All I am seeking is assurances that that will be included in the Bill. What is the point of making laws unless we are going to lean on them when things go wrong? We need a document that states that.

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

Again, by way of safeguarding, the local authorities are doing what is intended by the Bill. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to clause 55, which states that the local authority

“must submit to the Secretary of State an annual report in relation to the exercise of the authority’s functions under this Part during the year.”

That is how the Secretary of State can ensure that individual local authorities are doing what they should be doing and meeting the expectations of the Bill.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I again thank the Minister, but with the greatest respect to the Secretary of State, unless something is written into the Bill, I do not know whether she will agree with what I am saying about what determines safe accommodation. All I seek to do in amending the Bill is a belt-and-braces job to ensure that that is the case—that what is perceived as good refuge accommodation is written into the Bill.

Peter Kyle (Labour, Hove)

This has been a heated but illuminating exchange—

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

I am being gentle.

Peter Kyle (Labour, Hove)

Gentle for the Minister is sometimes brutalising for those on the receiving end. Is it not true that a lot of the Bill, in particular at this point, relies on regulations? That means that we will have to rely not only on those Ministers currently in post but on the whim of future Ministers as well. That is why it is important that we nail down the Bill’s intentions. Rather than criticism of the to and fro in Committee, would it not be great to hear Ministers explain the intention, so that the next incumbents of their roles can see properly what the Bill is intended to do?

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

Absolutely. I have talked about my love of section 17 of the Children Act—I love to turn to a law. Had those issues been left to regulation, they would have been the responsibility of any incumbent Government, even when it seemed that literally anything could have happened in our politics over the past 10 years. Had section 17 not been written into law, it would have had to be done by regulation. As the Minister as pointed out, a law can be updated and be subject to annual reviews, but I want something that is protected forever. Just like section 17, I want this to apply always, because I have seen the degradation experienced by victims of domestic abuse as a result of their accommodation.

This is not about the vagaries of language in the Bill. I saw what happened when ring-fenced funding was removed from Supporting People. It was explicit about what kind of accommodation it would fund, and because it had national oversight, we had to fill in all sorts of protocols and forms. Given my long involvement in this particular sector, I am used to the cyclical debates. Looking back, it is funny. When the Supporting People funding was in place, we used to have to fill in forms about the number of bed spaces per 10,000 people. I remember filling in the little forms and sending them off, but what came with them was the idea that local authority areas had a duty to provide a certain amount of spaces through the Supporting People funding. Yet here we are, back again, rightly and honourably putting that duty into law.

When the national oversight was removed and the fund was no longer specifically about that, I saw all sorts of organisations saying, “Yeah, we provide for victims of domestic abuse.” In my constituency, the Holiday Inn could claim to be a refuge. A commissioning round could include Ibis, because people in my constituency and those of all Members present are being accommodated in Ibis hotels. Do we think that that is a refuge?

A council needs to put people where the space is, and the Bill, through this very good clause, seeks to ensure that councils do that better, but only by regulation. All I ask is that the idea of what a refuge is be written into the Bill, because a lot of councils—especially at the moment, my gosh—have a million different things going on. We need to be really prescriptive.

I referred to Ibis. I have to say that, during the beginning of the pandemic, some of those hotel chains absolutely came to the rescue of people like me. However, I do not think that anybody here wants to see domestic abuse victims living in one room, with all their children, and without any cooking facilities—of course, in the coronavirus crisis, they could not even go to the local McDonald’s. They are literally left resourceless. Although the Ibis might provide someone with a roof over their head, it does not provide them with support for their trauma or an understanding of what move-on actually means.

The aim of the amendment is to include a short definition of refuge services in the Bill, making it clear that they are provided separately for men and women, within single-sex services, within the meaning given in part 7 of schedule 3 to the Equality Act 2010, and that the refuge’s address cannot be made publicly available or disclosed. Although that seems like a small thing, it is very important.

To go back to my example of Ibis, it discloses its addresses all over the internet. The reality is that if there is some accommodation that has a couple of rooms for people who have experienced domestic abuse, a couple of rooms for people with substance misuse issues and a couple of rooms for people who are in the general homeless category, the idea that the kinds of safeguards required when a refuge is opened could possibly be put in place is wrong. Licence agreements would have to be given to everybody in that building. When someone comes into a refuge, they are there on a licence. Licence agreements would have to be given to everybody, to people with chaotic lives who are not victims of domestic abuse, asking them not to tell their family where they were, for example.

All I ask is that clarity be written into the Bill. I do not want to be in the position—although I know I will be, because I remember the things I said when the Supporting People funding was made mainstream—in three years’ time of standing in this building again and proving myself right when I say that this duty is being used to put people in inappropriate accommodation. The right outcome cannot be guaranteed without it being written into the Bill.

I care very, very deeply about domestic violence refuges, and sometimes the situation is maddening. Everybody in this place will feel the same. The Ministers in front of me probably think this about the courts in this land and the practice of law. Sometimes, when people talk in these buildings about something that is words on paper, it feels to those of us who have lived it and are deeply ingrained in it that we are screaming and people cannot hear our experiences. That is difficult.

Let me move on to domestic abuse support. Currently, the Bill defines “domestic abuse support” as

“support, in relation to domestic abuse, provided to victims of domestic abuse, or their children”.

Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I hope that this does not move us away from the text, but on the hon. Lady’s point, it strikes me that a national overview that allowed women to move to different parts of the country might be particularly relevant for migrant women, who do not have any roots in any particular part of the country. If there were a bed that was appropriate for them in, say, Lincolnshire, Carmarthen or Birmingham, they could go there.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

Absolutely—the hon. Lady makes an important point. Constituents of mine, because of the accommodation that is provided under the contracts for refugees in this country, have moved overnight to different areas. They have pulled their children out of school and been sent to different areas as part of what we used to call NASS—National Asylum Support Service—accommodation. The terminology changes quicker than the weather in this country. That is absolutely the case and, currently, it is exactly what happens in a different part of the Home Office.

In 2017, a joint report by the Work and Pensions Committee and the Communities and Local Government Committee concluded:

“It is essential that refuges are able to operate as a national network, unrestrained by admission restrictions imposed by individual local authorities and with appropriate coverage across the country.”

That national network of services cannot be assessed, planned, commissioned or funded on the basis of local need alone. I am not for one second saying that local needs assessments are not needed, because they absolutely are, but not on their own, which leaves a deficit in the Bill.

Although the Government have stated that they will establish a ministerial-led national steering group to monitor and evaluate delivery of the new duty, that is not set out in the Bill, and we do not consider it robust enough to oversee this life-saving national network of services. On the point made by my hon. Fried the Member for Hove, I have absolutely no doubt that the Minister would seek to have quarterly meetings on national oversight. The Minister sat in front of me is a diligent one who cares just as deeply as me about those services—of that I have absolutely no doubt—but she may not always be in her post. It is very easy for Ministers, because they have a lot on their plate, to sigh when they see in their calendars that this or that particular meeting is next week. I want it stated in the Bill that those meetings must be in those calendars. Basically, I am blocking Ministers’ calendars—consider the Committee the invite list.

New clause 48 would establish a national oversight group that included the domestic abuse commissioner to undertake a national needs assessment for refuge services, including a review of their provision for victims with protected characteristics. The national oversight group would ensure that local authorities and local partnership boards were effectively discharging their duties, including

“monitoring compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and implementation of Equality Impact Assessments for relevant commissioning and procurement processes”.

The group would also oversee the delivery of funding by local partnerships and local authorities and would sanction ineffective or inadequate provision and practice—that is my favourite bit; I like a sanction. It would ensure compliance with the Istanbul convention and the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, or CEDAW, as well as ensuring ongoing liaison with relevant monitoring bodies. It is all very well to place a duty on local authorities—it is a good idea—but another issue entirely to ensure that they discharge that duty effectively. There is no provision for that in the Bill. If safeguards are not in place, there is no guarantee that provision will improve. Vulnerable women will remain in precarious situations. The national oversight group is merely a safeguard and I do not think it is a lot to ask.

Turning completely away from refuge accommodation —well, not completely; these things are always tied together—new clauses 19 and 20 discuss community-based domestic abuse services. We all know the invaluable work that specialist services provide to adult and child victims of domestic abuse, often in some of the darkest moments, but we also know that there are not enough of those services to support all the victims who need them. Access depends very much on where we live—I keep going back to my Sandwell and Dudley example.

Initially, it looks like clause 53 helps to address that point. It places a duty on local authorities to provide statutory support for victims, including children, who have had to uproot their lives, leave their home and move into safe accommodation such as refuge. However, my concern, which is shared widely with a broad group of charities and representative organisations, is that clause 53 could lead to a two-tier system. While benefiting victims who can access refuge, the clause ignores the majority of victims—nearly 70%—who are supported by community-based services.

Some 65,000 adults and 85,000 children who are at the highest risk of serious harm and murder—in some cases, we are talking literally about life and death—are supported by an independent domestic violence adviser. Services are almost completely based in community support services. In fact, the Justice Secretary accepted in his speech on Second Reading that the majority of victims fell outside the scope of clause 53. Some 13,000 women were supported in refuge in 2016-17, but 2.3 million people were victims of domestic abuse in that year. The Government’s ambition in the Bill guarantees support for just 0.5% of victims.

Covid-19 and the restrictions that have been put in place mean that families have been locked away at home, out of sight of professionals and facing mounting pressures. During this time, services have told us of increasing domestic abuse, such as the use of coercive control now controlling food intake and finances more than before. Children in these homes no longer attend school as they are not deemed as vulnerable, necessarily, or in the relevant group. It is very difficult to see a way that a victim of domestic abuse who might not be within the statutory service—by that I mean children’s social care—would ring up and say, “Well, my kid needs a place because I am a victim of domestic abuse.” That seems vanishingly unlikely.

Additionally, not all victims have equal access to services. Migrant women and their children, disabled victims, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims face multiple barriers in accessing services. Black, Asian and minority ethnic victims are less likely to be able to access refuge services, for all the reasons that we will go into in depth next week. Importantly, the need for equal protection in the Bill was endorsed by the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill.

We are told that the domestic abuse commissioner will be responsible for conducting a review of community-based services, which will report back to the Government. Seemingly, that is because the landscape of service provision is vast and complex. Suzanne Jacob of SafeLives clearly said to us in the evidence session that it is not. For anybody who does not know, while Women’s Aid and Refuge are the main bodies that represent victims of domestic violence in refuge, SafeLives is essentially the go-to organisation with regard to community-based services, so Suzanne Jacob’s evidence should be taken very seriously. Imagine she is the Chris Whitty of this particular field—now, wash your hands.

The Minister has told us that this review could take some 12 months, which I feel is too long. With this Bill, we have the opportunity to act right now and ensure that all victims are protected and supported, not just those who have to leave their home.

Repeatedly, in any debate on domestic abuse or housing in this place, we hear hon. Members say, “It is not fair that the victim has to leave the home.” I think everyone would agree with that. We need to move to a model where the perpetrator is removed from this circumstance, not the victim. The Bill puts the statutory duty on victims escaping—I am glad that it does—but it does not allow for the same duties on public authorities, broader than the local authority, to seek to put in place the support that would meet that ambitious target that so many people speak to.

That is why I propose to amend the Bill to place a duty on all relevant public authorities to commission specialist domestic abuse support services and for all persons affected by domestic abuse. I want to stress that when I say all public bodies, I mean it. I know this is a bit confusing because these are all pushed together into one explanation. Previously, we talked about the local authority and its national oversight. I am now talking, for example, about health services, many of which do not commission any domestic abuse services.

Whether with health authorities—another thing that changes its name more regularly than the weather—or education, every Minister of the Crown must look at their area. We are often told that things work in silos and so much of this is not just the Home Office. There is a need for other public bodies to take this duty seriously, especially as we have the two Ministers before us.

We should consider the vast majority of commissioning in this area: the Home Office is but a bit-part player with regard to the commissioning of domestic abuse services. It is beaten outright by the Department of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, the Ministry of Justice, with regard to police and crime commissioners. Yet he only gets a silver. It is licked by local authorities under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I want to see the Secretary of State for Health somewhere on that podium. I want to see every A&E in our land recognise the need for a specialist to speak to people coming in with broken bones and poorly arms. This exists, funnily enough, in Sandwell and Dudley, thanks to some people who are excellent at fighting for things.

I want to see the Secretary of State for Education talking about this. We have made steps forward in talking about the mental health of children at school. I want to see the same thing for domestic abuse. If you have people in your Department, you have victims of domestic abuse. That is the end of it.

The duty that I propose would ensure that all adult and child victims who remained at home in the community or in accommodation-based services could access support to recover from their trauma, young people under 18 who were in abusive relationships could access support to break the cycle of abuse and adult perpetrators could access quality-assured programmes so that we could tackle reoffending.

Importantly, a thread of non-discrimination runs through this amendment, to ensure the provision of inclusive and accessible services for all victims, regardless of their status, particularly those migrant victims who are traumatised by their abusers and further traumatised by the state, which discriminates against them by withholding access to life-saving support.

Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the prominent features of our debates on this Bill, over its long life in Parliament, has been the desire on all sides of the House to protect migrant women and to ratify the Istanbul convention? That that has not been done for eight years is a failure that cannot be excused, but these new clauses and amendments could go some way to ensuring that the convention was ratified and that those migrant women, and their children, got the attention that is obviously desired for them by Members across the House and people across the country.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady from Scotland, which is not currently covered by the Bill. The Home Office is, of course, in charge of the policy that covers Scotland with regard to this area of immigration and the destitution funding that is put in place in those circumstances. She is right that there are hundreds of voices—nay thousands, according to the petitions on this—on one side of the argument, with regard to the need for access to support for all migrant victims of domestic abuse. It seems that there are some in this place, on the other side of the House, who do not agree. However, on Second Reading and in the Joint Committee, every specialist agency, all the commissioners and every expert involved—I have not asked Chris Whitty, but I imagine he might fall on my side about this—stated that the Bill needs to do more and that it needs to look at specific issues around migrant women.

This is not some radical left-wing approach, unless the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) could be considered a radical left-winger. Indeed, the issue was raised by the onetime Immigration Minister on Second Reading. We will speak to the issue in far greater detail next week, but without such provision the ability to ratify the Istanbul convention is null and void. I cannot understand why we would put together a Bill about domestic abuse victims that did not explicitly support every single one of them. That is the simple fact about what we have at the moment.

Throughout the amendment runs the thread of non-discrimination, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West pointed out. We cannot pass a Bill that discriminates or has a blind spot on the effects of domestic abuse on young children. By providing an inclusive and holistic approach—by working with all those affected—we can truly tackle domestic abuse. These new clauses provide an opportunity for us to make changes now, not in 12 months’ time, and ensure that all victims of this horrific crime are supported.

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

If I may, I will first explain the duty in clause 53, because the amendment is relevant as it is key to what is intended. I want to be sure that everybody understands what clause 53 does.

We are clear that it is critical that victims of domestic abuse are able to access specialist support, in safe accommodation, when they need it. At the moment, nobody has responsibility to provide this support and, as a result, coverage is patchy, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley set out. That is why I am pleased that we have included part 4 in the Bill, which will put in place duties on tier 1 local authorities in England to ensure a clear framework for needs assessment, commissioning and reporting on outcomes, so that everyone has a chance of accessing the support that they need within safe accommodation.

Clauses 53 to 57 will together ensure a consistent approach to support in safe accommodation for victims and children who are forced to leave home to escape domestic abuse, with national coverage across local authorities. Clause 53 places a duty on each relevant local authority to assess the need for domestic abuse support for victims and their children within its area. Local authorities are best placed to assess the needs of victims in their area, considering the different requirements of all victims, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, as well as victims and their children who may come in from outside the local authority area. The local authority must then prepare and publish a strategy for the provision of support within its area, give effect to that strategy, and monitor and evaluate its effectiveness.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. As the Minister started in this vein, it would be appropriate to have the stand part debate for clause 53 now. She is already speaking to it.

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

Thank you, Mr Bone. That is very helpful.

Clause 53 defines “domestic abuse support” as

“support, in relation to domestic abuse, provided to victims of domestic abuse, or their children, who reside in relevant accommodation”.

Such support may include the overall management of the service, the provision of emotional support and practical advice such as on housing options, specialist support for victims with protected characteristics, and children’s support.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley raised the spectre of Ibis and other hotel chains. To be clear, the duty only covers support within safe accommodation services. In the majority of cases, the costs of rent and eligible services charges will be met through welfare benefits, housing benefit in particular, so this measure is very much focused on the specialist services within safe accommodation.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

How do we stop—I quote someone’s email—an “HMO daddy”? How do we stop them claiming to offer all of those things? What will we put in place that is beyond what is currently in place to assess use of the housing benefit system, which, I hasten to add, is not working?

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

Part 4. I will take the hon. Lady through it carefully, so that she understands how we have cross-checking systems in this part, in addition to all the checks in the rest of the Bill, including the commissioner and local authorities.

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will specify in regulations a description of “relevant accommodation”. That is intended to be a broad definition in recognition of the diversity of housing in which the victims of domestic abuse and their children may live, from refuges to dispersed housing units. That is one of the complexities that we have had to deal with during the covid-19 crisis.

Clearly, people at the beginning stage of fleeing their accommodation will be in a different state of mind, different physical states and a different state of trauma after receiving specialist support in safe accommodation and when looking to enter the next stage of their life. Therefore, that diversity of accommodation must be reflected in the regulations. That will help to ensure that victims get the right support in the right place for them, which includes refuge accommodation, specialist safe accommodation, dispersed units of accommodation, sanctuary schemes, and move-on or second-stage accommodation.

The duty will require each relevant local authority to give effect to its strategy in carrying out its functions. Before publishing the strategy, the local authority must consult the domestic abuse local partnership board established under clause 54. Looking at the membership of that board, the hon. Lady understandably expressed concerns such as whether we were collecting or aware of data from A&E departments, but we have set out that not just tier 2 local authorities should be represented on the board, if appropriate to the local area, but victims of domestic abuse, children of domestic abuse victims, voluntary organisations and charities that work with victims of domestic abuse, persons who have responsibilities in relation to healthcare services in the area, and policing and criminal justice representatives.

We have very much taken on board the requests in the consultation and elsewhere for a multi-agency approach to this problem. That is very much the direction of travel at national level. Through clause 54, we are insisting that it is the direction of travel at local level.

Liz Twist (Labour, Blaydon)

May I ask the Minister to comment on community services? The references to the provision of accommodation services are welcome, but she will know that there is a concern in the children’s sector in particular—but not only that sector—about the provision of community services, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has described, are a large part of the services for children. Will she comment on how that can be secured?

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

I am going to, but a little bit later in my speech, because I am concerned to ensure that everybody understands the purposes of this part. I sense that there may be a little bit of misunderstanding; I want to make sure we are all clear and will deal with that point later.

The duty will require consultation with the local partnership board—local partnership boards do not exist at the moment; they will be a really important factor in local areas—and will ensure that the local authority draws on the expertise of local domestic abuse services in its area. That provides for local accountability, requiring as it does the consultation.

The strategy that is created by the tier 1 local authority must be kept under review and any alterations, amendments or replacement must be published. That is in lockstep with everything else we are trying to do with the Bill, through the commissioner’s reports, the strategy plans and so on—making sure that this is transparent. At the moment, it will not be very easy in some areas to understand what the local strategy is. We want this section, with all the other parts of the Bill, to make that really clear.

The relevant local authorities have been picked as being tier 1 local authorities because of their larger geographical coverage, which is often coterminous with the footprint of other key partners such as police and crime commissioners, which supports planning of services. Providing support across a wider area will also help those victims who need to move further to stay safe. My own county of Lincolnshire is one of the largest counties in England and is an example of where a tier 1 local authority can help. Someone who lives in one corner of the county may be an hour and a half or two hours’ drive away from my constituency. They have that breadth of service provision and knowledge. That is how we have selected the authority, but we are also clear that tier 2 local authorities, where they exist, must play their part, which is precisely why we want them to be part of the partnership boards.

Of course, tier 1 authorities also have related responsibility in governance arrangements to draw on in leading this work, including their work on adult social care, health and wellbeing boards, community safety partnerships and children’s services.

In London in particular, tier 2 authorities will be critical to the success of this system, because they will have responsibility for housing and in some parts they commission domestic abuse services as well. We are putting the joined-up approach that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and many others in the sector have been crying out for into the Bill in part 4 at local level.

Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am listening carefully to the Minister, as I did to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley before her. However well-meaning the amendment is—no one can doubt that it is well-meaning—everything the Minister is saying reinforces the impression that the Bill is driving progress and consistency across local government across England. Does she worry, as I do, that the amendment might stymie that progress across local authority areas and prove a block to what we are trying to achieve?

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

I agree with my hon. Friend that the amendments are clearly coming from the right place, but we share that concern. The system that is being constructed in the Bill has been constructed as a result of intense reflection on consultation and in conversations with our charitable partners, service providers and so on. This is the end of a very intensive exercise of reflection and working out what can best help victims at a local level.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley also raised a fair point about assessing local need for accommodation-based support when victims may have to flee across boundaries. I am alert to that, and we will be developing a standardised needs assessment form to support local authorities in carrying out their needs assessment. Our statutory guidance will make clear the need for all areas to provide support to victims and their children from outside the area, and to work with other local authorities to allow victims easy movement from one area to another, while ensuring their safety.

There are some services that survey national need, such as dedicated services that support the needs of BAME and LGBT+ victims and people of faith. Our statutory guidance will make it clear that local area needs assessments should take those vital services into account.

Clause 54, as I have said, sets up the local partnership boards. A board will support the relevant authority in undertaking a robust local assessment of the need for domestic abuse support in its area. It will support the relevant authority in developing and publishing a local strategy based on the needs assessment. Through the duty to appoint a board, which must reflect the range of skills and expertise of different local partners—I suspect the local board in Birmingham will look different from that in Cumbria, because they are different areas with different populations and needs, and it is precisely that flexibility and responsiveness that we want throughout the Bill—the clause will help to ensure that an effective local domestic abuse strategy is put in place, informed by a needs assessment that has been tested by those who support victims of domestic abuse and their children day in, day out. Those strategies are not being imposed from Whitehall. They are being drawn up in local areas, where the needs are best understood.

The clause sets out the minimum requirement for board members. I have already outlined who is included in that. However, there is flexibility to appoint others as well. Relevant local authorities will be able to decide whether an existing board can fulfil the requirements or whether to create a new, dedicated board to fulfil the duty. Again, we are trying to be as flexible as possible, because we accept the point that some areas have managed to make much more progress in providing the services than others. Clause 54 is an important provision.

Clause 55 relates to the requirement on tier 1 local authorities to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State on how they are doing. The Secretary of State will make regulations about the form and contents of the report, and so on, but local authorities will be responsible not just to the local partnership board and, as democratically elected councils, the voting public, but to the Secretary of State. I imagine that the commissioner, who herself has reporting requirements under the Bill, will pay close attention to those annual reports.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley may be reassured to know, although it is not on the face of the Bill, that as part of the annual report there will be a national steering group. It will be led by an MHCLG Minister and established to monitor and evaluate delivery of the new duty. Therefore, there will be the safeguard of the clause 54 requirements, as well as clause 55, and in addition we will set up an expert steering group, on which the commissioner will sit, to consider the analysed information provided by local authorities.

Alex Davies-Jones (Labour, Pontypridd)

When the Minister talks about a national steering body, could she clarify whether she means England and Wales, or England only?

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

Of course, it will respect the devolution arrangement. I like the phrase “jagged edge”; it describes it well. The group will work within the devolution arrangement. As has been the case throughout the Bill’s passage, we are happy to compare and work with our Welsh partners to ensure a consistent approach and to ensure that there is learning, and so on. We have taken an open approach throughout the Bill.

The group will review the operation of local needs assessments and the provision of domestic abuse support in safe accommodation across the country, specifically considering specialist provision for those who share relevant protected characteristics and services that serve a national rather than a local need. That will allow best practice to be shared and will highlight areas that may need further support to provide the consistent coverage expected by victims and the Government.

Clause 56 deals with guidance in addition to local partnership boards and the annual reports. The Secretary of State will also issue guidance to local authorities in England on exercising their functions in part 4. The clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the domestic abuse commissioner, local authorities and other persons considered appropriate by the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) requires local authorities to have regard to the guidance when exercising a function to which it relates. We are pleased to say that the guidance —which has been welcomed by local authorities—is to help them to deliver these vital services at local level. It will clearly outline the Government’s expectations for local authorities in delivering this duty.

We recognise that there is a balance between giving local authorities the flexibility to meet particular local needs and the requirement for a consistent approach to the provision of support within safe accommodation across the country. The guidance will help to provide a standardised approach to enable that to happen. We will make it clear in the guidance how that duty interacts with other duties and requirements on local authorities, such as those relating to homelessness.

I hope that colleagues with particular expertise will understand that the guidance will, I suspect, be quite a weighty document in its own right. It will sit alongside the statutory guidance that we have talked about for the Bill as a whole, precisely because we want it to be a working document for practitioners on the ground. We aim to have the draft guidance published in time for the Lords Committee stage. The report stands to be reviewed as necessary, of course. That sets out the framework of the clauses, and I will go into more detail on some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley and her colleague the hon. Member for Blaydon.

Once again, I emphasise that the statutory duty is to provide support to victims and their children within safe accommodation. Our concern is that new clauses 19 and 20 would apply more broadly to local and other relevant public authorities. The Committee may not be aware that responsibility for the provision of victim support services—including services targeted at perpetrators in order to support victims—has sat with police and crime commissioners since 2014. Local authorities will be bound by the new statutory duty to provide support to victims of domestic abuse residing in safe accommodation within their areas, but responsibility for wider victim support and perpetrator programmes will remain with police and crime commissioners.

Since 2014, PCCs have been funded by the Ministry of Justice to support victims of crime in their local areas and to address the specific needs identified in their local communities. That funding totalled some £68 million in 2019-20. PCCs have unique insight into the crime profiles and demographics of their local areas and thus the ability to allocate funding to those victims in need. Their autonomy to fund victim support services to meet local need should be preserved.

To create a duty that is workable and takes advantage of the considerable knowledge of local and public bodies, it must be placed on the specific authority that holds responsibility for particular services. Just as the new duty in part 4 will apply only to tier 1 local authorities, the commissioning of support for victims in the community must remain with PCCs and, in some cases, clinical commissioning groups. Interventions with perpetrators in the community must remain with PCCs, local authorities and, in some cases, CCGs. There is a variety with community-based services that there is not so much with refuge accommodation.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

Will the Minister give way?

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

I know that the hon. Lady cited the fact that 13% of refuge accommodation is not commissioned by local authorities. We accept that. We are looking, as I have said, at the overwhelming majority of refuge accommodation.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I thank the Minister for picking up that point. The point that I wanted to pick up on was her two uses of the phrase “in some cases CCGs”. Would it not be nice if it were “in all cases”? Does the Minister think there are CCGs in the country that do not have victims of domestic violence living in their areas?

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

Sorry, I am not quite clear. Every single police and crime commissioner has victims of domestic abuse in their area, clearly, as do local authorities and, where appropriate, CCGs. To my mind, this is part of the diversity of provision of services. In some cases, it will be appropriate for CCGs to provide services, but I would not say it should be CCGs exclusively.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

Will the Minister elaborate on that point and say in which CCG areas that would not be appropriate? She is saying that certain CCGs, for whatever reason, would not have to provide services for victims of domestic abuse.

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

I am not going to cite, out of the hundreds of CCGs, the ones that are appropriate and not appropriate. I assume that what the hon. Lady is trying to get to is that this should be viewed as a medical issue as much as a policing and crime issue. I welcome both approaches. That is precisely why we are introducing the multi-agency approach at local level, through local partnership boards, whereby health services will be represented, whereas they are not at the moment. Policing and criminal justice will be represented, whereas they are not at the moment. Children will be represented, whereas they are not at the moment. This is the multi-agency approach that we are trying to achieve.

The Government do, however, recognise the need to explore the provision of community-based services to domestic abuse victims to ensure that those victims are receiving the right support to cope and recover from this terrible crime. Equally, we are clear that if we do not hold perpetrators to account for their actions and challenge them to make real sustainable changes to their behaviour, we will not stop the cycle of violence and abuse.

Before establishing the new statutory duty in relation to accommodation-based support, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government consulted at length with local authorities, the domestic abuse sector and other organisations involved in supporting victims, to identify the barriers to provision of safe accommodation. That identified the lack of accountability and sustainable funding for the provision of support in safe accommodation as the key issue. Through that detailed engagement, it was possible to design a statutory duty that would tackle that. I am delighted to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has confirmed that the new statutory duty will be appropriately funded.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene again—this is almost greedy on my part. She was talking about all the organisations that took part and what they said about what the barriers were. Could she enlighten us on what they said the barriers were in relation to migrant women?

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

I will deal with that later in my speech. The hon. Lady took some 55 minutes—it is not a competition, but I have to do this justice by drawing out the points as we develop the argument. As with clauses 1 and 2, I want to explain the journey that we have taken to arrive at the statutory duty.

I think we would all acknowledge that the current funding arrangements for community-based services are complex. Although responsibility sits with PCCs, services are funded from myriad routes, including PCCs, local authorities, health partnerships and community safety budgets. That is true of both services for victims and programmes targeted at perpetrators, particularly those who have not been convicted. It would not be right to define what should be available by way of services for community-based support, without conducting a similar investigation as took place for support within safe accommodation and consulting the sector on any proposals.

To that end, the domestic abuse commissioner has agreed to lead an in-depth investigation into the current community-based support landscape, and the Government are committed to addressing its findings. We believe that that work needs to come to fruition before we can properly understand how any wider duty should be framed, on whom it should be imposed, and at what cost. It is also right that we fully consult on any expansion of the duties in part 4. I should add—in trying to describe the interlocking and interweaving web of accountability that runs through the Bill—that the commissioner will publish her report under clause 8, and we are required to respond to it within 56 days. The Bill therefore sets a time limit by which the Government are to respond.

In addition, a number of other areas of work across Government are already taking place to improve the experience of victims who seek help, such as the refresh of the national statement of expectations that is due to be published later this year. That will set out the best practice for commissioning all violence against women and girls services. We are also developing a cross-Government victim funding strategy, which is due to be published by the end of the year. Those developments are part of a cross-Government drive to ensure that domestic abuse victims in the community are receiving the support that they need, and that good-quality work with perpetrators is the norm.

I am afraid that I am not persuaded that the general duty on the Secretary of State set out in new clause 19(1) is necessary or helpful at this time. As we have already debated, the Bill establishes in law that the domestic abuse commissioner’s statutory remit will include the encouragement of best practice in the prevention of domestic abuse and the provision of protection and support to victims and others affected by domestic abuse. As part of her remit, she will necessarily look at the availability and quality of perpetrator programmes and make recommendations based on her findings.

On new clauses 19 and 20, it is worth pointing out the jagged edge, as I have called it: the new clauses do not reflect the devolution settlement in Wales. A number of relevant public authorities listed in new clause 20 operate in the devolved sphere, and we would not normally legislate on devolved matters in Westminster without the consent of the Senedd.

The other amendments in the group relate broadly to the existing provisions in part 4. Again, although I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, they would add more detailed requirements to the Bill, thereby reducing the flexibility of local authorities to meet particular local needs and set up a local partnership board in line with local needs and existing partnership arrangements. I do not believe that they are necessary because much of what they seek to achieve will be in the statutory guidance and laid down by regulation.

Clause 53 places a duty on each relevant local authority in England to assess the need for domestic abuse support for victims and their children within its area. In assessing needs, relevant local authorities will consider the differing requirements of all victims, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, as well as victims and their children who come in from outside the local authority area. The local authority will then be required to publish a strategy, which will take effect as I have set out.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Order. The Minister is talking about the other amendments; I should point out to the Committee that amendment 77, as printed, refers to line 21, when it should refer to line 25—it is just a typing error. As the Committee knows, we cannot adjourn at 1 pm while the Minister is still speaking; a speech cannot be interrupted.

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

Sorry, I had thought that we might go on until 2 pm. In that case, I will be very quick; I hope I have set out the framework of the guidance. I am extremely grateful to Mr Bone for that clarification.

We recognise the concerns that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has set out. I emphasise in relation to new clause 48 that the importance of national oversight is accepted, as can be seen from the setting up of the Minister-led expert steering group. We very much hope that those who are involved in that group will be able to make their views clear and look at the reports with all of the interlocking safeguards we have.

I will sum up by saying that we believe amendment 67 and new clauses 19 and 20 are at best premature, and that the other amendments are unnecessary. We recognise the importance of community-based services for those affected by domestic abuse and the need to address offending behaviour. As I have said, we are committed to investigating, in collaboration with the commissioner, what needs to be done to ensure that victims who stay in their own home, together with their children, are receiving the support they need, and that perpetrators are appropriately challenged and supported to change their behaviour.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I will not keep Members for a long time, and I recognise the Minister’s generosity towards other members of the Committee. She has not covered some of the issues that she said she would cover, whether those raised in my speech or through interventions on myself or her. I recognise the reason for that; no doubt we will have plenty of time to debate those issues as the Committee progresses.

I will just pick up on a few small things. The Minister has clarified that the regulations she mentioned will be laid at Lords Committee stage, as opposed to the guidance that she has promised will be laid before the House on Third Reading. As regards the guidance about local authorities’ commissioning of specialist refuge accommodation, the Minister has suggested that some of the things we are suggesting may be premature. I have been having meetings and conversations about these regulations for six years, beginning before I was elected, in the days when MHCLG was still DCLG. I have met with pretty much every housing Minister or MHCLG Minister about this issue, so it does not feel particularly premature to me. However, I look forward to the regulations coming before the Lords Committee.

So much of this regulation is based on trust, and all I was saying to the hon. Member for Cheltenham was that although I like part 4 of the Bill, I think there are areas in which it could be better, clearer and more robust to future-proof it. I will not press amendment 67 or new clauses 19 and 20 to a vote now, because I think the duty on community services is something that the whole House would wish to discuss—and the Lords would certainly wish to see discussed—on Report, and then maybe at the amendment stages in the Lords. I thank the Minister for responding to many of the issues I have raised, which has allayed some concerns, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

(Afternoon)

Guidance

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 56, page 36, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must lay a draft of the guidance before Parliament.

(2B) Guidance under this section comes into force in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay any guidance under this section before Parliament and provides that this guidance will come into force in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Karen Buck (Labour, Westminster North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 82, in clause 56, page 36, line 28, at end insert—

“(ba) persons, groups and organisations providing support and services with those affected by domestic abuse locally, regionally and nationally, and in particular those working with or providing specialist support services to affected women and children,”.

This amendment sets out additional persons, groups and organisations the Secretary of State must consult.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I will not speak for long. We have already gone over lots of what is in this amendment, including in the large and wide-ranging debate we had on part 4 of the Bill. Some of what the Minister has said gives me hope that we will get more detail on how this will be administered. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Interpretation of Part 4

Special measures directions in cases involving domestic abuse

Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 58, page 37, line 32, at end insert—

“(3A) In cases where it is alleged that domestic abuse is involved, Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (special measures directions in case of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses) applies to proceedings in the family court as it applies to criminal proceedings, but with any necessary modifications.”

This amendment extends statutory eligibility for special measures to the family court in cases where domestic abuse is involved.

Karen Buck (Labour, Westminster North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 45—Special measures (civil and family proceedings): domestic abuse—

“(1) In civil and family proceedings, a witness is eligible for assistance by virtue of this section if they were, or are at risk of being, the victim of domestic abuse from—

(a) another party to the proceedings; or

(b) the family member of another party to the proceedings.

(2) The court’s duty under subsection (1) applies as soon as allegations of domestic abuse are raised after the start of proceedings and continue until the resolution of the proceedings.

(3) In determining the measures to make available to the witness, the court should consider—

(a) whether one or more measures should be made available; and

(b) any views expressed by the witness.

(4) The measures referred to in this section are those which—

(a) prevent a witness from seeing another witness;

(b) allow a witness to participate in proceedings;

(c) allow a witness to give evidence by live link;

(d) provide for a witness to use a device to help communicate;

(e) provide for a witness to participate in proceedings with the assistance of an intermediary;

(f) provide for a witness to be questioned in court with the assistance of an intermediary; or

(g) do anything else provided for in Civil Procedure Rules or Family Procedure Rules.

(5) Rules of court made for the purposes of providing assistance to eligible witnesses shall apply—

(a) to the extent provided by the rules of court, and

(b) subject to any modifications provided by rules of court.

(6) In this section—

“the court” means the family court, county court or the High Court;

“witness”, in relation to any proceedings, includes a party to the proceedings;

“proceedings” means civil or family proceedings;

“live link” means a live television link or other arrangement whereby a witness or party, while absent from the courtroom or other place where the proceedings are being held, is able to see and hear a person there and to be seen and heard by the judge, legal representatives acting in the proceedings and other persons appointed to assist a witness or party.”

This new clause would ensure that victims of domestic abuse have access to special measures in both civil and family proceedings.

Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The Bill extends special measures in criminal courts, such as screens or video links, to include domestic abuse survivors. However, unfortunately, it does not ensure similar protections in civil and family courts. The amendment would extend eligibility for these measures to family courts in cases where domestic abuse is involved.

Special measures were originally implemented in criminal courts by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, and are automatically provided to child witnesses, witnesses with mental or physical disabilities, complainants of sexual offences, or victims of serious crime who might also be regarded as intimidated, including victims of domestic abuse. However, in family courts, provision for the use of special measures is not currently based in legislation, but in the Family Procedure Rules 2010. Those rules set out the way in which courts should deal with family proceedings, and include practice directions intended to protect victims. Practice direction 12J sets out the procedure for members of the judiciary and provides for special measures.

In November 2017, the Ministry of Justice introduced a new practice direction setting out the recommended procedure for judges dealing with vulnerable persons in family proceedings, including those with concerns in relation to domestic abuse. It provides for special measures to ensure that the participation and quality of evidence of parties is not diminished. Practice direction 3AA, “Vulnerable persons: participation in proceedings and giving evidence”, states that

“the court may use its general case management powers as it considers appropriate to facilitate the party’s participation.”

According to the 2012 Rights of Women report, however, special measures were not advertised in family court, and were rarely ordered at that time. A more recent report by Women’s Aid in 2018 found that 61% of domestic abuse victims who participated in a survey were not provided with special measures in a family court. I mention these things to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that, while there might appear to be measures at the moment in family courts, they are perhaps not effective, and many women who appear in the family court in domestic cases are not aware of them. Domestic abuse often surfaces in family law cases dealing with divorce or childcare arrangements. In 2018, 45% of cases in family court were matrimonial matters. Parental disputes concerning the upbringing of children accounted for 20% of cases. Intimate partner abuse has been found to be a factor in around half of child contact cases in England and Wales.

Often, women have been subjected to long-term violent and emotional abuse, and family court proceedings can be a negative experience, in much the same way as criminal ones, where they are offered protection. Such proceedings can even be used as another forum for abuse and control by perpetrators. The all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse found that victims of domestic abuse reported feeling re-victimised and re-traumatised through the family court process. In 2012, a report by Rights of Women, a women’s charity providing legal information and advice, outlined how victims of domestic abuse suffer intimidation and harassment from their former partners, and that they often feel unsafe during the court procedure in a family court. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be a survivor of domestic abuse, and find myself in a family court in a divorce, which is not easy and can be painful even when it is amicable.

Virginia Crosbie (Conservative, Ynys Môn)

Does the hon. Member agree that the Bill, as it stands, will transform the experience of victims of abuse in family courts by banning the cross-examination of perpetrators of domestic and sexual abuse?

Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

That is the next clause, I believe. There is no measure we can take in the Bill that goes too far, or that could be regarded as being in any way sufficient, until we can do no more. No length is too great when it comes to protecting women. Banning cross-examination by perpetrators of domestic abuse is valuable, but it must be written in the legislation that special measures are available. It is not just women themselves who will be cross-examined; it might be their children. It is about coming in and out of the court. It is about having to face the person who has abused them—often for decades—in a corridor because they did not have a special entrance. We need to look at all these things. I cannot imagine what that would be like. No step is too far.

In 2018, Women’s Aid found that 24% of respondents had been cross-examined by their abusive ex-partner in the family court, and that was traumatising for them, so I do agree with the hon. Lady. Victims can feel that their experiences have been minimised in proceedings, and if protective measures are not granted by courts, they will be exacerbating that and letting these women down.

Christine Harrison from the University of Warwick has concluded that domestic abuse was and is persistently minimised and dismissed as irrelevant in private law proceedings. Lesley Laing from the University of Sydney in Australia has also found that accounts of engagement with the system often mirror domestic violence narratives. That is known as secondary victimisation, and it is not acceptable.

Resolution, the family justice charity, has said that although there have been changes to the family procedure rules, it is widely recognised that current special measures facilities in family court hearings—such as video and audio link, and screen facilities—are not satisfactory or on a par with the facilities available in the criminal courts. Resolution’s members, who are family lawyers, have raised their concerns.

We have talked about the Bill for three years as landmark legislation—a once in a generation opportunity to tackle domestic abuse. However, if we exclude the family courts from the Bill, we will miss a valuable opportunity to tackle domestic abuse in an area where it has perhaps been minimised and overlooked in the past, which is not acceptable. I therefore ask the Committee to consider the amendment.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I will speak to new clause 45, which has been grouped with the amendment. I support everything the hon. Lady has just said. I will not repeat much of what she has said about the number of victims who find they cannot actually access any of the facilities that are said to be available in the family courts. In one recent case—I will not cite the case here, but I have the details in front of me—the victim was denied special measures, even though the perpetrator had been arrested for battery, coercive control and sexual assault by penetration. The victim was also living in a refuge. However, she was denied special measures in the family court.

There is not only an absence of legislative guidance. It is clear, as some of the reports the hon. Lady referred to show, that facilities such as video and audio link are not as readily available as they are in the criminal courts. I absolutely welcome what the Bill attempts to do in formalising in legislation what largely exists in the criminal courts for most criminal court cases. In fact, I think that in every single domestic violence case that I have ever been to court about, special measures have formed a part of proceedings, or at the very least have been on offer. I myself have been offered special measures in cases that I have personally been involved with. Sometimes, victims do not want to use them; they want to sit and face the accused. I cannot remember a case in the criminal courts where special measures were not on offer; sometimes the video links leave a little to be desired, but they were none the less available.

It is great that the Government wish to formalise the special measures in our criminal courts in the Bill, and we support that. We simply wish to see those measures extended to court facilities where family law and civil law matters are discussed.

Stay Safe East, the disability charity that focuses on domestic abuse, has advised us that in the local family courts in its area, only one out of the 12 courtrooms has a video facility. I am sure I am teaching Ministers to suck eggs when I say that someone does not always get to decide which courtroom they go into when they get to court. It is therefore a sort of “luck of the draw” situation at the moment.

Automatic eligibility, which new clause 45 and the amendment would allow for, would place special measures on a statutory footing and ensure that family and civil courts make structural changes to safeguard victims, thereby removing the burden on victims to have to request special measures. We want a situation similar to the criminal courts, where such measures are offered in a very proactive way. In fact, long before someone even knows that they will ever be in court or has been given a court date, they are asked about special measures. The amendments are just about equalising that system across our justice estate, to reduce the variation in judicial approach and provide much-needed predictability for victims.

That is especially important because in lots of the cases we are talking about, victims go through a criminal case and a family case at the same time. It is unusual that they can be in one courtroom on a Tuesday and another on a Wednesday, and have completely different safeguards in place. Their case is exactly the same. The perpetration that they have suffered is exactly the same, yet they are safe in one courthouse and not safe—or do not feel safe—in another. There are, I am afraid to say, some terrible examples of women being attacked by their perpetrators in the toilets of family courts, which were written about in Women’s Aid’s “Nineteen Child Homicides” report for the Child First campaign. We just seek to equalise the situation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and I have talked many times about the sorts of things that we feel have been innovative for victims in the courts of law in our country. Sometimes, something small that we do in here changes the tone in a court case, and both he and I agree that the victim’s personal statement has certainly done that over the years. For many years, we have been hearing terrible things about the family courts, but I feel that a change of tone could be brought about in those courts. The special measures we seek through our amendments would certainly change the tone, by putting the onus on the family courts to consider the importance of victims of domestic violence and their vulnerabilities.

Fay Jones (Conservative, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The hon. Lady mentions some improvements that could be made, but does she welcome our election manifesto commitment about integrated domestic abuse courts?

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

Perhaps I am being a bit premature, but I look forward to the progress on that, because the sectors have been crying out for the integration of different court systems for years and years. As we have said about a million times during these debates, the approach of the specialist domestic violence courts have been patchy across the country. In some areas, they have dwindled, but in others they have come to the fore because of the covid-19 crisis. I would very much welcome anything that would standardise the situation in courts for victims of domestic violence, especially in respect of their experience of the courts, whether they be civil, criminal or private.

Liz Saville-Roberts (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

It is exactly on that point that I want to talk about special measures. I hope that it is acceptable to the Chair for me to mention some matters on clause 59 as well, because these things will interact. I will not then rise to speak on clause 59. Much of this is to do with the lack of communication between jurisdictions and the experience of victims and survivors as a result. I welcome the opportunity to speak now because, in December 2017, I brought forward a private Member’s Bill on courts and the abuse of process. From the point of view of the victim’s experience, special measures and cross-examination—those two things—are inter-merged.

Back in 2017, my office carried out research into 122 victims of stalking and domestic abuse, which gave us a snapshot of those individuals’ experiences when they went to court. I understand that this was a self-selecting study, but 55% of those people had had court proceedings taken against them by their abusers. It should be noted that all those victims had restraining orders in place. None the less, that was their experience—court proceedings were brought against them. Two thirds of them then had to appear in court, and a third were personally cross-examined by their perpetrator. In only a quarter of those cases did the police view the court proceeding as a breach of the restraining orders on the perpetrators.

At that time, I was trying to limit the capacity of perpetrators, primarily of domestic abuse, stalking and harassment, to use—indeed, to misuse or abuse—the family and civil courts in a deliberate, calculated effort to continue to distress their victims and manipulate their behaviour to exercise deliberate control over their actions.

At the time, what needed to be sought was the means for the court to have the power to dismiss any meritless applications where it was apparent that the purpose of the application by the perpetrator was specifically to distress or harass the victim, in the guise of an appeal to justice in matters relating to civil or family court jurisdiction. Many of us will have come across instances of repeat applications, particularly in the civil court, but also, from the point of view of the perpetrator, to again be able to hold the victim under their control and, within that cross-examination, gain the satisfaction of that aspect of the relationship again.

I will mention what was proposed at the time, because it was felt to be suitable then. The proposal was that the applicant would be obliged to declare any unspent convictions or restrictions in relation to the respondent, or similar convictions against other victims; the respondent would be given the power to inform the court of any relevant convictions or restraining orders in respect of the applicant; and the court then would have a duty to investigate the claims. In such circumstances, if proceedings were permitted to continue, the respondent would be able to request special measures, such as the provision of screens or video links, and of course there would be a possibility of other special measures in relation to cross-examination.

I will just touch on a couple of examples. I do not want to go on forever with case studies, but they do give some colour as to why this point is relevant. One instance that became apparent to us from our research was of a man who had been a victim of stalking for over six years. His stalker had repeatedly brought baseless, vexatious claims against him through the civil court, and he had no option but to represent himself because of lack of funds. Despite the fact that the stalker was subject to a restraining order, he was allowed to continue to cross-examine the victim in the civil court, and neither the police nor the Crown Prosecution Service recognised those vexatious claims to be in breach of the restraining order. It was difficult to come to any conclusion other than that the court procedures themselves were at that time colluding with the applicant and his continued abuse of the respondent.

I will give a second example, just to give a sense of the costs. It involves another respondent to our research. This woman’s ex-partner had also had a restraining order, having been charged also with stalking her. He had taken the woman to court 15 times, in both civil and family courts. That had cost her about £25,000 because, like many people, she was not eligible for legal aid in those circumstances.

I will not rise to speak to clause 59, because I think this discussion does lead us on and there are a few specific points that I would like to make about clause 59, which is where the concerns are.

Karen Buck (Labour, Westminster North)

Order. Despite that, I urge the right hon. Lady to stay well within the scope of the clause that we are currently debating.

Liz Saville-Roberts (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

Thank you, Ms Buck. I will wait until the appropriate time.

Julie Marson (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I want to touch on my experience in the courts, particularly the specialist domestic violence courts. However harrowing it has been, it has been a genuine pleasure to be able to sit in those courts.

There are some common themes that I have seen in court. It is usually women and children affected. There is always a power and control dynamic; it is never just about the violence, although there usually has been violence. And there is always fear on the part of the victim, even with the special measures that I have seen—the screens and so on. I could still see the victims, and I saw them crying, shaking and trembling. This is so important. What such a measure does is take away some of the power that the perpetrator has to control the victim in the courtroom environment, because they are still trying to control, even right at that moment, with looks, sounds, movements—with everything they can muster at the time. Therefore, I profoundly support special measures across the piece, because I think that they are really valuable in limiting that control right through the justice system.

Peter Kyle (Labour, Hove)

In the hon. Lady’s experience of dealing with these cases and being able to see the impact on victims, was she aware of the challenges that victims have before they get into the courtroom, because often in family courts it is very difficult to separate victims from perpetrators? Was she aware, in her job at the time, that that was also an issue that needed to be dealt with?

Julie Marson (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Long before I ever see a victim in court, there has been a huge process to get there and to provide the right support. Independent domestic violence advisers and different support mechanisms are in place; there are supporting people who come in and sit with the victim in court, but it is a hugely traumatic experience and support is needed throughout that process.

I would add a point about a common theme among perpetrators. When, in normal criminal cases, shoplifters or burglars or other violent offenders are convicted and sent to prison, there is a shrug of the shoulders—it is a part of their life; a general hazard of the criminality that they are involved in. When I have had—I will use the phrase—the pleasure to convict a perpetrator and send them to prison, it is noticeable that all the power has all of a sudden been stripped away. Their indignance and fury is palpable; you can sense it and see it. That is what makes it a different crime and a different experience, and that is why special measures are important. I speak to that experience.

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

Will my hon. Friend indulge me for a moment? I take the point that the hon. Member for Hove made about the geography and layout of court buildings. Some we cannot change because they are very old. Has my hon. Friend seen the measures that clever judges can introduce to control when defendants are permitted to turn up according to the conditions of bail? For example, the defendant is not permitted to arrive at court until 20 minutes before the court case starts, so that the victim has time to get into the building and into the witness room, or wherever she will be based, and there is no risk of crossover. Does my hon. Friend agree that little tweaks such as that can make a difference?

Julie Marson (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Absolutely; I completely agree. We cannot legislate for everything you can do in a court—every courtroom is set out differently. I have seen a lady with two teenage daughters, with the husband, and some really clever dynamics were needed to keep everyone separate, including in the toilets. In my experience, such measures have been very positive. There have been specialist domestic violence courts. Everyone is keenly aware of what is needed and is trying to think ahead for the kinds of measures that can make justice effective and make sure that justice is done. Such measures are all part of that.

Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)

I am delighted to see you in the Chair once again, Ms Buck. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford for her excellent contribution. It speaks to the strength of the Committee that its members have real-world experience and can apply it to the important matters that we are here to discuss.

Before turning to the amendment and new clause, it is worth taking stock of where we are in terms of the court process and the framework in which the amendment and new clause sit. Over the last 10 years or so—probably a bit longer—the environment for victims and witnesses has been completely transformed. It was not so long ago that a complainant in a case of serious violence or a serious sexual allegation had to turn up at court and eyeball the defendant. It required an extraordinary effort of will, and a lot of people just thought, “This isn’t worth the candle.”

Legislation was introduced that provided the opportunity for screens and giving evidence via live link. At the time, that was considered utterly revolutionary. People were clutching their pearls, saying, “That’s it; justice is dead in our country; there is no opportunity for people to get a fair trial” and so on. The culture has changed. Now, at plea and trial preparation hearings such orders are routinely made and, lo and behold, juries—indeed, benches of magistrates as well—seem to find it perfectly straightforward to make a judgment in the interests of justice on the facts in front of them.

Setting that context helps to bring us up to the situation at the moment. Let us imagine some facts for a moment. The allegation is one of sexual assault on the London Underground. At that early hearing, before the Crown court, long before the trial has even been scheduled, the judge will ask the prosecutor, “Are there any applications for a special measures direction?” The prosecutor will stand up and say, “Yes, there is a complainant in this case and it is an allegation of a sexual nature, so I will be inviting the court to make a special measures direction in the normal way.” That is precisely what will happen, because it will be automatic.

I pause to note one further point. If the complainant says, “Forget this. I don’t want a screen, and I don’t want to give evidence on a live link; I want to be there in the well of the court, because that is how I feel I will get justice”, that will be accommodated as well.

When we look at the provisions, it is important to understand how far we have come as a country. The hon. Lady was absolutely right when she talked about innovation. There has been a vast amount in recent years and I respectfully agree with her when she says that, even in that context, probably the single biggest innovation in allowing individuals to feel that they are getting justice is the victim personal statement. It is an opportunity to say at the end, “You, Judge, may have your own views about the impact on the victim. I will tell you how it has affected me and my family.” It is a spine-tingling moment in court when we get to the end of a case and it comes to sentencing. The prosecutor stands up to read it and it really brings home to us the whole purpose of the criminal justice system.

Clause 58 talks about special measures directions in cases involving domestic violence. As I have indicated, at the moment there are certain categories of offences where, at the lead hearing, the court imposes special measures directions, particularly in cases of serious sexual violence, or indeed ordinary violence. The clause extends the eligibility for assistance given to intimidated witnesses in criminal proceedings to complainants of any offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse. In simple terms, the prosecutor will stand up and say, “My Lord, this is an allegation of violence in a domestic context. I will seek a special measures direction in the normal way. Thank you very much.” That will be imposed and it will be transformational. The officer in the case will pick up the phone to the complainant and say, “Don’t worry; there will be screens in this case.” She—for it is usually a she—can feel comforted from that.

Clause 58 also provides that a special measures direction provided for the witness’s evidence to be given in private can be given in cases where the proceedings relate to a domestic abuse-related offence. Of course, it is for the judge to decide whether he or she wants to exercise that discretion. There is a countervailing principle of openness of justice, but where the facts of the case militate in favour of proceedings being taken in private, that power is now there. I would not want to lose that point because it is a very important one.

We might think, “Why not extend all this?” Let me say a little bit about that. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West has explained, amendment 54 seeks to enshrine in primary legislation the principle that victims of domestic abuse should be eligible for special measures in the family court. I mean no discourtesy, but I note that the way the amendment is drafted has some difficulties, although I understand precisely what she is trying to achieve. It states:

“In cases where it is alleged that domestic abuse is involved, Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (special measures directions in case of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses) applies to proceedings in the family court as it applies to criminal proceedings, but with any necessary modifications.”

But it is not clear what those modifications would be. My first concern is that there is a vagueness in the amendment, and it relates only to family proceedings and not to civil proceedings.

New clause 45, tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, goes a step further as it seeks to make provision for special measures in both the family and civil courts. Both hon. Members are right to raise the issue of special measures for domestic abuse victims in those two different jurisdictions. As I have indicated before, but to put it on the record, broadly speaking, special measures relating to putting in place a range of provisions to help vulnerable witnesses give their best evidence without fear or distress about testifying are good things. Although special measures are already generally available in jurisdictions, the Government recognise that how they are applied can be inconsistent, which can in turn have a negative impact on the experience of vulnerable witnesses in each jurisdiction. It is important to note that we are not moving from night into day, in so far as the measures have been available; it is a question of what this place can do to prompt that—in other words, to indicate or give a steer to the courts that we expect and hope them to be imposed more readily than perhaps was the case. This is an important issue that we need to get right.

In the family courts, there are currently no provisions for special measures in primary legislation. Instead, detailed provision is made in part 3A of the family procedure rules 2010, supported by practice direction 3AA. Part 3A puts the court under a duty in all cases to consider whether a party’s participation in proceedings, or the quality of evidence given by a party or witness, is likely to be diminished due to reasons of vulnerability. When considering vulnerability, the court must consider a wide range of matters, including concerns relating to abuse. If the court decides that special measures are necessary, it can make provision for a range of options to be put in place to assist the party or witness, such as protective screens or participation via video link.

The work of the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel on harm in the family courts, which I know a lot of hon. Members are aware of, has been magisterial. I pay tribute to those people who have given a huge amount of time and expertise to getting under the bonnet of something that is sensitive but is in clear need of careful examination. They have done magnificent work, and we are getting closer to seeing the fruits of those labours. The panel has examined the provision of special measures, as well as the supporting procedural rules, as part of its work and final report. That piece of work will be published in the coming weeks.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

The Minister says that the report will be published in the coming weeks. Does he expect that we will see it prior to Report stage of the Bill, or potentially prior to Committee stage in the Lords, as he has leaned on for one particular review? I ask only because I am seeking to understand what will be given to me as I consider whether to push new clause 45 to a Division.

Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)

I invite the hon. Lady to listen to the end of my remarks. If I can put it in these terms, the words I will use at the end are carefully phrased. I invite her to listen to those and then decide. A huge amount of work has gone into this panel, and getting to a place where we are ready to publish is the stuff of enormous effort. We are moving as quickly as we can, and it will be published as quickly as possible.

On the civil courts, there are no specific provisions in the civil procedure rules that deal with vulnerable parties or witnesses. However, judges have an inherent power, where the court is alerted to vulnerability, to make a number of directions or take steps to facilitate the progression or defending of a claim or the giving of evidence by a vulnerable party.

Liz Saville-Roberts (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

To summarise considerably, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Civil Justice Council returned earlier this year with the civil procedure rule committee. One of its recommendations was a new practice direction to address vulnerability. I wonder whether he could consider that.

Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)

The hon. Lady must have a copy of my speech, because I will come to that point in just a moment.

The directions that a civil court can make include, but are not limited to, giving evidence via video link, by deposition, by the use of other technology or through an intermediary or interpreter. On the hon. Lady’s point, following the April 2018 publication of the interim report and recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, the Ministry of Justice commissioned the Civil Justice Council—an advisory body responsible for overseeing and co-ordinating modernisation of the civil justice system—to consider the issues raised by these recommendations, and to compile a report that was not to be restricted only to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.

The CJC published its report, “Vulnerable witnesses and parties within civil proceedings: current position and recommendations for change”, in February 2020. It made a number of recommendations, as the hon. Lady rightly points out. On special measures, the CJC report concluded that, in the civil jurisdiction, the issue is one of awareness and training, rather than lack of legal powers or framework. This goes back to my point on the role of this place in promoting awareness while recognising that discretion should be available to the court. That was the CJC’s conclusion. Its suggestion was that special measures were best left to the flexibility of court rules. The Government are considering how the recommendations in the independent report should be taken forward.

What is evident from the evidence received by the family panel and the Civil Justice Council is that the current position is unsatisfactory. The question is how best to improve the situation and ensure that vulnerable witnesses in the family and civil courts receive assistance to give their best evidence, in a way analogous to what the Bill already provides for in the criminal courts. We have the report from the Civil Justice Council to guide us but do not yet have the report of the family panel. However, I hope and expect that we will have it shortly, and it is right that we should consider the panel’s findings before legislating.

I am sympathetic to the intention behind these proposals. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh West would agree to withdraw her amendment I can give her and the shadow Minister an assurance that, between now and Report, we will carefully consider both proposals, and how best to proceed. If they are not satisfied with the conclusions the Government reach, they are of course perfectly entitled to bring amendments back on Report.

Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Prohibition of cross-examination in person in family proceedings

Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)

Let me say a little about clause 59. In fact, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd was starting to talk about it, so I will set out some context. The clause contains provisions to prevent unrepresented perpetrators of abuse from cross-examining their victims in person in family proceedings. It also makes provision to give family courts the power to appoint a qualified legal representative to undertake the cross-examination instead, where necessary.

The Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, recommended that the automatic prohibition of cross-examination be extended so that it would apply when the victim could provide evidence of abuse, as in the legal aid regime. We have accepted the recommendation in full, and the clause now gives full effect to it.

Some of the most vulnerable members of society come before the family courts, and we are determined to offer them every protection and to ensure that every vulnerable victim or witness coming to the family courts has confidence that the court will not be used to perpetrate further abuse against them. Currently, family judges have a range of powers to make sure that difficult courtroom situations are handled sensitively for vulnerable witnesses. In proceedings where both parties are litigants in person and concerns of domestic abuse have been raised, that may include carrying out cross-examination by way of the judge or the justices’ legal advisers putting questions to the parties themselves. Alternatively, the judge can decide that an alternative form of evidence, such as pre-recorded cross-examination from criminal proceedings, is sufficient.

However, there are cases in which those alternative forms of evidence or cross-examination will not be sufficient to test the evidence in the case thoroughly. We must recognise that for the judge to step into the arena to ask those questions is often—how can I put it politely?—suboptimal. In those instances, the court currently has no power to appoint an advocate to carry out the cross-examination in place of the parties themselves. That can lead to situations in which the court is powerless to prevent a victim from being cross-examined in person by their abuser.

I am sure we would all feel uncomfortable about a situation in which evidence was not challenged. The whole point of an adversarial process is to tease out inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence. If that is not happening, the proceedings are not fair, so it is important that there should be scope within the trial process for frailties in the evidence to be ruthlessly exposed.

We recognise that the issue has been the subject of close attention in the House and among experts in the field. Victims have told us that being subject to cross-examination in person in this way can be retraumatising, and judges have told us that the situation is an impossible one for them to manage. I entirely sympathise. We are determined that the court should never be used as a forum to perpetuate further abuse, and that it should have sufficient powers in all cases to prevent abuse from being perpetrated through court processes.

The purpose of the clause is therefore to introduce a prohibition on victims being cross-examined in person in specified circumstances. In addition, the clause gives the court the power to appoint an advocate, paid for from central funds, for the purpose of cross-examination where there are no satisfactory means to cross-examine the witness or to obtain the evidence, where the party does not appoint a legal representative or themselves to do so, and where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.

The clause has the effect of introducing an automatic ban on cross-examination in person in every case where one party has been convicted of, given a caution for or charged with certain offences against the witness. Those offences will be specified in regulations but are intended to include offences related to domestic abuse, child abuse and sexual abuse. The provisions will also introduce an automatic ban on cross-examination in person where one party has an on-notice protective injunction in force against the witness. It really is a far-reaching clause, and it significantly increases the protection for individuals who might otherwise be retraumatised by the process.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I welcome what the Minister is saying, but on the specific instances he is outlining of who exactly would be able to assess this, does he foresee an element of the judge’s discretion also allowing them to go to central funds where they believe enough that cross-examination would cause distress, regardless of whether there may previously have been a conviction or an order in place? As we all know, there is a disparity between conviction and order rates on the one hand, and domestic violence rates on the other.

Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)

Courts have a common law discretion to manage their own proceedings, but it will be important for us to assist the them as much as possible by setting out the categories that should trigger the exemption. Although courts can act of their own motion, it is none the less important to prescribe to an extent that the provision applies in circumstances where somebody has been convicted, charged or cautioned. I will develop that point in the following passage.

In the light of the recommendation from the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill, the clause now makes provision that the automatic ban will also apply in other cases where a witness has adduced specified evidence of domestic abuse. The evidence will be specified in regulations and, as recommended by the Joint Committee, we intend for this evidence to broadly replicate that which is used to access civil legal aid. That is probably the point that the hon. Lady was driving at.

The prohibitions also apply reciprocally, to prevent a victim from having to cross-examine their abuser in person. Where the automatic ban does not apply, the clause also gives the court a discretion to prohibit cross-examination in person where it would be likely to diminish the quality of the witness’s evidence or cause significant distress to the witness or the party. That is the point about a court’s discretion: the judge has the individuals in front of them, can hear from them and can make a decision based on that.

In any case where cross-examination in person is prohibited, either under the automatic prohibition or at the discretion of the court, the judge must consider whether there is a satisfactory alternative means by which the witness can be cross-examined or the evidence can be obtained. That would include means that already fall under the judge’s general case management powers, such as putting the questions to the witness themselves or via a legal adviser, or by accepting pre-recorded cross-examination. I suppose one might imagine cases where the things that need to be cross-examined on are so narrow in scope that it would not be worth the aggravation of instructing independent counsel if the judge can do it and do justice in that way. It is important that the court can act of its own motion and flexibly, and the clause retains that flexibility.

If there are no satisfactory alternative means, the court must invite the prohibited party to appoint a legal representative to carry out cross-examination on their behalf. If they choose not to, or are unable to, the clause gives the court the power to appoint a legal representative—an advocate—for the sole purpose of conducting the cross-examination in the interests of the prohibited party. The court must appoint an advocate where it considers this to be necessary in the interests of justice.

There could be circumstances where it is not possible to protect the prohibited party’s rights to access to justice and/or a family life without the appointment of such an advocate. This might be in circumstances, for example, where the evidence that needs to be tested by cross-examination is complicated, because it is complex medical or other expert evidence, or because it is complex or confused factual evidence, say from a vulnerable witness. The clause also confers power on the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance in connection with the role of that advocate.

The clause also confers power on the Secretary of State to make regulations about the fees and costs of a court-appointed advocate to be met from central funds. We understand the particular skill and care that is needed to carry out cross-examination of a vulnerable witness effectively. We will be designing a full fee scheme to support these provisions, in consultation with the sector and interested parties, prior to the implementation of the Bill.

This clause seeks to ensure that, in future, no victim of domestic abuse has to endure the trauma of being questioned in person by their abuser as part of ongoing family proceedings. It makes a big difference, and I commend it to the Committee.

Peter Kyle (Labour, Hove)

It is rare but pleasing when one agrees so fully with the person one shadows, and I am grateful to him. I do not want to shock the Minister—I do not want him to be clutching his pearls as I say such words—but it is certainly the situation we find ourselves in on this clause. We are not opposing or seeking to amend the clause; we agree fully with it and what it seeks to achieve.

However, I want to spend a bit of time explaining how we got to where we are, because it is important. It is important that we make sure the record reflects the situation that this clause seeks to rectify and the impact that the cross-examination by perpetrators of victims has had on people. In so doing, I speak on behalf of a great number of advocates, both in Parliament and outside, over a great period of time. I can speak for myself on this issue, but I am very aware of the fact that I am also speaking on behalf of a lot of other people.

I had personal experience of this issue very soon after getting elected in 2015. Soon after the election, I was sitting on the floor of my campaign office among the detritus of a very vigorous campaign, sorting through things and trying to figure things out, when a very fragile, very vulnerable and very damaged woman suddenly appeared in the doorway. She came in to see me, and said, “Are you the new MP?” I said yes, and she said, “I saw your leaflets. You look like a friendly person. I am now going to flee my relationship, and I will only speak to you about it.” We sat in the corner of the office, and this woman was bruised and bleeding. She had literally escaped from the relationship, and I, as an MP of a few days, was thinking on the inside, “Oh my God, what do I do in this situation? How do I help this extraordinarily vulnerable person?” I just did the best I possibly could, and that involved brokering a relationship between her and the police, about which she was terrified. She was scared of the authorities because the authorities had let her down so many times, repeatedly. I supported that woman, and she went into a protective programme. She now has a new identity and a new life, and although she will never ever be able to escape the horrors of what she went through, she certainly has an opportunity to discover new, more fruitful aspects of life, which she was prevented from doing before.

One of the aspects I experienced very soon after the process of supporting her began was the experience of the family court. I could not believe what I heard when she came to see me after some hearings in the family court, where she was made to share the space of the person she had fled. Having seen her on the day she fled her relationship, it was horrendous to hear that she was forced into the same waiting room as this person, had to be in the same space when their relationship was discussed and, crucially, was cross-examined by him.

At the same time, another constituent came to see me in my surgery. She had just been cross-examined by her abusive partner for the third time. She had previously been hospitalised; the perpetrator had broken more than a dozen or her bones and repeatedly raped her. On the third appearance in the family court, she was shaking so violently that she needed assistance to get to the taxi afterwards. On the journey home, the taxi driver had to stop and help her out of the taxi so that she could vomit on the pavement.

That was happening to people who I was sitting with and who I represented in Parliament. I could not understand that the very institutions that existed to protect people like them were facilitating the abuse—in front of judges, in a room with police officers, abuse was happening, and nobody was offering support. To my shame, I could not quite believe that this was possible in 21st-century Britain. When I came back to Parliament, I sought out my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and asked him about it. I said, “I am hearing this thing, but I can’t believe it is possible.” He, as the former Director of Public Prosecutions, said, “It is happening, and there is a big campaign out there to try and change it.”

I could not believe that it was still happening, so I went to speak to Ministers. Repeatedly, Minister after Minister told me that a cultural change was needed in the criminal justice system, not a legislative change. I could not accept that. Having gone to speak to judges to understand why change was not happening, and having repeatedly spoken to Ministers, I found it incredibly hard to believe that the Government were not seeing or understanding the abuse. Of course, they were seeing it, but they were refusing to change. There are many lessons here, and I hope Back Benchers realise that persistence is one of them.

On 15 September 2016, I secured a Backbench debate that was led by Angela Smith, the then Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. We had gone with a cross-party group to get a Backbench debate. There were several Tories in the group, and we worked as a formidable team. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley was not part of the group that went to the Backbench Business Committee, because she sat on the Committee and was supposed to be impartial, but it was clear from her facial expressions where she stood on the issue.

During the debate itself, I was able to put on record the most shocking example of this abuse that I have ever come across. In the eight or nine months leading up to the debate, I met dozens of women who had gone through such abuse. The most shocking case was that of Jane Clough—some people in this room will be aware of her case. I am not the sort of person who normally quotes himself, but in going through all the different debates that have taken place in Parliament in the last five years on this issue, I read some of the examples I put on record, and I want to quote directly from one debate. My reason for doing so is that I want Members to realise, and I want the record to reflect, that this example has been on the House of Commons record for almost four years.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

Is one reason why Lobby journalists and other journalists did not believe it potentially because of the deep secrecy about what occurs in family courts? In the case of the Cloughs, while they were going through the court, they would have been forbidden from speaking about it.

Peter Kyle (Labour, Hove)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. She is right about the secrecy of family courts. In a subsequent urgent question that I was granted on cross-examination, I asked for a full review of practices in family courts with that very much in mind. Since then, some journalists have been allowed into family courts, but it is heavily regulated to the point where it still stymies the process, work and operation of the family court. It might interest Members to learn that in that quote from Hansard, I used parliamentary privilege. I broke the regulations of the family court to even describe the process that occurred in that exchange in the family court with the Clough family. That is how heavily restricted the processes of family courts are at times, and that is what has led to the lack of reform in comparison with other parts of the criminal justice system. Everything that we are discussing in this clause is already the case in criminal courts.

Liz Saville-Roberts (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

I too very much welcome the drive behind the clause. The hon. Member for Hove expressed so well the sense that victims have been grist to the mill in the past and this measure will re-set the balance to a degree. I very much agree with the spirit of the amendment to the clause, but there are a couple of points I would like to raise to bring to the attention of the Minister potential loopholes that may need attention in future.

The restriction on cross-examination does not apply if the caution or the conviction is spent. Given that restraining orders can last a year or 18 months, that raises the question of whether the individual could wait a certain period of time, and then bring forward proceedings and avoid what this measure endeavours to achieve. That concept of short-term protections therefore somewhat misunderstands the nature of domestic abuse and fixated behaviours. This relatively short period of time—a year to 18 months—within which the perpetrator might not have received interventions to manage their behaviour means that the threat may still exist. That could also be seen to overlook the nature of the trauma having a long-lasting effect on victims.

One proposal for Ministers to think about is where a conviction or caution has been spent and a perpetrator wishes to cross-examine. Perhaps a risk assessment should be carried out by a domestic abuse specialist and, therefore, the courts could have a specialist domestic abuse court co-ordinator able proactively to identify the potential of a risk and ensuring that the victims are protected as necessary.

The second potential loophole is the apparent lack of penalty or consequences were cross-examinations allowed to take place when the court should have been able to perceive that they ought not to be allowed to go ahead—for example, when a court could or should have known whether there was a conviction, a caution or a charge in place but did not. Again referring back to the work I have done previously, it is often the experience of victims that cross-examination proceeds when, according to regulations or procedures as they stand, it should not have done, but it did. That is the experience of many victims.

Earlier, I raised the fact of relatively poor communication and collaboration between the jurisdictions, which already has a negative impact on family court proceedings. Judgments made in the criminal courts, such as restraining orders, can be overlooked—I will not say are routinely overlooked, but it does happen—or not taken into consideration in the family court.

My aim with those two points is to put them on the record and to wonder whether Ministers will consider them. Are they significant loopholes and, if so, how will they address them?

Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)

Before turning to the specific point, I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Hove said, and it was clear that he has taken a close interest in the issue. I thank him for the energy that he has clearly applied to it. As I was listening to him, I heard about Bills that had fallen, elections that had come and UQs that had happened, and I was reminded of Otto von Bismarck, the German Chancellor, who said: “Laws are like sausages; it is best not to watch them being made.”

That is absolutely right and I felt it about this. Inevitably—not inevitably, but not uncommonly—it can take time to get there, but we are absolutely delighted with where we have arrived at with this important legislation. It is important to note, too, that it takes place in the context of other important legislation that it was possible to get over the line earlier, such as on coercive control or modern slavery. The Bill sits within that wider context in which we take some pride.

I will first address the issue of spent convictions, friends and so on, and that will allow me to go back to a point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, when she in effect said, “What happens in circumstances where it is not necessarily a conviction or a caution, but something else?” If hon. Members turn to page 40 of the Bill, that is the relevant part of clause 59, which deals with how the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 will be amended. The clause having dealt specifically with issues of conviction and caution, proposed new section 31U—“Direction for prohibition of cross-examination in person: other cases”— states:

“In family proceedings, the court may give a direction prohibiting a party to the proceedings from cross-examining…a witness in person if…none of sections 31R to 31T operates to prevent the party from cross-examining the witness”—

that relates to people protected by injunctions, convictions or other matters—and

“it appears to the court that—

(i) the quality condition or the significant distress condition is met, and

(ii) it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to give the direction.”

In other words, it would be open to the party to indicate to the court: “Yes, I don’t automatically qualify, but I’m going to provide a statement that indicates that it would adversely affect the quality of the evidence I can give were I to be cross-examined by the other party.” I hope that that will give the courts confidence that flexibility is deliberately built into the system.

Liz Saville-Roberts (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

To return to my concern about the lack of communication between jurisdictions, on spent convictions we are going quite a long way down the road as to what communication is necessary. Is the Minister confident that there is sufficient communication, or that there will be in the wake of the legislation, to ensure that such situations are safeguarded against?

Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)

Yes, I am confident, but it goes back to the earlier point that we were making about culture. If, by dint of the legislation, the family judges, when deciding whether to make one of the orders, are alive to the fact that they will need to consider whether someone has a conviction or a caution, that will, in and of itself, encourage and require the co-operation of the police. In other words, the court will have to find out what is on the police national computer in respect of the other party.

I am confident that courts will see their way to ensuring that those lines of communication are in place. Quite apart from anything else, if a judge finds himself, or herself, in a situation where he cannot make the order because he has not been provided with the information he needs, we can be very sure that he is likely to say something about that. That will, I am sure, elicit change in the fullness of time, so the short answer to the hon. Lady’s question is yes.

Offences against the person committed outside the UK: Northern Ireland

Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)

Clause 61 extends the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in Northern Ireland in the same terms as clause 60 extends the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in England and Wales. We did not go into clause 60 in any detail, but that is what it is about.

Clause 61 gives effect in Northern Ireland to our obligations under article 44 of the Istanbul convention, as it applies to article 35, which covers physical violence, and article 39, which covers forced abortion and forced sterilisation. Like clause 60, it does so by extending extraterritorial jurisdiction to certain offences against the person, including actual or grievous bodily harm and murder and manslaughter, in circumstances where the courts do not already have such jurisdiction. That will mean that a UK national or a person habitually resident in Northern Ireland who commits one of the offences outside the UK can, exceptionally, stand trial for the offence in Northern Ireland.

Amendments relating to offences committed outside the UK

Karen Buck (Labour, Westminster North)

With this it will convenient to discuss schedule 2 stand part.

Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)

The clause simply reintroduces schedule 2, which contains amendments relating to offences committed outside the UK. As with clauses 60 and 61, the amendments are necessary to ensure compliance with article 44 of the Istanbul convention. Part 1 of schedule 2 contains amendments to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain offences other than those set out in clause 60 under the law of England and Wales. Part 2 of schedule 2 contains amendments to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain offences under the law of Scotland. Part 3 of schedule 2 contains amendments to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain offences not including those set out in clause 61 under the law of Northern Ireland.

Schedule 2 contains amendments to a number of enactments to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain offences under the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Together with clauses 60 and 61 and provisions in the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill currently before the Northern Ireland Assembly that give extraterritorial effect to the new domestic abuse offence in Northern Ireland, schedule 2 will ensure that the UK complies with the jurisdiction requirements of article 44 of the Istanbul convention.

Part 1 of the schedule covers England and Wales and gives effect to the UK’s obligations under article 44 as it applies to article 33, which covers psychological violence, article 34, which covers stalking, and article 36, which covers sexual violence, including rape. It does so by extending extraterritorial jurisdiction to offences under sections 4 and 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the victim of the offence is aged 18 or over, and section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which is about coercive control. It will mean that a UK national or a person habitually resident in England and Wales who commits one of these offences outside the UK can, exceptionally, stand trial for the offence in England and Wales. Where the offence involves a course of conduct, the offence may be committed wholly or partly outside the UK.

Part 2 of the schedule covers Scotland and gives effect to the UK’s obligations under article 44 as it applies to articles 33 to 36 and article 39. It does so by extending extraterritorial jurisdiction to the common law offence of assault, to offences under sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 where the victim of the offence is aged 18 or over, and to the offence of stalking under section 39 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.

That will mean that a UK national or person habitually resident in Scotland who commits one of these offences outside the UK can, exceptionally, stand trial for the offence in Scotland. Where the offence involves a course of conduct, the offence may be committed wholly or partly outside the UK.

Part 3 of the schedule, as the Committee will be cottoning on to by now, covers Northern Ireland and gives effect to the UK’s obligations under article 44 as it applies to article 34 and 36. It does so by extending extraterritorial jurisdiction to offences under article 6 of the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and part 2 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, again where the victim of the offence is aged 18 or over. It will mean that a UK national or person habitually resident in Northern Ireland who commits one of these offences outside the UK can, exceptionally, stand trial for the offence in Northern Ireland. Where the offence involves a course of conduct, the offence may be committed wholly or partly outside the UK.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I simply want to welcome specifically the terminology of “habitual resident” within the UK. The Minister and I have met a number of different families over the years who have suffered violence, and I am afraid to say that those cases we get to see usually involve murder in a different country. Where the perpetrator of the crime was back here in Britain and was not a British citizen but was habitually resident in this country, the authorities had found that their hands were tied. While the measures seem perfunctory and were a lot of words for the Minister to say, to families they mean a huge amount, so I welcome them.

Polygraph conditions for offenders released on licence

Alex Chalk (Conservative, Cheltenham)

This clause is about polygraph conditions. It is an important clause that relates to conditions for offenders released on licence. It is one of a number of measures in the Bill directed at strengthening the effective management of domestic abuse perpetrators. It allows the Secretary of State for Justice to introduce mandatory polygraph examinations as a licence condition for offenders convicted of a relevant domestic abuse-related offence. The relevant offences include murder, specified violent offences and the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour under the Serious Crime Act 2015. Necessarily, this is a new departure to some extent, but it is kept within tight limits, as members of the Committee would expect.

Let me say this by way of context. Polygraph examinations are already successfully used in the management of sexual offenders who are supervised by the National Probation Service. The clause extends the use of testing to include high-risk domestic abuse perpetrators who have been released from custody having served a sentence of 12 months or more and are on licence.

Polygraph testing will be used to monitor an offender’s compliance with other licence conditions, such as those restricting contact with their victim, requiring the offender to notify their probation officer when they form new relationships, and prohibiting entry into an exclusion zone, for example around their victim’s home. It will also be used to monitor dynamic risk factors such as alcohol or substance misuse.

The policy underpinning these provisions does not allow for offenders to be recalled to custody for failing a test. That is important. I think a lot of people would have misgivings if it could have that level of significance. However, the clause enables offenders to be recalled for making disclosures during testing that, when considered with other evidence, suggest that the risk can no longer be managed in the community. In other words—putting it in the vernacular—someone is not going to be banged up for failing a polygraph test. That is very important. However, when considered with other evidence, that can lead to a recall.

The offender can also be recalled to custody if they refuse to take the test or try to trick it in some way, for example by controlling their breathing. Testing can be required as part of the licence conditions imposed on an offender following their release from custody and, in common with other additional licence conditions, can be imposed only where it is deemed necessary and proportionate to the risk posed.

In its report on the draft Bill, the Joint Committee did not object in principle to extending polygraph testing to domestic abuse offenders, but it sought assurance on two issues. First, it sought an absolute assurance that no statements or data derived from a polygraph test could be used in criminal proceedings. The Joint Committee acknowledged:

“This appears to be the effect of the draft Bill”.

I can confirm that that is the case.

The provisions in clause 63 must be viewed alongside the existing provisions relating to polygraph testing in the Offender Management Act 2007. Section 30 of that Act expressly and unequivocally provides that any statement made by an offender during a polygraph session, or any physiological reaction made during such a session, may not be used in criminal proceedings in which that person is a defendant. I hope that will give the Committee some comfort; it certainly gave me some.

Let me be clear, however, that that does not preclude information derived from a polygraph examination from being shared with the police, who may decide to use the information to conduct further inquiries. If, as a result of those further inquiries, the police obtain other evidence that suggests an offence has been committed, that may result in charges being brought against the offender.

The Joint Committee also sought an assurance that polygraph testing will not become a substitute for careful risk analysis. Again, I can assure this Committee that the use of polygraph examinations will not replace any other existing risk assessment tools or measures, such as multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—but it will add an additional source of information that would not otherwise be available.

The evaluation of the pilot of mandatory polygraph testing for sexual offenders concluded that offender managers found polygraph testing helpful. Offenders who were tested made a higher level of significant disclosures than the comparison group who were not tested. As a result, the pilot was rolled out, and offender managers were able to increase levels of supervision where necessary, inform third parties such as the police and other MAPPA agencies or children’s services, and increase other controls, such as recalls or formal warnings.

Although the use of polygraph examinations is tried and tested in the context of the management of sex offenders, the Government accept that domestic abuse perpetrators represent a different cohort of offender. That is why we are committed to piloting the provisions in clause 63. I respectfully draw the Committee’s attention to the commencement provisions in clause 72, which expressly provides for such piloting.

Let me say a few words in conclusion about that pilot. We intend to run a three-year pilot in the north of England involving some 600 offenders. Half of the cohort will be subject to polygraph testing, while the other half will not be tested and will be the comparison group. The Government will commission an independent body to evaluate the pilot, and only if the results are positive will we roll out testing across England and Wales.

Given the benefits we have seen with the use of polygraph testing in helping us to effectively manage the risk posed by convicted sex offenders, I trust that the Committee will agree that there is merit in piloting the use of the polygraph to establish whether there are similar benefits to be had in managing the ongoing risk posed by serious domestic abuse perpetrators. We owe it to victims to use all effective means available to keep them safe.

Guidance about the disclosure of information by police forces

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 64, page 47, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) Before issuing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must undertake a comprehensive assessment of the contribution of the disclosure of police information to the prevention of domestic abuse, drawing on disclosures made by chief officers of police prior to this section coming into force.

(1B) Disclosures of police information for the purposes of the prevention of domestic abuse may only be made—

(a) where reasonable, necessary, and proportionate,

(b) with regard to the best interests of children likely to be affected by the disclosure, and

(c) after ensuring there is an operational plan to support the recipients of such disclosures.”

Karen Buck (Labour, Westminster North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 53, in clause 64, page 47, line 17, at end insert—

“(2B) Each chief officer of police of a police force must annually review—

(a) the compliance of their own force with any guidance issued under this section, and

(b) the overall contribution of the disclosures under that guidance to the prevention of domestic abuse in their force area.”

An amendment to demand review from police of how the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme policy is working, and to clarify the ‘pressing need’ test.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

The domestic violence disclosure scheme, which I will refer to from this moment forward as Clare’s law, was introduced in 2014 after Clare Wood was murdered by her ex-boyfriend, George Appleton. For those who are unfamiliar with the case, Clare Wood had made several complaints to the police about George Appleton before her death. Those complaints included criminal damage, harassment, threats to kill and sexual assault. A panic room had been installed in her house following an attempted rape.

Clare was unaware that George Appleton had a history of violence against women and had been jailed for three years in 2002 for harassing another woman, and for six months a year earlier after breaching a restraining order. However, he was still able to enter Clare’s home, strangle her and set her on fire. The Independent Police Complaints Commission concluded that Clare had been let down by individual and systematic failures by Greater Manchester police.

Clare’s law was designed to set out procedures that could be used by the police in relation to disclosure of information about previous violent, abusive and offending behaviour by a potentially violent individual towards their partner where that might help to protect that partner from further violent and abusive offending. There are two procedures for disclosing information: the right to ask, which is triggered by a member of the public applying to the police for a disclosure, and the right to know, which is triggered by the police making a proactive decision to disclose information to protect a potential victim. Disclosures are made when it is deemed that there is a pressing need for the disclosure of the information to prevent further crime.

While there is no doubt that Clare’s law was introduced with entirely good intentions—I am not here to challenge that at all—there is some concern that this well-intentioned piece of legislation is currently not operating as it should be, and concern about some alarming instances where, as it operates currently, it could be causing more harm.

First, Clare’s law has had limited use since its creation in 2014. According to data from March 2018, there were 4,655 right to ask applications, resulting in 2,055 disclosures, and 6,313 right to know applications, resulting in 3,594 disclosures, so it can be seen clearly that disclosures are not made in every case. In comparison, in the same time period there were just shy of 1.2 million recorded domestic abuse cases in England and Wales, so we are talking about a very small number of cases that seem to be using the scheme. That in itself is not necessarily evidence that it is not working, but I think it is descriptive of where it may work in some places and not others.

In addition, there appears to be a postcode lottery regarding disclosures. It is assumed that that variation is due to the vague nature of the pressing need test that currently exists in the law. For example, in 2019 Kent had an 8.5% disclosure rate for right to ask disclosures, while Hampshire had a 99.5% rate. That is worrisome, but what is of even greater concern is that the average time taken for each disclosure is 39 days. I imagine all will agree that in cases of domestic abuse, that mitigates quite a lot of the potential prevention and could potentially heighten a victim’s risk.

In addition, while there was a review of the initial pilot phase of Clare’s law and a review one year on, those reviews were procedural and did not consider the impact of the scheme on domestic abuse or analyse the scheme’s value for money. There is therefore no evaluation of whether the disclosures made have any benefit to the person they are made to. In fact, one survey indicated that 45% of early-wave recipients of information went on to be victimised by the partner they warned about. In normal language, that means that 45% of the people who have been given the information following one of the variety of requests under this law went on to be victimised and abused by that person.

One such example is Rosie Darbyshire, who was murdered with a crowbar by her partner Ben Topping. Having made an application for information under Clare’s law on 28 January, she was killed just over a week later on 7 February. She was left unrecognisable after sustaining more than 50 injuries.

Other concerns include the impact of coercive and controlling behaviour where women are unable to contact the police or where contact from the police would only serve to make matters worse. At the beginning of a relationship—I think we can all understand this, and it applies not just to women but anyone—women are often not alive to the risk of domestic abuse. Only when it is too late are they advised of their partner’s past.

Gemma Willis from Teesside, reporting to the BBC, was only advised of Clare’s law after her partner was arrested following smashing her head into a window, slashing her neck with a trowel, hitting her with hammers and threatening to kill her family. Also reporting to the BBC, Dr Sandra Walklate from the University of Liverpool said of the scheme:

“We have no real way of knowing whether it’s working or not”.

While clause 64 operates to place Clare’s law on a statutory footing, the proposed amendments are designed to safeguard against circumstances and the case studies outlined above. The amendments would mean that police should evaluate whether disclosures made under Clare’s law are having a positive impact on the safety and empowerment of victims. I am not seeking for police forces just to do a paper-shuffling exercise: “A request has come in. What will we do with this request? Does it meet the tests as set out in the law?” I am rather seeking for police forces to run some manner of risk assessment on the impact of this disclosure being made, not on the perpetrator but on the victim.

The amendments would also require police to undertake an exercise to establish the efficacy of the disclosures that have been made in the past few years, to simply have a look over how well it is working. The pressing need test, which I have already referred to, would be refined and clarified to create uniformity with future disclosures. Based on information set out, it cannot be argued that my amendments are anything less than essential for the Government, if they want to ensure that Clare’s law is as good as it could be and that the protective effect it was intended to have does not, in some cases, cause harm.

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

I would like to take a moment to reflect on the extraordinary campaigns, charities and local efforts, through which families, such as the Wood family, often find the strength and resilience somehow to campaign and carry on when they have suffered a devastating loss in their family. We have heard why Clare’s law is called Clare’s law: her family felt that had she been aware of her murderer’s background, she would have been able to stop the relationship earlier.

There are so many efforts in the world of looking after and helping victims of domestic abuse, both at the national and local level, where people have done the most extraordinary things. I want to put that on record, because I am very conscious of it as we work through the Bill and our non-legislative work.

We absolutely acknowledge that there is much more to be done to raise awareness of the scheme, primarily with the public, but also with the police. We want to increase the number of disclosures and ensure that the scheme is operated consistently across all police forces.

It is always difficult to raise awareness of the “right to ask” part of the scheme, because in the first flushes of romance and love, unless someone has already experienced domestic abuse themselves or seen it happen to others, they are probably not thinking, “I ought to contact the police to check whether he is okay.” I remind colleagues of the very powerful speech given by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) at Second Reading of the second iteration of the Bill, when, in explaining that journey very cleverly and clearly, she said that it was all to do with flowers and loveliness at the start, before the gradual chipping away began a little further on in the relationship.

We acknowledge that the scheme operates in a really difficult area and that it is very difficult for police forces to keep track of other people’s relationships. There is of course a certain sensitivity there—we do not live in a police state—so we have to go down that path carefully, ensuring that we balance rights as we need to. With this clause, the right of someone to know that they have begun a relationship with someone who has a background of abuse will be in statute—that is the aim of putting that guidance in the Bill. In including guidance, we want to ensure that it underpins the scheme on a statutory footing, which will give it greater visibility and standing. By requiring police forces to have regard to the guidance, the Bill will help to bring the performance of all forces in applying the scheme up to the best standard.

I am pleased to say that the Government’s proposal to place Clare’s law in statute was fully endorsed by the Joint Committee, which recognised that the measure will raise awareness of the scheme among those who might benefit most from it. Although I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley as she spoke to her amendments, I reassure the Committee that we know that the guidance has been in place since 2014—an awful lot has happened in the six years since in all sorts of respects—and that is why we are comprehensively reviewing the guidance in anticipation of it being placed on a statutory footing by the Bill. It will be informed by the experiences of the police and, importantly, of many others, over the last six years.

We know, for example, of the incredibly sad case of Rosie Darbyshire in 2019, about which the hon. Lady spoke. The scheme did not meet the timeliness that we all hope for and would expect, and timeliness is a factor in our review. By way of explanation, initial checks are supposed to be carried out within 24 hours, which is of no reassurance at all to the Darbyshire family. We need to understand why that appears not to have happened on that occasion.

Alongside our review, police forces are—in fairness—looking to improve their handling of the scheme. For example, last October the Metropolitan police launched a facility to make online applications. Previously, a person had to visit a police station and fill out a paper form, but the Metropolitan police has moved on to online forms, which we hope will make the process quicker and easier for users. That portal is beginning to be rolled out in other forces in England and Wales.

We understand the need to review and are reviewing the guidance. I welcome the thoughtful idea of looking at the pressing need test, which is set out in the explanatory notes accompanying the amendments. We have not had that suggestion made to us by the police as part of our work to review it. We can see that there may be complications in terms of the importance of risk assessment and so on, but we undertake to explore that point with the police.

We will also of course share the new guidance fully with sector partners and the domestic abuse commissioner, among others, before it is published. It is anticipated that Clare’s law guidance arising out of clause 64 will be published after Royal Assent next year.

Even if we were to identify changes to the pressing need test—at this stage, we are very much still pondering that—we have to be alert to whether it is appropriate to place the test in legislation. Doing so may have unintended legal consequences for the well-established legal obligations on police considering making a disclosure. Statutory guidance has the advantage of flexibility and is more readily updated to reflect developing good practice. The police will be required to have regard to the statutory guidance and may face challenge in the courts if they fail to comply with the guidance without good reason.

I absolutely agree wholeheartedly with the principles that the hon. Lady has raised—namely, that we want to bolster the scheme and make sure that more people are aware of it and that we have consistency of application across forces. We very much intend to achieve that through the guidance set out.

Members have been very concerned about how we are looking after children throughout our discussions on the Bill. I very much welcome the suggestion of a specific focus on ensuring that the best interests of any children are taken into account. I agree that that is crucial to the safe operation of the scheme. We will look at how that principle can be included in the statutory guidance.

On amendment 53, we share the ambition that local forces should be aware of how they are operating Clare’s law, including whether that is in accordance with the published statutory guidance and with a full understanding of the impact and outcomes of the scheme on victims. Again, I maintain that that is a matter for the new statutory guidance, but our discussions on that will be taken forward as part of our review. I hope the hon. Lady will be content with those representations.

Jess Phillips (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I am indeed content. I look forward to working with the Minister to ensure that the law—it bears somebody’s name and is their legacy—truly does what Clare’s family wish it to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Grant of secure tenancies in cases of domestic abuse

Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Louth and Horncastle)

Part 7 of the Bill is a collection of important measures, although there is perhaps not a common theme running through them other than that. The clause relates to secure tenancies and contributes towards the Government’s wider aim to support victims of domestic abuse to leave their abusive circumstances, and to ensure that they and their families have the stability and security they need and deserve.

Clause 65 does two things. First, it will ensure that victims of domestic abuse who have or had a lifetime social tenancy, and who have had to flee their current home to escape abuse, will retain the security of a lifetime tenancy in their new social home where they are granted a new tenancy by a local authority. The provisions apply to all local authorities in England and protect all lifetime social tenants in such circumstances, regardless of whether they hold a secure local authority tenancy or an assured tenancy with a private registered provider of social housing—usually a housing association.

Secondly, the clause will safeguard domestic abuse victims who hold a joint lifetime tenancy and who want to continue living in their home after the perpetrator has moved out or been removed from the property. It does this by providing that, if the local authority grants them a new sole tenancy, it must be a lifetime tenancy. The provisions apply when the tenant is a victim of domestic abuse, and they extend to situations where a member of the household—for example, a child—has suffered domestic abuse. In the year to the end of March 2019, nearly 1,500 local authority lettings were made to social tenants who cited domestic violence as the main reason they left their former social home. Although that is a small proportion of new tenants overall, the provisions would protect more than 1,000 households affected by domestic abuse.

The measures largely mirror current provisions in the Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Act 2018. That Act, which delivers on a 2017 manifesto commitment, ensures that when the mandatory fixed-term tenancy provisions in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 are brought into force, the security of tenure of victims of domestic abuse will be protected. After listening carefully to the concerns of social housing residents, the Government announced in August 2018 that we had decided not to implement the mandatory fixed-term tenancy provisions at that time. In order to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are protected, we also announced that we would legislate to put in place similar protections for victims of domestic abuse where, as is the case now, local authorities offer fixed-term tenancies at their discretion; the clause gives effect to that commitment. The clause also amends the definition of “domestic abuse” in the 2018 Act to bring it in line with the definition in this provision.

Written evidence reported to the House