parliamentary debates · † scully, paul (sutton and cheam) (con) † smith, eleanor...

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATESHOUSE OF COMMONS

OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

DOMESTIC ABUSE BILL

First Sitting

Tuesday 29 October 2019

(Morning)

CONTENTS

Programme motion agreed to.

Written evidence (Reporting to the House) motion agreed to.

Motion to sit in private agreed to.

Examination of witnesses.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 002) 2019 - 2020

No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for thefinal version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy ofthe report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’sRoom, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 2 November 2019

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019

This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence,

which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † SIR DAVID AMESS, DAVID HANSON

† Atkins, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of

State for the Home Department)

† Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab)

† Dakin, Nic (Scunthorpe) (Lab)

† Graham, Luke (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)

† Harris, Carolyn (Swansea East) (Lab)† Hughes, Eddie (Walsall North) (Con)† Jardine, Christine (Edinburgh West) (LD)† Johnson, Diana (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)† Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con)† Keegan, Gillian (Chichester) (Con)

† Merriman, Huw (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)† Morton, Wendy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of

State for Justice)† Newton, Sarah (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)† Norris, Alex (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)† Saville Roberts, Liz (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)† Scully, Paul (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)† Smith, Eleanor (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)

Joanna Dodd, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Nicole Jacobs, Designate Domestic Abuse Commissioner

Deputy Chief Constable (West Midlands Police) Louisa Rolfe, National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on domesticabuse, National Police Chiefs’ Council

1 229 OCTOBER 2019Public Bill Committee Domestic Abuse Bill



(Morning)

[SIR DAVID AMESS in the Chair]

Domestic Abuse Bill

9.25 am

The Chair: Before we begin, I have a few preliminaryannouncements. Please switch your electronic devices tosilent. I would certainly like tea or coffee, but the rulesare set in stone and we would have to agree that throughthe Chairman of Ways and Means, so I am afraid that,at the moment, you cannot have tea or coffee. I do notreally want to tell anyone off; I am afraid you are justgoing to have to deal with water.

We will first consider the programme motion on theamendment paper. We will then consider a motion toenable the reporting of written evidence for publication,and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private aboutour questions before the oral evidence session. In viewof the timetable, shall we just get on with it? I call theMinister to move the programme motion, which wasdiscussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.

Ordered,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at9.25 am on Tuesday 29 October) meet—

(a) at 2.30 pm on Tuesday 29 October;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 31 October;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 November;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 7 November;

(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 November;

(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 14 November;

(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 November;

(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday21 November;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordancewith the following Table:

TABLE

Date Time Witness

Tuesday 29 October Until no later than10.55 am

Nicole Jacobs,DesignateDomestic AbuseCommissioner

Tuesday 29 October Until no later than11.25 am

National PoliceChiefs’ Council

Tuesday 29 October Until no later than3.00 pm

Her Majesty’sInspectors ofConstabulary


Nazir Afzal,National Adviserto the WelshGovernment


Action forChildren

Date Time Witness


Age UK; Respect

Thursday 31 October Until no later than12.30 pm

Women’s AidFederation ofEngland; Refuge;SafeLives


Local GovernmentAssociation


Crisis; GilesPeaker, AnthonyGold Solicitors


Imkaan; EndViolence AgainstWomen Coalition;Southall BlackSisters; CrisMcCurley, BenHoare Bell LLP


AmnestyInternational UK;Hestia

(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committeeshall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 37;Schedule 1; Clauses 38 to 78; Schedule 2; Clauses 79to 86; new Clauses; new Schedules; remainingproceedings on the Bill;

(4) the proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as notpreviously concluded) be brought to a conclusionat 5.00 pm on Thursday 21 November.—(VictoriaAtkins.)

Resolved,That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence

received by the Committee shall be reported to the House forpublication.—(Victoria Atkins.)

The Chair: Copies of written evidence that the Committeereceives will be made available in the Committee Room.If there are any complaints, please direct them to ourwonderful Clerk.

Resolved,That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence

is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until thewitnesses are admitted.—(Victoria Atkins.)

9.28 am

The Committee deliberated in private.

Examination of Witness

Nicole Jacobs gave evidence.

9.29 am

Q1 The Chair: Before I call the first Member to ask aquestion, I remind all Members—I am sure they do notneed reminding—that everything must be related to theBill; we should not wander beyond its scope. We shouldalso stick to our timings. For this session we have until10.55 am. Secondly, I ask Members to declare anyrelevant interests before they ask their first question. Icannot think that any Member does have an interest.

Nicole, would you please tell the Committee—not inhuge detail—something about yourself ?

Nicole Jacobs: Good morning, and thank youfor having me. I am your new designate DomesticAbuse Commissioner for England and Wales. By way ofbackground, I have worked in the domestic abuse sector

3 4HOUSE OF COMMONSPublic Bill Committee Domestic Abuse Bill

for more than 20 years—in the US at the very start ofmy career, but I moved to the UK about 20 years ago—and have worked in a variety of local and nationaldomestic abuse charities.

The Chair: Splendid. You are projecting your voicewell—we can all hear you—so that is a good start.

Q2 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forthe Home Department (Victoria Atkins): It is a pleasureto serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. BeforeI start the questioning, for the sake of completeness, Iwill say that I used to practise as a criminal barristerand prosecuted for the Crown Prosecution Service andother prosecuting agencies.

Ms Jacobs, congratulations on being the designateDomestic Abuse Commissioner. You have explainedyour expertise and experience in this area. Could youplease help us with your thoughts on how you see therole of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner? What doyou hope to achieve?

Nicole Jacobs: I was attracted to apply for the role atthe start of the year because I feel, having worked formany years, that there is a real need for public leadershipand an independent commissioner to hold the Governmentto account and look at the provision of service acrossEngland and Wales. You will have heard the termpostcode lottery, and you will probably hear it manytimes in the next few sittings. I have worked in the fieldfor more than 20 years and know what it feels like forpeople who are subject to domestic abuse, how serviceschange and how the response of statutory services willdiffer from area to area.

My vision for the role is to instil a co-ordinatedcommunity response to domestic abuse, where essentiallyyou have specialist services—we all know that victims ofdomestic abuse say time and time again that such servicesmake a life-changing difference, and that has been wellevaluated—with the survivor voice at the centre of theresponse; and where all entities, including housing,health, the criminal justice system and community andreligious groups, are doing their part to address domesticabuse properly, as they should.

That is why I loved the job description set out for thisrole, which is about mapping provision and lookingat our findings from homicide reviews. I have justcome from an organisation that, sadly, has chaired over60 homicide reviews. The idea of co-ordinating thelearning from those reviews highly motivates me, as wellas other aspects of the co-ordinated response.

Tangibly, what I would like to set out and do, asquickly as possible, is to get on with that mapping andreally help to shine a light not only on where practice islacking but on where there is good practice, because weneed to emulate that and really push for that to be muchmore common across England and Wales.

Q3 Victoria Atkins: Thank you; that was mosthelpful. Your current title is designate Domestic AbuseCommissioner, because you will not possess statutorypowers until the Bill becomes an Act. To help theCommittee to put the framework in place—I suspectyou may be asked questions about this—what are yourthoughts on the statutory powers that you are givenunder the Bill?

Nicole Jacobs: I have been in post for a month, andone of the things that has struck me already—I was notfully expecting the breadth of this—is how much survivorsand people who work in the sector and elsewhere haveembraced the idea of this role. I understand the idea ofpublic leadership in the role and what that means topeople, but the powers that the Bill will give my officeare critical.

I am an expert in domestic abuse, not in commissioners’powers, but I have done a bit of looking around andtalking to other commissioners and I have had in-depthtalks at the Home Office about this. Essentially, I feelthat the powers in the Bill are fit for purpose, as far as Iunderstand them. Obviously, I will defer to you if youthink they should be strengthened, but what I like aboutthem as they are set out is the ability to table reports tothe Home Secretary and Parliament, and the timeframein which the Government must respond if my office hasmade recommendations in those reports. I know fromhaving talked to other commissioners that that is veryimportant. The ability to redact information in myreports is limited; there have to be compelling reasons.

You know all those details, but the powers are quitewell set out and have been well thought through, as faras I am concerned. Having said that, more power is finewith me, so if you, in the course of your duties, comeacross things that you feel would improve the independenceand power of my office, I would certainly welcome that.

Q4 Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab): Good morningand welcome. It is an absolute pleasure to have youhere. I am interested to hear you say that you wouldwelcome more powers. An issue for me, at this momentin time, is whether you need more time. I am reallyconcerned about the fact that the role is part time, andthere is definitely an opportunity for us to look at that. Iam offering you a full-time job here.

Nicole Jacobs: I would love it. I have said from thevery start that I recognise that this is a huge role. I amcertainly 100% committed and passionate, and I wouldwelcome working more. I will obviously be building upa team, which will sit around me in my office. I amslowly starting to recruit for it, and I will feel betterwhen I have got it. I always try to point out to peoplethat they should not worry about the fact that there isnot a team sitting around the commissioner. There isresource there, but of course I believe that it is morethan a part-time role.

I understand from my conversations with the HomeOffice, which is my host, that there is a real openness todoing that. People made that clear on Second Reading—Iwas listening in Parliament—so I do not worry aboutthat so much. Once I have been in post a little longer, Ican make a decision if I believe I need more time, butI would certainly welcome your support on that. I wouldreally like that.

Q5 Carolyn Harris: You have had an opportunity tolook at the Bill. What are your thoughts on the genderdefinition within it?

Nicole Jacobs: I am of the view that there is agendered nature to domestic abuse. Going back to thehomicide reviews that I was talking about earlier, threefourths of them are intimate partners or former intimatepartners—that is highly gendered. A fourth of those


homicides are adult child to family—again, that ishighly gendered. That does not mean that there are notmale victims of domestic abuse. Both those things canbe true. In my area—I have just been working in centralLondon—there were 4,000 women who came to servicesin just one tri-borough area last year. That is a lot. Thefacts speak for themselves.

I appreciate that your dilemma is that you want towrite inclusive legislation that is clear that domesticabuse can happen to anyone. Where I have eventuallyfallen on this is that there is strength in the statutorydefinition in wanting the gendered nature of domesticabuse to be very prominent in the statutory guidance. Ifyou can all figure out a way to make the law genderedand still address the breadth of people who sufferdomestic abuse, I would welcome that. My understandingis that what you would like, and what the Joint Committeeon the draft Bill looked at, is to have gender-neutrallanguage in the law, underpinned by much more informedstatutory guidance related to the gendered nature. Ihope that makes sense.

Carolyn Harris: That is perfect.

Nicole Jacobs: I am sure we all recognise the genderednature of domestic abuse.

Q6 Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): It is apleasure to see you here today, as it was to see you in theGallery. I thought it was terrific that you sat throughthe whole debate.

Nicole Jacobs: I thought you were all terrific.

Sarah Newton: You made a compelling description inyour opening remarks about the landscape of communityservices and specialist services commissioned by theNHS, local authorities, children’s services, and policeand crime commissioners. I am delighted that you havepicked mapping this provision of services as a keypriority. Are you also looking at prevention services? Weknow that, unfortunately, if children grow up in a homewhere they witness domestic abuse and violence, theyare far more likely to become perpetrators or victims.Given the scale of the challenge—we have heard yourreflections on time—will the budget of £1 million beenough to undertake such a mammoth mapping exercise?What role does sharing best practice have and howwould you undertake that partnership working, giventhe range of agencies involved in providing services?

Nicole Jacobs: I will take on prevention first. You areexactly right, and we will all differ in our views of whatwe would undertake if we were preventing domesticabuse. Some of us would be interested in a public healthcampaign. Some would be interested in work withinschools. Some might say that we need to do a lot tointervene early, so that we are educating all manner offrontline services about how they can prevent this. Withany issue as complex as domestic abuse, it must be allthree, and we must do all that.

Although I endorse the idea of a public campaign, Iam aware that we would have to have the services andthe breadth of development and understanding to underpinthat. If we raise the expectations of the public—if wewant them to understand that we are there and they canreach out for help—we need to have the help in place. Ican see a role in helping to shape some of those prevention

activities, but that responsibility rightfully sits withinGovernment. My office, for example, cannot run aprevention campaign, but I really endorse the idea ofhelping to support the Government to do that.

In respect of my budget, I understand the scope ofthe staff team I can hire. I understand that I can haveroughly 13 staff members with that budget. I can anticipatewhat I think they could do in terms of analysis, stakeholderengagement and policy work. As the Committee hearsfurther evidence, I encourage you to be mindful of thefact that there are a lot of ideas and discussions aboutwhat else my office might do. Please be mindful of thefact that if there are any additional responsibilities, theywill need to come with additional resource.

I am a bit concerned about being able to do thebreadth of that mapping. I would have to depend onDepartments sharing with me the information that theyalready have, and charities in our sector doing the same.I do not intend to start from scratch. I know there hasbeen a lot of work, and I would like to have access tothat information and make sense of it, and to use it aspart of the mapping. There are some efficiencies inthat way.

In terms of my background and the breadth of whatgets mapped, which was the last part of your question,the organisation I have just come from is about promotinga co-ordinated community response. We have specialistcourts, and we had health-related and housing-relatedwork. I feel that I would have a level of precision interms of knowing what I would be looking for. You areright to say it is a huge endeavour, but there are definitelyareas of work where we know what the practice oughtto be. We do not have to worry about figuring that out;we just need to know who is doing it and who is not,and why not. With the breadth of that, there is a bit ofexpertise that I can bring that will help to make that alittle more precise and efficient.

Q7 Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab):Welcome, and congratulations on your role. I want toask you whether the fact that the advertised role waspart time was one of the reasons you applied for it. Iasked the Minister about this in the House of Commonsyesterday, and she said that she had had advice fromrecruitment consultants that we would get a betterbreadth of applicants if we had a part-time post. Is thatwhy you applied?

Nicole Jacobs: To be perfectly honest, I applied becauseof the job description. I was very motivated by the jobdescription. In fact, I looked at that more than I lookedat the part-time nature of the role. I would have questionedit a bit, but then thought, “Well, there’ll be lots offull-time staff on my team.” I was very relieved in myinitial conversations that it was likely, if I wanted tospend more time—

Q8 Diana Johnson: You would like it to be full time.

Nicole Jacobs: I can imagine that if I were at adifferent stage in life, with different responsibilities, Imight find that attractive. Right now, from my currentthinking about it, I would love to be doing it full timebut it did not dissuade me when I saw it was part time. Ijust assumed I would have to work around that.

Q9 Diana Johnson: I wonder whether you have readthe prelegislative scrutiny report on the draft DomesticAbuse Bill, because it was clear from its recommendations


that there was unanimity that the issue of accountabilitywas not properly addressed in the way the commissioneris accountable to the Secretary of State in the HomeOffice. Their budgets and staff are set by the Secretaryof State in the Home Office. I wonder what your thoughtsare on that.

Kevin Hyland, who was a commissioner with whom Iam sure you are very familiar, gave evidence that theSecretary of State would have too much control overthe commissioner’s budgets, the staff employed and thecontent of the commissioner’s reports. I note that yousaid at the beginning that you wanted to be a publiclyindependent commissioner and hold the Governmentto account. What is your view on what Kevin Hylandsaid?

Nicole Jacobs: Obviously, I have really consideredthat, because the last thing I want to do is stop the jobthat I love in the charity sector and come to a role inwhich I would not be able to exercise my independenceas much as I would like. In the ebb and flow of the workon the Bill, I looked at a framework document just lastweek that set it out more clearly. I am sure you will havesight of that in the Committee. I feel quite confident inthe way I have negotiated thus far with officers at theHome Office, in terms of asserting different changesand things that I would like to be clarified. I have feltconfident in the way that that has been conducted todate.

I would highlight that the budget is set out year toyear. My view, as I have said to the Home Office, is thatif I have a three-year plan and my term is for threeyears, I should have assurance over the budget over thattime. I will have people working for me, for example,who will be working on things, so I would rather havethe assurance of three years at a time rather than yearto year. Again, I am highlighting that to you not becauseI am concerned about it but because we are discussingthat now. In other words, I have felt assured by thereactions of the Home Office to date, in terms of how Iwill conduct myself independently.

Q10 Diana Johnson: In terms of being able to beaccountable, do you think it would be better for yourrole to sit within the Cabinet Office rather than theHome Office?

Nicole Jacobs: I have considered that as well. I haveworked in this sector for many years. There is expertisein many Departments, obviously, but the Home Officehas traditionally been the centre of activity, not just forcriminal justice related work but for good leadership interms of violence against women and domestic abuse, inany number of areas. There is a certain level of expertisewithin the Home Office of which I am appreciative; Ihave less experience with the Cabinet Office. I knowpeople who work there. I would defer to your view, but Ifeel confident about the hosting at the Home Office.

I hope I am not naive, but I fully intend to beindependent. I do not intend to wilfully disagree if I donot disagree, but I do not feel hindered in any way in theprocess to date, in terms of my independence.

Q11 Diana Johnson: I wanted to ask how you feel youwill be accountable to Parliament. This is a parliamentaryCommittee, so how will you do that?

Nicole Jacobs: By tabling reports to Parliament andannual reports. One of my biggest regrets about onlybeing in post for a month is that I have not been able to

get around and speak to many parliamentarians yet,and there has been all this activity related to the Bill. Ifeel that I would be accountable to Parliament in theway that I would table information and reports toParliament, and be clear about the work of my office,what we are finding and what we are doing about it. Ithoroughly understand how accountable I am in thisrole, and I would welcome any ways that you wish toimprove that.

Q12 Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con): I, too, wouldlike to congratulate you on your new role. There aresuch high expectations of this role. As the comments sofar show, this is now the time to make sure that we setout the role so that it is set up to be successful.

I listened to what you said about mapping andco-ordinating support services to eliminate the postcodelottery across England and Wales, and to make surethat we have a clear idea about what services are there.We know that there are big gaps in services for survivorsand children. It is a massive brief. Like many Committeemembers, I have concerns about whether this can be apart-time role or whether you will end up doing it threetimes over. This is going to take up a lot of time.

You have a staff of 13. Could you give us a bit morecolour about what that staff looks like? How are yougoing to eat this elephant, in a way? It is a massive thingto do. What can we expect? Perhaps our expectationsare too high. What can we expect in the first 100 days orso? Now is the time to say and to give us all the feelingabout whether the role ought to be considered to be fulltime, whether the budget is sufficient and whether youhave the right staff. We want to make sure that you aresuccessful and that we get it right. We do not wantsomething where we all come back later and think,“That’s disappointing.”

Nicole Jacobs: In terms of the first 100 days, to give alittle more colour, I would expect to be hiring a chief ofstaff next week and some element of communicationsspecialism within the office, but primarily having analysts,policy leads and officers. For me, having a stakeholderengagement post is very important in order to feel like Iam doing as much as I can to reach out to frontlineservices and individual people, and to have built up anadvisory board, which would include people who havebeen subject to domestic abuse.

I agree that there is a lot to do and a lot of breadth ofwork in that. One thing that would help me is for you toconsider the statutory duty for services. If my job is tohelp shine a light on what practice ought to be out thereand end the postcode lottery, I cannot do that on myown. One of the things you will be thinking about inthis Committee is the statutory duty for accommodation-based services, which I wholly endorse, and I congratulatethe Ministry of Housing, Communities and LocalGovernment on all the work and leadership on that. Ibelieve that duty should be expanded to the breadth offrontline services for domestic abuse.

You will understand that housing-related services willexcellently cover refuge and those types of associatedservices, but there is a whole breadth of other servicessuch as community-based independent domestic abuseadvisers. A significant majority of domestic abuse servicesthat we call specialist services do not fall within the dutyas it is set out. That would be a great help to me as thecommissioner, because that would strengthen the services


that must be provided. In some ways, the underpinningof that would be a huge boost to not only my role butthe provision of services in England and Wales.

I would love to give you a precise budget increase thatI would like, but I have been in role for a month and I donot have my full strategic plan and the costings set out. Iwould feel a bit embarrassed to come to you and say,“Could you provide more resource, but I can’t really tellyou the strategic plan and exactly how it will fall out?”.I feel I have the resource now to get started, certainly,and to make headway. My understanding of the frameworkdocument, which I would love for you to take a reallygood look at and consider, is that as that strategy is setby my office, there is a process of negotiation related towhat resource I need. I would really appreciate anythingyou could do that would strengthen my hand in termsof what I can do at that point.

Q13 Gillian Keegan: Could you give us a little moreinformation on stakeholder engagement, as that will bea key part? How do you see that playing out and whoare the key stakeholders?

Nicole Jacobs: In my mind, the absolute stakeholdersare the adults and children suffering domestic abuse.They would be first and foremost in my mind. I knowthat sounds possibly clichéd, but in every decision Imake and everything I do, that would be the firstthought I have—what the implications are, what isneeded, what people are saying about services. It wouldbe the first thing I consider.

I will not go into all my thoughts about this, but it isdifficult to consider how we would do that properly.How do we engage? We are talking about millions ofpeople, so I would like to think carefully about how todo that in a meaningful way, in terms of advisers andwhatnot.

I brought with me something that I was struck by—ofcourse I cannot put my fingers on it right now, but I dohave it somewhere. I know several of you were at theLaw in the Making launch in Parliament last week, andthere was an amazing booklet that set out priorities thatwere set by survivors. It is an excellent example of thecareful bringing in of the views of stakeholders. I fullyintend to take every one of the recommendations and, ifthey are not addressed in the Bill or the statutoryguidance, to use them in some way in my mapping.

I know this is a long answer, but it is worth youunderstanding that my view of stakeholder engagementis much broader than that. Going back to that co-ordinatedresponse, where is health? We talk about the healthresponse to domestic abuse, and one of therecommendations from the Law in the Making bookletwas about mental health services. There is a lot to do toengage stakeholders, such as mental health trusts, acutehospital trusts and clinical commissioning groups, andin every area that is being mapped, a whole host ofstakeholders need to be engaged fully and to understandwhere the practice is, where their practice should be,and what we expect. I will aim to do that.

Q14 Gillian Keegan: Thank you; that was a helpfulresponse. Will you tell me one last thing? In a lot of thediscussion, there was clearly a great deal of difficultywith the children of survivors—in finding school places,in considering the children and with the support servicesfor children, who are also survivors of domestic abuse. I

am conscious that this role is massive, but how do yousee it fitting in with them as stakeholders and with theprovision of services for them?

Nicole Jacobs: That is why I feel strongly about thebroadening of the statutory duty. One of the thingsthat I want to point out is that when you hear aboutrefuges or community-based services, all those peopleare serving the needs of children. They are the peoplewho are finding the school places and thinking aboutadvocating to CAMHS—child and adolescent mentalhealth services—for example, about waiting lists and allsorts of things.

That aside, there is still a distinct lack of services thataddress the child directly. There are the needs of thechild and then what services a child in their own rightshould have, such as counselling support to understandand make sense of the trauma they have suffered. Thoseservices are seriously lacking because in the local authority,at the local level, it is the crisis-related services that areprioritised for funding.

Believe anyone who gives you evidence on the lack ofservices for children, because it is true to say that it isvery unusual to find an area with genuine nice provisionand breadth of services for children in that respect.Again, that is why we need to be clearer about wherethat is happening, so that we can learn from it—how dothey fund it, or which partners come together at thelocal authority level to fund it? Even better, that shouldbe included in the breadth of a duty that we wouldexpect everyone to have. That would make thingssignificantly better.

Q15 Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op):Welcome, Nicole. I have just two things. To continue thetheme of mapping, it has always seemed to me thatthere is a real challenge with refuge or accommodation-based support because a constituent of mine, for obviousreasons, is as likely to need somewhere outside Nottinghamtonight as inside Nottingham. There is no connectionbetween the commissioning decision made in, say,Birmingham and that individual back in Nottingham,in the way that there would be for another servicecommissioned through the local authority. I know youare in the early stages of this, but have you had muchchance to consider that issue, perhaps drawing on yourprevious experience? How is the health of the nationalnetwork of refuges at the moment? Do you intend toestablish that in your role?

Nicole Jacobs: My colleagues at Women’s Aid, whomI trust, would say that we are turning away one in threepeople who seek a refuge. I know what it is like to tryto find a place in a refuge—I have many years’ experiencein frontline services and I have been at the end of thephone on a Friday night trying to find a place forsomeone sitting in front of me who has nowhere to go. Iwelcome the establishment of a solid fundamental dutyto ensure that that provision is in place.

I like the way that MHCLG has consulted manystakeholders about having a board that would includespecialist services that map and think carefully aboutthe priorities in any area. All those things would end theidea of, “I am funding something that is not for ‘myresidents’,” which has been the attitude from some,although not all, local authorities. Some local authoritieshave had an attitude of, “Why are we providing thisservice when it is not our residents who are attending?”,but if everyone did that there would be no place to go.


Some of the measures being introduced will addressthat in part, but I stress that things such as provision formigrant women or people with no recourse to publicfunds—I cannot tell you how frustrating it is when youare desperately trying to find suitable, safe accommodationfor someone in those circumstances. I am sure you willhear a lot of evidence about that, so I will not go intogreat detail, but we must seek to improve those thingsthrough the Bill in terms of our duties. I do not see ithappening any other way.

Local authorities are very constrained. For example,even when you go to a local authority with great solidinformation and say, “This is the percentage increase inour referrals; this is the breadth of what we are notdoing,” the response is not, “Okay, you have given methe evidence, here we go.” Usually, it is, “Let’s have a10% cut because we are cutting all services right now.”That is the reality out there, and that is why there hasbeen such a lot of enthusiasm for the idea of a duty,which I feel needs to be extended.

Q16 Alex Norris: Pivoting to recruitment, the HomeAffairs Committee heard from Kevin Hyland, just beforehe left his role as anti-slavery commissioner. We askedhim about the challenges and what he knew then that hedid not know at the beginning. He said that one challengeof being in the Home Office is that, quite rightly, it hasexceptionally rigorous recruitment processes because ofthe access to exceptionally sensitive material, includingon organised crime and counter-terrorism. All thatmakes abundant sense, but it means that recruitment ofstaff is difficult, and he was taking up to nine monthsto bring in members of staff. You are building a team of13 people from scratch. How is that looking so far? Doyou have any of those anxieties? Has anything changed?Is there a streamlined process specifically for you?

Nicole Jacobs: Yes, it is quite different. I am used toworking in an organisation where if I wanted to recruitsomeone, I could go to my office, write a job description,put in an ad, and it would all be done. It is a bit of ashock. There has been some real learning from KevinHyland. The team in the Home Office that has beenhelping me get set up—I have had some support—hasreally got ahead of that and the recruitment, which hasbeen great. I feel it has helped to manage my expectationsa bit, but it has got a few key posts in place. To behonest, if the team had not done that—it was a courtesyto get me off to a good start—I would be doing it now,and instead of interviewing next week I would beinterviewing in three months’ time.

I understand what Kevin Hyland was saying, and itreminds me of something that I would like to point out.I was madly reviewing all the documents in preparationfor coming before you—although you are very friendlyand not as intimidating as I had thought—and one ofthe things that I noted was this thing about recruitment.It says that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner wouldapprove the recruitment. When I read that wording, Ithought, “This is my staff team, and I will select it. If itis not me, it will be my chief of staff.” I would notapprove the recruitment; I would be doing it. Again, Ido not anticipate that I will not be able to negotiate thatin the framework agreement, but it is something that Inoticed yesterday, and I thought, “Actually, it should beworded to be really clear that I or someone on my teamwill be recruiting, as it is my staff team.” I will beadvocating for that small change in the wording.

Q17 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forJustice (Wendy Morton): Good morning, Nicole, andcongratulations on your new post. I want to focus onone particular group of stakeholders: victims and theirchildren. I believe they are at the heart of the Bill; Iwonder what your thoughts are on that. What do youfeel are the right levers for improving the response todomestic abuse for victims and their children?

Nicole Jacobs: Without saying some of what I havesaid already, I think it is necessary to have the basicservices on a very solid footing, in terms of the provisionof funding, and to include that for all survivors, nomatter whether they are disabled, LGBT or migrants.Frankly, to be the bearer of bad news, there is massiveroom for improvement in every direction. That wouldbe central to my thoughts about what those leverswould need to be—the levers that would enable thefunding to be settled and much more stable. Later, youwill hear from Jo Todd about male victims and perpetratorsof domestic abuse, and I would endorse all those things.

It is not as if people who experience domestic abuseline up at the specialist service door or call. They aremost likely to receive support through the nurse, thehousing officer, the neighbour or the community leader.There will be a pathway to support. It is interesting tothink about those levers individually. What does housingneed to do? What does the criminal justice system needto do? I am a huge advocate of specialist courts so thatwhen people access the criminal justice system for redress,the system really pays attention to them as a witness.The levers are different for different types of service anddifferent pathways into support. I know that is not avery succinct answer, but there are many things we cando in every area that would lever support. Some wouldnot need to be contained in the Bill; some would rightlysit in the statutory guidance alongside the Bill. An excitingaspect of this process is strengthening that guidance. Ihave had sight of an initial draft and was pleased toconsider what this would be like and what kind of effectit would have, once it was in the statutory guidance.

Q18 Wendy Morton: In terms of working with others,we obviously have the Victims’ Commissioner and theChildren’s Commissioner, and we also have the WelshGovernment national advisers’ role. How would you seeyour work linking in with them, or any collaborationwith them? How do you see it all not just knittingtogether, but working together in this space?

Nicole Jacobs: I always really admired Vera Baird,the Victims’ Commissioner. She has been quite active inthis process and you will be hearing various things fromher colleagues who work with her. In a lot of ways, thesynergy with her office is quite clear to me, because ofthe breadth of her understanding and her background.I feel the same about my initial conversations with thenational advisers—I met with them yesterday—and theChildren’s Commissioner and others. Technically, therewill be a memorandum of understanding that will setout and make clear the delineation of priority, dutiesand how we will co-ordinate. Practically speaking, weare off to a good start: I feel really enthusiastic abouthow we will work together and think about reallypractical ways to work so that we are not stepping oneach other. There is plenty to do and if anything I donot think there will be any stepping on toes; there willbe a lot of co-ordinating work and prioritising of whatwe would like to see done. That should work quite well.


One thing I find is that there has been a lot ofdiscussion about the breadth of violence against womenand girls, and that could sit in certain aspects of what Iwill do but it could also sit well with the Victims’Commissioner and other commissioners. There is a lotto do to co-ordinate that work, but I feel confident thatwill happen.

Q19 Wendy Morton: Just one more quick question.You touched on the work of Jo Todd and we talkedearlier about the definition of domestic abuse and aboutgender neutrality. How do you see your role in terms ofsupporting male victims of domestic abuse?

Nicole Jacobs: I see it in a fairly similar way, in termsof feeling that I would want people to feel I waschampioning and amplifying their voice, their viewsand their needs. I would not see it as wholly different inthat way. For example, in many aspects of my careerover many years I have worked with male victims,particularly in health settings, where perhaps you wouldbe more likely to have people come forward or be ableto intervene early. I would see it in a very similar way,but that does not mean it would be the same. We have torealise that there are all sorts of intersections. We haveto appreciate the differences: male victims may not needthe same provision of services or types of services. Iwould be open to having these conversations andunderstanding what would be individually needed forany number of groups, including male victims.

Q20 Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West)(Lab): Good morning, Nicole, and congratulations onyour role. How much importance do you place ondiversity in your recruitment, and within your departmentand the work you are doing there?

Nicole Jacobs: I highly prioritise it, partly because Iunderstand that people who are subject to domesticabuse are very diverse. We say that it is a genderedcrime, but all women are not the same. There are olderwomen, disabled women, lesbian women—there are allsorts of people that I would want my office to represent.I really want a diverse range of people represented inmy office and being engaged by my office. Put simply, Iwould absolutely be committed to that, because we havelearned in the past that sometimes we have geared ourservices and responses towards people who might besimilar to those running the service.

Over the years, we have learned that we must have amore diverse service pathway. For example, in the areaof London where I come from, instead of commissioningone service, there is a partnership of nine services. It is apartnership and it is commissioned as one. That hasallowed for smaller, community-based BME services tothrive and be part of the service framework. That is thekind of thing I would really like to see more of and tobe encouraged.

There are unintended consequences of promoting theprovision of service. The worry is that larger charitieswill come into the frame and provide more genericservices. People who have been subject to domesticabuse tell us that they want many pathways and toknow that there are people in particular communitieswhom they could approach. I am a huge advocate ofmaking sure that we do not do anything that wouldmake small charities even more fragile in that way.

Q21 Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): Youwill be aware from listening to the Second Readingdebate that there was discussion as to whether thedefinition should pay regard to the fact that women aremuch more likely to be victims or survivors of domesticabuse than men. I thought that was more a statement offact, but I could see the argument that that would helpto ensure that providers or funders would weight provisionaccording to that same proportion. Will your office andpowers allow you to investigate and ensure that providersare providing on a proportionate basis when it comes togender?

Nicole Jacobs: I think so, because the approach isvery much based on the idea of mapping and understandingneeds. Anyone who is doing that properly will understandthis gendered nature. What I want to get across andachieve is, at the very least, a prominent statementabout that in the statutory guidance, because that wouldhave an influence and would be something tangible topoint towards. It does not happen in every single place,but it is not unusual for services to be commissioned insuch a way that people think: “Well, we have to take agender-neutral approach, so that is not fair, so it has tobe a much more generic service.” That flies in the face ofall that we know is likely to work.

I feel comfortable with what you describe. I wouldvery much welcome your views on whether you think itshould be in the law versus the statutory guidance. Atthe very least, it has to be prominently put in thestatutory guidance. A lot of the mechanisms that arebeing promoted in the statutory duty, such as the mappingand multi-agency planning of services, should, I hope,address that as well, if done properly.

Q22 Huw Merriman: May I ask a supplementaryquestion? You talk about the guidance; excuse myignorance—I should perhaps have known this—but inyour role how much input will you have in writing theguidance?

Nicole Jacobs: I have been shown the guidance and Ihad a session last week where I was able to suggestchanges. I would like to think the changes will all bethere the next time I see the draft, but it is in processright now and I think the idea is that the guidance willbe published by the time the Bill passes. I am perhapsbeing a bit trusting, but I believe that I will have input.

As long as I have made my case strongly, and it is fairand clear, I do not see any reason why my input wouldnot be in the guidance.

Q23 Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC):Congratulations on your recent appointment. I havetwo questions on the jurisdictions of the United Kingdomand devolution divergence. I will start with NorthernIreland, although I appreciate that you are the commissionerfor England and Wales. The Joint Committee reportstated that it was unacceptable for people in NorthernIreland to be denied the same level of domestic abuseprotection as those elsewhere in the UK because of thelack of a Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. Doyou believe the Government’s response as it stands to besatisfactory? In the present circumstances, do you haveany role whatsoever in relation to Northern Ireland?

Nicole Jacobs: No, in the present circumstances I donot. That does not mean that I am not interested. I amthe type of person who would be very interested in the


services needed—all that we have discussed—in NorthernIreland; they would be needed anywhere. As for raisingthe quality and provision of services, my assumptionwould be that that all stands for Northern Ireland, butin terms of what I have been hired for and what I amcurrently doing, it is for England and Wales. It would beentirely up to you potentially to change that.

Q24 Liz Saville Roberts: That leads me seamlessly tomy next question, which is about Wales. I appreciatethat Wendy Morton mentioned the adviser to the WelshGovernment, who is giving evidence to us this afternoon.The Joint Committee made a recommendation on reportingto the Senedd—Wales’s Parliament—and a duty toconsult. Of course, Wales has the Violence againstWomen, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales)Act 2015. Here we have an instance of devolutiondivergence, given that housing, education, health andlocal authorities are all devolved. How do you see yourrole interacting with Welsh Ministers as well as inaccountability to the Senedd?

Nicole Jacobs: If am being totally honest, I am stillworking that out. One of the conversations I had withthe national advisers yesterday was precisely about thatso that I would fully understand what is currentlyhappening in Wales, which is quite impressive in termsof the structure of legislation; there is a lot to learn.Some of what I was doing was listening and hearingtheir experiences from the last two years in post andwhat they know of from before that. I am sure you willhear about that today.

I asked the national advisers, quite openly, wherethey see the potential for us to work together, andobviously they thought that particularly in the criminaljustice or court systems there are lots of ways we canwork together in joined-up efforts, but I would berespectful of the notion that many duties are devolved.

There is a lot of progress. If anything, there is a lot oflearning to do on the agenda in Wales. The overarchingduty of Government has been to ask and act—I amsure you will hear evidence about that—which is veryimpressive, as is the headway they have made. Theadvisers were talking to me yesterday about how manythousands of frontline workers have been trained inWales. The proportion of Government Ministers whohave been trained in Wales is extremely impressive. Iwould want to be cautious. I would want to plan withthem essentially what we can learn but also what exactlyI should do, because I would not want to do anythingthat would disrupt those structures.

Q25 Liz Saville Roberts: Justice is not devolved toWales, yet many of these critical services are, and youare answerable to the Home Office. Do you feel thatthere should be answerability to Wales, given the criticalnature of those services, which are devolved, and thefact that criminal justice over-straddles that?

Nicole Jacobs: I understand what you are saying. Inother words, would I welcome the idea, for the issuesthat I would predominantly be working on, of answerabilityto Wales or Welsh Ministers? Of course, any mechanismthat is appropriate to do that would be important to me.In fact, yesterday the national advisers were saying thatthey really welcomed the idea that I would be meetingthe breadth of Ministers in Wales. They were not veryterritorial about that; they liked the idea that, once

things have settled down, we will find ways to worktogether. There is obviously some resource that I canbring, in terms of things that they would like to getdone. Again, I would be very cautious to learn exactlywhat is happening before setting out some kind of plan,not knowing how all of it co-ordinates or connects withWelsh colleagues, or whether it is welcome.

Q26 Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con):Welcome and congratulations. My questions will be abit about Wales, but also Scotland and Northern Ireland.I do not want to put you in a constitutional hotspot,because most Ministers and MPs could not answersome of these questions, but hopefully they will help toclarify the position and provide a bit of guidance to us.You will be held accountable to Wales, Scotland andNorthern Ireland, because there are Scottish, Welshand Northern Ireland MPs who sit in this place andwill, of course, hold you to account. One part of the Billis the advisory board—clause 11, I think. As part ofthat, part 4 and subsections (a)(b)(c) and (d) specifycertain participants who should be part of the advisoryboard. It is very specific about ensuring the representationof the interests of voluntary organisations that workwith victims of domestic abuse in England, healthcareservices in England and providers of social care inEngland. Given that, certainly for now, you cover Englandand Wales, do you think it would be helpful for us tospecify the same stakeholders from Wales to ensure thatthey are on the advisory board and that England andWales are represented at that level?

Nicole Jacobs: Potentially. Because some of thoseissues are devolved to Wales, I would not want toimpose the requirement that someone would have tocome and sit on an advisory committee of mine if theythought, “In actuality, this is something that we governourselves.”

My intention is that the advisory committee will notjust be set at 10. That is something that I was looking atlast week. It could be set there, but there could be anynumber of advisers. In fact, I have been highly encouragedto use advisers from areas that perhaps do not sit in thatofficial capacity. I think I would be seeking out advice.There is incredible work being done in Scotland. Thereis good legislation and really interesting work there. Ithink that, in any respect, I would be very curious andwould want advice from outside Wales and England.

I suppose I would leave it to you to consider whetherit is necessary to have them as official advisors. If myrole and passion in life is seeking out the best practice—I assure you that it is—I would not be restricted byborders in that way. I would be very interested tovisit—I often do this—and hear about work in Scotland,and I would like to know more about Northern Ireland.I am learning every day about Wales, and have done forthe past few years, since that legislation was introduced.

Q27 Luke Graham: That leads me to my next question.In your experience—obviously, you come from the UnitedStates, which is federal system with several differentstates and lots of different jurisdictions, but they cometogether as one country—do you find that domesticabuse or relationships stop at certain political jurisdictions?

Nicole Jacobs: No, not at all. You will have issuesrelated to people moving from one place to another. Infact, that is a tactic that abusive people use to isolate


their partner or family from sources of support. Thereis no doubt that there is a need to co-ordinate andunderstand cross-border.

Q28 Luke Graham: You have talked a lot about themapping exercise that you want to undertake. Do youforesee problems in having a national network, when itis not actually national—it covers England and Walesonly, which is not our country but only two parts of it?Do you foresee major problems with that, especiallywhen many victims, as in my constituency, will beflipping between different parts of the UK or will havefamily the length and breadth of the UK?

Nicole Jacobs: You are correct that that is true. Myunderstanding is that what is happening in Scotland isquite impressive in terms of legislative changes. I knowfrom a frontline-service perspective that in England weoften look to Wales and Scotland to see what is happeningthere. I would not anticipate there being somethingsuperior happening in England. It would be more aboutlearning, co-ordinating and making sure that my officewould talk to equivalents in Scotland. My understandingof Scotland is that there is more of a regional andplanned perspective of services. There is a lot of learningthere, and certainly co-ordination.

Looking down the line, if there was a view takenbetween countries that there was inconsistency in serviceprovision and something to bring back to you, thatwould certainly happen. I can imagine there wouldbe a lot of cross-border support. I am about endingthe postcode lottery: if there was a related issue inScotland, I cannot imagine we would not find ways towork together and to promote those ideas. I hope thataddresses it.

Q29 Luke Graham: It does. I appreciate that. I haveone final question, if the Chair does not mind.Unfortunately, in an area such as this, your role is soworthy and so wanted throughout the United Kingdom.I do not want to put you in a political hotspot with ourconstitution, whether it is Brexit or other movementswhere the UK can become a bit of an issue. However, Ihave a big concern. In my constituency I haveClackmannanshire, which has the highest instance perhead of domestic abuse in Scotland. It is as much of apostcode lottery in Scotland as it is in other parts of theUnited Kingdom.

To be devolved does not mean to be separate. Youcome from a country with a federal system; the pointabout eminent domain still rests within this UK Parliament,as the sovereign Parliament. I do not see this as aneither/or model. I would be very keen for a role such asyours to have a UK-wide remit, following a similarmodel to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs that was recentlylaunched, which connects devolved and reserved mattersand guarantees guidelines and standards throughoutthe United Kingdom, which I think is exceptionallyimportant.

Do you foresee any problems? The Bill is quite specificabout Wales. Paragraphs (c) to (g) of clause 6(2) talkabout

“undertaking or supporting (financially or otherwise) the carryingout of research; providing information, education or training…toincrease public awareness…consulting public authorities…co-operating with, or working…with, public authorities, voluntaryorganisations and other persons”.

At the moment, the Bill talks about“co-operating with, or working jointly with, public authorities,voluntary organisations and other persons, whether in Englandand Wales or outside the United Kingdom.”

I find it bizarre that we are creating a Bill that says, “Wewant you to co-operate with England and Wales andother countries outside the UK, but not the two otherconstituent parts of the United Kingdom.” Do youforesee any problems for us in trying to extend your rolein just paragraphs (c) to (g)—which currently apply toWales—to Scotland and Northern Ireland? Obviouslywe might have to stagger that for Northern Irelandbecause we have no Assembly just now, but do youforesee any problems with extending your role for guidelines,consultation and research, so you can complete themapping exercise and make sure that the service isprovided to all citizens of the United Kingdom, ratherthan just two constituent parts of it? I will take away thepolitical side for a minute—that is our job—but from apractical point of view, so long as you got a budgetuplift to match, do you foresee any problems in yourrole being extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland?

The Chair: May I intervene for a moment? We haveless than 15 minutes left and we still have four colleagueswho have been waiting patiently to ask their questions. Iwonder whether we could just speed it up, please.

Nicole Jacobs: I will give you a quick answer. I amnot sure about some of that, but my instinct about thethings you listed is that certainly some would be easierthan others and, from my own knowledge of working,some things—such as the good practice mapping andsome research—might be more welcome to colleaguesin Scotland. Whether that extends to the whole breadthof the activities you described, I am not sure. Myunderstanding of Scotland is that there are differentstructures, and different things are perhaps being mappedand planned that I am not aware of.

Q30 Luke Graham: There is no commissioner inScotland. We have no equivalent. Currently, it fallsbetween the courts and Police Scotland to pick up someof the activity. We have no commissioner, so this wouldnot be a substitute; it would be a complement. The ideais that, just as in Wales, you would have a role in thatconsultation on the work. Obviously, a legislative consentmotion could be passed in the Scottish Parliament sothat this was done in consultation and agreement withdifferent levels of government rather than being imposedwith an iron fist. I just wonder whether you foreseeproblems on an operational level. I know about thepolitical bits; those are for us to deal with. I am justinterested in that operational point.

Nicole Jacobs: Without having thought about it verymuch, I would say that some of those points seemobvious, but I am afraid I would have to consider someof the others further. There are things I know of happeningin Edinburgh in children’s social care—“Safe andTogether”—on which we are already co-ordinating withEngland. There are really obvious things to me aboutlearning and maybe some shared research and othermatters. On whether it extends to the whole list, I wouldhave to come back to you or defer to your decisions.

Q31 Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab): Welcome to thepost. What should we say in the Bill about perpetrators?There is a lot about prevention orders and so on, but


what should we say about that? Should we say anythingabout rehabilitation or should we just lock them all up?What should we do?

Nicole Jacobs: I would say a couple of things. Thereare some criminal justice elements in the Bill. Makingthose robust and effective is not necessarily to do withlocking people up but about ensuring that the criminaljustice system is working in the way that it should andthat is set out. I believe that one of the things we do notdo enough is to prioritise multi-agency working aroundthe courts system. In the area I have come from, we havespecialist courts. We have a court management group,which is all the criminal justice partners and the specialistservice, and they can collectively remember and problemsolve around the mistakes that they inevitably may bemaking. That is not intentional; sometimes it is to dowith the bulky way that our criminal justice system works.In terms of holding perpetrators to account, I supposethe one thing I would really encourage the Committee toconsider is in what ways, in piloting the DVPOs, wecould consider what helps to make the implementationwork. We should not just say, “Are the police doing it ornot?”, as if it is down to one entity; it has to be the wholeof the criminal justice system working.

Having said that—I talked about the duty—I believethere is very little consistency in terms of enablingpeople to engage and change their behaviour. I wouldinclude that in the broadening of the statutory duty.Again, you will hear later from Jo Todd, who is muchmore of an expert than me, about the breadth ofservice. There is a perpetrator strategy that manyorganisations have signed up to that I am very interestedin, and which I am sure you will have sight of or willperhaps be given in written evidence. I would standbehind that type of strategy, which is about prevention,provision of service and what I would call incentives tochange—both carrots and sticks. What do we do toreally have the breadth of provision that we need? Of allthe domestic abuse provision, that is probably the mostpatchy in terms of where you could find places tochange.

Q32 Vernon Coaker: Did you say you had seen thedraft of the framework document—that you have beentalking to the Minister about a draft of the framework?

Nicole Jacobs: I have not been talking to the Ministerabout it.

Q33 Vernon Coaker: Did you say you have seen adraft?

Nicole Jacobs: I have seen a draft, yes.

Q34 Vernon Coaker: Do you think it would be helpfulfor the Committee see that draft when we get to clause10?

Nicole Jacobs: I do not know if I am getting into yourprocesses too much here. I think it is being prepared.

Victoria Atkins: It is in hand, Mr Coaker. That pointis very well understood.

Q35 Vernon Coaker: That is very helpful. So we aregoing to see a draft before we get to clause 10 ratherthan at the end. That is helpful; thank you very much.

Nicole Jacobs: I might have said “at the end” meaningpublished to the public.

Q36 Vernon Coaker: That is fine. It is quite helpful.Just to say to you, Nicole, it is very helpful for us to seedrafts before we discuss the clause, so we know what weare talking about, rather than appearing at the end ofthe Bill as a framework that we do not know anythingabout.

Nicole Jacobs: I can imagine, yes.

Vernon Coaker: It is therefore very helpful that theMinister has helped to support your remarks that weare going to see that before clause 10.

Q37 Paul Scully: Welcome to the role, Nicole. Youmentioned your views on the gendered nature of domesticabuse at the beginning. Some people have been suggestingthat we should have a violence against women andgirls commissioner, rather than a Domestic AbuseCommissioner. What are your views on that?

Nicole Jacobs: I understand the logic. Obviously,some of those who have said that are colleagues ofmine. One of the things we would all have to understandabout doing that is just how broad a remit you would bemoving to. That would certainly extend well beyond allthe discussion we have had this morning, to do itproperly and do it well.

While many strategies and, certainly, the Governmentstrategy is a violence against women and girls strategy—Iappreciate that—when I am describing to you the breadthof what needs to happen for domestic abuse, it is a heckof a lot of work. There is a lot of progress to make. Indoing that, it will strengthen certain aspects of what wecall those strands of violence against women and girls.For example, so-called honour-based marriage, forcedmarriage—all these things intersect. By strengtheningthe approach in general, you are addressing aspects ofthat, but you are certainly not covering the whole breadthof it. That is when I was referring back to my lookingforward to working with the Victims’ Commissioner,and certainly the national advisers in Wales and colleaguesin Scotland, where there is a lot of expertise on that. Ifyou wanted to broaden my remit to that, I feel I have thebackground and understanding to do it, but I wouldjust caution that you are talking about a huge difference.

Again, going back to the very first thing I said to you,the reason I was so motivated by this role is the breadthof what still needs to happen. Sometimes, we think,“Oh, we’ve been talking about domestic abuse for yearsand years and somehow it’s all sorted.” Well, it is reallynot. It has shaky foundations, and I think that is whatwe can address here.

Q38 Paul Scully: That is great. That is why I wantedto ask you about the awareness. One of your roles is toraise public awareness as well, but you rightly said at thebeginning that you do not have the capacity to do all thepublic health campaigns and these kinds of things. Howdo you see your role and capacity to join the dots,whether from entry-level, early intervention for emotionalabuse at that stage, through to members of the publicand others who come into professional or personalcontact with people in an emotional or domestic abusescenario?

Nicole Jacobs: I guess what I meant by that is thatthere is not a budget to run a huge public campaign inthe same way as those run by the Home Office in the


past. That rightfully sits within the remit of what needsto be funded and developed in Government, includingin the Department for Education and in public health.My role would be to influence that type of campaign,and I would be mindful that my role would be aboutasserting what kind of services are needed to underpinthat campaign. We are raising expectations and awareness.That is a good thing, but we must have the infrastructurein place to meet the needs of what that would bring.

The Chair: This will probably have to be the lastquestion.

Q39 Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD): I willbe brief, Chair. One of the significant things in thedebate around the Domestic Abuse Bill has been theIstanbul convention. How significant is it to the workyou do that we make sure that we ratify it and are in linewith it?

Nicole Jacobs: My understanding is that this Bill willhelp us to meet those commitments. It is incrediblyimportant. The Istanbul convention is importantsymbolically, in terms of the message that is sent. A lotof what it does is to create an expectation of Governmentcommitment. Some of the elements of the Bill aretidying up certain things, but there are also elements ofbroadening the duty—which we will hear about fromother witnesses—and broadening the statutory provisionof services and strengthening the duty for that all themore. I know I sound a bit like a broken record. Othercolleagues will present fine-tuning of anti-discriminationclauses and that kind of thing, which I would obviouslysupport. Symbolically, the Istanbul convention is veryimportant, and what it would deliver practically isimportant.

Christine Jardine: Thank you. Apologies again forthe combination of my sore throat and my accent.

Q40 The Chair: Nicole, before I end the session, isthere anything you wanted to share with the Committee,in a couple of minutes?

Nicole Jacobs: I hope you have found my evidenceand advice helpful. I have been in post for a month, so Iam doing my best in terms of trying to give you theinformation you need. As you go through the process, Ifeel confident that you will be presented with a lot morespecific information by other colleagues.

I did want to talk about a couple of things that youwill be hearing, and I want you to know that I feelstrongly about them. I would like you to consider them.We have talked about migrant women, and you haveheard and will hear a lot about that, obviously. I aminterested in whatever we can do that would improvethe family court response in statutory guidance or in theBill. There is a real, desperate need to better understandwhat exactly we have to do in relation to the familycourt. You might be tabling amendments relating towomen charged with crimes, understanding their pastin domestic abuse, and understanding how that mayhave influenced their offending. I am encouraged toknow that that may be coming.

Lastly, there is the issue of the kind of abuse andfinancial abuse that happens post-separation. Our coercivecontrol law requires people to be living together, whenin fact some of the financial abuse will come after

separation. You will be hearing evidence about that.Again, I would like you to know that I am encouragingof those types of provisions and improvements. Thankyou for being patient with me and for understanding mynew role. Thank you for your support. I was struck onSecond Reading by the level of support from all partiesand by the wish to strengthen my role and powers.Thank you very much for all your support today.

The Chair: Nicole, on behalf of the Committee, Ithank you for the time you have spent with us today. Wewish you well in the challenge that lies ahead.


Louisa Rolfe gave evidence.

Q41 The Chair: We have until 11.25 for this session.Will our witness kindly introduce herself and say somethingabout her role?

Louisa Rolfe: Good morning. My name is LouisaRolfe and I am Deputy Chief Constable of West Midlandspolice, but I have been the National Police Chiefs’Council lead on domestic abuse since 2013. The jobinvolves working closely with the sector, the HomeOffice, the Crown Prosecution Service, HMICFRS andthe College of Policing. For four years I have reportedquarterly to the Home Secretary at the national oversightgroup, and my focus is on improving the police responseto domestic abuse.

Q42 Victoria Atkins: For colleagues who are notfamiliar with the acronyms of the Home Office andpolicing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council is thecollective of the most senior police officers in the country.It is fair to say that it is an influential and importantbody in the law enforcement world. Deputy ChiefConstable, how do you rate the police response todomestic abuse?

Louisa Rolfe: I think it is improving. It has significantlyimproved over a number of years, but I think it isstretched, and it is highly dependent on partnershipworking with other agencies, particularly the provisionof IDVA services and refuge services. As you will beaware, we have worked hard to improve identification,and since 2013, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabularyand fire and rescue services has noted substantial andsignificant improvements in the police response. Itrecognises, however, that the service is stretched in itsresponse to domestic abuse.

Reporting has gone up by more than 90% since 2013,and some of that is down to improved accuracy inrecording and reporting domestic abuse. Up to 40% ofthat 90% increase could be because we have got muchbetter at identifying things that might have been recordedin the past as a non-crime incident that involved averbal argument. There is now better identification ofthings such as common assault and harassment withinthose incidents. The proportion of reported incidentsthat become crimes has increased and, despite forcesreducing in size since 2010, all have either maintained orinvested in their response to domestic abuse, with dedicatedinvestigators and specialists working in the field.

We have worked with the College of Policing todevelop the domestic abuse risk assessment, which is animprovement on the established DASH risk assessment


process. Evidence-based research helped us to developthat, and with a number of charities we have alsodevelopedtheDomesticAbuseMatters trainingprogramme,which has been academically proven to increase theempathy of officers with victims and their understandingof abuse. Things are improving.

We are at a challenging time for prosecutions, and anumber of things are driving that. Between 2013 and2016, prosecutions for domestic abuse increased rapidly.They plateaued in 2016 and have fallen since. A numberof things are driving that—this is about demand andpressures on the police service and the Crown ProsecutionService. When you look end to end at cases, however, itis also about the higher thresholds required for charging,the standards expected of digital evidence, medicalevidence, and disclosure. Attrition in cases, post-charge,has reduced dramatically, but the number of caseshitting the threshold for charge has also reduced. Ithink that has gone too far, and we are working hardwith forces nationally to improve the number of casesthat achieve a prosecution and get justice for victims.

Q43 Victoria Atkins: In terms of the national oversightcommittee, which you have already mentioned, that is ameeting at national level, chaired by the Home Secretary,with organisations ranging from you, for instance,representing the police, through to HMICFRS and theCPS but also charities and stakeholders, who are importantmembers of the group as well. Through that committee,what challenge do our members give to you, representingthe police, in terms of the police response to domesticabuse incidents?

Louisa Rolfe: There is a quite robust challenge. Certainly,at the last couple of meetings, we have talked quiteextensively about the police response to migrant womenand ensuring that our work with immigration enforcementservices is effective in identifying and recognising theparticular challenges and concerns faced by womenwho may have no recourse to public funds or haveuncertain immigration status. There has been an appropriatechallenge from the sector in ensuring that there is aninformed and thoughtful response, not a clumsy response,in addressing those issues. There has been a robustchallenge about the decrease in prosecutions and particularlyreferrals to charge. I have worked jointly with the CrownProsecution Service to present to that meeting a detailedoverview of the challenges as we understand them andthe work we are doing to improve the situation.

Q44 Victoria Atkins: Just to give us an idea of thepressures that domestic abuse in all its forms places onthe police, do you have any measure of how manyphone calls or reports to the police there are each day oreach year, for example?

Louisa Rolfe: The Office for National Statistics collectspolice data and the dataset in terms of calls to police,reported incidents and crimes, is publicly available eachyear. We are talking about more than 2 million reportsto policing every year. It is important to understandhow it is a growing proportion of demand to the policeservice as well. More than 11% of emergency call demandto the police service is now domestic abuse and morethan 30% of violence with injury incidents recordedby the police are domestic abuse. So, it is not onlyincreasing, it is a growing proportion of caseload. It isoften multiple issues together: a significant proportion

of rape investigations are domestic abuse rape. Honour-based abuse, or FGM, are often issues of domesticabuse as well. It is not a simplistic issue, but verycomplex.

Q45 Victoria Atkins: Will the introduction of20,000 police officers over the next three years assist inyour investigation of domestic abuse?

Louisa Rolfe: Undoubtedly, yes.

Q46 Carolyn Harris: It is a pleasure to meet you. Ihave been very happily married for 25 years, but I wasmarried before and it was not so happy. I was a victimof domestic abuse—I have never said this before. I canremember the police coming to my house and saying,“It’s just a domestic”. The only person who was goingto be able to do anything about that was me, thefollowing day, but I did not do anything about it,because I was afraid. Needless to say, that marriage didnot last very long. But I really worry about people ofmy generation and older, who believe that this is normaland quite acceptable. In the Welsh valleys, I have heardso many times the expression, “Just give it a clip acrossthe ear-hole”. We are getting better but are not wherewe should be. That is down to the fact that the generationscoming behind us are much stronger women, in thesense that they will not take the nonsense that we took.How many older people are we seeing who we know arevictims of domestic abuse but are afraid to report it orto take that step to actually admit it?

Louisa Rolfe: From my work with charities I knowthat that is a very real issue. It goes back to the discussionearlier about the gendered nature of domestic abuse.Some of it is inextricably linked with people’s perceptionsof a woman’s place. Particularly with older generations—Iknow from charities that people are less inclined toreport and can often feel more isolated, and that statutoryagencies will be less likely to listen, support and understandif someone has been married for a long time in anestablished relationship.

We have found that domestic abuse is not restrictedto one societal group or one area of the UK—it happenseverywhere—but perpetrators, particularly manipulativeperpetrators, will focus on the vulnerabilities of theirvictim. If that victim feels that they do not have a closenetwork of friends or family and that agencies are notlikely to believe them—perpetrators will often tell avictim, “Nobody will believe you”—that can be exacerbatedby their vulnerability.

It might be that their vulnerability is that they areolder and more isolated; it might be that they aresomebody with uncertain immigration status and theirspouse holds all their papers. There are many ways thatperpetrators will manipulate and seek to control victims.This is why I promote the work that we have done onthe Domestic Abuse Matters training, because it is aboutunderstanding what is behind the abuse and looking forsigns of control. A lot of research now shows thatviolence is not necessarily an indicator of more violence,but that coercion and control tends to be the highestrisk indicator that we have in domestic abuse.

Q47 Carolyn Harris: Police are under a huge amountof pressure, with lack of resources, lack of police officersand everything else that we talk about on a regular


[Carolyn Harris]

basis. With the DAPOs, I know that the victim will notbe charged, but the police service will be charged forcourt cases. Will that prevent police forces that arealready under pressure in terms of budget resourcesfrom going for DAPOs because of the financialimplications?

Louisa Rolfe: I have spoken to forces about this, and Ithink it will not. The cost of the DAPO would be theleast of our concerns. There are many positive aspectsto the DAPO: that it protects from all abuse and notjust violence, that it is more flexible, that anyone canapply, that there is no restrictive duration and that itcan include positive and negative restrictions. Policingis not deterred by cost, and I have some examples ofthat. We have a strong record of sometimes stepping inwhere other agencies are not able to.

A good example is that in my own force last year wespent more than £40,000 over a couple of months onemergency accommodation for women with no recourseto public funds. Where even local authorities and refugesare not able to find emergency accommodation, thepolice service will fund that, because our priority is thesafety and protection of victims.

With the DAPO, there are some costs, and it is notjust how much it costs—at the moment, it is £500 topresent a domestic violence protection order at court—butoften the on-costs and logistics that we must consider aswell. When the domestic violence protection orderscame in, they were something that the police servicemust present at court. Some forces employed lawyers todo it and others trained staff to do it, so there is aninvestment in an additional team and extra resources.Every force has done that, but we have done it tovariable degrees.

I think the DAPO will focus on assessing the resourcesrequired to do this effectively, but we also need anunderstanding of the scale and volume. Are we anticipatingdomestic abuse protection orders for all 2 million victims,or are we thinking of the thresholds at which theywould apply and how they could be used most effectively?

Q48 Carolyn Harris: Where are you on a register forperpetrators?

Louisa Rolfe: I am concerned that a distinct register,not embedded within established police systems such asthe police national computer, the police national databaseor the ViSOR—Violent and Sex Offender Register—system,adds unnecessary complexity cost and, most importantly,risk. The Bichard inquiry following the tragic deaths inSoham recommended that information about dangerousperpetrators should not be dispersed over different systems.That is why the PND system was introduced. There areestablished ways of registering dangerous individualson the police national database. The disclosure andbarring scheme system has access to that database, asdo other agencies such as probation.

There is definitely work for us to do in the policeservice. I have been working with the College of Policingon what the principles for managing serial perpetratorsshould look like. It recently reported and provided adraft report in which it made some recommendationson improved use of tools to identify dangerous serialperpetrators, effective use of the systems that we have,such as the PNC, PND and ViSOR, and effective multi-agency management of those individuals at the most

dangerous end, using multi-agency public protectionarrangements effectively in the way that we do now fordangerous sex offenders or dangerous violent offenders,because those methods are established and it wouldworry me if we tried to create something distinct overhere.

The draft report also recommended a more proactiveuse of the domestic violence disclosure schemes. If wehave identified a dangerous serial perpetrator and weare really clear about the thresholds, when the policeservice or any other agency involved in the managementof that individual becomes aware of a new relationship,there should be more proactive disclosure and use ofright to know for potential victims.

My concern about the domestic abuse register is inthe logistics and practicalities. Where do we draw theline? Do we intend to add 2 million individuals to thatregister each year? What are the risks and implicationsif your perpetrator is not on the register because youhave not reported to the police? Would that offer afalse sense of security to victims? I would be the first tosay that there is more to do to use the systems wehave effectively, but I would worry about creating a listthat might present as a quick fix but does not addressthe risk.

Q49 Wendy Morton: I am really interested in hearingthat you are sharing some of the work you are doing inthe west midlands. You mentioned Domestic AbuseMatters training. In addition to that, could the policeintroduce any other measures to encourage victims tocome forward to the police in the first instance?

Louisa Rolfe: We have done a lot to improve people’sconfidence. If a victim is to have confidence, I have gotto ensure that all the charities I work with have confidence,so that every IDVA we have a relationship with, as wellas every GP or health visitor who might come across avictim, will reassure them and give them confidence inreporting to the police.

There is a lot of really good work going on nationally.For example, the IRIS—identification and referral toimprove safety—project is live in Birmingham and a lotof other places across the UK. GPs and health practitionersare trained to recognise the signs of domestic abuse andto be able to tell a victim in a very informed way whathappens when you report to the police. Often, peoplehave a lot of fear about the consequences of reportingto the police, and it is really important that there isimmediately accessible advice and support for victimsas well.

Vernon Coaker: One of the real issues that has doggedus for years is the postcode lottery in dealing withdomestic abuse and the different responses from agenciesand police forces in different parts of the country. Somedo it better than others, and prosecution rates vary,with some taking into account emotional abuse as wellas physical abuse. Your role is to try to pull all thattogether and generate a national standard that everyoneadheres to. Is it fair to say that there is still a lot ofdifference between forces? What are we doing to try toensure that everyone is raising their standard to thatlevel?

The National Police Chiefs’ Council will say, “Assenior officers, we will adhere to these standards. It isabsolutely right and we agree with all of it,” but we all


know that sometimes it does not always work in practice.How big a challenge is that for each force? What willyou do on that and what more could we do to help?

Louisa Rolfe: There are a number of issues here.When I meet with the sector and the charities, I alsomeet with a representative from every policing region inthe UK. Additionally, the Police Service of NorthernIreland, Police Scotland and the Welsh forces are representedin that meeting. We share best practice.

There is a lot to be said for working closely with theCollege of Policing in ensuring that, when we are developingpolicy and practice, it is evidence-based. We took a longtime developing the Domestic Abuse Matters trainingwith charities and what I like about it is that it is veryfocused on challenging culture and perceptions. Wehave run a number of independent academic evaluationsthat prove that it increases officers’ empathy andunderstanding. That is the one training that I recommendnationally, and forces are rolling that out.

It is quite challenging: in my own force, the traininghas taken us nearly a year, because it requires an abstractionof nearly 25% of your workforce to be trained face toface. You need to commit to developing trainers withinyour workforce who can continue to develop practiceand understanding. It is quite a big ask, but we arerolling it out slowly across forces nationally.

On the work on the domestic abuse risk assessment,the DASH tool is very good and still very effectivelyused by IDVA services, charities and specialists. Formany years, lots of forces and academics told me that itwas not working for first responders. We have workedwith Cardiff University women’s safety unit to developsomething that we know through evaluation better identifiescoercion and control with first responders. We haveworked with the College of Policing to develop authorisedprofessional practice, so that there is one standard, andI work with regional leads and force leads. I publish anewsletter regularly to forces and practitioners acrossthe UK on improvements and the work we are doing.

A lot is going on to improve practice, but some isdependent on local variation and local arrangements.There is a balance—I do not want to stifle innovation.Some of the best work has been developed in forces andthen shared. Northumbria has done a lot of work ondeveloping a multi-agency tasking and co-ordinationresponse to perpetrators. That has now influenced thework the College of Policing has done and will be partof the guidance on how to better manage serial perpetrators.One of our challenges is the willingness of partneragencies locally to work with policing to develop anapproach to multi-agency safeguarding and managementof perpetrators.

Q50 Vernon Coaker: Is there anything more that wecould do? We have the inspectorate later and could tryto influence what they inspect, I guess. What you said isabsolutely right and exactly what one would expect youto do, but we still know that there will be individualforces where this will not happen in the way that you orany of us would want. How do you drive that change?

Louisa Rolfe: HMICFRS has included domestic abusein its PEEL inspections—police effectiveness, efficiencyand legitimacy—and it has been a significant part ofthat. You will hear from Zoe Billingham, the lead HMI,later. We talk quite regularly. If she finds significant

variation in forces, she will often flag it with me so that Ican work with local leaders to address that. The biggestchallenge is how we embed a more public health approach.I hear from charities that their concerns are less aboutpolicing and more about how we ensure that all agenciescan work together and prioritise this effectively.

Q51 Sarah Newton: I would like to start by saying tomy colleague, the hon. Member for Swansea East howbrave she was to share her experience. It reminds us allthat every part of the country and every sort of womanis very much affected and how important this work is,so I am grateful to Carolyn. Talking about the Welshvalleys and traditional cultures resonates with me as Irepresent Cornwall. The point about older women beingreluctant to come forward is very much borne out in theevidence.

I thank the deputy chief constable for being with andanswering the questions so well. In the new definition inthe Bill, we will extend domestic abuse to other familymembers—grown-up adults and older people—and theabuse that they commit, which is really important. Youhave described a long process of domestic abuse training—IRIS training, partnership working—to get the frontlinepolice officers sufficiently trained to be able to recognisedomestic abuse. This is another huge challenge you arenow going to face in extending that definition and thetraining, so that people are looking out for a differentgroup of victims and perpetrators. How will you goabout doing that?

Louisa Rolfe: Thankfully, much of the training wehave invested in and the work on domestic abuse riskassessment will apply, because it identifies coercivecontrolling behaviour, which is often prevalent in thoserelationships where there are adult children and anelderly parent. I do not worry that we will struggle.

The police service has been working for many yearsto better understand and address vulnerability, and thatis why we had such a dramatic increase in the reportingand recording of domestic abuse. In reality, many ofthose incidents are already recognised and reported.The challenge is often in the provision of adequatesupport services, to ensure that victims feel confidentthat they can take that leap and pursue a prosecution.

There are some great domestic abuse perpetratorprogrammes out there, such as the Drive Project, whichfocuses on addressing behavioural change. The evaluationof that programme has shown that it reduces abuse by30%, which is hugely impressive. However, the reality isthat the College of Policing recently looked at theprovision of perpetrator programmes and found thatonly 1% of perpetrators participate in them. I do notthink that that is because of the reluctance of perpetrators;it is about the lack of availability.

We found in the significant increase in the reportingof domestic abuse that many incidents might not meetthe threshold for prosecution. In the absence of perpetratorprogrammes to address the behaviour, we are in adifficult position. We must do something, so we focuson safeguarding victims, but we really want to workwith other agencies to ensure that there is also a solutionto address that behaviour.

Q52 Diana Johnson: I just wanted to ask you a verystraightforward question about the definition of domesticabuse and clause 1(2)(a), which gives an age for whendomestic abuse will be investigated. What is your view,


[Diana Johnson]

as a police officer, of having the cut-off at 16? The JointCommittee heard evidence about abusive relationshipsthat were happening below 16, and young people werequerying why 16 would be the time that it would betreated as domestic abuse. As I understand it, belowthat it is treated as child abuse. From a police perspective,what is your take on that?

Louisa Rolfe: In reality, often our specialist officerswho investigate child abuse or domestic abuse workwithin public protection investigation teams in forces.For many years, our approach to child abuse investigationhas been more advanced than towards domestic abuse,so there has been some catching up to do. While it issomething that causes a little bit of consternation, thereality is that, in terms of the service provided tovictims under 16, we would identify an abusive relationship.There is probably something about the justice systemapproach as well. If you have an older perpetrator, youmight get an improved justice sanction if you address itas child abuse, as opposed to domestic abuse. Thereality is that we would not be blinkered and say, “It isthis, not that.”We would look to understand the dynamicsof the relationship.

Some of that might be down to the vagaries of ourjustice system. The coercion and control legislation wasso groundbreaking for us because it was the first time

we had an opportunity to move away from focusing onsingle incidents of abuse, which often meant that muchof the dynamic of what was going on was lost in thepresentation of evidence and so we lost the opportunityto present to the court the totality of abuse and theimpact on the victim and their life. At the moment, thereality is that we would provide an equitable—if not animproved—response to someone under the age of 16.The definition, in that regard, does not affect the supportthat victims might receive from the police service.

The Chair: If there are no further questions fromMembers, I thank our witness very much indeed for thetime you have spent with us. We are very grateful for theevidence you have given us.

Colleagues, that brings us to the end of our morningsitting. The Committee will meet again at 2.30 pm inthis room. The proceedings will be chaired by the righthon. Member for Delyn. It is quite safe to leave yourpossessions here—the room will be locked. In the eventthat there will be a general election, quite where we aregoing with the Bill I do not know.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

11.24 am

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o’clock.



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


DOMESTIC ABUSE BILL

Second Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

Examination of witnesses.

Adjourned till Thursday 31 October at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 002) 2019 - 2020


not later than

Saturday 2 November 2019





Chairs: SIR DAVID AMESS, † DAVID HANSON



† Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab)



† Harris, Carolyn (Swansea East) (Lab)† Hughes, Eddie (Walsall North) (Con)Jardine, Christine (Edinburgh West) (LD)Johnson, Diana (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)† Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con)† Keegan, Gillian (Chichester) (Con)


State for Justice)† Newton, Sarah (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)† Norris, Alex (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)Saville Roberts, Liz (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)† Scully, Paul (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)† Smith, Eleanor (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)

Rob Page, Committee Clerk


Witnesses

Zoe Billingham, HM Inspector of Constabulary and HM Inspector of Fire and Rescue Services

Nazir Afzal OBE, National Adviser on Domestic Abuse to the Welsh Government

Eleanor Briggs, Head of Policy and Research, Action for Children

Sally Noden, Children’s Services Manager, Newcastle Family Support Service (Breaking the Cycle programme),Action for Children

Emily McCarron, Policy Manager, Age UK

Jo Todd, CEO, Respect UK




(Afternoon)

[MR DAVID HANSON in the Chair]

Domestic Abuse Bill


Zoe Billingham gave evidence.

2.30 pm

The Chair: We are quorate, so we will commence. Ifanybody wishes to take off their jackets, they can. Iwelcome our first witness. Please introduce yourself.

Zoe Billingham: Hello. I am Zoe Billingham, HerMajesty’s inspector of constabulary, and I am alsoresponsible for the work that Her Majesty’s inspectorateof constabulary and fire and rescue services does ondomestic abuse.

The Chair: I am grateful for your attendance today. Icall the Minister to commence questioning.

Q53 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Statefor the Home Department (Victoria Atkins): Hello,Ms Billingham. You have inspected the police responseto domestic abuse for a number of years. What changeshave you seen in that time?

Zoe Billingham: Considerable changes. We startedthis journey back in 2014 with our first report. Wecalled it “Everyone’s business”—slightly ironically, becausewhat we found in 2014 when we looked at the policeresponse to domestic abuse was that, in forces, it mostcertainly was not everyone’s business. A second-rateservice was being provided to victims of domestic abusewhen you compared it with that provided to victims ofother crime. There was a poor understanding of domesticabuse among frontline officers and insufficient leadershipto make lots of promises an operational reality. It was apretty dire situation that we found in 2014.

We made a series of recommendations. We werehugely grateful for the support of the national oversightgroup, chaired by the then Home Secretary and Ministers,in holding the police’s feet to the fire. We are also verycomplimentary of the work police forces have done inthe intervening five years to make this a real priority—tofocus on domestic abuse in the way it ought to befocused on and to ensure that officers are trained andequipped to deal with domestic abuse, that victims arelistened to, understood and taken seriously, and thatinvestment has been made in areas of specialisms andprotected, despite reductions in police budgets acrossthe board.

We highly regard and highly commend forces for thechanges that we have seen in terms of both the attitudesof frontline officers and the leadership displayed acrossforces. However, there is always a “but” with inspectionfindings: the “but” is that there are still a number ofareas that forces need to improve on.

The Chair: The acoustics in this room are not great.Some Members have indicated that they have difficultyhearing. If witnesses, both present and future, canboom, that would be very helpful.

Q54 Victoria Atkins: I forgot to say that it is apleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson;I apologise for that oversight.

Ms Billingham, you just mentioned that there aresome areas that still require attention. Are you able tosummarise those for us?

Zoe Billingham: I can give you a quick rundown ofthe areas that we identified in our last published report,which was in February 2019.

A better understanding around coercive and controllingbehaviour: while frontline officers better understanddomestic abuse and what their role is in keeping victimssafe and bringing perpetrators to justice, the nuancesaround coercive control still need to be improved. Werecognise that many forces have invested very heavily intraining—in particular, face-to-face training, which hasbeen successful. However, there is still further to go.

Issues around identifying risk: how much risk is avictim of domestic abuse at? There is still a lot ofvariance in how officers identify and classify that riskand inconsistencies in how that is being supervised. Inour last report, we expressed real reservations and concernsaround the drop-off in pre-charge bail and the protectionsthat that may afford. We are also concerned about thenumber of occasions on which cases are discontinuedon the basis that the victim does not support policeaction. We would also like to see forces take moreaction to receive feedback directly from victims of domesticabuse themselves, so they can tailor their services moreappropriately to put the victim at the heart of theservices provided.

The Chair: The shadow Minister has only just arrivedfrom the Division, so I call Gillian Keegan.

Q55 Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con): For those ofus who are less familiar with your world, how do youuse the domestic violence protection order today, andhow will this new provision make a difference on theground?

Zoe Billingham: In our inspections, our basic,fundamental question is how well the police are keepingvictims of domestic abuse safe: how well they are usingthe powers they have been given to make sure thatvictims are safeguarded and perpetrators are brought tojustice. The proposals in the Bill regarding the neworder are really positive.

The use of DVPNs and DVPOs has been very patchy,and some of the lessons that forces should have drawnfrom their use need to be applied to the new orders ifthey are to be successful. We will test this through ourinspections when these new orders come on board,because we test how well forces are using DVPOs andDVPNs now and we find that it is very patchy; it variesfrom force to force.

A number of things will need to happen if the neworder is to be successful. First, officers need to beproperly trained. They need to understand the value ofthese orders, because a degree of effort will be involved


in obtaining them. There needs to be clarity withinforces as to who is responsible. The forces that are bestat the orders now are those that have specialist teamsdedicated to undertaking that work; Essex police are areally good example.

Forces will also need to have the time and necessaryresources to make sure they not only apply for theorders but enforce against breach of orders, otherwisethere will be a danger of undermining victims’ confidence.If there is something there to protect victims, but theforces are not geared up to use that tool appropriately,that is a potential risk. Of course, the pilots of the neworders are to be commended and we would like to seeforces stepping forward and volunteering if they havenot already, so that the implementation of these ordersgets off on the right footing.

Q56 Gillian Keegan: Clearly, if implementation hasbeen patchy previously, it is going to be absolutely key.Do you think this point about training and the patchyresponse is at all linked to the fall in the number ofprosecutions and the number of people coming forward?

Zoe Billingham: When we inspect across domesticabuse, we try to take a whole-system approach, in so faras it relates to policing. We look at a whole range ofmeasures all the way across; where we see drops in areasof performance, we are concerned.

Starting with the moment a call comes into a controlroom, if we see that forces are not attending to domesticabuse incidents as quickly as they should, that is warningflag No. 1. Warning flag No. 2 is when the respondingofficers who attend those incidents tend to arrest less.All forces have a policy of positive action, but thenumber of times that an alleged perpetrator of domesticabuse is arrested varies between 80% in some forces and30% in others, and that variation worries us. Warningflag no. 3 is when too many cases are being discontinuedpost-arrest on the basis that the victim does not supportpolice action. Nearly 50% of domestic abuse cases arediscontinued on that basis, and that worries us. We seevariance among forces in all parts of that whole-systemapproach, and the orders are one part of that system inwhich we see that variance.

As an inspectorate, we would like to see less varianceand greater consistency, because a victim of domesticabuse in Cumbria is self-evidently entitled to the samelevel of police service as a victim in Camden. We setthat as our expectation—rightly so, I think.

Q57 Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab): Thank you,Zoe, for coming along. Are there serial offenders amongpolice forces in terms of variance? Are there forces thatyou go to that are not as good as they should be, andthen you go back and they are still not as good as theyshould be? I think I know the answer. If that is the case,what can you do about it and why cannot we doanything about it? You identify the problem, but then itjust carries on.

Zoe Billingham: It is really interesting; policing has ahabit of working like the swing of a pendulum. A forcemay be at variance in, for example, its rate of arrest, andwe will put in our report—our local report—arecommendation that that should be reviewed and lookedat. When we come back, we are listened to and we willfollow that through, and we find that that may havechanged. However, the danger is that, in addressing and

focusing responses on one particular area that we haveidentified in our report, the eye is taken off the ballelsewhere. Although the force may correct one part ofthe whole-system approach, there may be somethingthat then surprises us and surprises them.

For example, the force may be arresting more butmay actually then be disposing of more cases, on thebasis that the victim does not support police action.Now, that may be an appropriate thing to do, but we areconcerned that too often that resolution is being usedbecause hard-pressed officers simply have not got thetime to take the correct action to pursue the criminaljustice route and outcome.

Q58 Vernon Coaker: But what if the public wanted toknow that? If you want to know how good a school’sexam results are, it is quite easy to find out—it is quiteeasy to compare schools. That is not so true of policeforces, is it? I mean, what you say is quite right, but weknow that there are police forces that do not improvetheir way of tackling domestic abuse by their seriousviolence strategy going west—they do both, even withthe same resources and difficulties, even rural forcescompared with rural forces or city forces comparedwith city ones. Everything is the same, yet there is adifference in performance.

Would it not help if there was greater public awarenessof that? How can the inspectorate publish that informationso that people can look at it and say, “My police force isnot as good as equivalent forces”? League tables?

Zoe Billingham: Well, I am not sure—

Q59 Vernon Coaker: No—I just threw that out there.I am just trying. I do not agree with that either, but I amfrustrated by the lack of that sort of thing.

Zoe Billingham: What we have promised to do since2014 is to inspect police forces on domestic abuse everyyear—year on year—until the service is what we wouldwant it to be. We have lived up to that promise and weare still inspecting forces year on year, which is anindicator that we are still not satisfied with the performancethat we find. We have to bear in mind that in theintervening period—between our starting in 2014 andnow—there has been a whopping great increase in theamount of demand being placed on officers. There hasbeen an 88% increase in recorded domestic abuse-relatedcrime.

Q60 Vernon Coaker: An 88% rise? When is the baseyear for that?

Zoe Billingham: In the three years from 2015 on,there has been an 88% increase. It represents 10% of allcrime and 40% of all crime with violence.

Q61 Vernon Coaker: Sorry to interrupt; I am justtrying to think. Was that 10% of crime that people havegone to?

Zoe Billingham: Some 10% of all recorded crime thatpolice deal with, and 40% of all violence, has a domesticabuse-related basis.

We do what we call our police effectiveness, efficiencyand legitimacy, or PEEL, inspections; I am sorry to gointo so much detail. We review police every year, and withinour vulnerability section we always look at domestic abuse.


Within that, we always provide the public with a judgmenton their police performance, of either “outstanding”,“good”, “requires improvement”or “inadequate”. We thinkthat brings a degree of transparency, and we supplementthat with an annual report. We have published four—in2014, 2015, 2017 and 2019—to shine the light on thisarea.

However, I think that the sentiment behind yourquestion is this: “Should the public be made increasinglyaware of this issue?” Our answer would be a resoundingyes. We are playing a small part in that as the inspectorate,but there might well be more that we can do—in fact, Iam sure of that.

Vernon Coaker: That is very helpful.

Q62 Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con):Clearly, from the numbers that you are giving us, therehas been a huge increase in the trust in police for thevictims to come forward and report. The work that youhave been doing with police forces is clearly moving inthe right direction, so thank you.

The Bill seeks to simplify procedures for police officers,which hopefully will result in higher levels of prosecution.It also gives new powers or responsibilities to policeofficers, particularly for two groups of people: childrenand family members. We increasingly understand thatwhen children in households are under exposure todomestic abuse and violence, it will make them morelikely to be either a perpetrator or a victim. From yourinspections of the constabulary, what steps are youseeing them take to identify those children and referthem?

The other type of domestic abuse now caught in theBill, which I think is brilliant, is adult family membersabusing elderly members or people with disabilities intheir families. Again, that is a new area for the police tobe tackling. Bearing in mind what you said aboutresource constraints, what evidence have you seen of thepolice tackling those particular issues?

Zoe Billingham: I can help particularly on the childrenfront because we do a lot of inspection, including withother inspectorates, on the police response and otheragencies’ response to children. Since 2014, we have seena far greater awareness, particularly among those initiallyattending officers on the scene, of the importance ofconsidering the impact of the domestic incident on thechild.

When we first started inspecting, I was new to thearea, but I was pretty horrified that police officerswould often go into households with children who werethemselves victims of the particular incident, even thoughthey may have been in another room. The police officerswere not even speaking to the children and checkingthat they were okay. We have seen a big shift now in thepolice’s understanding of the importance of safeguardingchildren and referring them into local authorities asappropriate, so that the appropriate safeguardingconferences can then take place.

We have seen an increase in the workload, which iswhy forces have invested in protecting vulnerable peopleareas and departments, which includes children. Wecontinue to encourage that as an inspectorate so thatchildren are put at the heart of this. We also see theprevalence of schemes such as Operation Encompass—anincredibly simple scheme where, if police attend a domestic

abuse incident overnight, an arrangement with all thelocal schools means that a single person in the relevantschool is notified that the child has had the mosttraumatic experience. The teacher can take steps—perhapsseemingly very small ones—to care for that child duringthe course of the following day, and subsequently. Someof these things are very easily done. They take a bit ofarrangement to put in place, but they are not that costly.They do require a will and leadership.

I am not as able to help on elder abuse specifically,but would be happy to write to you if there are anyspecifics that I can think of that would help on that.

Sarah Newton: The fact that you need to do thatshows that that is an area of work, once the Bill goesthrough: police forces have to consider that as domesticabuse and violence. That is a whole new area for thepolice to be trained on and for you to inspect, ensuringthat the new requirements are understood and the servicesare there to support victims. Clearly, there is some workto do there.

Q63 Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab): I wantedto talk about Operation Encompass; you raised it beforeI had an opportunity to ask. It is a wonderful scheme. Iwould like to see it rolled out across the UK as, I hope, acompulsory thing, so that all schools know what goes on.

You will be aware, as I am, that women’s prisons arefull of women who have experienced domestic violence.When these women are convicted of criminal offences,it is very often through coercive control and behaviour.Are police forces aware of that and are resources stoppingthem from identifying that these women are victims oftrauma?

Zoe Billingham: To reinforce what you say aboutwomen in prisons, perhaps the most profound thing Ihave experienced in the five or six years I have beendoing this work is visiting a women’s prison and speakingto prisoners, all of whom have been victims of domesticabuse. They all gave an account in a very small focusgroup of the failure of the police to understand thecircumstances that had, they said, driven them to activitythat resulted in their being in prison. I would certainlylike to look at that in greater detail in the future. It iscertainly something that I know more forces are thinkingabout: how they can ensure, through training, that thehome circumstances of alleged offenders are being takeninto account when looking at women’s offendingparticularly. I am afraid it is not something that we havedone a specific inspection on, but it is an area that weare interested in looking at in the future.

Q64 Carolyn Harris: Me too. When you makerecommendations, do they have to be taken up by theconstabulary, or can they be ignored? What impact doyour recommendations have?

Zoe Billingham: We have no powers of direction. Weare an independent inspectorate, so our recommendationsare just that. A force could, if it so chose, ignore ourrecommendations. We find that that happens almostnever; when it does, it will be because forces have had toprioritise in different areas. Our power is to come backtime and again, to check whether the changes that werecommended have indeed been made, and to reportto the public—in a clear way, I hope—whether the


improvements we thought necessary have been madeand, where they have not, to explain that that has nothappened. That will obviously affect the grade that weprovide to the force in that particular inspection.

Q65 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forJustice (Wendy Morton): Hello, Ms Billingham. Youvery kindly shared with us some statistics in answer toanother question; I noted that 10% of all recordedcrimes have a domestic abuse basis. I have heard concernsabout the recent fall in the number of prosecutions fordomestic abuse-related offences. Bearing in mind yourfigures and our concerns, what do you feel could bedone to reverse that decline?

Zoe Billingham: I wish there was a simple answer; ifthere was, it would have happened and the changeswould have been made. There is a whole range of issues,starting from the moment when the police are informedabout an incident, that are leading to an attrition.

One concern, which we want to look at in the workwe are doing this year and into next year, is howpotential offenders are being dealt with and brought tojustice, the interface between the Crown ProsecutionService and the police, and in particular the number ofreferrals being made to the CPS by the police and theadvice on charging that the CPS is providing to thepolice.

We have not done the detailed work on that yet, butthe issue is about the interface between the police andthe CPS, the decision on whether a charge should bebrought on a domestic abuse-related case and whether—asI often hear from the police when I go into forces—theCPS has set the bar to secure a charge impossibly high.Obviously, if we do not secure the charge then we willnever secure the conviction. We hear a lot of anecdotalevidence in that regard, but I cannot give you specific,hard and fast evidence.

One thing that we are doing next year, which mayhelp to shed a little bit of light on some of the areaswhere we lose victims, is whether the issue of bail andrelease under investigation is leading to a diminution inattendance of those needed in court and an eventualloss of victims who basically give up, because the timeframeis spread out so long across a whole domestic abusecase. We are doing a specific piece of work looking atthe effect of release under investigation postal requisitions,so that we can see the real reasons behind the elongationof the time factors and the changes around safeguardingthat may flow as a result.

Q66 Wendy Morton: Just one more quick question, ifI may: what difference do you think the 20,000 extrapolice officers will make in the domestic abuse area?

Zoe Billingham: Obviously the uplift programme, asit is called across policing, is welcomed, and 20,000officers will address some or most of the reductions inpolice officers since 2010. There has been a reduction inpolice staff and police community support officers duringthat period as well. The crux of that, in terms of howthe police respond to domestic abuse, will be wherethose officers are deployed.

Of course, a whole lot of work will be done to ensurethat frontline preventive policing is enhanced throughthe uplift programme. Although that is not a specificinvestment in specialist domestic abuse officers, in our

view prevention is much better than cure. Clearly, however,forces will need to look at their uplift—what they aregoing to receive in terms of additional officers—and seewhether the stretch in the system that we have identifiedcan be alleviated by effective and smart deployment in awhole range of roles across police forces. That is really amatter for forces.

The Chair: We are into the last four minutes, so wemust have short questions and short answers.

Q67 Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op):Good afternoon, Zoe. You have been in your role atHMIC throughout the period of the domestic violencedisclosure scheme—Clare’s law. How would you characteriseits usage over the years and today?

Zoe Billingham: It is patchy, again, in terms of notjust right to know, but need to know. We encourageforces. Each year, we have identified the patchy use,knowledge and understanding of Clare’s law as somethingthat forces have responsibility to do more about interms of greater publicity and awareness-building. It isanother one of those powers that the police have andthat are available to them, but that are too often usedinconsistently.

Q68 Alex Norris: Do you think there are tools oravenues open to us through the Bill to raise that tide?

Zoe Billingham: Obviously, putting this on to a statutoryfooting will help, but two other things need to happen inconjunction with that. First, it needs to be publicisedeffectively in forces and across the broader population.Secondly, it is absolutely imperative that forces havesufficient resources to deal swiftly and effectively withwhat we suspect will be an increased number of requests.Our concern is that there might be a lot of localpublicity about, “Your force will do this”, or, “Comeforward and ask this”, only for victims to be let downbecause forces have not geared themselves up with theright resources. That would be our word of caution, butas I say, putting it on a statutory footing is welcome.

Q69 Alex Norris: To turn to the role of the commissioner,you mentioned that you can recommend that forcesmake those changes but you cannot command them.The commissioner will be a big ally for you in makingsimilar public statements about the lack of satisfactionabout certain local arrangements that will create significantpublic pressure for reform. Do you have any reflectionson the commissioner’s role or ways that we could seekto improve it or its relationship with you through theBill?

Zoe Billingham: We welcome the introduction of thecommissioner’s role. I have met her briefly. We need toensure that we, as an independent inspectorate, workclosely alongside the commissioner, that we do notduplicate our efforts, and that our learning from inspectionsis passed to her and vice versa, so that we can continueto set the expectation that is required of police forces. Iexpect us to work in close concert on that.

Q70 Victoria Atkins: On the point about independence,questions have been asked today about the commissionerreporting to the Home Office. You are appointed by theHome Office, or HMIC is. What are your thoughts onyour independence?


Zoe Billingham: I would say that we are independent.As you know, Minister, we make recommendationswithout fear or favour. We are very happy to makerecommendations directed at the Home Office and haveoften done so in our work around domestic abuse. Weexpect action to be taken not only by police forces orpolice and crime commissioners but by Departments. Ifeel extremely independent in my role. I suspect thatthat will be reflected in the role of the Domestic AbuseCommissioner as well. The fact that I have a relationshipwith the Home Office does not undermine my personalstatutory independence as an HMI or our organisation’sindependence.

The Chair: I am grateful for your evidence today,Ms Billingham. Thank you very much. We will move onto our next witness, Nazir Afzal.


Nazir Afzal gave evidence.

3 pm

The Chair: Welcome to the evidence session thisafternoon. For the record, please introduce yourselfand state your job title.

Nazir Afzal: I am Nazir Afzal. One of my roles isindependent national advisor to the Welsh Governmenton what they call VAWDASV: Violence against women,domestic abuse and sexual violence. Previously I waschief prosecutor, and I led for 10 years on violenceagainst women and girls for the Crown ProsecutionService.

Q71 Victoria Atkins: This witness was requested byPlaid Cymru, but I will step into the shoes of Ms SavilleRoberts and ask a general question. How will you worktogether with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner tomaximise the impact of the two roles across Wales?

Nazir Afzal: I met with her yesterday, and I verymuch welcome her. I think she is sitting behind us rightnow. Obviously, there are restrictions on what she cando: there are devolved areas for the Welsh Government,and she is not permitted to comment on or analysethose areas. There are reserved areas where she can. Weagreed yesterday to collaborate, and I know we will dothat from here on in. There are opportunities for thesharing of good practice, and there are opportunitiesfor commissioning joint research and things like that. Ihave no doubt whatsoever that our relationship will bevery fruitful.

Q72 Alex Norris: When we looked at this in theHome Affairs Committee, we made the final judgment,after a lot of back and forth, to pursue a Welshapproach—to introduce an Act to deal with violenceagainst women, domestic abuse and sexual violence, aswas done in Wales. That is at the nub of the conversationabout whether there needs to be a gendered definition.Whenever that is raised, there is the obvious reply aboutnot missing out male victims and survivors. How does itwork in Wales? What comfort can you give us that agendered approach is practical but works for everybody?

Nazir Afzal: We live in the real world, and it isacknowledged that 84%, or thereabouts, of victims arefemale. Much of the men-on-men abuse, for example,is men abusing, and the vast majority of perpetrators

are male. When you recognise that, it does not meanthat you ignore male victims. The Welsh Governmenthave been working closely with organisations that supportmale victims, and I have no doubt that that will continue.Being one thing does not mean that you have to stopbeing another. That should not cause any problem forus in England and Wales, because it certainly has notcaused any problems in Wales.

Q73 Alex Norris: What positives has it brought?

Nazir Afzal: There is a substantial learning. Forexample, there are people working in the male victimsector who previously felt that they were being ignoredand not listened to and that perhaps—I think this wasunderlying your question—they were second-class victims.What they have picked up from those who are sufferinghas informed the Welsh Government’s work in relationto female victims. There is substantial good practice inthat area, which perhaps would not have been picked uphad we not engaged with them in the way that we aredoing.

Q74 Gillian Keegan: I am quite intrigued by this role.Will you give us some examples of how it has helped toimprove the response to domestic abuse in Wales, andhow that might be seen from the viewpoint of the victimor survivor?

Nazir Afzal: Do you mean the national advisor role?

Gillian Keegan: Yes, the national advisor role.

Nazir Afzal: I job share the role with a colleague ofmine. I do two days and she does three days. It is astatutory role that was created by the Violence againstWomen, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales)Act 2015. Going back to a question you put to HerMajesty’s inspector, independence is a state of mind; itdoes not have to say “independent” in the Act. What wehave been able to do—I spoke to the Domestic AbuseCommissioner about this yesterday—is to have access.My colleague and I were able to meet with the wholeWelsh Cabinet a year ago and talk about this issue, andabout cross-Government work that needs to happen.There are four director generals in the Welsh Governmentin four Departments, and I meet them every quarter. Iwould hope that the Domestic Abuse Commissionerwould have similar access. We know that this is not justa policing issue; it is an education issue and a healthissue—it is cross-cutting—so it needs that kind of access.We get that kind of access.

We are also advocates for the sector. When peopleknew I was speaking today, I got several hundred emailsfrom the various NGOs, which do phenomenal work,saying, “Raise this; raise that”—although there is notenough time. We can do that advocacy for them or withthem within the Welsh Government. We are literally onthe road all the time—with the geography of Wales, youhave to be on the road all the time—in order to try tounderstand the various issues that take place. We alertthe First Minister and his Government to those issuesin an intelligence-based, early way so that before it hitsthe proverbial, some action can be taken. It works reallyeffectively.

As I said to the Domestic Abuse Commissioneryesterday, if she gets the kind of access that we havebeen given, if she gets the kind of freedom that we have,and if she is able to enforce her independent way of


thinking—it goes without saying that she has enormouscredibility within the sector—all those things will makeher role really fulfilling. We have been able to lookinternationally and look at best practice across the UK.I think Wales lead the way—they will love me for sayingthis. The VAWDASV Act was four years ago, and theyhave put in place so many things.

One of the things I am concerned about with this Billis what is underneath it—that is, the implementationstrategy. Wales has grasped that and there is a phenomenalimplementation strategy. There is the national trainingframework; you name it, there are all sorts of thingsunderneath which will enable, and are enabling, us todeliver on the Act. We are there as critical friends to theWelsh Government and also to the Home Office here.We are able to share learning from Wales, and also tothe Scottish Government.

Q75 Carolyn Harris: I agree entirely that the WelshGovernment have got it spot on: they are superb. I havelong followed your career and admired your work and itwas an excellent appointment by the Welsh Government—but then, it would be. We have got such a good structurein Wales. Will what is proposed in this Bill clash withwhat we have got, or will it link in with it? Are we doingthings differently or better in the Welsh plan than isintended in this Bill? How can we make both of themthe best that they can be?

Nazir Afzal: Somebody will die or be severely injuredin Wales today because of domestic abuse. There is noway on earth that I am going to be complacent, andneither should we. There will be victims with everyminute of every day. On that basis, what progress hasWales made? There are issues with the Bill that I amhappy to share with you, but implementation is key. Ifyou do not have leadership from the top, it will nothappen.

Let me give you another example. The First Ministerhas asked for his whole Cabinet to get training. Then heasked all the Assembly Members to get training, and heasked all their support staff to get training—to thepoint where, in Wales, 170,000 people have now beentrained under the 2015 Act. Some 4,000 professionals—thatis, pretty much every professional in the ambulanceservice and police service—have been trained. I encourageyou as Members of Parliament, if you have not done so,to undergo some training to enable you to spot thesigns. If leaders are doing it, it comes down from that. Ifyou have done it, others who work for you and with youwill do it as well.

With the implementation strategy, the amount ofguidance that has been produced is second to none.There are guidelines for governors of universities andgovernors of further education institutions; there areguidelines on elder abuse, which I think you mentionedearlier on; and there are guidelines on children as victims.That is what we call “ask and act” training guidance,because in the legislation it invites professionals to askif something is not right and act upon it. That is all inplace.

A key point with regard to the Bill is that every localauthority has a public duty to compare and publishannually their strategy on violence against women andgirls, domestic abuse and sexual violence, and to putthat out to the public and say, “This is what we are goingto do”, and be challenged on it. Unless you mandate

that and prescribe it, it is not going to happen. That iswhy I encourage you—it is not too late—to do that inthe Domestic Abuse Bill. The Welsh Government havedone that. They have commissioning guidance, so thatevery commissioner of services, and there are many,knows how to approach it. There is guidance left, rightand centre.

In terms of what we still need to do, there is a bigissue that only the Treasury can help us with: sustainablefunding. From all the non-governmental organisationsthat mailed you and me, you will know that on 31 Marchthey will not know whether they will have a job on1 April. The people they service will not know whetherthey will have a service on 1 April. Unless you have atleast an indication that your funding is x number ofyears, you cannot plan. Cardiff and Vale has a seven-yearfunding cycle. It tells everybody, “This is what we’regoing to give you this year,” and indicates what they aregoing to get for the next six years. It can plan on thatbasis, and that is what we would like the rest of Wales todo. That is certainly what the NGOs in England wouldprefer you to do.

Carolyn Harris: Thank you very much. Diolch ynfawr.

Q76 Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con):Thank you very much for coming to the Committeetoday, and for your time. You mentioned that you hadcommunicated with the devolved Administration inScotland as well. Could you just elaborate on some ofthe communication you had and on the sharing of bestpractice, if any?

Nazir Afzal: It is premature, to be honest. The ScottishGovernment do not have a role of the kind that youhave in the Bill, and that the Welsh Government have. Itwould be premature of me to tell you what their plansare. There is certainly good practice—there is no gettingaway from it. When we talk about knife crime, we talkabout the public health approach in Glasgow, do wenot? If the public health approach can work for knifecrime, it can work for violence against women and domesticabuse. The idea of being able to contain people who arecurrently infected, for want of a better term, and thenprevent others from becoming so by dealing with theinfection—it is the same thing with domestic abuse.They are applying the kind of approach we are takingin Wales, and I hope England will do the same. There isgood learning, good sharing and good practice. TheScottish Government are probably no further forwardthan England in relation to structural governance issues,but the will is certainly there.

I go back to what I said. Part of the problem, as HMIindicated earlier, is that we have a bit of a perfect stormright now. Scottish police numbers and health servicenumbers have been reduced. There has been an impacton all sorts of areas where previously the people werethere to provide that level of service. NGOs do not havethe same funding. If you have a significant increase invictims, as we have had over the past three years orthereabouts, there is nobody there to provide them withthe service. Scotland is no different from England andWales in that regard.

Q77 Luke Graham: No, I appreciate that. The sectionof the Bill on the commissioner’s role talks about theestablishment of an advisory board. The Bill mandates


[Luke Graham]

that the board must include representatives from voluntaryorganisations and healthcare professionals from England,but there is nothing about Wales. Given that Wales is acentral part of the advisory board, would you like to beon the board?

Nazir Afzal: Not me personally, because I have notgot the time, but I certainly think that Wales should beon it. It is an England and Wales board, even if thereare reserved and devolved areas. I cannot see any reasonwhy Wales should not be present. We currently engagewith the Home Office even though, technically, it doesnot have responsibility for certain parts of what we doin Wales. I see no problem with that.

Q78 Luke Graham: This is important, and I do notwant to put you in a constitutional hotspot, but devolveddoes not mean separate. A lot of the Bill is meant to beset by the UK Parliament. Some Members will push forit to be extended in certain areas to Scotland. As I haveexperienced with my constituents, domestic abuse inrelationships does not respect county or other politicalboundaries. Do you agree that—framed as the Bill isabout sharing best practice, sharing standards, ensuringthat certain standards are reinforced throughout theentire United Kingdom and ensuring that analysis isshared throughout the United Kingdom—this is a goodspace for the Bill to play in, and that it can respectdevolution within the United Kingdom and the role ofcentral Government?

Nazir Afzal: Yes, 100%. The victim referral pathwayscould involve a victim from—well, I had one a long timeago in London who was moved to Inverness. If we donot have common practices, and so forth, rest assuredthat that would be a recipe for disaster. You need tohave an understanding across borders, despite the factthat, jurisdictionally, there will be differences.

Q79 Vernon Coaker: In your evidence to us just a fewminutes ago, you said that there were some issues withthe Bill and that you would be happy to share them withthe Committee. Could you please do that?

Nazir Afzal: Absolutely. The main one is the publicduty. We have found in Wales that unless you mandateit, it does not happen. Furthermore, unless you ring-fenceit, it does not happen either. Our experience—the experienceacross England and Wales, actually—has been that ifpeople have made cuts, they have made them in areasthey see as soft, and strangely, they see this area as soft.That is ridiculous, frankly, but none the less that is whatthey do. Unless you say—we have not said this inWales—“0.5% of your income must go on whatever itis” and ring-fence it, it does not happen.

The public duty side of it certainly needs to beclearer, because people do opt out. One third of mentalhealth trusts in England do not have a strategy thatdeals with domestic abuse. Given the number of victimswho will be suffering either as victims or, potentially, asperpetrators, that is scandalous. My experience tells methat unless you mandate these things, it does not happen.That is issue No. 1, and I clearly think that is right.

Black and minority ethnic victims have been let down.Do you know how many independent domestic violenceadvisors in England and Wales work specifically withBME people? There are four.

Q80 Vernon Coaker: Say that again. Four?

Nazir Afzal: There are four IDVAs in this countrywho are specially trained to work with BME victims.Given the population, that is not right.

Q81 Vernon Coaker: How many are there altogether,do you know?

Nazir Afzal: Hundreds. That issue needs addressing.

There is also the rural-urban thing—I have said thisspecifically about Wales, but it is true of England aswell. If you are a victim in a rural area, the perpetratoris probably known to everybody. To access support, youneed transport—the support is not available locally—butwe give everybody the same amount of funding. Wegive an NGO in Birmingham the same funding as wegive one somewhere in Shropshire, but the one in Shropshireprobably needs more funding per person than the one inBirmingham. We need to address that. Again, I do notknow how you do that, but it needs to come from thetop down, rather than the bottom up.

There are issues around refuge funding and refugeservices. My personal view—it is the Wales view, too—isthat the safest place for a victim is his or her home. Therefuge should always be seen as an emergency, ratherthan as the first port of call, which is what it is commonlyseen as. There are very few refuges with provision forchildren. You wait until mid-December, when it is comingup to Christmas: they will be turning away children left,right and centre, but what happens? They end up inemergency accommodation or going back to their abuser,because the support is just not available to them. Strangeas it may sound, when I spoke to the Welsh Cabinet, oneof the environmental Ministers mentioned pets. I wasnot aware of this. Victims do not leave home because oftheir pet. Apart from the Dogs Trust, as I understand it,there is very limited provision for animals in thosecircumstances, so they end up remaining with theperpetrator. Something needs to be done about refugefunding. It goes back to the sustainable funding issue Imentioned earlier, which needs to be addressed.

There are bigger issues. Your colleague, Sarah Champion,mentioned early marriage or child marriage yesterday.There are a substantial number of victims. I know theMinister asked for more detail, but my personal view isthat you should ban child marriage under the age of 18.Too many 16 and 17-year-olds are forced into marriage,and too many suffer significant abuse at that age. Unlessyou put an age limit of 18 on marriage, you are notgoing to be able to prevent that from happening. TheBill offers you that opportunity.

Q82 Vernon Coaker: Do you know what the estimatesare? How many marriages are there?

Nazir Afzal: There are roughly 200 marriages of17-year-olds every year.

Q83 Vernon Coaker: Do you know what it is for16-year-olds? The Minister will be able to get that.

Nazir Afzal: I do not know. The Minister will probablyknow better than I do.

Q84 Vernon Coaker: Was that figure of 200 for Englandand Wales?

Nazir Afzal: Yes, but a lot of religious marriages arenot registered. A lot more than 200 are not registeredbecause they are religious marriages.


Q85 Vernon Coaker: Have the Government made anestimate of the number of non-registered marriages?

Nazir Afzal: I do not know. Again, the Minister willknow better than I do. I have dealt with cases, and themost amazing ones—the most bizarre, horrible ones—involved people who were forced into marriage at 16 and17. Some of them died at the age of 19 and 20. There isa gap that needs to be addressed, and maybe the legislationcould do that.

There is another area in which I would agree withother campaigners. Twelve years ago, I met with somebodycalled Iain Duncan Smith—I don’t know if you knowhim—and he was running a campaign with Refugeabout driven suicide. A lot of victims of domestic abuseare driven to commit suicide, and as it currently stands,there is no law that can hold somebody to account forthat. I tried to bring one in back then, and the Court ofAppeal said that we could, but we were not able tosucceed. You probably know the fact that two womenare murdered every week in domestic abuse cases, butyou probably do not know that 10 women kill themselvesevery week.

Vernon Coaker: Ten women—

Nazir Afzal: Ten women, every week, in England andWales will kill themselves because of domestic abuse.That is Refuge’s figure.

The Chair: The Minister wants to come in on thispoint.

Victoria Atkins: I just want to clarify that the latestyear for which we have figures on marriage is 2016. Ofthe around 500,000 people who entered opposite-sexmarriages in that year, 179 were aged 16 or 17 years old.I just wanted to clarify that for the record.

The Chair: I am going to bring in Carolyn Harris toask some questions. If anybody else wishes to speak,please indicate now.

Q86 Carolyn Harris: Let me pick up on two thingsyou have said. First, is religious marriage a growingissue? Somebody came to see me last week who hadbeen in what she thought was a marriage. When shewent to get a divorce because of domestic violence, hermarriage certificate was in Arabic. She had been marriedunder sharia law and was not actually married.

Secondly, you talked about IDVAs; is there a programmein Wales for having IDVAs in hospitals, specifically forelderly people? I was in A&E with my son, who hadpneumonia a couple of weeks ago, when I heard thenurse at the next bed asking a young girl if her problemwas because of domestic violence. Can you tell us a bitmore about that?

Nazir Afzal: The second one is easy. Yes, there is aprogramme to recruit more IDVAs. It is a bit haphazardbecause they are employed by different agencies—health,police and crime commissioners and so on—but there isa significant programme to increase the numbers. Therewas a dip in the mid-2010s, for all sorts of resourcereasons.

On the first question, there is another campaign,which is about religious marriages also having to becertified—that is, to become marriages recognised byBritish law. I support that, too. You have given one example;

I can probably give you several hundred others ofpeople who did not know that they were married. Inany event, if these people were married, their ability toseek a divorce is challenging, to say the least, and abuseis often tolerated in such circumstances. There is a rolefor the state to say, “If you enter into a religiousmarriage, you should also have a civil marriage.” Thereis some good practice around that—for example, justup the road in the Regent’s Park mosque you have tohave the religious marriage and a civil marriage at thesame time. Why can they not do that anywhere else?I absolutely agree with you on that.

Carolyn Harris: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any further questions fromMembers?

Nazir Afzal: Can I just say one more thing aboutrelease under investigation, because I forgot?

Q87 The Chair: I will just see whether there are anyfurther questions. No, there are not, so feel free tocontinue.

Nazir Afzal: Her Majesty’s inspector mentioned releaseunder investigation. The previous time I gave evidenceto the Joint Committee, Lord Blair was here, and he andI agree on this. The Bill should specifically say thatdomestic abuse is excluded from the provision on releaseunder investigation. There is tons of evidence alreadyout there—you may want to get your own, Minister—thatshows that there are suspects waiting for a long, longtime before a decision but, worse still, that there arepotential victims waiting for a long, long time, who areunder enormous pressure to go back to their abuser orpotential abuser, and who lose interest and so on becausethe process takes such a long time. If you had bail withconditions, it would offer protection, and it also concentratesminds in respect of decision making. We did not anticipateit happening when the Act was passed, but my personalview and, I think, that of anybody in the sector is thatwe ought to exclude domestic abuse from that provision.

The Chair: Do Members have any further questions?If not, we are grateful to you, Mr Afzal, for yourcontribution, and will bring your session to an end.

Examination of Witnesses

Sally Noden and Eleanor Briggs gave evidence.

3.24 pm

Q88 The Chair: I am grateful for your attendance atthis evidence session. For the record, the maximum timewe have for this session is until 4 o’clock. Please introduceyourselves for the benefit of the Committee.

Sally Noden: My name is Sally Noden and I am achildren’s service manager in Newcastle.

Eleanor Briggs: I am Eleanor Briggs and I am headof policy and research at Action for Children.

Q89 Victoria Atkins: Welcome to the Committee. Itwould perhaps help the Committee if we could hear alittle bit about your work in Newcastle, Ms Noden.

Sally Noden: In Newcastle, I oversee a cluster ofservices, but one of them is called Breaking the Cycle.This is a service that was specifically designed by usseveral years ago, when we saw a gap in recovery services


for children. We work with children between the ages offour and 16 who have experienced domestic abuse, andwe offer them one-to-one counselling.

The way the piece of work is done is that we normallymeet the non-abusing partner—normally the mum—andwe do a session with her, and then we bring the child in.One of the big points of the model—this is why it is aspecialist service—is that we name why the children arethere. It is named. That is actually a really big issue for aparent who has spent a long time thinking that they areprotecting the child. They realise that the child’sbehaviour—the traumatic behaviour that they are displaying—is because of the domestic abuse that they haveexperienced. We need to spend time with the non-abusingpartner, getting them to understand their story andwhat has happened to their child.

We then offer up to 10 sessions with the child, andthey are child-led sessions with the counsellor, using avariety of tools that the counsellor is extremely skilledat using: sometimes they use play, sometimes they usegames and words, and they do special box work withthe young people. We then have a review session withthe child and the non-abusing partner and parent. Someof that is very much around looking at their relationship,because children can be really angry. Suddenly they canbe angry and confused, and the relationship betweenthe parent and the child can be really broken, so weneed to do some work to improve that parent-childrelationship and have an understanding on both sides.That is the work that we do up in Newcastle at themoment.

Q90 Victoria Atkins: Thank you very much, Ms Noden;Ms Briggs, please do not think I am going to leave youout. I am going to get straight to the point. The Committeeis considering the definition, and at the moment thedefinition is limited to from the age of 16 onwards.What are your views on that age being in the definition?Perhaps you can go first, Ms Briggs.

Eleanor Briggs: It is certainly a really complex issueand something that we have thought really hard aboutand discussed in great detail with other children-sectororganisations. Ultimately, we agree with the Government’sdecision to go for the 16 age limit. We talked in detail tofrontline practitioners, such as Sally and others, and toour safeguarding experts, and the final decision wemade was that because abuse of someone under 16 ischild abuse, we did not want to muddy the waters. Wewanted to keep it absolutely clear that under 16 it ischild abuse. Also, the age of consent is 16, so that isanother factor to consider.

We do recognise, though, the need for support forchildren and young people in romantic relationshipsunder 16 where abuse happens, and we warmly welcomethe recommendation from the Joint Committee aroundthe need for a Government review to look at thoserelationships. One thing we would stress is that theexperience from when the age limit in the definition waslowered from 18 to 16 showed that adult responses arenot necessarily the right ones, so a different modelcould be needed for 16 and 17-year-olds. We would askthat that review consider 16 and 17-year-olds as well.Sally has extensive experience of what services work foryoung people and how they need to be different.

Sally Noden: It is great that we are looking at it, butwe need to recognise those relationships and we need tolook at services through the lens of a young person orteenager. An adult service may not meet those needs. InNewcastle, we have a service called West End Womenand Girls Centre, which has peer educators, and thosepeer educators are young people who have been throughabusive relationships and are now trained to be peereducators with other young people. That sort of serviceis really important.

I have experience of a young person working in aservice. I was in a children’s centre and I was runningthe Freedom programme, which is a social educationalprogramme. This young person was 17 and I suggestedthat she came on to the programme, but there werewomen who were much older than her and their experienceswere very different to her experience, and she did notfeel as valid. I learned from that mistake. She did notfeel valid because her relationship was an 18-monthrelationship and she was listening to women who hadbeen in abusive relationships for 30 years. I did a lot ofwork with her after that. We absolutely need to recognisethat there are abusive relationships, but we need to havethe right responses for them.

Q91 Carolyn Harris: For me, children who experiencedomestic violence are victims—there are no two waysabout it—and we know that it can be a vicious circle.What more can we do to break the cycle of victimsbecoming perpetrators?

Sally Noden: We need to have the right services andwe need to invest in services for some of our youngvictims. In Newcastle, we have one of the only specialistservices. In the past four months, I have had 59 referrals,but I have one and a half counsellors. In the sense thatthe resources are not there to do the work, we need tolook at some peer education work and work on whathealthy relationships are about. We need to look atsome early intervention work, but then there need to bethose specialist services to help break the cycle. Thereare a number of fantastic programmes out there, suchas the Drug Abuse Resistance Education programmeand the Domestic Abuse, Recovering Together programme,but again, from my experience in Newcastle, we had theprogramme running, the funding stopped, and it has notrun again. It might come back again. We need to havethe right resources to have the right community responses.

Q92 Carolyn Harris: So the work is being done insilos, without being all joined up. Are we not all aimingfor the same thing, or are we working to differentagendas?

Sally Noden: There is some very good joining up. I siton the violence against women and girls strategic groupin Newcastle with a whole host of services, and we workreally well together. However, there are not the resourcesto continue the work that we need to do.

Eleanor Briggs: That is where the Bill offers a realopportunity. Two things can happen in the Bill thatwould contribute. The first is to put children as victimsinto the definition. Our view is that that being in thestatutory guidance is not strong enough. We can talk inmore detail about the definition.

Secondly, the duty on the Ministry of Housing,Communities and Local Government should be extended.We really welcome the duty and the fact that it will look


at accommodation-based support but, as the previouswitness said, we really feel that the refuge should be theperson’s home and that the support needs to be there inthe community for children. That will build into thewhole cycle: if we get the support for children early on,they will learn what healthy relationships look like. Weknow that Sally’s excellent service in Newcastle is BigLottery funded and only has two more years to go, sowhat happens to it after that? If we had the statutoryduty extended out, we could have secure, proper andlong-term funding for services for children, and thatwould help to break the cycle.

Q93 Carolyn Harris: Are local authorities keen tosupport you financially or with services in kind, or is it abattle just to get the money to keep going?

Sally Noden: It is a battle to get the money to keepgoing. As Eleanor said, our money comes from the BigLottery Fund. I work really closely with Safe Newcastle,with their offices, and they are really supportive—theywere supportive of our Big Lottery bid—but they arenot able to give us the funding.

Eleanor Briggs: And that is one of our concerns. Ifthe MHCLG duty comes in as designed at the moment,just for accommodation-based support, the local authoritieswill be under pressure to fund refuge and accommodation-based support. Obviously, we see the need for that, andit is very important, but the duty needs to be wider,because if the funding is all going into that, funding willcome away from non-statutory services, as we have seenwith children’s services. Under the Children Act 1989,statutory services are still being provided, with increasedmoney going into them, but the funding has come awayfrom the non-statutory services—the early help services.Although we welcome commitments to funding for thenew duty, which is fantastic, this will be in law forthe long, long term and we cannot guarantee that thefunding will always be there. That is why the legislationneeds to be right and why we need to have a statutoryduty for both accommodation-based and, crucially,community services that include children and youngpeople.

Carolyn Harris: I am sold. Thank you.

Q94 Sarah Newton: We are all united in wanting tobreak the cycle. The evidence is overwhelming thatyoung people who are exposed to domestic abuse, coercivecontrol or violence are likely to be perpetrators orvictims themselves. As the Government are investing alot of money in schools on good relationship education,I am concerned that children will start to realise thatwhat they are seeing at home is not a good relationship,but they will think that is what love looks like becausethat is what their mum and dad do with partners theysee. In the context of what the commissioner and servicesare to do, what should we do to make sure that that partof the Government’s work in the Department for Educationis linked to the sorts of the service you you provide andthe possibilities in the Bill?

Sally Noden: I think it is about linking up withcommunity services—making sure that there are theresources within community services. We talked aboutOperation Encompass, which I think is fantastic, butit needs to go further. There needs to be the support. Itis great to do the silent monitoring or to enable theteacher to help that child through the day, but are we

actually saying, “It’s okay—it’s okay to go back home”?We have to be honest: children will be going back home,so there needs to be an open discussion and resources tobe able to work with a child to make sense of that andenable them to be resilient. There are services to supportwomen who are in abusive relationships and plan toleave, and there is support to enable them while they arein that relationship. We need that for children as well.

Q95 Sarah Newton: I was thinking along slightlydifferent lines—sorry if I did not make myself clear.Again in my constituency, there is another Big Lottery-funded youth work-based project where young peopleare coming to realise that they are living in a home withdomestic abuse and violence, whereas before they didnot really understand that that was what was going on.The youth workers are there to make sure that theparents have a conversation and that they are beingsupported to address their relationship issues. That ismore what I was thinking of. Is that something weshould be looking at, so that rather than the child beingidentified as being in an abusive home, it is more thatthe child themselves identifies that they live in an abusivehome? What support can we then give to the parents?

Sally Noden: Absolutely. We have to then be verymindful about making sure that we are not keepingchildren in the abusive relationship, and about whetherthe parents are willing to do that piece of work orwhether someone will continue to be controlling. It isreally important to have that open dialogue, and nameit. There are a number of projects, such as the HelpingHands project, that you can work with children on, andI know of a number of youth work projects workingwith young people, but you are right to ask whetherthey are really doing the joining up. We need to look atthat further.

Q96 Alex Norris: What do you think are the implicationsfor children of a proposed legal duty on local authoritiesto provide accommodation-based support?

Eleanor Briggs: I have touched on that already. Althoughwe really welcome the duty and see it as a step forward,we think that, as it stands, it is not adequate and will notprovide the support that children and young people,and adult victims and perpetrators, need. We welcomethe focus in the duty as drafted on children’s support,and we welcome the fact that children’s social care willsit on the board, although we would like to see DFE onthe national steering group as well.

We need to face up to the reality that most victimswill not be in a refuge. That is a positive thing—peopleshould not need to leave their home to get support. Itseems logical to us that if you are getting all the localpartners together, including children, to look at an issueand how they are going to respond to domestic abuse,you should not limit that to accommodation-basedsupport. It should be a holistic, expanded duty wherethey can look at what support we need in the communityas well.

There is a particular concern about refuges and theamount of support, because of the fact that people arebeing turned away and that children are being turnedaway. From what Sally has said, and from what we seein our own research with Stirling University, we knowthat those issues are also there with community-basedservices. Currently, there is a real postcode lottery for access.


Research that we did with Stirling University and localauthorities showed that in two thirds of areas therewere barriers to children and young people accessingcommunity services. Also in two thirds of areas thefunding issues that we have already spoken about werepresent, with projects being funded by unstable fundingstreams and not knowing what their future was. In10% of local authorities, there were actually no servicesfor children and young people, and only two had servicesfor children in the early years. There is a real problemaround adequate services for children and youngpeople in the community, which the Domestic AbuseCommissioner picked up this morning.

The duty is a real opportunity, which we welcome,but to do its job properly, it needs to be widened. In thatresearch with Stirling University, local authorities saidthat there is an absence of guidance, that they are notsure what they are supposed to be providing, and,unusually, that they would welcome a duty to give themthat clarity about what is wanted. Of course, they willneed it to be properly funded, but having that claritywould be a real step forward for everyone.

I have already addressed our fear that unintentionallythe duty as it stands might have a negative impact onsome of those vital community services for children andyoung people, particularly given the funding pressurethat we know local authorities are under. MHCLG hassaid that the duty will not have an impact on community-based services, but no detail was provided about how orwhy that is the case. We therefore echo the Joint Committee’srecommendation that the duty needs to look at howcommunity-based support can be provided. We knowfrom the services that Sally provides how importantthat support is in helping children to recover and preventingfurther abuse in the next generation.

Q97 Alex Norris: Is anywhere doing it really well atthe moment? Postcode lotteries have winners as well aslosers. Does anywhere model the sort of thing that youare talking about?

Eleanor Briggs: Yes. The research that we did withStirling has three different case studies of how localauthorities are operating. One is high functioning, oneis doing okay, and one is a really poorly functioninglocal authority. We will happily share that to show youhow the different models are working. We hope thatthrough an expanded duty everyone could get up tothat high-functioning model.

Q98 Luke Graham: My question builds on those ofsome of my colleagues regarding how children whoexperience domestic abuse link with potential fosteringservices, the Department for Work and Pensions, andfuture education opportunities. Having had a numberof constituents and some family go through a similarprocess, I know that there is a lot of opportunity to fallthrough gaps. What, in your view, are the elements ofbest practice? If they are not in the Bill already, we cantry to add them. Certainly, we can share such bestpractice more widely, supporting an individual in anabusive situation and then connecting them with DWPservices, education and other opportunities.

Sally Noden: I can talk about a case study. I think thiswill answer your question—tell me if it does not. Withinour service, we had a referral of a sibling group. There isa waiting list, and by the time of the referral one of thechildren had been removed—in fact, all three of them

had been removed and one was in a foster placement ontheir own. We continued with that work; our originalpiece of work was with the foster carer and the youngperson.

We linked up with children’s social care and with thefoster carer, and we met with mum, because the youngchild was potentially going to go back home—so welinked up in terms of what sort of therapeutic supportwe could offer this young person. In fairness, children’ssocial care linked up with us as well and ensured that wewere speaking to the right people. We needed to speakto the foster carer. We might have spoken only to mum,or we might not have spoken to her.

The big piece of work that we did with that youngperson was trying to work out their emotional responsesto the uncertainty that they were going to go through.That was a huge piece of work, because they did notknow whether they were going to go home. At onepoint, the courts were looking at whether dad was apotential caregiver. Dad had been the perpetrator ofdomestic violence towards mum. We had to do somework, although the child was not really in recoverybecause they still had lots of uncertainties; they reallyneeded some therapeutic support in working out theiremotions and their lack of knowledge about what wasgoing on.

I do not know whether that quite answers your question.We ensured that we connected up, and doing so has tobe everybody’s responsibility. It is the same with adultservices. Often you see the adult presented, and you donot connect up whether the child will have to moveschool, and what will happen to them and their education.That is why it is so important to have children named asvictims in the Bill, because people then have to connectit up, from all services.

Eleanor Briggs: I would add that if we got a widerduty, looking more broadly than accommodation-basedservices, that would help because you would have theboard and representatives from all relevant partnersacross the local authority on that board looking at theirjoined-up response. That would get them talking, andwould be such an opportunity. If they were lookingmore widely than just at accommodation, they wouldpick up on those issues.

Q99 Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): It all sounds a bitprecarious. A lot of excellent work is going on, but it isnot certain that it will continue in a consistent way. Youseem to be putting quite a lot of eggs in the basket ofthe wider duty, which will be a way to drive resourceand underpin greater consistency, so that we are not justdependent on lottery funding that is falling. Can youexplain how you think that will work?

Eleanor Briggs: I suppose the way the duty will be setup is that the boards will come together and do anassessment of what is happening their area; what theneeds are and how they can commission services tomeet those needs. I think the current version of it willlook at accommodation-based needs, whereas the waythat we envisage it, they will look at the whole spectrum.With other organisations, we would like to look atperpetrators as well, so that we can get a proper picture.We are looking to end this problem and that alsoinvolves support for perpetrators. They look at thewhole thing as a holistic issue and look at where supportis needed. Obviously, that demands a good risk assessment


and the right people being there, but proper funding isalso key. For this duty to be in place will need properfunding, so that once the assessment is done, the rightservices can be commissioned and funded properly sothat that support is in place.

Q100 Nic Dakin: We heard from the earlier witnessthat these sorts of services are often seen as low-hangingfruit when pressures are on budgets.

Eleanor Briggs: Absolutely. That is why for us this isthe part of the Bill that offers us the best chance we haveto get those services. People have already talked abouthow something gets done when you make it statutory.When there is an obligation, it will be provided. Wewant these services to be a statutory obligation toprovide support to children and families and then wewill see it funded. As I mentioned, we have seen children’sservices, where there is no statutory obligation. Those,as you say, are the low-hanging fruit and the ones thatgo when there is a problem.

You say we are putting all our eggs in one basket.This is absolutely key for us and the best way that wecan see at the moment to secure vital support. We alsodefinitely want to see children in the definition on theface of the Bill. That is really important in getting aresponse from all services. Zoe has already mentionedthat the police are doing much better, which is great tohear, but we know from studies abroad that the policehave responded to children much better when childrenare named as victims in the definition of domesticabuse, so we want to see that here as well.

Q101 Wendy Morton: Thank you for joining us today.I want to touch on the Children Act. You are probablyaware that the Government are considering the pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee recommendationon the definition of harm in the Children Act andwhether it should be amended to recognise the impacton children of coercive control. What are your thoughtson that? What do you think the impact of such anamendment will be? Also, do you foresee any unintendedconsequences of singling out one form of harm?

Eleanor Briggs: We really welcome that. We werereally pleased to see the Joint Committee recommendation.The Children Act is a fantastic piece of legislation. Weare excited its 30th anniversary is coming up next month.It is a great piece of legislation because it has adaptedand changed as things have moved forward. As part ofthat, in 2002, the definition of harm was changed toinclude impairment suffered from seeing or hearing theill-treatment of another. That was added in relation todomestic abuse, so that recognition was there. We supportthe Joint Committee’s recommendation for it to beabsolutely clear that coercive control is included. Ourresearch with Stirling University, that I referred to,showed that the local authorities we spoke to felt thatsocial workers still did not recognise coercive controland how dangerous it can be. Research shows thatchildren really do suffer when coercive control is goingon in the house. It is also very high risk. There is a highchance of very serious violence related to coercive control,so we support that widening.

We would also like to see the definition change slightlyso that it talks about children seeing or hearing—experiencing—the domestic abuse that goes on. This pointwas powerfully made when we went to see one of our

services. We did not prompt them or say anything whenwe did our initial research, but one of the servicemanagers said: “Children don’t witness domestic abuse,they experience it.” She was absolutely passionate aboutthat. They are not sitting there as some kind of secondarypart of it; they absolutely are experiencing that. The Billprovides an opportunity to get that into the Children’sAct and to link it to the definition in the Bill. I am notconcerned about it limiting, because from my understandingit was introduced in 2002 to be around getting domesticabuse in there. To get that right and to make sure it is upto date with the Domestic Abuse Bill, now feels like areal opportunity.

The Chair: Three more Members wish to speak andwe have just under 10 minutes, so questions and answersneed to be relatively quick.

Q102 Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West)(Lab): I want to expand on mental health issues. Doyou work with child and adolescent mental healthservices?

Sally Noden: Yes. Actually, over a third of our referralscome from CAMHS, and I also oversee a family supportservice within Early Help. We work really closely withour CAMHS colleagues, because mental health is a realissue for our young people and for parents.

Q103 Eleanor Smith: I know we have the NHS in thecommissioning body, but do you think there should besomething for people with mental health issues, particularlychildren, in the commissioning body?

Sally Noden: Yes, I think so. I do not know whetherEleanor would answer that better than I would.

Eleanor Briggs: We have not done a lot of work onthis, to be honest, but we can speak to others and comeback to you. I know that Hestia Housing will be appearingbefore you on Thursday and that they have done a lot ofwork looking at CAMHS. That is one of their asks, so itmight be good to ask them about that.

Q104 Gillian Keegan: It is fascinating to hear allabout the services, and the people of Newcastle areobviously very lucky to have them. We heard in otherevidence sessions that not having services such as theseis often a barrier to women going further to seek outmore services, because they do not think their childrenwill get the services required. Do you have a view onhow widely available they are across England and Wales?What difference will the role of the Domestic AbuseCommissioner make in ensuring that when she and herteam are mapping all these services, it will help toimprove the availability of such services across thecountry for children affected by domestic abuse?

Eleanor Briggs: The research that we did with StirlingUniversity looked at 30 local authorities and at whereservices were available and where they were not. Itvaries a lot. In two thirds of local authorities involvedin the study, there were some barriers to accessingservices. In 10% of areas, there were no support servicesavailable. In a third of areas, access to services wasrestricted by postcode. We know it really varies, whichrelates to the lack of duty and the instability aroundfunding being an issue.


We really welcome the role of the commissioner, andit is fantastic to see that. We welcome that she has aspecific remit on children and that she will have a childadvisor as part of her office. We would really like to seechildren included in the statutory definition, just tostrengthen it and ensure that it is absolutely clear. Wewould also like to see a bit more clarity in the wording—when she looks at the provision of services, it shouldinclude children’s services as well, because it could be areal tool if it was absolutely clear that she is going tolook at that.

Q105 Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con):Thank you very much for the interesting evidence. CanI just come back to your point on people under 16 beingvictims? The Bill states:

“Behaviour of a person (‘A’) towards another person (‘B’) is‘domestic abuse’ if…A and B are each aged 16 or over”.

Are you suggesting it should be the case that, in thatscenario, B does not have to be aged 16 or over? Is thatwhat you were driving towards?

Eleanor Briggs: No.

Huw Merriman: Sorry—I beg your pardon.

Eleanor Briggs: It is really confusing, and we havespent literally hours thinking about this. We want tokeep the domestic abuse age at 16, because of the issuesaround child abuse that we have talked about. We areworking on various amendments. We would like to seesomething added, probably under clause 1(5), so thatthe impact of domestic abuse on children is recognisedin the definition. The offence would be between A andB, who would be over 16, but then further down wewould have the impact recognised on children, as happensat the moment in the Australian model. It is complicatedlegally, but we are working with a number of barristersand there are options that we are pursuing about howthat could fit.

Huw Merriman: I have probably missed it—if so, myapologies—but, from a legal perspective, what wouldyou be wanting to occur as a result of that addition atparagraph 5?

Eleanor Briggs: We would want it to be linking in tothe commissioner and to the new MHCLG duty that wehave there, so that it is absolutely clear. The notes withthe Bill also make very clear that this definition will beused well beyond the scope of the Bill. It will be used byfrontline practitioners as well. We are really passionatethat that has to be in there, so that when healthcare orthe police are responding to a domestic abuse incident,they are recognising children in there. We know fromthe joint targeted area inspection reports that were donein 2016 that a lot of adult services just did not ask anyquestions about children. We think that we need it therein a definition, so that everyone is aware. The Children’sAct is great, but it does not do all of that, and a lot ofother practitioners will not be looking at it.

Huw Merriman: So it is a similar concept to thediscussion we were having about recognising the genderimbalance and that being on the face, but there was alsoa feeling that that could be covered by the statutoryguidance that comes out. Could that not be a place forwhat you just described there with regard to children, interms of the guidance, and knock on to the providers ofthe services?

Eleanor Briggs: We do welcome the guidance, andthat is definitely a step forward. But for us, that is notgoing to be strong enough. We do not feel that you canguarantee that everyone is going to read the guidance—orwhen they see the guidance they might see children andthink, “Actually, that is just relevant to children’s services”.If you have got it on the face of the Bill it will be muchstronger, and we can guarantee that we are getting theproper response that we need.

Huw Merriman: Thank you.

The Chair: Do any Members wish to ask furtherquestions? I thank both witnesses for their contributionstoday and discharge them from the Committee.

Examination of Witnesses

Emily McCarron and Jo Todd gave evidence.

3.57 pm

The Chair: Good afternoon, Emily and Jo, and thankyou for your attendance at the Committee this afternoon.For the purposes of the record, could you introduceyourselves, starting with Emily?

Emily McCarron: My name is Emily McCarron. I ama policy manager at Age UK.

Jo Todd: I am Jo Todd. I am the chief executive atRespect.

The Chair: We are grateful for your attendance today.

Victoria Atkins: Welcome. We are very interested tounderstand the impact that domestic abuse can have onolder people. Ms McCarron, could you help us understandwhat action you would like to see the Domestic AbuseCommissioner take around older victims of domesticabuse?

Emily McCarron: Certainly. When we are talkingabout older people and domestic abuse, those circumstancesare often very much overlooked. We want older people whoexperience domestic abuse to start getting the supportthat they need. With this Bill, there is an opportunity toremedy that.

The first thing of crucial importance is that we do notknow much about how much older people are experiencingdomestic abuse. We know that about 140,000 olderwomen and 74,000 older men experienced domesticabuse in the past year—therefore more than 200,000older people. We know also that they face many barriersto reporting this abuse, so that figure is likely to bemuch higher. Of particular importance is the fact thatdata collection on the incidence of domestic abuse stopsat 74. We would like that to be changed and fixed on theface of the Bill, so that data on domestic abuse iscollected for all ages, not just under the age of 74.

Victoria Atkins: Thank you. Ms Todd, will you explainwhat Respect does as an organisation, and then help uswith the Drive project? I will then ask you about thelessons that can be learned from that programme inrelation to the positive requirements in the domesticabuse protection orders.


Jo Todd: Respect is a membership organisation. Wefocus on perpetrators of domestic abuse, male victimsand young people, particularly those that use violence,abuse and controlling behaviour in their family homeand in their intimate relationships.

The Drive partnership started off as a project betweenthree organisations: SafeLives, Social Finance and Respect.It was to develop a service delivery model for perpetratorscausing high levels of harm. That partnership cametogether about five years ago, and we have worked ondeveloping that service delivery model. It is now justabout to publish the third year evaluation report: theUniversity of Bristol has been our evaluator all the waythrough. That has shown really positive findings. Theyare not quite out yet, but they are all in the rightdirection.

Part way through that partnership, we began to haveconversations about the strategic needs around perpetrators:not just looking at one part of the perpetrator cohort—the perpetrators causing the highest levels of harm—butactually looking at what is needed by the whole cohort,and what a good whole-system approach would looklike. We have reached out to others in the sector anddeveloped what we have called a call to action for aperpetrator strategy. I can go into that in more detail ifyou like, and can certainly submit it as written evidence.We have a draft of that, and more than 60 organisationshave signed up to it.

It looks at the comprehensive strategic approach thatwe think is needed for perpetrators. The spotlight hasbeen on victims for too long: keeping themselves safe,keeping their children safe, keeping each other safe.Perpetrators have been very invisible, or if they havebeen visible the approach to them has not always worked.We need an approach that stops domestic abuse happening.That can work in different ways. You can have behaviourchange programmes. I have worked on behaviourchange programmes with perpetrators. There are menout there who want to change, who recognise the harmthey are causing, and are motivated to change. Theymay be the ones that Sarah Newton was mentioning,who have grown up around domestic abuse. It is allaround them in their community, and they do it withouteven considering that there are other ways of havingrelationships.

We need to offer those people opportunities to change,but we also need to be clear that we hold them toaccount when those opportunities are there and are notbeing taken by them, and that we have robust measuresin place through the criminal justice system and alsothrough a multi-agency approach that will stop theirabuse, and limit them from being able to be abusive andcontrolling in their relationships through a series ofactions that different agencies can take. We call it disruption.It can be housing, or it can be a police-led response.Lots of children’s services are included. There are lotsof different ways in which agencies can disrupt perpetratorsand stop them causing harm.

Q106 Victoria Atkins: Thank you. Will you give us aninsight into the work, to add a bit of colour to thepicture you paint? For example, I visited the Driveproject in Croydon. What sort of cases will some of theworkers in Croydon or elsewhere be working on, andhow do they interact with those perpetrators? Also,what happens with the victims at the same time?

Jo Todd: That is a really good point. When you workwith perpetrators, it should always be alongside aprogramme of work that keeps victims safe too. That isthe approach taken by the Drive project. The victim willalways be offered support but also information aboutthe perpetrator, about whether or not he is changingand about what the risk levels are, to help her makedecisions for herself.

The Drive project is a case management-based system.There are case managers who will have perpetrators ontheir books, who are all levels. Some of them might bein and out of the criminal justice system; some of themmay be in prison and coming out. They work veryclosely with the probation and prison services, as well asthe police. They are often resistant to change. They arenot in the place I was just speaking about, where theyhave recognised their behaviour is a problem and theywant to change. They often have multiple needs themselves.Sometimes that is trauma in their own lives; sometimesit is drug and alcohol problems and mental healthproblems. They are often, but not always—this is alwaysoften, but not always—unemployed or have housingproblems or chaotic lifestyles that mean that engagingin any kind of intervention might be difficult.

The caseworker will take a view on whether it isappropriate to engage directly with that person, orwhether to work behind the scenes in a co-ordinatedmulti-agency way to start tightening the net aroundthem and to start making sure that every agency isaware of the problems they cause and the risk of harmthere is and can take appropriate action. Someonementioned earlier the carrot and the stick. It is verymuch that. It is, “We will work with you if you workwith us, but if you won’t, we will use everything we canto stop you being able to be abusive.”

Q107 Victoria Atkins: Just a last question. Referringback to the domestic abuse protection orders and notices,but particularly the orders, in the Bill, what are yourthoughts on the fact that judges can make negativerequirements—for example, “Do not go within 100 metresof that address”—but also positive requirements, whichmay include attending a perpetrator programme?

Jo Todd: It is true of any intervention around domesticabuse that it has the possibility to solve the problem andbe safe and effective as an intervention, or to makethings worse. Whenever we are looking at developingnew things, and DAPOs and the positive order requirementsare one of those, we need to really think about how thismight raise the risk, as well as how it might reduce it.There are concerns—about not putting enough resourcein and not being specific enough about what the positiveorder requirements are—that mean it could go in thewrong direction. We are hoping to work with you andpossibly put amendments in to make sure that that doesnot happen.

With certain things, such as the specified responsibleperson who recommends to the courts what should beincluded in the DAPO and then is responsible formonitoring that requirement, there is not at the momentthe same level of specification about whose that roleshould be. The Government may already have plansand thoughts around who would fill that role: whetherit be probation or police, I am not sure. However, atthe moment, that is not clear. It is really important thatthat role is of high quality, is an expert, is able to assess


suitability and risk for various different interventions,and is then able to manage that risk. That is an importantpart of it.

Quality assurance is key, and you know that Respecthas a set of standards for perpetrator work. When newinterventions come up, we have to flex those standardsand think about what is appropriate for the new types ofwork. It is really important that there is quality assurancearound the DAPOs and the role. That means reallythinking hard about what those positive requirementsmight be. Is it a range of requirements? What I wouldlike to see, and what we have advised the Home Officeon already, is not just having a one-size-fits-all shortintervention, which I think is the risk, but having atyour disposal the kind of things we have talked aboutalready that Drive has got. You could just say, “You cango on this behaviour change programme for six weeks,”or something like that, but if someone is not suitable fora behaviour change programme because they are resistantto change and their lifestyle is chaotic, there is no pointputting them on one. They will sabotage the wholeprocess for everyone who wants to be on it. In that case,the disrupt and the case management element of Drivewould be suitable.

I would like the DAPO to have the flexibility to beable to say, “You are suitable for this and this, but notthis, this and this.” Obviously, it all takes resource to beable to do those assessments. I am plugging the call toaction and strategy on perpetrators, but if the Governmentwere able to comprehensively write a strategy onperpetrators, it would cover all those things, ensure arange of activities and have to be in every geographicalarea, and that is a real challenge; that is really resource-intensive, but I think you would see results.

We know the costs of domestic abuse are astronomical—Iam sure everyone in this room knows the £66 billion ayear figure that the Home Office published earlier in theyear. I do not think the public realise that £66 million isfrittered away on the social and economic impacts ofdomestic abuse. If we were to use some of that moneyin a proactive and strategic way to address the causeof the problem—the perpetrator—we would start to getsomewhere.

Q108 Carolyn Harris: We know that victims changethe way that they behave to stop a perpetrator abusingthem. What can we put into legislation to put theemphasis on change on the perpetrator and not thevictim?

Jo Todd: Some of it—some of the things I havementioned—goes alongside the legislation. Domesticabuse legislation is focused on responding to abuse thathas already happened, which of course is really important,but we need to prevent it from happening or stop ithappening again if it has already started. That is hardto put into legislation. Some things have been suggested,such as polygraph testing—that is in the Bill at themoment.

I think you could spend your money a lot more wiselythan on polygraph testing, and really think about GPStracking. It has been piloted around the world, but inSpain in particular, and has been very successful. Incase you do not know, because technology has movedon so much and we are all running to keep up with it,the tags that people on probation can have when theyare released into the community can restrict them from

going into wide geographical areas. You can put protectionsaround victims, such as a 10-mile radius, or saying thathe is not allowed in a certain town or cannot go wherethe school, the hospital or her mum’s house is, and allthe travel in between those places. You can programmethose tags. I would like money to be put into thosekinds of things. If probation took forward technologicaladvances, that would be really interesting to pilot, ratherthan polygraph testing. I didn’t know if anyone wouldask me about that, so I thought I would get it in.

I keep coming back to quality assurance, but if I wasputting anything into the Bill, it would be around thestandards for work with perpetrators and the commissioningguidance around that. At the moment, commissionersare sometimes flailing. They want to do the right thing, butthey have limited budgets. It is great when commissionerstake notice of our standards—quite a lot do—but theyare not compelled to, so some do not. Standards thatare looking at safe and effective practice need moremoney than quick, cheap options.

I would look at putting an amendment in the Bill onquality assurance in perpetrator work. I have had aconversation today with the Domestic Abuse Commissioneron how that might fit with her role and with heroversight. There is still a bit of thinking to do aboutthat, so I would be happy to take that forward with theHome Office, although we have all been watching thenews today and are not sure where we will be in a fewweeks’ time, but the positive thing is that everyone—inthis room, it is a cross-party group—wants to take thisBill forward. Whoever ends up in government, andwhatever form of Government we end up with, I amhoping will take forward the Bill. Again, that is somethingthat the sector would appreciate some reassurance on.We will all be knocking on the doors of the peoplewriting the manifestos really soon, to get some of thethings that we want from the Bill into manifestos. Youwill be expecting us, I am sure. Does that answer yourquestion?

Q109 Carolyn Harris: Yes, that is brilliant—I willgive you a rest now. Ms McCarron, we have alreadydiscussed—something that came as a huge shock tome—that we do not keep stats for victims over 74 yearsof age, which is obviously something we have to look atremedying. How do we gather the data? What can we doto ensure that we have ways of identifying elderly peoplewho are victims of domestic violence? Is it as simple asan IDVA—an independent domestic violence adviser—ina casualty unit? What can we do?

Emily McCarron: I am not a statistician, so I cannotadvise on the exact statistical methods, but there areopportunities with IDVAs, as you imply. We are alsotrying to raise the opportunity within the healthcaresetting to better detect where domestic abuse of olderpeople is occurring. Admission and discharge are criticalpoints, when the experience of domestic abuse of olderpeople can be picked up by healthcare professionals, sothat is an opportunity potentially for data to be collectedon, or certainly for more understanding of, the incidenceof domestic abuse. That is why—for that point—we arecalling for healthcare professionals to receive specificand ongoing training so that they can identify whendomestic abuse is occurring, and so that they can bettersupport older people.


The same goes for IDVAs. We know that only 5% ofthe people who seek support from IDVAs are over theage of 60, which is extremely low, so there is an opportunityhere also to boost that role, particularly in the healthcaresetting, where older people are likely to turn up withdomestic abuse issues. Many older people are perhapsreliant financially or physically on perpetrators for financialor care support, and go to GP appointments with theperpetrator perhaps, but when they go to hospital,perhaps alone for the first time, there is an opportunityto intervene, to see what is going on and to see whatsupport can be provided.

Q110 Carolyn Harris: Do you know that in Walesthere is quite a big training programme on domesticviolence training? Is it better in Wales, because we havemore people trained to identify victims?

Emily McCarron: I cannot comment on the specificsituation in Wales. We have identified a gap overall inthe NHS, which could be providing much more training—orthere is an opportunity for those healthcare professionalsto intervene and to provide support, as well as toidentify.

Q111 Sarah Newton: Actually, I can answer yourquestion, Carolyn. Yes, it is very good in Wales, becausethey have compulsory IRIS—Identification and Referralto Improve Safety—training in the NHS, which is definitelysomething we should do in the England NHS. That iswhy they have got the highest detection rates in the UKof domestic abuse among older people.

Emily, you gave us very good written evidence on adifferent type of domestic abuse for older people fromwhat we have been talking about. We have very muchbeen talking about intimate partners, and this is reallyabout adult family members abusing the older membersof their family, or people with disabilities in their family.Perhaps you could talk to us a bit about what you knowabout that and the prevalence of it. What more do weneed to do to reflect on it? For the first time, that type ofdomestic abuse is being captured in legislation.

Emily McCarron: We know that domestic abuse is agendered crime. However, at Age UK we receive abouttwo calls a day from older people, their families andtheir support about this issue. Older men and women,as they age, are more likely to experience domesticabuse at the hands of family members—not just intimatepartners. Older people are almost equally as likely to bekilled by a partner or spouse as by their adult childrenor grandchildren. We are very pleased to see the definitionof domestic abuse expanded, particularly with regard tothe inclusion of statutory inquiries into suspected financialabuse, which is very relevant to older people.

We would like that definition to be expanded furtherso that it recognises the whole array of family relationshipsand the complexities and vulnerabilities that arise inthose relationships as a person ages and their care needsdevelop and change. We are calling for the definitionto be expanded to include abuse that is perpetratednot just by family members and intimate partners, butcarers, because they provide care in a domestic settingto a person whose vulnerability has increased as theyhave aged. That is why we are calling for the definitionto be expanded. We must recognise that older peopleexperience domestic abuse not just at the hands ofintimate partners; it is a new array of family members,neighbours, friends and carers.

Q112 Vernon Coaker: Emily, could you say a littleabout the difficulty with elderly people disclosing thefact that they are victims of this sort of abuse, and howdifficult that must be? This morning, somebody raisedthe issue of older people, and I think this is a problemas you get older—hopefully, younger people have adifferent attitude, which is that you don’t suffer insilence. Have you made any estimate of the number ofpeople that this affects? What initiatives have you foundthat have made a difference? What can we do about it,given that it is not only physical abuse and the economicabuse that Sarah was just talking about, but emotionalabuse, control and those sorts of things?

Emily McCarron: You are right to say that olderpeople often suffer in silence because they face a rangeof barriers to reporting the abuse. In many instances, itmight be that they have suffered from the abuse for avery long time and are simply resigned to it or feel thatno one is really listening to them. They might be veryfrightened. It is also the case that some older peoplehave cognitive and physical decline, which makes itmuch harder to report. We know that there are very fewservices available to older people. We have reports fromolder people that they think that domestic abuse servicesare not for them; they think they are for youngerwomen and do not want to take up the places ofyounger women and children, so are reluctant to reportthe abuse. It is also due to fear and a reliance onpeople financially. In many instances, they might notwant to leave the perpetrator, so it is about what thecorrect response to that person’s needs is. That is whywe are calling for a better response from healthcareprofessionals.

As it stands, the Bill is very focused on the criminaljustice response, and that may not always be the onlyresponse that is right for older people. We are calling forbetter co-ordination and links between the criminaljustice system, the healthcare system and local authorities,for a more co-ordinated response that is also linked upto social care, which obviously plays a part.

We are also calling for greater links with local authorities.At the moment, the possibility of domestic abuse is notalways fully considered in assessments under the CareAct 2014, so we are calling for a better understanding ofit. Certainly some successful training programmes havebeen delivered specifically to train people up on theneeds of older people, because it is not always thecriminal justice response that is needed.

Q113 Huw Merriman: Emily, may I take you back toyour suggestion that the definition be widened to includecarers? I can absolutely see the logic of that, but is therenot a danger? Currently, “personally connected”effectivelymeans being or having been in a relationship or being arelative. If you extended that to carers, why would younot extend it to people who provide paid services to thehome, for example? There is a danger that you go from“personally connected” towards “comes into contact”.Where would you stop? I wonder if you have thoughtabout that in terms of extending the definition.

Emily McCarron: We have. We see that there is a rolefor the Care Quality Commission to play in ensuringsufficient safeguards for professionals who provide paidprofessional care. We are going on the evidence we seeat Age UK, on what the calls to our information and


advice service tell us, and on case studies. We are seeingthat, in addition to intimate partner abuse, older peopleraise concerns about the abuse they experience at thehands of unpaid carers. I can see that there would besome concerns about how far that goes, but we are justgoing on the evidence.

We see that older people are experiencing abuse at thehands of their carers. As I have said, that is related totheir vulnerabilities, and often that person is the onlyperson who they see—they are not in contact withmany other people. We are seeing evidence of the samecoercive control and of older people adapting theirbehaviour to deal with the abuse that they experience—forexample, sticking to their rooms and avoiding all conflict.That is exactly the same pattern of abuse and coercivecontrol that we see in other examples of domestic abuse.That is really what is driving our desire for this amendmentto expand the definition of abuse.

Q114 Huw Merriman: Clearly, this is an area that youwould think needs addressing. Did you consider whetherthere are other vehicles to address that point or is thisneatly fitting?

Emily McCarron: I do not think that it is ever neat—Ido not necessarily think that anything fits neatly intothis area. There are other opportunities beyond the Bill.There are opportunities to look at the guidance for theCare Act and how we address that. There are alsodiscussions around the definition of coercive controland whether that is always in the domestic setting. TheBill provides an opportunity to improve the lives ofolder people who are experiencing domestic abuse. Thatis why we are focusing on this as a vehicle to make somechange and have some relevance to the lives of olderpeople who are experiencing abuse.

Q115 Gillian Keegan: There is no doubt that this is avery big area that is relatively new in terms of ourconsidering it. As you say, older people are definitelymuch more vulnerable, particularly with regard to intimatecare. They are much more isolated, and I guess they aremore conscious and concerned about loneliness too,which could be the consequences of taking any action. Ihave encountered a number of distressing cases involvingeither carers and the abuse of elderly victims, or otherresidents abusing people’s relatives in care homes. Obviously,the Government want to ensure that we get this rightand make domestic abuse everybody’s business in orderto try to identify and help victims, and I suppose that iseven more critical with elderly people. What do youthink needs to change to ensure that the response toolder victims is as good as it can be? How do you see therole of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in helpingus on that journey?

Emily McCarron: The first step is the need to correctlyidentify that this is happening. A budget of £100,000was allocated to support older people experiencingdomestic abuse. While we are certainly not arguing forresources to be diverted away from younger people, thatindicated to us that this is not recognised as an issue. Inpart, as I have explained, that is a data issue: we just donot quite know how many older people experiencedomestic abuse. We have quite a stark figure that one infour victims of domestic homicides are over the age

of 60. We believe that is a consequence of the factthat older people are not accessing the services theyneed.

Really, this is about recognising that this is an issuefor older people, that it is quite a hidden issue, that moreneeds to be done and that their particular needs must berecognised in terms of the response. The response shouldnot just be a criminal justice response; it should also beabout healthcare, social care, housing and the provisionof services. On asking the commissioner, this is aboutrecognising the issue and allocating resources—or theGovernment response—in accordance with the numberof older people who experience it. It is quite a starkissue, but it is still very hidden.

Q116 The Chair: Are there any further Members whowish to ask questions of the witnesses? If not, is thereanything you wish to add that the Committee has notcovered?

Jo Todd: I would like to mention something aboutculture change. It is really easy to focus on individuals.The Bill is a real opportunity for the Government andsociety to reflect on what it is to have a healthy relationship.That is about equality. A lot of the reason we talk aboutgender all the time is that domestic abuse is a cause anda consequence of women’s inequality. There is a broaderlandscape around this issue. I think addressing that,alongside the measures we are looking at in terms ofindividuals, would help a lot. If we are talking aboutindividual relationships, shared decision making, andhaving equality in the relationship, an unhealthy andabusive relationship is where there is an expectation ofone partner having control and power in the relationship,and that their entitlement to make decisions for thefamily and for the other people in the relationshipoverrides everything else. We increasingly recognise thatit is the control at the heart of an abusive relationshipthat is the problem, and the violence or abuse—economicabuse or whatever it is—is just a part of the mechanismfor maintaining control.

So there is a bigger piece of work—it was mentionedearlier—about Government campaigns. There really isa mixed method approach to trying to shift the societywe live in and the views that we all have, whether it is theolder or younger generation. We are all from differentgenerations in this room, and there is no generation thathas got this right, so there needs to be a nationaldialogue about what healthy relationships are so thateveryone knows what they are. And there needs to becampaigning targeted at perpetrators, or people whomight end up as perpetrators, that gives very clearmessages.

The Met police did a campaign probably 12 or 15 yearsago that was directed at perpetrators. They put it ontube platforms and it had a really positive recognitionrate among men. Media testing of how campaigns hadworked found that it had a really positive impact, butwe have not seen much since that is aimed at perpetrators.When you think about the Bill, I encourage you to thinkabout a broader package of what the Government canachieve. We want services and the statutory response tovictims, perpetrators and children to be as good as theycan be, but we also need the wider conversation tohappen.

Q117 The Chair: Any final word, Emily, before weconclude?


Emily McCarron: I have been talking about olderpeople and in particular a response to domestic abusethat moves beyond the criminal justice response. Althoughwe have advocated for the needs of older people, lookingat healthcare, housing, social care, the local authorityresponse and the need for a multi-agency response andbetter co-ordination, this does not only benefit olderpeople; it benefits all those who experience domesticabuse. There is a real opportunity for the Bill to meetthose needs and bring real change.

The Chair: I am grateful to the two witnesses for theircontributions, which brings us to the end of the proceedingsfor oral evidence today.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

4.38 pm

Adjourned till Thursday 31 October at half-past Eleveno’clock.


Written evidence reported to the House

DAB01 Transform Justice

DAB02 Equi-law UK

DAB03 Amnesty International UK

DAB04 Step Up Migrant Women Coalition

DAB05 Prison Reform Trust

DAB06 The ManKind Initiative

DAB07 Dogs Trust

DAB08 Dr Tirion Havard, Senior Lecturer at LondonSouth Bank University

DAB09 Refugee Council



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


DOMESTIC ABUSE BILL

Third Sitting

Thursday 31 October 2019

CONTENTS

Motion not to proceed with further consideration of the Bill agreed to.

Motion to agree to Special Report agreed to.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 002) 2019 - 2020


not later than

Monday 4 November 2019





Chairs: SIR DAVID AMESS, † DAVID HANSON



Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab)



† Harris, Carolyn (Swansea East) (Lab)Hughes, Eddie (Walsall North) (Con)Jardine, Christine (Edinburgh West) (LD)Johnson, Diana (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)† Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con)† Keegan, Gillian (Chichester) (Con)


State for Justice)Newton, Sarah (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)Norris, Alex (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)Saville Roberts, Liz (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)† Scully, Paul (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)Smith, Eleanor (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)

Joanna Dodd, Rob Page, Committee Clerks




Thursday 31 October 2019

[MR DAVID HANSON in the Chair]

Domestic Abuse Bill

11.30 am

The Chair: Because of the impending general election,Committee proceedings have changed today.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for theHome Department (Victoria Atkins): I beg to move,

That the Committee do not proceed further with the considerationof the Bill.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,Mr Hanson, albeit briefly. Following the decision of theHouse to hold a general election, it is only right that aPublic Bill Committee in the new Parliament shouldscrutinise the Bill thoroughly. The motion before theCommittee therefore removes the sittings up to Dissolution.The witnesses who were due to give evidence todayhave, of course, been notified.

This vital piece of legislation has the potential to help2 million victims of domestic abuse in this country. Iwant to reassure victims, survivors and all who workwith them that the Government will continue with thislegislation in the next Parliament. I thank the Clerks fortheir assiduous work, and I thank the Badge Messengers,Hansard and the Bill team. I thank colleagues—even inone day, they showed their attention to detail with ourwitnesses—and I thank the witnesses who gave evidence.I thank my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member

for Aldridge-Brownhills, as well as the shadow Minister,the Opposition Whip and my own Whip—I have learnedthat lesson. Finally, I thank you, Mr Hanson, andSir David for chairing our Committee, albeit briefly.

Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab): On behalf ofthe Opposition, I, too, extend thanks to the Clerks, theChairmen, the Committee staff and Committee membersfor their attendance. This is a really important Bill. It isonly right that we make this decision, but we lookforward to returning to the Bill straight after the generalelection.

Victoria Atkins: I do apologise; I must also thank mywonderful officials, who have worked so hard. I thankthem very much indeed.

The Chair: I add that the Scrutiny Unit has also donea good job in preparing a range of detailed information.None of the work that has been done in preparationfor this Bill will be lost, because, as the Minister said, itwill be revisited. We will see which Members are on aCommittee in due course. I wish everybody every successfor the future.

Question put and agreed to.

The Chair: The Committee must now agree a specialreport to be made to the House.

Ordered,

That the Committee agree the Special Report as on the paperbefore the Committee and that the Chair do report the Bill to theHouse.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

11.33 am

Committee rose.


Written evidence reported to the House

DAB10 Children’s Commissioner

DAB11 Changing Lives

DAB12 SafeLives

DAB13 Nagalro (the Professional Association for Children’sGuardians, Family Court Advisers and IndependentSocial Workers)

DAB14 Brian Maloney

DAB15 The Magistrates Association

DAB16 Andrew Todd

DAB17 Agenda, the alliance for women and girls at risk

DAB18 Parity

DAB19 Centre for Women’s Justice

DAB20 Refuge


parliamentary debates · † scully, paul (sutton and cheam) (con) † smith, eleanor...

Documents