Domestic Abuse Survivors: Government Support

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ben Maguire]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being such a champion on this issue, and I completely agree with his condemnation of Travelodge’s frankly despicable response. His point regarding Airbnb is interesting, and I have been making the same point recently, because it crosses over with the Travelodge issue.

I am sure that many Members have heard from survivors in their constituencies who tell them they have spent all their savings on legal fees or they have accrued tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt. We know that survivors often face crippling financial barriers when trying to protect themselves and, in many cases, their children. Would the Minister tell me why the review period for the threshold has not yet been changed and why the gap between those who are eligible for legal aid and those who can afford to pay for legal services has not received closer scrutiny during the means test review?

The previous Government completed their review in 2022 and then proposed new criteria in 2023. Implementation was later delayed and, as far as I am aware, the current Government have not yet indicated that they intend to progress the work. I would therefore appreciate an update from the Minister on the status of the legal aid means test review.

I welcome the Government’s steps to include economic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act, but claiming that if a victim can prove they are economically abused, they will become exempt from the means test is a bit like asking victims who are under a severe threat to their health—in the most vulnerable state of their life—to sift through a haystack to find a purposefully and impossibly well-hidden needle. The £100,000 capital exemption recently introduced for the means test has been powerfully rejected by Women’s Aid and domestic abuse charities, which say that it does not go nearly far enough.

Sitting on a £1 million property that is co-owned with their perpetrator, who—guess what?—will not sell, excludes someone from any legal support. Such trapped capital should not be included in the financial eligibility calculation. I would go as far as stating that such inaccessible capital should be exempt from the means test, particularly as many victims are too afraid to leave their homes with their children as they are not certain that the family courts will bring them a positive outcome, as I have highlighted in Louise’s case.

According to the Surviving Economic Abuse 2026 report, almost 1 million women in the UK who experienced economic abuse last year said that the abuse prevented them from leaving their dangerous abuser. In the worst-case scenario, that decision, which is forced on them via our systematic failure to understand the reality of domestic abuse for victims, can be fatal. Another recent study covering a 12-year period, which included 400 homicide reviews, found that one person died every 19 days in cases that involved economic abuse. In other words, every three weeks a victim dies because an abuser uses economic abuse as a tool of control.

Refuge recently evidenced how 75 women were killed as a result of domestic homicide in the year ending 2025. Those numbers should spark outrage across our society. This final act of violence could have been prevented had there been proper legal resources in place for victims, or proper housing support that meant victims could be safe. Too many victims are forced to return to their perpetrators because they do not receive the levels of legal support needed to continue with the legal process. That means that many are unable to obtain things such as protective orders against their perpetrator, or obtain safe child contact arrangements.

Victims could even end up homeless. Those brave victim survivors who do leave their homes and apply for urgent homelessness protection can receive immediate legal support, but they end up having to go through the legal aid means test. If they are seen to have an income above the threshold, they have to support their own legal representation, when it is actually their abuser who has forced them out. Victims therefore become stuck between staying in their family home and enduring their suffering, or ending up potentially homeless—due to, again, this destructive means test.

A Cornish women’s protection centre recently reached out to me, detailing the following case that it was dealing with—for which I have again changed the name. Katy’s ex-partner abused and controlled her, both during and after their relationship ended. The ex-partner controlled contact with their children and locked Katy out of their property, resulting in her sleeping on the streets. During the family court process, which lasted 18 months, Katy had no legal aid or legal advice, and minimal support throughout the court proceedings, representing herself at the family court.

Eventually, the judge granted a non-molestation order, an occupation order, a prohibited steps order, and a full care order for the children. However, after achieving that without any access to legal advice, Katy and her children have still not been given access to their home and remain homeless. Reporting by Women’s Aid reinforces this reality. Survivors frequently cannot secure a legal aid solicitor due to the combined effects of eligibility barriers and a national shortage of legal aid providers. That leaves many women unable to challenge refusals, missing deadlines and remaining in unsafe or unsuitable accommodation because they cannot navigate the process alone.

All of that continues despite official homelessness data showing that large numbers of households become homeless or are threatened with homelessness due to domestic abuse, which means they should be treated as vulnerable and properly protected, not forced through a rigid financial test that was never designed for people fleeing violence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

Just to be clear, there are no legal ramifications of the homelessness test in part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act. There is a homelessness duty; in the vast majority of cases, people do not have to undertake legal action in order for the homelessness duty to apply to them.

[Ben Maguire]

I thank the Minister. Perhaps she can follow up on that point in her speech.

I ask the Government urgently to reform evidence requirements for economic abuse in favour of more accessible evidential criteria. The lack of clarity regarding acceptable forms of evidence causes already limited legal aid solicitors to pre-emptively refuse to take on survivors’ cases. Having discussed and highlighted countless reasons to reform the legal aid means test for victims of domestic abuse, I must ask why legal aid is barely mentioned in the VAWG strategy, despite it being such a vital tool for victims to seek justice and crucial support.

The Justice Secretary in the previous Government, Alex Chalk, is acknowledged by many in the women’s rights sector to have been open to committing to reform the legal aid barriers that victims face. I am sure, and hopeful, that the Government will be open to working with all of us to fix the legal aid means test, which, as I hope I have set out clearly, is the biggest obstacle to so many victims. I recently launched a petition to reform the means test, and I hope to widen the campaign further.

How much more loss—how many more needless deaths—do we as a country need to endure? How many more debates are needed in this place for the Government to consider the issue properly? Until they commit to removing the legal aid means test for all domestic abuse victims and survivors, including those who are not currently accessing universal credit or fleeing the abuser, I hope to see urgent implementation of the delayed legal aid reforms, as pushed for by the VAWG sector. Those include the mandatory disregarding of inaccessible capital for victims of domestic abuse; the raising of the income threshold, which needs to include an annual review of the means test; and reformed evidence requirements when trying to prove economic abuse.

I will end my speech there, in the hope that, by the time of the next Westminster Hall debate on domestic abuse, we will have seen tangible progress to show survivors that we stand with them, we fight with them and we will do everything we possibly can to change the system for them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

I find myself in the difficult position that the debate was tabled for response by the Home Office, but almost its entire thrust is legal aid, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. I will do my very best to answer the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), but this is one of the main cultural changes that I wish to achieve with regard to violence against women and girls across the Government and across the country. Not a single one of the matters relating to violence against women and girls that he carefully alluded to—issues faced by victims of domestic abuse such as housing and homelessness, the family court, and issues to do with benefits and child maintenance—is the responsibility of the Home Office, and yet whenever there is an issue related to domestic abuse, people look to the Home Office. It is a cultural and an institutional failing that has led to a lack of advancement in this space. I will answer the hon. Member’s questions as best I can, but he will get a much more thorough response on the specificity of legal aid from the Ministers who are responsible for legal aid.

[Ben Maguire]

I acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s point about this not being the responsibility of the Home Office. I will say, though, that I excitedly awaited the VAWG strategy to see a cross-departmental approach to this vital issue—not action by one Department or another, but a whole-of-Government approach. I hope that she might agree with me on that point.

[Jess Phillips]

I hope that the hon. Member appreciates that that is exactly what this is. I only make the point because there is so often a risk in this place, and in the Government, of one person who cares a huge amount about something becoming the responsible party for it, always.

I will move on to the hon. Gentleman’s broader points. As he stated, the Ministry of Justice is conducting a review of the domestic abuse evidence requirements that need to be satisfied in order to access legal aid for private family matters, to ensure that those requirements are not a barrier to accessing legal aid for victims of domestic abuse.

I intervened on the hon. Member on his point about homelessness. I speak as somebody who, this week alone, has handled more than 10 cases of homelessness relating to domestic abuse. Not a single one of those interacted with the legal aid system, because, thanks to part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act, which I fought very heavily for, there is a duty on every tier 1 and unitary local authority area, with funding provided by the Government, to provide accommodation and house people. I would not want the message to go out from here that people will end up on the streets.

Of course, there need to be massive improvements in the manner in which refuge accommodation is commissioned. That is committed to in the violence against women and girls strategy. We also need to be clear what we mean by the term “refuge”, because one man’s—well, one woman’s—refuge accommodation may not be another’s. As we heard from our friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the housing of children in refuge accommodation is patchy across the entire country. Looking at how we commission that homelessness service is a huge and fundamental part of this.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

As a recovering councillor, I remember that my council used to commission a lot of these services through the WomenCentre in Calderdale, which was very good at preventing homelessness and other shocks. I often find—this might come back to the Home Office question—that a lot of post-separation problems happen because of post-separation economic abuse. Perhaps, in the longer term, we need to look at that from a legislative angle, so that post-separation abuse is better recognised in law, and then set up services to better prevent it.

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was also—I feel like I have been here for ages—part of work with Surviving Economic Abuse, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned a number of times, to amend the Domestic Abuse Act to ensure that our legislation with respect to controlling or coercive behaviour included behaviour post-separation, because of the level of risk for people post-separation, which both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member alluded to. Over the years, there has been quite a lot of investment in getting somebody out in a crisis, rather than addressing the massive issues that occur in people’s lives afterwards. It is as if we tick a box when somebody leaves their home, and do not think about all the ramifications in their lives. My hon. Friend and I have worked very closely on that issue with regard to the family court and the presumption of contact, which has also been mentioned.

[Alex McIntyre]

Before she moves on from the subject of housing, does the Minister agree that the partnership between Women’s Aid, Airbnb and the Mayor of London is a really exciting pilot project for those people for whom refuges might not be the right place?

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree. When I was running refuge accommodation, we were moving from the era of everybody living in communal refuges to a new era of people needing separate accommodation. Some of that was about the rules on safeguarding with regard to which children could and could not live together, and about boys over the age of 16—actually, I think the age threshold was 14. As somebody who has adult male children, I would not want to flee to somewhere they could not live. That is hugely important.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall made a very important case for the need for legal aid thresholds. As somebody who has managed to amend our legal aid laws to carve out victims of domestic violence, I absolutely agree with him that we need to ensure that people can access the right legal services when they need them. If we had a lawyer from the Ministry of Justice in front of us, they would almost certainly be able to give a considerably more thorough answer, but there is relevant case law. For example, if someone’s asset is a house that they co-own, it cannot be included in the means test.

There are a number of issues, and we need to look at whether the threshold is right. My threshold is that I believe somebody when they tell me that they are a victim of domestic abuse, but I understand that the burden of evidence has to be slightly higher for Government Departments or legal departments. In the strategy, we have committed to addressing tenancies and the economic abuse of those who do not own houses, but who live in either social housing or privately rented properties. We have to look at the threshold for exactly what evidence is needed, and make sure that it is fair and balanced.

[Adam Dance]

One of the issues that we find in rural communities is that when someone flees domestic abuse and is rehoused, they are taken further afield because there is no housing nearby. They cannot meet their family or see their friends because of the lack of rural transport links. It is great to see what is happening here in London, but does the Minister believe that rural communities need more funding to support domestic abuse victims?

[Jess Phillips]

I will be down in Devon and Cornwall next week for both business and pleasure—I have turned business into a bit of pleasure as the recess comes along. I would like to thank Airbnb for that. [Laughter.]

The issue of need and how we commission services in rural areas has never been properly considered. On the basis of a headcount, we provide funding from lots of different Government Departments and lots of different sources. Whether that it is through part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act or through police and crime commissioners, the Government send finances to local areas, and it is for them to decide. North Cornwall is quite different from east Birmingham, and it is for local authorities to make decisions.

On the commissioning arrangements, do I think that rurality has been understood as a specific need in the same way as poverty or police data? I am not sure that it always has been—but what do I know? We are undertaking a huge piece of work on commissioning, and in fact I have reached out to some Liberal Democrat colleagues who represent rural areas to look at what we could be doing to make sure that we are getting the commissioning right. I am sure that the services that I am visiting in Devon and Cornwall next week will have some excellent ideas for me.

[Adam Dance]

I am from Somerset. Will the Minister meet me to have a conversation about these issues?

[Jess Phillips]

Of course. I did not mean to exclude Somerset or anywhere else, rural or otherwise. I would gladly meet the hon. Gentleman—I would gladly meet anybody. I do not wish to cause him offence, but I would dance with the devil to make women and children safer, so I would happily meet him to talk about Somerset.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that we have a cross-Government strategy, and that the points that the hon. Member for North Cornwall passionately highlighted will inform how we measure our progress. I always welcome people pushing not just my Department but every Department to do the very best that it can on violence against women and girls.

Question put and agreed to.