Rachel Woods
North Down · Green Party · Northern Ireland
“We have to get it right, but we are not starting from scratch. We only have to look across the water or down the road to the public and private sectors that already offer that type of leave. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the comments of other Members.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is time to end the coercive control that criminal gangs have over our communities. Victim and survivors' voices must be heard and reflected in our laws and policies. Minority groups should not be sidelined or silenced. We need to educate from a very young age.”
“There is no direct cost to employers from safe leave, and it is needed to deal with the issues related to abuse. We need to destigmatise abuse and tackle root causes, misogyny and toxic masculinity. <BR /> <BR />I agree with Mr Weir's comments. We should not need to have the protections in place.”
“I thank every Member who spoke during the debate for their comments and support for the Bill. I will address the Minister's comments first. I thank him for being here, and I am glad that he is feeling better. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly cares, and we need to work constructively together to help.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said at Second Stage, period poverty must be viewed through the lens of children's rights and how the Bill meets our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).”
“<BR /> <BR />I take this opportunity at Final Stage to thank officials and members of the councils who took the time to discuss with me their policies, the background to them and how they are working in practice: thank you for everything that you are doing for your staff, and I hope that, should the Bill pass, your regional Parliaments an…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,434 lines we hold for Rachel Woods, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 29.
“In order to ensure that the Executive, future Executives and future Ministers commit to the effective operation of the Bill and to supporting victims, the amendment makes specific reference to the need for sufficient resources to be made available. It is not prescriptive as it does not state an amount or a percentage; it refers to "sufficient" resources — something that is reasonable and proportionate. I cannot stress enough the importance of adequately resourcing all agencies, bodies and organisations — statutory and voluntary — that are involved in the disposal of this new offence in tackling domestic abuse more broadly. It was put to us at the Committee many times.”
“A majority of respondents to the Committee consultation mentioned resources, and, as I said on the Committee amendment, I spoke to key stakeholders in Scotland, where every police officer and judge has been trained in the new domestic abuse law, and they said the same.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. As a relatively new MLA, I may not be familiar with the internal workings of how resources are allocated among Departments for specific issues, but it is my understanding that the Assembly passes the Budget and ultimately decides where resources go. <BR /> <BR />I go back to the amendment. People fall through cracks when there are some. Vulnerable people fall through cracks. That cannot be allowed to happen. Amendment No 22 would prevent that from being the case or, at least, allow it not to happen. <BR /> <BR />As we have heard in the debate on the Committee amendments, an overwhelming amount of evidence submitted to the Committee stressed the importance of training and resources in making sure that the law is implemented properly and protects victims.”
“I thank the Minister and the Speaker for their interventions. Mr Speaker, if you wanted to comment on that at a later stage, I would welcome that. <BR /> <BR />My point is that the finances are provided by the House. I am asking not for specific details of how those finances are designated but that agencies be properly resourced. If the agencies are not adequately resourced but are tasked with rolling out a new offence, enforcing it, supporting it, policing it, getting prosecutions and protecting victims, there will be gaps. It is people who fall through gaps. Of that, we are all too aware.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention, but at no point did I say that resourcing would be ring-fenced for training. This is about the effective operation of the Act: something entirely different. <BR /> <BR />If the agencies tasked with rolling out a new offence, enforcing it —.”
“It is essential that people understand what coercive control is and are able to recognise and identify the signs of coercive and controlling abusive behaviour. Otherwise, what changes? The friendly amendment that I have proposed is to add in the word "resources" to Committee amendment No 21, which proposes a new clause on the training of policing and criminal justice agencies. When it comes to tackling a problem as complex and insidious as domestic abuse, passing a law can achieve only so much. Allocating sufficient funding is another way, so, by putting that amendment in the Bill, we avoid a scenario in which underfunding or a scarcity of resources prevents the law working effectively.”
“That brings me back to what Mr Allister said. This requires in-depth knowledge, training, information and practice. <BR /> <BR />In my personal communications with the lead prosecutor in Scotland, whom I thank for her time over the past few months, and the head of a key stakeholder organisation in that jurisdiction, time and time again, it was reiterated that the successful implementation of the legislation in Scotland and the reason that the new offence is working well all hinged on the extensive training that was carried out. Similarly, in my communication with members of the criminal justice system, when I asked what the ideal outcome of the Bill would be, the key issue that was identified was getting convictions without delay, but the key ask was for training and resourcing. <BR /> <BR />The need for the amendment is clear.”
“New legislation on that came into effect last year, and I received a lot of training on GDPR in a variety of jobs. That was all different, all required and all necessary. Only two weeks ago, I received additional training on it as a refresher, and I intend to continue to train myself on it and get information from relevant people. It is important and is part of my job. Perhaps I will have some questions, or perhaps something has changed. Perhaps I thought that I understood something differently. While that is a terrible analogy for domestic abuse and coercive control, it shows what may happen if people are not regularly trained on something that is so new and so different to what we had before on such a particular issue, where it may mean recognising harmful behaviour that meets the criteria when the very victim does not recognise it.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, and I agree with him entirely. I point to the fact that, in Scotland, it took a year between the passage of the Bill and its implementation to train everyone, and I recognise the efforts that are already ongoing with, say, specialist domestic abuse courts already happening. <BR /> <BR />To go back to the matter of dictating the detail, we are not saying that in this Committee amendment. However, we are saying that it requires Departments to fund them properly, which is why I tabled amendment No 22. I do not believe that annual mandatory training makes for a tick-box exercise. That is done only when it is made to be that way. Let us take, for example, GDPR, a subject with which most Members here will be familiar.”
“All staff, other than the director and the deputy director, are members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, funded by the Department of Finance. While I appreciate that we cannot dictate to the judiciary how they are trained, I urge training in the new offence to be implemented for each and every member. They did it in Scotland, and they can do it here. My point is that, although it is not for the Department to dictate to independent entities, which covers off the judiciary, but it does not cover off Assembly-funded agencies. I also have sympathy with the Department not being able to dictate the detail. That is, of course, not what we are saying.”
“I agree that it is not for the Department to dictate, but those entities, namely the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service and the PSNI, are funded entirely by the Department of Justice. Funding for the PPS is provided by the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
“The Minister's letter to the Committee regarding mandatory training makes a crucial point, and one that I agree with:”
“Saying that it will happen is no guarantee that it will, whereas putting a commitment or a duty to provide training in statute provides something of a guarantee that it will. The question is whether or not it strengthens the Bill, and I believe that it does. <BR /> <BR />In a letter from the Minister to the Justice Committee on 1 November, the Minister indicated that she would not support the amendment and was going to bring forward her own amendment. She wrote:”
“He said that the training would be online and classroom-based and would be rolled out from December. Particular roles would receive specialist training, where required. <BR /> <BR />Training of the PPS, PSNI and judiciary is crucial to the effective implementation of the legislation. That was fundamental to the effective rolling out and adoption of the Scottish legislation, the so-called gold standard. <BR /> <BR />Mr Givan outlined the Committee's view that, given its importance to the effective operation of the legislation, there should be a mandatory requirement in relation to training, and we agreed to table an amendment, which I welcome. <BR /> <BR />Similarly with the reporting amendment. The Department claimed that placing training on a statutory footing was not required but gave no reason other than to say that it would happen.”
“It is intended that there will be specialist training, most likely provided by specialist organisations, to focus on the impact and effects on victims of coercive and controlling behaviour. The PPS, in its written and oral evidence to the Committee, said that it was considering establishing specialist domestic violence and abuse prosecutors to dovetail with the new legislation. I welcome that. <BR /> <BR />The PSNI, too, recognises that officer training on the definition of the new offence, with examples of the behaviour that it involves, will be pivotal to the successful enforcement of the legislation. The Chief Con, attending the Committee on 24 September 2020, outlined the training being developed to familiarise front-line officers with what coercive and controlling behaviour looks like.”
“It said that discussions were being held with the Judicial Studies Board to raise awareness, including what lessons could be learned from other jurisdictions. We also discussed the need for consistency in the use of any discretionary power to prohibit cross-examination in person. That was shared with the Judicial Studies Board, and I welcome that. <BR /> <BR />The Department said that the PSNI continually trains officers in regard to dealing with domestic abuse. As a result of the 2019 thematic inspection of the handling of domestic violence and abuse cases by CJINI, the PSNI is developing a domestic abuse training programme focusing on new officers and first responders. <BR /> <BR />We were advised that the PPS would deliver domestic abuse training to all lawyers to cover the new aspects of the legislation.”
“Legislation is only as good as its implementation, the ability to understand it, the resourcing of it and its enforcement. Legislation can be passed but have a limited impact if there is insufficient public awareness and understanding of how it works and what it means. Therefore, whilst we create an offence in the Bill, namely criminalising domestic abuse and coercive control, it is fundamental that the general public, the victims, our Police Service and our criminal justice agencies know about it and, crucially, that our judicial system knows about it. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Justice advised the Committee that it recognised the importance of training but did not consider a requirement for it in statute.”
“I would support the provision being extended to cover other educational settings where children and young people attend such as colleges, preschool, nurseries and so on, if that is deemed to be required. If we need further regulations or, indeed, further amendments to the legislation to cover individual incidents rather than two or more, as set out in clauses 1 to 4, I would welcome those being included in the justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill or at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />Turning to training and resourcing, during Committee proceedings, a wide range of organisations highlighted the need for comprehensive training for anyone involved in gathering evidence, prosecuting and enforcing the new law, and they expressed the view that the legislation would be effective only if that takes place, and I completely agree.”
“I want to touch on a few things before getting into amendments that I have tabled and others have referenced. <BR /> <BR />Operation Encompass, as others have stated, is a scheme that is in place in two thirds of police forces in England and Wales, and we need to have it here. I do not need to go into the detail of it, but support in the school environment means that children are better safeguarded against the short-, medium- and long-term effects of domestic abuse, and that is, of course, welcome. Whilst I had queries about the legislative gap, which I outlined, with regard to the Children's Services Co-operation Act 2015, I welcome the Committee amendment, if it does what is needed. If further changes or alterations are needed to make the clause as effective as possible, I look forward to those being made at Further Consideration Stage.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I was going to address this in my speech later, but the lack of well-being provision has been brought up. Provision for well-being is already on our statute book. The Children's Services Co-operation Act received Royal Assent in 2015. It was brought to the House by my predecessor, Steven Agnew. The stated aim of that Act is:”
“I encourage all Members to support amendment No 14 at this stage. We must make the Bill victim-focused.”
“It also said that the types of evidence that might be specified include a letter from a health professional or organisation that provides support services to victims of domestic abuse. The multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) programme could also be used. In that programme, a number of statutory bodies such as the PPS, the public protection unit and the PSNI use a victim-focused meeting to assess risk, identify a safety plan and refer on. I will engage with those groups. <BR /> <BR />I believe that, if any changes or more detail are required, it can be done at Further Consideration Stage. My argument for its having to go in at Consideration Stage is the same as Mr Givan's argument on interim protection for victims. If it is not in legislation, how will we be guaranteed that it will happen?”
“<BR /> <BR />I note that the power is also written into the Bill by the Department by the insertion of article 11A on future regulations on court proceedings. It is, therefore, already in the Bill under clause 26. It is the prohibition of cross-examination in family proceedings, with the Department having a duty to bring forward regulations that specify what evidence of domestic abuse will be sufficient for the purposes of the court prohibiting cross-examination by the perpetrator. In response to Women's Aid's concern about what a specified defence will be, the Department has stated that regulations will not be drafted until the Bill becomes law and that they will be consulted on.”
“<BR /> <BR />I understand that Members may also have concerns about how a victim is defined for the purposes of applying the waiver. The text of the amendment is open in that regard. In my view, it is important to be wary of how prescriptive it is, because that would have the potential to exclude. Committee members have had that argument put to them on a number of things that they wanted to be included in the Bill. I pick up on what Mr Frew said about stalking, strangulation and so on. We cannot be prescriptive. We also had that argument about the insertion of coercive control, and that argument was successfully made by the Department. The Legal Services Agency needs clarity on that in order to operate the waiver effectively. I will continue to engage with them on that to ensure that it is practicable.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Women's Aid research, which I mentioned, noted that 80% of women surveyed in the family courts were receiving legal aid. The study is outdated, and we need more up-to-date figures, but, if we are to assume that one in five of abuse victims who find themselves in the family courts in relation to child orders would benefit from the amendment to introduce the waiver, I do not think that we would be talking about gigantic sums of money. I also encourage Members to reflect on the big difference that this could make to victims and survivors who find themselves in that situation. I do not think that you can put a price on preventing abuse or putting a stop to the awful scenario in which victims are having their finances drained through the legal costs of their former abuser dragging them through the courts.”
“I thank the Members for their interventions. Ms Bradley's point brings us into the group 3 amendments and the importance of reporting and having adequate data on the functioning of the Bill. One thing that we are trying to get is the current number of uptakes of the waiver in relation to non-mols. My researcher has been fundamental to this, and I put on record my thanks to him. I would not be standing here today without him. He has found that the take-up of non-mols is not what it could be. I ask the Minister to comment on that. It is my understanding that the Legal Services Agency is trying its best to spread awareness and boost take-up among solicitors, but, clearly, there are victims and survivors who could access that financial support for protection orders but are not doing so.”
“I thank the Member and the Minister for their interventions. To comment on the demand-led service and adding to that demand, it is adding to the demand where it is needed for victims. I do not believe that I have asked for the legal aid services bill to be reduced. That is a different matter.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. No, I cannot. I have been trying to obtain calculations and figures from the Legal Services Agency that could be used to come up with more sensible estimates, but I am still waiting to hear back from it. Again, I would welcome input and help from the Department, the Minister and the Committee in bringing this back for further clarification at the Further Consideration Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />First, on costs, I was extremely disappointed to hear the words "double-figure millions" last week. There was no rationale or basis given for that figure other than the fact that the waiver would be uncapped. Guesstimates such as this are unhelpful, but as Paul Frew pointed out at the time, if this really is the scale of the problem, then it strengthens the case to do something —.”
“It is not right that former abusers can use the courts to drain their finances and retraumatise them. I believe that the amendment will go some way to provide the help and support and access to justice that they deserve. <BR /> <BR />I understand that some Members will have concerns around the cost and who the waiver will apply to, or, to put it simply: how do you define a victim? Clearly, these are issues that will need further work, and, in many respects they are interlinked. I would, of course, welcome further engagement with the Minister, the Department and the Committee as to how these things can be clarified should the amendment be made. I believe that these issues can be resolved, and I urge Members to consider the principle and the merit of the amendment.”
“This amendment would grant victims the right to access legal aid and take away some of the burden of what they are going through. I recognise that the amendment does not, and cannot, address the entire issue, but it will go some way to help victims and survivors. It would give the director of legal aid services discretion to disapply the financial eligibility rules for civil legal aid where the client is a victim of abuse and involved in court proceedings relating to the child disputes. This is exactly what currently happens when a victim requires a non-molestation order for their protection. Members, it already exists, it is not new. Many survivors are vulnerable single parents with modest incomes and with mouths to feed and whose job or occupation means that they fall outside of what is currently deemed to be eligible.”
“I am more than happy to look at expanding this to take into account the reality of financial abuse, which is outlined in this offence. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to another aspect of the comments on contribution of costs. This aspect misses the point, and it has been addressed. Abusers often leave or refuse work in order to financially abuse and bankrupt victims through the courts. We are talking not about people with a lot of money but about victims and survivors who may be teachers, nurses, admin staff or hospitality staff. Depending on their circumstances, earnings and savings, that could mean that they are not eligible for legal aid, and, all the while, their abuser keeps bringing them to court. Their legal fees continue to rise while the financial and psychological harm to them continues.”
“<BR /> <BR />The system, as it sits, is, effectively, saying to victims, "We will provide you with financial support to obtain a non-molestation order, but you cannot receive any financial help for child dispute cases if you fall outside the financial limits". Those limits currently stand at any disposable earnings over £234 per week and disposable capital over £3,000 for the lower courts. We are not talking about people missing out because they have a lot of money. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that this might be a catalyst for further reform. I welcome that, and I raised it at Committee. However, what if, on paper, it looks like you are loaded? What if it looks as though you have thousands of pounds in the bank, but you do not because your finances are being controlled by your abuser.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Rest assured that the amendment makes absolutely no distinction between men and women. This is a victim-focused amendment, and the Bill should also be victim-focused. <BR /> <BR />As I mentioned, under article 10 of the 2015 regulations, the director of legal aid services can disapply financial eligibility rules for victims of abuse in the case of non-molestation orders, but there is no such help or support when it comes to child orders. That means that victims and survivors of abuse who have modest incomes or savings are falling outside the financial eligibility limits and have no recourse to legal aid.”
“<BR /> <BR />We cannot stand by and allow this to continue. It is an awful, tragic ordeal that no victim or survivor who has done everything that they can to leave an abusive situation should have to endure. Many will have to take time off work to attend court or pay for childcare. As legal costs for their solicitor pile up, the strain on their finances increases, and therefore their means of providing for their children get more squeezed. The amendment, through allowing victims to access legal aid, would go some way to remedy and help to prevent that injustice.”
“As one support organisation expressed to my researcher, "They are being bled dry", and that puts an enormous strain on their mental and physical health and their ability to care and provide for their children, not to mention revisiting all the trauma through having to see and be present with their former abuser in a court setting. I also have friends who have been in that situation. For 10 years, I have had to listen to a close friend who has been dragged through the courts and bled dry to the extent that she had to give up her job. I thank Hannah, which is not her real name, who contacted me yesterday. I thank her for getting in touch with me recently. It is devastating to hear what some victims and survivors have had to endure. Her story is very similar to the one that I have just outlined.”
“She feels that it is in the interests of solicitors to take the cases and prolong them. Joanne said that, in her view, it would be in her interest for cases to conclude more quickly, but she is so concerned for the well-being of her children that she will fight them. She feels that there is enough evidence to show that he is using the court system to further the abuse, but his parental rights seem to trump everything that is good for the child. <BR /> <BR />Joanne's experience mirrors those of other victims and survivors who have no access to legal aid while their former abusers do. That is absolutely abhorrent. It is totally unacceptable that anyone should have to endure that.”
“He gets legal aid, but Joanne is not eligible as she works, so she has to pay the legal expenses and childcare costs and to take time off work. He went through with the fourth case and was allowed unsupervised contact, but he has not gone ahead of the majority of the scheduled contacts. Joanne can apply to prohibit him from bringing any further orders against her to the family courts. Her solicitors are applying for two years, although their normal duration would be for one year, which means that she will face the same situation again and again, and that adds to trauma. Joanne has other examples of the cases that her ex has taken against her that are without merit, and she does not understand how he can continually be able to be funded through legal aid to take those cases.”
“On an occasion in child contact proceedings, Joanne was told that her evidence regarding domestic abuse, which included details of rape and other abuse, was not relevant to the case and was not proven. When supervised access was discussed, Joanne said that she would ask her child, who was then 12, how she would feel about it. However, the judge called her an "irresponsible parent" and was told that she would be required to ensure contact. The child's review does not matter, despite their having witnessed traumatic incidents. She feels that if you try and keep your children safe by withholding contact then you are being a bad parent. However, if they go and are subjected to abuse then you are a bad parent for not protecting your children. <BR /> <BR />Joanne's ex has taken three cases to the family court, which he subsequently dropped.”
“With regard to the evidence of abuse, she was told that the judge would not want to hear details of abusive text messages and was told that financial abuse was not relevant to her case. She said that:”
“Her ex just has to give her one of his looks to make her nervous, and he has done that whenever she has been giving evidence. She and her eldest child describe it as:”
“I also ask Members to consider the evidence provided at one of the informal meetings by someone whom I will call "Joanne" in order to protect her identity. I will quote her directly for the record. Joanne had a very poor experience of the family courts. She has been very nervous in being in the same building as the perpetrator, and she states that:”
“You will read some personal stories and quotes from victims and survivors in the 'Women's Voices' document, which was submitted by Women's Aid to the Committee in June. Here are some of the things that they said:”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. I welcome that. That is why I supported clauses 1 to 4, which include this type of abuse. However, it does not address the point that I will come to, which is the financial aspect. The judicial system has that option, but it is clearly not being utilised enough, which brings me on to a further point that I will make about amendment No 15 in group 3 about the requirement for training. <BR /> <BR />I am speaking about court cases that are not optional or elective. In fact, if you speak to advocacy and support organisations, such as Women's Aid or Victim Support, you will soon hear the extent to which some victims are dragged through the courts for no clear reason other than to further the abuse.”
“This behaviour, which should be recognised as a form of abuse in itself, is deeply damaging on a psychological and emotional level for the survivor of the abuse.”
“When orders are made that place restrictions on access, visitation and residence on former abusers, they can, of course, be appealed. That is the nature of our justice system, and it is important to reiterate that the amendment would in no way interfere with the rights of citizens to appeal or to challenge court decisions, nor does it tamper with the rights of appellants to seek legal aid. Those two things remain unchanged. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental problem with the nature of some of these cases and, indeed, others types of proceedings more generally relating to court orders. That is where a perpetrator continuously and relentlessly challenges decisions of the court or seeks other ways to heap pressure and strain on their former victim.”
“<BR /> <BR />That brings me to the amendment. The Bill in its current form does not address all the difficulties that are faced by victims in the justice system, and many issues remain with how the courts are used by former abusers and convicted perpetrators in order to further harm and inflict misery on survivors. The amendment deals with one of the most common methods used by perpetrators to further the abuse, that is, disputes over children and court proceedings relating to orders under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The most common court orders made under that legislation are, of course, child contact orders, which are tools that are essential to protect children who have been living in a violent or abusive domestic situation.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members may be aware that the Department introduced a waiver for financial eligibility limits for civil legal aid through regulations in 2015, which essentially means that those who are above the income and capital threshold who apply for non-molestation orders are still eligible for legal aid. That was an important step and reflected what Women's Aid was calling for at the time, namely the extension of the legal aid system to provide for free legal aid to women seeking protection orders. The study also identified significant wait times, women having to travel long distances in order to attend court and women having to attend court anything from six to 10 times, particularly with child contact cases. Indeed, the vast majority of the women surveyed were in court for child contact cases.”
“<BR /> <BR />Returning to the very brief discussion that we had on 17 September, I first want to elaborate on the main problem that the amendment seeks to resolve, which is perpetrators and former abusers exploiting the court system in order to further harm victims. In 2015, Women's Aid published research that looked at women's experience of the family court in Northern Ireland. It found that roughly one in five women did not have access to legal aid and that the respondents reported the cost of litigation as a deterrent to seeking court orders.”
“I totally agree. We do need to do something to address that, and that is why I tabled the amendment. At the time, I asked the Committee whether access to legal aid was something that we could look at, but I recognise that, with the sheer number of issues that are not covered in the Bill that we explored and deliberated on, somewhere along the line this one was overshadowed by focusing on working out potential improvements that would definitely fall within the Bill's scope. I also recognise that there may not have been the appropriate political consensus for me to try to push the issue further through the Committee's work, and that is why I came to table the amendment on my own.”