The damage of financial abuse can continue long after a relationship is over. Photo: Flickr
Show Hide image

Government and banks must tackle the overlooked financial element of domestic abuse

Time for government, banks and creditors to break the silence.

Financial abuse is little recognised. But it’s serious. Many people are unaware that controlling someone’s money or limiting their economic freedom is in fact a form of domestic abuse.

It may not be as visible as physical violence, but exerting financial control can trap victims in abusive relationships by isolating them from friends and family, or cutting them off from the money they need to leave.

And the damage of financial abuse can continue long after the relationship is over. Victims can be left in dire financial straits, liable for debts they never agreed to, and at the mercy of the perpetrator who can still control and access their money.

The Home Secretary’s recent announcement that the government will seek to make "coercive control" illegal, marks a shift towards national recognition that domestic abuse is not just physical. It’s time that psychological, emotional and financial abuse was put on the same legal footing as physical abuse.

A new Citizens Advice report shines the spotlight on the hidden prevalence of financial abuse: nine in ten advisers contributing to our research have helped people with such cases in the last year.

One of the most common forms is where individuals have been forced by their partner to take out loans on their behalf: almost three-quarters of the advisers who responded to our survey have helped a client who has taken out credit and gone into debt as a result of pressure from their partner. Yet too often, high street banks and other lenders fail to acknowledge that their customer may be subjected to this type of control.

Earlier this year, a young woman came to Citizens Advice seeking help with almost £10,000 of debt. She had left her home and marriage because of the abuse she suffered from her husband. Following physical abuse and threats in the relationship, she had been forced by her partner to take out a number of debts in her own name, passing the money onto him. These included bank loans and credit cards, as well as acting as a guarantor for his loans.

Banks and other lenders have a big role to play in tackling this problem. While there is some good practice, the majority of banks and creditors fail to recognise the needs of those customers who fall victim to this type of abuse.

Of course it is a difficult area. It is not easy for a company to investigate behind the privacy of closed doors. Nor is it straightforward for victims to approach companies to try to untangle themselves from these sorts of financial ties.

Up until this point, statutory and self-regulators in the financial services industry have done little to ensure banks, lenders and other financial institution have a set of guidelines to help. This needs to change if victims of the kind of coercive control highlighted by Theresa May and our report are to be supported.

It is time financial abuse is addressed. The political will to do so is there: all three of the biggest political parties have pledged admirable commitment to eliminating abuse. It is time action is taken to prevent it and to help support victims to get back on their feet and on with their lives.

Government and financial professionals must work together to develop the framework so urgently needed to protect individuals at their most vulnerable.

Imogen Parker is Senior Policy Researcher at Citizens Advice and is leading the charity’s research into domestic abuse. She tweets @ImogenParker

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.