6. Ms Rebecca Goshawk

MS REBECCA GOSHAWK (affirmed).

Questions From Counsel to the Inquiry

Ms Cecil: Thank you, Ms Goshawk. If you could state your name, please.

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Sure. Rebecca Jane Goshawk.

Counsel Inquiry: As you will be aware, there’s a stenographer taking a note and so, as a consequence, I’m going to ask you to go at a slow pace. And it’s my fault if you don’t, not yours, so it may be that I ask you to slow down or pause at various points.

Ms Goshawk, you have provided a statement to the Inquiry; is that correct?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Just to, for the assistance of others, if I can, it can be found at INQ000280726. Thank you. That statement is dated 20 September of 2023; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: You explain within that statement that at the very end, at page 63, you provide a declaration and statement of truth; is that correct?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Ms Goshawk, is it correct that you are the head of public affairs and partnerships at Solace Women’s Aid?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: I’m going to ask you now, if I may, some questions about Solace Women’s Aid.

Can you provide a brief overview of the organisation for us?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes, we are a violence against women and girls charity, we have been established for over 48 years, and in 2020/21 we supported just under 11,000 women and children.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Solace provides, it’s fair to say, a broad and impressive array of services in relation to gender-based violence, and reflective perhaps of many in your sector, but in terms of those services you provide refuges?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Therapeutic services, community-based interventions and programmes?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Advice lines, and other aspects including training?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes, we do.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, you’ve referred to a snapshot of your work in 2020 providing that support to nearly 11,000 survivors of domestic abuse, and in 2020 you accommodated 920 women and children in refuges; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: We did.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

If I can turn, then, to the pre-pandemic position and the sector, the violence against women and girls sector, going into the pandemic, you describe that sector – at paragraph 25 – as being woefully underfunded and struggling.

What was the impact of that position in terms of the services that you could provide at that time, and how you could serve that client base of women and children?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes. So, as mentioned, there had been a reduction of funding whilst also seeing an increase in demand for our services. This meant that we were often having to turn away women from refuge or we were having more enquiries for refuge spaces than we would have places.

Our community services were often having to work with significant caseloads, higher than we would want to and, yeah, we’d often have waiting lists for things like counselling and therapeutic services.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

If I may just ask a specific question in relation to the black and minoritised refuge sector, were they in a similar position or were they facing additional struggles?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Generally black and minoritised by and for organisations actually had seen a further increase – a decrease in funding, so that had affected them more. For example, there tended to be around 50% less specialist refuge spaces since 2010.

Counsel Inquiry: If we can just get a sense of what that means in real terms with regard to women and children facing gender-based violence, and you set it out very helpfully at paragraph 31 of your report, and you explain that in 2019, in a research report involving 100 women, 30% of women had been turned away six times or more, from local authority services, that were coming to you; is that correct?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes, that’s when they are trying to get temporary accommodation or emergency accommodation when fleeing abuse, yeah, they were facing significant challenges with local authorities in providing that accommodation that they were entitled to.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I now want to turn, if I may, to the impact of the pandemic as experienced by Solace.

Firstly, was there an increase in domestic abuse during the pandemic?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: From our advice line, we would say so, yes. We saw significant increases in the number of calls that we were getting. I think in March 2020 there was a 117% increase in the number of calls we were getting. We saw that quieten down a little bit when the lockdown actually went into – actually started. Our staff called that quite eerie, that women weren’t able to contact us.

Counsel Inquiry: I’m just going to ask you just to pause there for one moment, and just pick up on the interactions with Solace and the advice line and the patterns that you saw. You just explained that in March 2020 you saw a 117% increase. Is that coinciding, essentially, with the decision to lock down, the announcement to lock down?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: So I think some of that came before as well, because women were fearful that a lockdown would happen. I think when they saw what was happening in other countries, many women thought “I need to get out, I cannot spend that period, if the UK goes into lockdown, in this relationship, in this house”, essentially, and in danger for them and their children. So I think that led to an uptick actually before announcements were made.

Counsel Inquiry: And then you describe a subsequent period where calls dropped and decreased, and eerily quiet. When was that?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: That was late March and early April, is my understanding.

Counsel Inquiry: Then in April you describe within your statement a second increase, in April to May, and what did you connect that to?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: I think that was when for some women it was because it became too much living in that household, living in danger for them and their children. For others I think it was when there was starting to be an understanding that we may leave lockdown and people were getting that chance, that opportunity to get in contact with services.

Lady Hallett: Can I just go back for a second.

You said that there had been an increase in calls before lockdown, then during lockdown what you called the eerie – and I can see why you say that – reduction in calls.

Was that a reduction from the increase or was that a reduction on what you would normally see?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: From the increase in March. I think there was generally higher levels during that time, but I think it was noticeable that we’d gone up in March and then sort of back down again, but that is in comparison to March 2020, rather than the year before.

Lady Hallett: Sorry to interrupt, Ms Cecil.

Ms Cecil: No, not at all. Not at all.

Sorry, I believe that we were then looking at the April to May period, and I just want to take a specific example that you refer to within your statement, and you describe the announcement effectively of lockdown ending and a “stay alert” announcement in terms of public messaging being made on 10 May, and in the following week you received triple the number of calls?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yeah, that’s my understanding from the staff at the time, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Just continuing through with that pattern then, they then drop over those summer months; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: There is a reduction from that period in May, yes. It does kind of settle, I suppose, but yes, we still got a high level of number of calls during that summer.

Counsel Inquiry: In terms of that demand throughout that period, was that a demand that you were able to meet at Solace in terms of answering those calls?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: I think we didn’t answer every call that we got. We – I know a lot of our staff worked incredibly hard to answer as many of them as possible, people were doing long hours, were overstretched, and I know that was something across the sector. So it was, perhaps, we were not meeting them all, but the ones we were meeting were due to the dedication of staff at that time.

Counsel Inquiry: Then August/September, effectively the time when children were going back to school, did you see any increase in those calls at that point?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yeah, September was the highest month we saw.

Counsel Inquiry: In your view, in Solace’s view, why was that?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Our impression was that it was women were getting the chance to call us, that’s perhaps when the children were returning to school. Sometimes the school run is an opportunity to leave the house.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. So essentially the opportunity to leave the house to take the children to and from school and that was, in your view, what was driving that increase in calls?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: I think as well time, perhaps where children weren’t there, to make that call.

Counsel Inquiry: Was that a pattern, generally speaking, that was replicated across the sector, to your knowledge?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: I think my knowledge and from what other organisations have shared with us, I think from April there was significant increase in the demand for services, whether that at the national helpline level or we saw a particular increase of calls and requests for support from black and minoritised organisations.

Counsel Inquiry: You do refer in your statement to the national domestic abuse helpline and seeing a 65% increase in April and June compared to January and March of 2020; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Similarly from Victim Support, in May 2020 they were seeing reported rapes as being 23% higher than that in early of 2020?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Just looking at one other aspect in relation to those calls, at paragraph 208 of your statement you note conversely, is it correct, that calls to police decreased, was your understanding?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: That’s the understanding from, yeah, police evidence.

Counsel Inquiry: I just want to ask you, if I may, about the refuge spaces that you had available and the demand for those spaces. So at paragraph 48 you describe that before lockdown you had two referrals for every single space.

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: And what was the impact on that demand during the pandemic, did it increase or decrease?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: So we saw that for every space we had, we’d have four referrals, and actually in April 2020 all 23 of our refuges were full at one point.

Counsel Inquiry: And you explain in paragraph 49 of your report that Solace then opened a 70-bed emergency accommodation project on 12 May of 2020. Was that in consequence of that uptick in terms of demand?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes, we were seeing that there were so few options for women to go to when they were seeking to flee, and I think it’s quite important to say that it took less than a month for that 70-bed accommodation project to be filled and, of the spaces for women with no recourse to public funds, the 20 spaces we had, they filled up within a week.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

By the end of 2020 – so looking then at the position moving on from April when you opened the emergency bed space, and looking at December of 2020 – you note that you were turning away approximately 40% of refuge referrals; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Is it correct that, looking at refuge spaces and beds that were available, that picture was further complicated by the inability within the sector to then move individuals out of that emergency accommodation and into other more long-term accommodation?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes, we saw real challenges either moving people from the, I suppose, the house that they were in danger from or from a refuge to temporary accommodation or more permanent move-on options. That was due to the lack of – the inability to contact many local authorities to organise that housing for them, even when they had an advocate.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. If I can just ask you to slow down a little.

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Sorry.

Counsel Inquiry: Not at all.

Just turning to other facets of support available to individuals and women and children facing violence and abuse, there was obviously a move within the pandemic to less face-to-face contact and a move to online services and telephone services.

Did you see any impact of that with your client base in terms of the support they could seek?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Definitely. For example, housing often was requested face-to-face. That could have been going to a council office to represent as homeless to get that support, it could have been a GP that identified abuse or that someone disclosed to. A significant number of women disclose in healthcare settings.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Touching, then, on the role of schools and early years provision in relation to identification, safeguarding and signposting, to your knowledge was there any advice provided to those organisations and institutions with regard to children facing risks of domestic violence?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: There was a category of vulnerable children and being able to access schooling, but our understanding, it wasn’t hugely clear on whether that was specifically for children that had been experiencing domestic abuse or in a domestic abuse household.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. So, absent the criteria for vulnerable children, were there any other measures that you were aware of put in place?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: In schools specifically?

Counsel Inquiry: In schools and early learning establishments.

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Not that I’m aware of, no.

Counsel Inquiry: Turning to the type and nature of the cases that you’ve seen at Solace, was there any change in the complexity of those cases in terms of their presentation?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: We definitely saw that women were coming to us with that one chance, I think, to leave, in real emergency states. We also saw that women came with higher mental health needs, that could be self-harming or suicidal ideation.

Counsel Inquiry: And that really follows into the next question in terms of intensity and frequency of domestic abuse: did you see any emerging patterns during the pandemic that were different to the pre-pandemic position?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: We definitely saw that the intensity of abuse that women had been through during the lockdown had increased. Women described the environment as a pressure cooker in some cases.

Counsel Inquiry: At paragraph 208 you note there has also been an increase in domestic homicides during the pandemic; is that right?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes. Home Office did research into that, and I think in that early window there was research to show that there had been five – I think five domestic homicides per week compared to two in normal times.

Counsel Inquiry: That’s at the early stages of the pandemic?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes, in those first few weeks.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Now, looking back, from your perspective and that obviously of Solace, was the rise that you’re reporting in domestic abuse foreseeable?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes. I think the conditions of lockdown were conducive to an increase in abusive behaviour, any time – domestic abuse is around power and control, and lockdown was a control measure, and that meant both from the pandemic but also a control measure that perpetrators could use against women to restrict their movement or to control them.

Counsel Inquiry: The NPIs that were put in place – lockdowns, school closures, staying at home, working from home – how do you see that as having a role?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: So I think working from home meant the perpetrator and the victim were there more often. I think the tensions that that could have created at a time of high stress for everyone, I think, is likely to again breed those conditions for sort of control and stress that are related to domestic abuse.

Counsel Inquiry: And what challenges, practical challenges, were you seeing in women and children or others facing abuse of process in seeking and obtaining help in practical terms?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: I mean, some of it was just that – I think as I talked about, the window of opportunity to call a service like ours. So when were they alone and when were they safe enough to be able to call? Did they understand that they could call us, that services like ours exist? And actually were they able to leave their house, was that something they could do under lockdown restrictions?

Counsel Inquiry: Just looking at one facet of assistance that individuals can turn to is the police. You identify trust in police as being an issue. Why do you identify that as being an issue?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: I think many women have experience of being let down by the police or disbelieved by the police. It’s not a universal experience but, yeah, many women have had their experience of abuse belittled or undermined or not really believed, and that’s particularly prevalent for black and minoritised women.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, within your statement you set out a number of individual experiences. If I can please ask that paragraph 71 be brought up on the screen for a moment. I’m not going to go into –

Lady Hallett: I’m afraid, Ms Cecil, I’m trying to avoid individual experiences, given we’ve got to focus on the module’s main issues. So I think –

Ms Cecil: No, I appreciate that, my Lady.

Lady Hallett: Also, this is the police, this isn’t government. I think I would find it helpful to know what steps the sector took to bring the problems you were facing and your – do you call them clients?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Service users.

Lady Hallett: Service users. Oh, I don’t like “service users”. Can I –

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Victims or survivors as well.

Lady Hallett: Okay. The problems that they were facing, what steps did the sector take to bring this to the attention of the government?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yeah, I can absolutely cover that.

So we took a number of steps to write to government to alert them to some of the challenges. There was a quite broad sector letter sent to the Prime Minister and a number of the key Cabinet positions on 3 April which outlined for us what were four key priorities for protecting victims of domestic abuse.

We were in the media talking about the challenges that we saw. I know other groups were talking directly to government when they could and to the – at that time – designate domestic abuse commissioner.

We also, at Solace and along with Southall Black Sisters, submitted a pre-action protocol letter to outline a need for a significant investment in safe accommodation.

Lady Hallett: Did you detect any movement as a result of your representations?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: We did see some, yes. I think those early representations meant that we saw public statements about the ability to leave and domestic abuse being an exemption from that –

Lady Hallett: They changed, didn’t they, I think?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: They did. I know the first announcement did not have any mention of domestic abuse, and actually no announcement of a lockdown had a mention of domestic abuse until January 2021, which is a real concern that those large platforms that many of us were watching didn’t reference the exemption. It was sort of hidden in guidance and regulations, which was a real concern to us.

Ms Cecil: Perhaps, my Lady, if I pick up on public messaging at this point.

Lady Hallett: Yes, do, please. I’m so sorry to have taken over.

Ms Cecil: No, no, not at all, please feel free.

Public messaging, then, just picking up on the matters that you’ve identified in terms of the Prime Minister’s speech with respect to lockdown, there being no mention of an exception.

There was, subsequently to that, an article in the Daily Mail by the Home Secretary on 28 March of 2020. Is that a source of messaging that the women you see facing domestic abuse and gender-based violence were likely to see or access? How effective was that messaging?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: It was one, we would have seen it as a positive development, but that message was coming directly from the Home Secretary and from government, it’s certainly not enough to ensure that all the women at risk were aware that there was an exemption.

Counsel Inquiry: And the government did institute a “You Are Not Alone” campaign from 11 April. What are your views on that?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: We were pleased when the campaign was launched. Again, I think it was a positive step, but we saw on our own advice line that that wasn’t cutting through to all woman who needed our support. We were getting women saying they didn’t know they could leave, when they called us, and we actually had that across all three lockdowns.

So the messaging certainly didn’t get through to all women. I think that was the same experience for the national helpline as well. We felt that that messaging was too late. It could have been pre-empted.

From the messages from the sector and from international comparisons, and our understanding of pandemics and emergencies more generally, that this was a message that needed to be there from the beginning.

I also think an online campaign is one tool to reach people, but there are many people where a campaign like that will not be effective, whether that’s those with communication barriers, for example, so …

Counsel Inquiry: You pick up on that within your statement. I don’t intend to take you through it in detail, but the communication, language barriers and accessibility barriers in short?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Turning now to the particular position of migrant women and children, because that is an area that both Solace, and indeed Southall Black Sisters, and you’ve dealt with in partnership during the pandemic, you describe those individuals as facing – at paragraphs 184 to 187 – a triple threat.

What do you mean by that?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: So we talked about the pandemic as being sort of a dual pandemic, that is the restrictions, the risk of – to health that the Covid-19 brought to women, the threat of violence and abuse that they would experience in their own home, and then I think for migrant women we saw that threat of immigration enforcement and destitution.

Counsel Inquiry: Picking up on the theme and the questions you’ve just been asked, what did you, as an organisation, do in respect to that?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: So this was highlighted to government on 31 March 2020, a campaign, “Step Up Migrant Women” campaign raised this with government, that they were really concerned about the ability of migrant victims to get help during this period. That was repeated to the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers in that letter on 3 April that I mentioned. Yeah, and I know that in conversations with the Home Office and other departments it was brought up regularly, that this group were being left without an ability to get support.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. And you describe specific lobbying, at paragraph 36 of your statement, in relation to what is now the Domestic Abuse Act.

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: And the exclusion, the refusal of the government to extend measures to migrant women with insecure status and women with no recourse to public funds.

What could the government have done, in your view?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: So firstly there could have been a suspension or a cancelling of the “no recourse to public funds condition”, which would have been a broad step they could have taken, but there are also specific provisions for migrant victims of domestic abuse – the DDVC, as it’s often referred to – and that could have been extended to those that had non-spousal visas, because at the moment only certain types of visas could access that concession. That could have been lengthened to give more time to do so.

Yeah, it’s just –

Counsel Inquiry: Not at all. And on the other side of the coin, obviously, aspects of the Domestic Abuse Act were very much welcomed by the sector; is that fair?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes, it definitely had a positive element, but I think it was clear and made clear to government that migrant victims were being left out of support in that Bill.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

In your view, were women and children facing domestic abuse adequately considered by the government with regard to its Covid-19 response?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Our view is that they were not considered and, when they were, it was too little and a bit too late for women and children.

Counsel Inquiry: And specifically where do you see those failings?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: So we are not aware of domestic abuse and wider violence against women and girls being considered in the emergency preparedness that government undertook before the pandemic.

It appears that they were slow or – to react or ignore from international experience of the increase in domestic abuse, or some of the understanding and experience we had from other international emergencies that was referred to by the previous witness.

There was a lack of consultation with the sector, and when we were consulted it was quite late, and small groups. It didn’t look at the impact on marginalised women, so that’s black and minoritised women, older women, older women, disabled women.

Counsel Inquiry: We’ve already touched upon your views on messaging, so I don’t propose to go back over those, and also the structural barriers, in short, in relation to children and women facing violence or domestic abuse.

You set out a number of other key issues for you within the statement and, as I say, we’ve got the statement so I don’t propose to go through those, we’ve touched on aspects of those briefly already.

Were there ever also any examples of good practice that you can point to?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes. I think we worked with the Mayor of London to set up the emergency accommodation project that I referred to earlier, that was done and was launched by 12 May to give 70 further bed spaces.

There was some funding from government, and that was positive. We certainly don’t – that was hugely important for the sector, we just didn’t think it met the demand that was there.

We – there were schemes like Rail to Refuge which gave women the ability to get to refuges through free transport.

So there certainly were positive things, but I think with the messaging it was some steps were taken, it was not enough and it didn’t think about marginalised women and their impact to understand their ability to leave. And I think there’s a concern that as well where funding was given, yeah, it didn’t meet demand.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, when it comes to recommendations for the future, from the perspective of Solace, you’ve set those out in detail from paragraphs 212 of your statement onwards, and funding is indeed one of those aspects where you describe underfunding of the sector, and you’ve provided some evidence of that today, and there’s more evidence within your statement in relation to where you were or were not able to meet need.

With regard to any other recommendations, are there any specific ones that you’d seek to bring to the Inquiry’s attention for the assistance of the Inquiry?

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yeah, I think –

Lady Hallett: Remembering that this is about the pandemic, rather than –

Ms Cecil: Exactly. Yes, not general.

Lady Hallett: – my being able to change society, which sadly I can’t.

Ms Rebecca Goshawk: Yes, I mean, I think of course we want to see prevention of violence against women and girls, but for the Inquiry I think early consultation and emergency preparedness that looks at violence against women and girls, and domestic abuse specifically, and how the measures they may have to take in those moments may impact women and children who are at risk.

Adequate funding during emergency times, having a sector that is adequately funded more generally to – so we can weather such emergencies, particularly that provision of safe accommodation and refuges during emergencies, akin to something like the “Everyone In” scheme that we saw for rough sleeping, and that other countries took a more kind of – yeah, took an approach like that for domestic abuse victims.

Clear and consistent messaging, I think I’ve sort of made the point on that.

The suspension of “no recourse to public funds”, and the broadening of the DDVC, I think as we talked about, for migrant women.

And I suppose the final one is key worker status for domestic abuse workers who were often putting their own health at risk to support survivors and, you know, worked incredibly hard during that period but often were not included for PPE, testing or early vaccination.

Ms Cecil: Thank you very much.

My Lady, those are all the questions that I have. There are no Rule 10 requests that have been granted, or indeed made. Does your Ladyship have any questions?

Lady Hallett: No, I think I’ve probably intervened too much already.

Thank you very much indeed for your help. If only I could say you’d be out of business but, I’m afraid, never.

The Witness: Unfortunately not.

Lady Hallett: Anyway, thank you very much indeed.

The Witness: Thank you.

(The witness withdrew)

Ms Cecil: My Lady, that concludes the evidence for today.

Lady Hallett: Thank you, Ms Cecil.

We shall start again at 10.30 on Monday. I hope you all get a decent weekend. Thank you.

(3.08 pm)

(The hearing adjourned until 10 am on Monday, 9 October 2023)