In the first six months, Safe Home received more than 66,000 reports of domestic violence. An increase of 10 percent compared to the same period in 2022. As these numbers increase, there are also growing calls to better protect victims. More and more often the name Clare's Law, a British law that allows police to share information about the violence history of (potential) partners, is therefore increasingly discussed.
But what would happen if the Netherlands introduces its own variant? Do victims then actually get more control over their safety? Or do we open the door to new risks, such as stigmatization and privacy violations?
PONT spoke to three experts from the social and privacy domains, because that is precisely where this discussion is taking place. They give their views on the question that is increasingly central: can Clare's Law do what it promises?
- Corrie Ebbers - privacy lawyer and independent consultant for the public and healthcare sectors.
- Majone Steketee - associate professor of Intergenerational transmission of violence in families and scientific advisor at the Verwey-Jonker Institute.
- Wietske Dijkstra - strategic theme holder on data sharing at the Taskforce on Data Sharing (Justice & Security).
Clare's Law is a 2014 British law, officially the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme, that can give people police information about a partner's history of violence. The law came in the wake of Clare Wood's murder in 2009. She had repeatedly warned that her ex-partner was violent but was not protected. Her death became a symbol of failing agencies and the idea that citizens should have the right to protect themselves.
Clare's Law has two pillars:
1. Right to ask: Citizens, family members or acquaintances may ask the police if a (former) partner has a history of violence.
2. Right to know: The police may also provide their own information when they suspect that someone is in danger.
The goal is to give victims a perspective for action: to know in time who they are dealing with, so they could make safe choices.
Since 2025, the Netherlands has also been debating a possible introduction. Political parties such as D66, GroenLinks-PvdA, VVD and the National Ombudsman advocate a "Dutch Clare's Law." In May 2025, the Lower House passed a motion instructing the cabinet to investigate what is legally and practically feasible.
The Ministry of Justice and Security is working with aid organizations, universities and the police on an exploration. A policy report with recommendations, possible pilots and guidelines for professionals is expected in 2026.
But even before the study is complete, criticism is sounding. The central question: does Clare's Law actually improve protection for victims or does it introduce new risks of stigma, misunderstanding and privacy violations?
Privacy lawyer Corrie Ebbers, with whom PONT spoke about the possible introduction of Clare's Law, is critical of the idea that more information automatically leads to more security.
"With legislation where you're going to disseminate information about offenders, you're not going to solve the real problem."
The example of Clare Wood shows that professionals authorized to act in such situations need to be better equipped to do so. In the Netherlands too, according to Ebbers, the information is often available, but action lags behind. According to her, professionals especially need better support and clearer guidelines for timely intervention.
She also warns of the risks of sharing police information. Deep-seated data processing should remain in the hands of agencies that work carefully and are accountable, Ebbers says. First, it should be examined whether existing legislation - such as the Police Data Act, the domestic violence ban and the AVG 'vital interest' basis - can already provide a basis for making policy and acting. Bodies such as the probation service can also play a role in this, for example by monitoring when a perpetrator comes out of detention.
Customization remains crucial here, she stresses. Not every offender or situation is the same, and the current system already contains important safeguards, such as the national tracking list when the danger is high and other solutions are lacking.
Finally, Ebbers advocates prevention and education because, as she puts it:
"With more data, you don't change norm-breaking behavior."
Professor Majone Steketee, in conversation with PONT, explains immediately that she is wary of oversimplifying the representation of "perpetrators.
She explains how domestic violence is almost never unambiguous. "Behind offenses are often control, coercion and psychological terror," she says.
"Forms of violence that cut deep but are difficult to prove."
Many perpetrators are never convicted and at the same time there are situations where violence is mutual or stems from crisis, psychiatric problems or fighting divorces.
"A registry cannot capture that complexity," she explains. According to her, therein lies a risk: a list can both underestimate and overestimate danger. "Those who are not registered can still be dangerous, and those who are listed are stigmatized and limited in recovery options."
She emphasizes that nuance is necessary. The distinction between structural controlling violence (intimate terror) and situational violence that escalates requires customized assessment and interventions. "A static registry does not do justice to that," she says. That is why she advocates for an independent commission to carefully assess individual cases, if there is to be a system at all.
In the conversation, she also points to developments that she believes will help, such as the bill to criminalize psychological violence, which goes into consultation in 2026. "The consequences of psychological abuse are often more far-reaching than physical violence - both for women and children."
She explains how shame, guilt, fear and dependency mean that victims often don't dare take the step to get help, let alone end a relationship. And even after a breakup - especially when there are children - the violence often does not stop.
Finally, Steketee points to a structural blind spot in politics and the media: although 1.3 million Dutch people experience domestic violence at some point in their lives, the subject remains underexposed. Campaigns and media focus on "high-profile" incidents, while the creeping daily violence remains invisible. According to her, the real solution lies in a systemic approach, with accessible help - especially outside office hours - and an engaged environment.
"Networks of family, neighbors and friends can play a crucial role ... such living systems are much more effective than static registries."
Wietske Dijkstra sees in her daily practice that the Netherlands is too risk-averse in sharing data around domestic violence and child abuse. She explains in conversation with PONT that the AVG is often seen as a "monster," while she believes the law actually offers room for responsible sharing when there is a clear purpose.
Due to fear, misinterpretations and lack of cooperation, crucial information is now not shared, she says. As a result, professionals must work with incomplete files, allowing insecurity to persist.
According to her, the real bottleneck lies mainly in the organization: too little support from the regions to properly organize the approach to domestic violence, divergent advice from privacy lawyers due to the lack of national uniformity, and an inhibiting dual role of the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens. "Moreover, administrators are not rewarded for cooperation," she says. "Then implementation automatically stalls."
At the same time, she wants to make one thing clear: victims (mostly women) do have the right to vital information. She talks about how painful it is when such information is not shared and refers to the recent discussion about women who were not informed about dense breast tissue, which sometimes made scans unreliable. To her, this is an apt parallel.
But, she then stresses, that does not mean that the responsibility for safety should fall on women. "Clare's Law should never be the only measure we invest in. It is the establishment that determines whether it protects or actually creates new risks."
The discussion of Clare's Law touches directly on the obligations of the Istanbul Convention. The Council of Europe's monitoring body, GREVIO (Group of Experts on Action Against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence) stated in 2025 that the Netherlands still does not provide adequate protection for victims.
Police, aid agencies and courts too often view domestic violence as a "conflict between equals" rather than an abuse of power. As a result, signals linger too long, victims are not taken seriously and the focus is often on the family as a whole, rather than the perpetrator.
Steketee has called that problem visible for years: the real power differential within intimate terror is structurally underestimated.
All three interviewees ultimately come to the same conclusion: Clare's Law may be a small piece of the puzzle, but the foundation must be laid in other places.
1. A serious offender approach
The Netherlands lags behind in treating, monitoring and delimiting perpetrators, especially with intimate terror. Steketee calls that a deficient part of current policy. Dijkstra calls for better interventions for both victims and perpetrators immediately after incidents and more use of the restraining order.
2. Prevention and awareness
Ebbers believes the Netherlands should invest much more broadly in social norm setting, education and recognition of psychological violence. Domestic violence should not only become visible when it escalates.
3. Better collaboration and less AVG anxiety
Dijkstra sees professionals struggling with uncertainty and lack of national guidelines. Clear frameworks and well-established collaboration can help share data without legal fear.
Clare's Law offers an understandable response to distressing incidents. It can help make danger visible in exceptional cases. But as a structural measure, experts say it will not prove effective.
The risks of stigma, false security and victim blaming are high, while the core problems - inadequate offender management, lack of cooperation and underestimation of abuse of power - persist.
The Dutch discussion is only at the beginning, but one thing is clear: a registry alone will not make victims of domestic violence safer. Only when politicians, social services and society recognize that domestic violence is not a private matter but a structural social problem can real protection emerge.
