Domestic Abuse Bill — House of Lords, 2021-02-10
Topic: Civil Rights
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 185 in my name is a modest, simple amendment that would require the statutory guidance to take account of the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy alongside the existing requirement that the guidance takes account of the fact that the majority of domestic abuse victims and survivors are female. The latter was introduced by the Government in response to criticisms of the non-gendered nature of the Bill’s definition of domestic abuse, which my noble friend has been talking about so ably. The amendment has the support of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, to which I am grateful for its work in this area and its support, as I am to noble Lords who have signed the amendment. It also has the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and of the commissioner-designate, who has welcomed the amendment as ensuring that efforts to prevent and address domestic abuse are linked to an integrated and co-ordinated response to VAWG The coalition gives numerous examples of how domestic abuse is often experienced in the context of other forms of violence so that the two cannot be neatly separated out, especially in the case of black and minoritised women. These include the one-third of rapes going through the criminal justice system that were carried out in the context of domestic violence; forced marriages, which may involve coercive family control and abuse, rape and domestic violence; migrant women who have suffered domestic abuse, coercive control, sexual violence and financial exploitation combined; and the abuse of disabled women and girls, which also often involves rape and sexual violence While I support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Gale, I see my amendment very much as a bottom line. It goes a small way toward meeting the recommendation by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill that "there should be greater integration of policies on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls to reflect the realities of the experience of victims." As my noble friend pointed out, the Joint Committee made it clear that this did not mean excluding men, boys and non-binary people from domestic abuse protection. The Joint Committee suggested that: "The legislation and practice in Wales provide useful lessons in this area." In their response, the Government agreed that "it is vital to integrate policies on domestic abuse with wider VAWG issues, and our situation of domestic abuse policy within our VAWG Strategy demonstrates our recognition of the gendered nature of domestic abuse." In similar vein, as my noble friend observed, the 2020 report on progress toward ratification of the Istanbul convention placed the Domestic Abuse Bill firmly within the context of VAWG Yet it is now clear that the Government, far from integrating the two strategies, intend their revised VAWG strategy, on which they are currently consulting, to be separate from their domestic abuse strategy. This has caused consternation among women’s organisations and others working to end VAWG in all its forms. They see it as breaking a 10-year cross-party consensus around the need for an integrated approach to tackling domestic abuse and other forms of VAWG. That is rooted in an understanding of the reality of women’s experiences and of the kind of integrated services provided by specialist services, particularly those by and for black and minoritised women. They fear it will accelerate a shift to a more gender-neutral approach to domestic abuse and violence The separation also goes against the EHRC recommendation that there should be: "A single new cross-government VAWG strategy that addresses VAWG in all its forms, recognising domestic abuse as a form of VAWG, and the value of specialist by and for services" Furthermore, it is arguably at odds with Article 7(1) of the Istanbul convention, which requires Governments to adopt "comprehensive and co-ordinated policies encompassing all relevant measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention and offer a holistic response to violence against women." There is a clear consensus among those who work on the ground and other key organisations that this separation is a retrograde step. Ministers are well aware of the strength of feeling yet insist that they are right. Moreover, they have not even included this key change of policy in the consultation that they are currently conducting on the new VAWG strategy. Could the Minister explain why the Government are so sure that they are right that not only are they refusing to listen to key stakeholders but they have not even included this issue in the consultation?