Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 15th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con) [V]]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 87 I will not repeat all my arguments from Committee, but I will reiterate two key points. First, it would allow us to ratify the Istanbul convention and, secondly, it relates primarily to access to services and is separate from the question of immigration control. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hussein-Ece and Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for joining me in sponsoring the amendment, to all noble Lords who supported it in Committee and are supporting it now, and to End Violence Against Women and Southall Black Sisters for their invaluable assistance. I add my support to Amendment 70.

Amendment 87 would ensure that all victims of domestic violence, whoever they are, get the support they deserve. When a crime is committed, when a man or a woman is abused, we offer them help, compassion and justice as our first response, not as a final stage. Domestic abuse cannot be hidden behind discrimination. That principle is central to the Istanbul convention, which insists on non-discrimination, including on the grounds of migration status. This will be the only area of the convention left outstanding once the Bill has passed and there is every sign that it will remain unresolved for some time yet.

Nine years after we signed the convention, we seem to have no plan to ratify it. Ratification enshrines the substantive requirements while still allowing the detail to be developed by the Government. Alignment of the legislative framework can be an ongoing process but it is clear that an international commitment is a powerful statement of intent. It has great symbolic meaning: that we are committed to treating every victim with dignity and will take every incidence of domestic abuse seriously from the point of disclosure. Ratification would be a signal to other countries around the world. It would also be a ray of hope for victims in this country.

In Committee, the Minister pointed to the Government’s pilot project, the migrant victims scheme. I am concerned for two reasons. First, it misunderstands the crucial purpose of this amendment. The pilot is a way of deciding what specific support migrant women might need but the amendment is about establishing their fundamental right to support as victims. Those issues are related but they are not the same.

Secondly, as other noble Lords have already explained and specialist organisations repeatedly tell us, the migrant victims scheme seeks answers that we already know to problems that we can address today. It is an unnecessary delay that creates the appearance of action without any lasting resolution to the terrible situation faced by migrant victims of domestic abuse.

The history of the Bill should be a cautionary tale for all of us. It has taken more than two years to get to this point. Set that alongside the nine years since we signed the Istanbul convention, and I fear that if we do not take our chance to ratify it now, we may be in for a very long wait indeed. If we insist on delaying for the migrant victims scheme, we are saying that migrant women can have protection but only at some unspecified time years in the future. That is not good enough. The Government’s failure to lay out a timetable for ratifying the Istanbul convention only confirms that. I was especially concerned to hear suggestions that the convention could be ratified with reservations so that the Government did not have to address this issue. That would be a very bad outcome indeed, above all for the migrant women themselves.

There is a point of principle here about fulfilling our international commitments. There is also a practical point: the amendment would ensure that the migrant women who are at such great risk could access those services they need. I reassure those who might have concerns about immigration that the amendment would not affect immigration control; it would not require changes to immigration regulations or to the Government’s ability to control who comes to Britain and who gets to stay. However, it would offer protection from serious crimes to those who are here. If someone is attacked on our streets, we do not stop to check their passport before offering them assistance. Abuse behind closed doors should not be any different.

A non-discrimination amendment would mean that public authorities would be expected to take into account migrant victims’ needs when dealing with them or making strategic decisions. It would ensure that survivors could access the services they needed to protect them from harm. It would make sure that the Government’s stated desire to treat victims first and foremost as victims was a reality. It would guarantee that the provisions of the Bill truly worked for and applied to everyone, which they do not currently do, rather than just those lucky enough to be born in the right place. This can be the landmark Bill that we need, for which the domestic abuse sector, and victims and survivors of abuse, are calling, but it cannot do that while it ignores a section of society at serious risk.

I will close with the words of one migrant survivor. She was sexually abused by her ex-husband and other men before finding support from a refuge. She said, “The centre has allowed me to get independence. I have learned so much about life. I have joined college. I am learning every day and I am doing well. I have my autonomy back. I feel safe and less anxious about my future. I can now finally focus on getting help and getting better. I have met many women from different cultures and religions, and we live in harmony at the refuge. We go on courses together and help each other with the homework. We taste all sorts of food that we cook, and we share our lives, our experiences and hopes for the future. I love it here at the refuge. It is my home. It has honestly made a massive difference in my life.”

We have heard many difficult testimonies throughout these debates. This is a reminder of the hope that we can offer and of the power of support and dignity to transform women’s lives. That is what the Istanbul convention seeks to do; that is what the amendment can do. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can offer the necessary commitment on swift ratification.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to address just three issues in support of these amendments, which have been moved so powerfully. First, in Committee the Minister argued that the DDVC and domestic violence rule were designed to

“provide a route to settlement for migrant victims who hold spousal visas.”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 98.]

The position of those who entered on other types of visa was addressed by the right honourable Theresa May on Report in the Commons. She took the point that generally they would have to show that they have independent financial support but noted that

“it is perfectly possible that they might find themselves in a relationship where the removal of that financial support is part of the abuse they are suffering. We have to take account of that as we look at this issue.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/20; col. 712.]

I wonder whether the Minister has taken account of that.

Secondly, the Minister explained that

“we have worked with the sector to launch the support for migrant victims scheme.”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 101.]

This is welcome and, as I said in Committee, it is to the Government’s credit that they revised the scheme in response to some of the criticisms of the draft prospectus. However, as already noted, it remains the case that the sector does not believe that such a scheme is necessary and has real concerns that the funding made available will not meet the needs of many of the women who will be seeking help from it. I asked in Committee whether it would be possible to at least suspend the “no recourse to public funds” rule for this group during the lifetime of the pilot. However, I did not get a direct response, so I would appreciate one now.

Thirdly, with regard to the Istanbul convention, the Minister noted that

“the position on whether the UK is compliant with Article 4(3) … to the extent that it relates to non-discrimination on the grounds of migrant or refugee status, and with Article 59, relating to residence status, is of course under review, pending the evaluation and the findings from the support for migrant victims scheme”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 100.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Minister for her very full reply. She said, rightly, that I had pressed her and that there was no intention to park the issue, but what I really pressed her on was an assurance that there is no intention to enter a reservation to the Istanbul convention on the question of migrant women.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I can state quite honestly from my point of view that I know of no intention to enter a reservation.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

10: Clause 8, page 5, line 29, at end insert—
“(7) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Commissioner must publish a report under this section, which—(a) investigates the impact of Universal Credit single household payments on victims of domestic abuse; and(b) investigates and presents alternative options for the payment of Universal Credit single household payments that protect victims of domestic abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a legal duty on the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to investigate the payment of Universal Credit separately to members of a couple and to lay a report to Parliament.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 10 heads up a group of amendments on social security which I will introduce, focusing on those in my name.

When I originally tabled them in Committee, I wanted to draw attention to the myriad ways in which the social security system undermines this Bill, particularly its very welcome inclusion of economic abuse. I and other noble Lords gave examples of how the social security system is letting down victims and survivors at every stage of the domestic abuse journey. I had hoped in response for some recognition from the Government of the tensions that exist between social security and domestic abuse policy, but no, so in light of this and the disappointment voiced by Refuge and Women’s Aid, to whom I pay tribute for their work and thank for their help, I decided that there was a case for revisiting these issues on Report. I am grateful to noble Lords who have signed the amendment.

I will not repeat the general case for why it is so important that social security policy supports rather than undermines domestic abuse policy, which underpins Amendment 68. This would require an impact assessment of any future social security reforms on domestic abuse victims and has been welcomed by the domestic abuse commissioner designate. In response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister pointed out that:

“The DWP is already obliged to consider the impacts of its policies through equality assessments, in accordance with the public sector equality duty.” —[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1703]


However, as this was the response given in the Commons, I had already explained that DWP equality impact assessments are very limited from a gender perspective and do nothing to assess, for instance, the impact on who in a couple controls resources, on the financial security and autonomy each enjoys, or on the ability to escape an abusive relationship. If the Government are serious about treating domestic abuse as a

“whole of government issue and response”, —[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1700]

as the Minister claimed, then it surely makes sense to carry out such an impact assessment at the design stage of social security reform.

Two other issues that I raised in this context were the training of jobcentre staff and the treatment of panic rooms in sanctuary schemes. On training, I very much appreciate the Minister’s helpful letter. I have shared it with Women’s Aid, which was involved in the early stages of the training and is very positive about aspects of it. However, there remain unresolved concerns and I would be grateful if the Minister could ask that the appropriate DWP Minister meet with Women’s Aid to discuss them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Yes, I can certainly request that on behalf of the right reverend Prelate.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and also the Minister. Noble Lords have enriched the arguments but, given the time, I will not go over what they said. I will not try to come back on the Minister’s arguments because it feels a bit like Groundhog Day. I am disappointed, however, that the noble Baroness did not acknowledge the point that I and my noble friend Lord Rooker underlined, as did others: there is a real tension between social security policy and domestic abuse policy. The policies that she is so committed to in this Bill will be undermined by DWP policies. I hope that at the very least she will take back to the DWP the concerns that have been raised today.

I thank the Minister for saying she will try to arrange for Women’s Aid to meet the DWP Minister to talk about training. As for panic rooms, will the noble Baroness have words with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about what has happened and why no action has been taken in response to that judgment? Time is ticking past—we really should have action by now.

My noble friend Lady Sherlock asked a couple of very specific questions about the Minister’s position, and I wonder whether she could write in response. I think I will leave it at that.

I take the point of my noble friend Lord Rooker that it would have been good to have been able to vote on this issue. However, there are so many amendments that noble colleagues want to vote on that I realise it was not possible. That should not mean that Ministers think we do not attach great importance to the arguments that have been made today. I just hope that the Minister will take those arguments to the DWP and see, behind the scenes, if something can be done. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

The Bill is a chance to make a real difference to how domestic abuse is understood and responded to. The amendment gives us the best chance of ensuring that the primary driver of awareness is accurate, reflecting the gendered nature of domestic abuse and ensuring that survivors can access the support that they need. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 185 in my name is a modest, simple amendment that would require the statutory guidance to take account of the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy alongside the existing requirement that the guidance takes account of the fact that the majority of domestic abuse victims and survivors are female. The latter was introduced by the Government in response to criticisms of the non-gendered nature of the Bill’s definition of domestic abuse, which my noble friend has been talking about so ably. The amendment has the support of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, to which I am grateful for its work in this area and its support, as I am to noble Lords who have signed the amendment. It also has the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and of the commissioner-designate, who has welcomed the amendment as ensuring that efforts to prevent and address domestic abuse are linked to an integrated and co-ordinated response to VAWG.

The coalition gives numerous examples of how domestic abuse is often experienced in the context of other forms of violence so that the two cannot be neatly separated out, especially in the case of black and minoritised women. These include the one-third of rapes going through the criminal justice system that were carried out in the context of domestic violence; forced marriages, which may involve coercive family control and abuse, rape and domestic violence; migrant women who have suffered domestic abuse, coercive control, sexual violence and financial exploitation combined; and the abuse of disabled women and girls, which also often involves rape and sexual violence.

While I support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Gale, I see my amendment very much as a bottom line. It goes a small way toward meeting the recommendation by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill that

“there should be greater integration of policies on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls to reflect the realities of the experience of victims.”

As my noble friend pointed out, the Joint Committee made it clear that this did not mean excluding men, boys and non-binary people from domestic abuse protection. The Joint Committee suggested that:

“The legislation and practice in Wales provide useful lessons in this area.”


In their response, the Government agreed that

“it is vital to integrate policies on domestic abuse with wider VAWG issues, and our situation of domestic abuse policy within our VAWG Strategy demonstrates our recognition of the gendered nature of domestic abuse.”

In similar vein, as my noble friend observed, the 2020 report on progress toward ratification of the Istanbul convention placed the Domestic Abuse Bill firmly within the context of VAWG.

Yet it is now clear that the Government, far from integrating the two strategies, intend their revised VAWG strategy, on which they are currently consulting, to be separate from their domestic abuse strategy. This has caused consternation among women’s organisations and others working to end VAWG in all its forms. They see it as breaking a 10-year cross-party consensus around the need for an integrated approach to tackling domestic abuse and other forms of VAWG. That is rooted in an understanding of the reality of women’s experiences and of the kind of integrated services provided by specialist services, particularly those by and for black and minoritised women. They fear it will accelerate a shift to a more gender-neutral approach to domestic abuse and violence.

The separation also goes against the EHRC recommendation that there should be:

“A single new cross-government VAWG strategy that addresses VAWG in all its forms, recognising domestic abuse as a form of VAWG, and the value of specialist by and for services”.


Furthermore, it is arguably at odds with Article 7(1) of the Istanbul convention, which requires Governments to adopt

“comprehensive and co-ordinated policies encompassing all relevant measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention and offer a holistic response to violence against women.”

There is a clear consensus among those who work on the ground and other key organisations that this separation is a retrograde step. Ministers are well aware of the strength of feeling yet insist that they are right. Moreover, they have not even included this key change of policy in the consultation that they are currently conducting on the new VAWG strategy. Could the Minister explain why the Government are so sure that they are right that not only are they refusing to listen to key stakeholders but they have not even included this issue in the consultation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I think what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just said could be the subject of a Question for Short Debate or even quite a long debate in your Lordships’ House, so complex is what he has just said so simply. By making reference to gender in the guidance but also having a gender-neutral definition, we recognise two things: first, that domestic abuse is mainly perpetrated against women, but taking into account that men, such the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who outlined his story so eloquently, can also be victims of domestic abuse. I said at the beginning of my speech that our aim is to protect and support all victims of domestic abuse, so I hope that what the Government have done, notwithstanding the legislation in the Commons, has struck that balance right.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I very much appreciate the Minister’s sensitive response to the amendment, but I asked her two questions and I do not think she really answered them. First, when all the stakeholders—all the people working in this area—think that it is a retrograde step to separate, even if they are complementary, domestic abuse and VAWG strategies, why do the Government think that they are right and everyone else is wrong?

My other question was why the Government think that separate strategies will be more effective than an integrated strategy, which could have separate strands within it? The Minister said that my amendment—or our amendment, because it is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, to whom I am very grateful—is not necessary, but she has not said anything that convinces me that there is an argument against including it in the draft guidance. It is not about just gender neutrality; it is about integration, coherence and a holistic strategy.

I do not know how much she can say now, but it suggests that we may have to come back with this in order to get a more plausible answer about why this should not go into the guidance alongside what has already been put in it by the Government on gender.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I understand what the noble Baroness says. She made a point about VAWG versus DA. Of course, domestic abuse is a type of violence against women and girls, although violence against women and girls goes far wider than domestic abuse. We are going to be bringing forward a domestic abuse strategy later this year. I can see the noble Baroness shaking her head, and I do not think I am going to convince her at this stage.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am very happy to have put my name to this amendment. I support entirely what the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has just said, so I will not weary the House at this time by repeating any of it.

Local welfare provision schemes are vital to the ability of the Domestic Abuse Bill to offer what is needed in local authority areas, particularly in emergency situations, but also more broadly. It is very important that local authorities have sufficient funding. Again and again during debates on the Bill we have listened to those who have said, quite rightly, that the Bill is a good Bill but, unless it has the money, it will not work. Again and again we get very good legislation, but it does not get implemented. The main reason for the failure to implement good legislation is the lack of funding. We absolutely must not find ourselves doing that with this very good Bill. I would only add to it to please, please include welfare provision for victims of domestic abuse and those who suffer from forced marriage or modern slavery.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 101, which in some ways follows on from my group of amendments on social security, debated last Wednesday.

If we had a decent social security system that provided genuine security to survivors of domestic abuse, including economic abuse, and still had a national emergency scheme like the Social Fund, we might not need local welfare assistance schemes. As it is, such schemes, which constitute the final safety net—leaving aside charitable support—are in a parlous state, despite the welcome injection of cash to help cope with the pandemic.

When local welfare assistance schemes were introduced to replace the national Social Fund, the Government refused to make them compulsory or to ring-fence the money allocated, despite your Lordships’ best efforts. It is no surprise, therefore, that when local authorities are strapped for cash because of years of cuts, research by the Children’s Society last year found that one in seven local authorities does not even run a scheme any more. It found that, of 121 authorities that provided spending data, about three-quarters spent less than half their allocated budget on local welfare assistance schemes. That budget has itself been cut, so that overall, it stands at less than half the money that was allocated to the Social Fund it replaced.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has pointed out, the lack of any regulation has given rise to our old friend the postcode lottery, which is particularly damaging to domestic abuse survivors who might find themselves excluded by local connection criteria if they have moved local authorities to escape their abuser. A woman might find herself excluded because she is subject to the “no recourse to public funds” rule. It is essential that any guidance issued under this amendment, should it eventually pass, ensures that these groups are covered.

More generally, domestic abuse survivors need the security of knowing that they can get appropriate help from local authorities and not just help in kind which may well not be appropriate. It is not good enough that we have to rely on a charity to provide basic information on state local welfare assistance schemes because central government have taken the Pontius Pilate approach and washed their hands of all responsibility for the schemes, ignoring the recommendations of the Work and Pensions Committee in a previous Parliament.

Paul Maynard MP on the Government Back Benches is leading a cross-party call tomorrow in the Commons for a review of local welfare assistance schemes, supported by among others former Secretary of State Iain Duncan Smith. Mr Maynard stated:

“We need to ensure we learn the lessons of the pandemic to embed a better provision of emergency support for some of the most vulnerable in our society.”

This amendment would at least require central government to exercise some responsibility towards this particularly vulnerable group of people and it therefore deserves support.

I also want to speak briefly in support of Amendment 176, leaving it to the sponsors of the amendment to make the case more fully. I am sure no one would dispute the importance of specialised domestic abuse provision for a range of minority groups, including particular provision by and for domestic abuse victims and survivors. It is just such provision which has been particularly vulnerable to funding cuts and changes in commissioning practises in recent years, as was discussed earlier. That is sufficient reason for supporting this amendment, but it would also go some way to redress the balance, following the welcome introduction in the Bill of a duty on local authorities to assess the need for accommodation-based services by ensuring the duty in this new clause covers community-based services. As important as accommodation-based services are—they are very important—the Justice Secretary noted at Second Reading debate in the House of Commons that 70% of domestic abuse victims never set foot in a refuge. Many of them will seek support from community-based services.

The Government say they need more evidence about the need for community-based services and that nothing can be done until the domestic abuse commissioner designate has completed her investigation. However, the domestic abuse commissioner herself and organisations on the ground insist there is ample evidence to make legislative provision now. What further evidence do the Government need?

In Committee in the Commons, the Minister assured MPs that

“the Government are committed to addressing”

Whatever the domestic abuse commissioner’s findings are,

“that the commissioner will publish her report under clause 8”,

and the Government are

“required to respond to it within 56 days.” ”—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 11/6/20; col. 249.]

That is all well and good, but this Bill will be on the statue book by then. The chances of another Domestic Abuse Bill coming along in the near future must be slim—just look at how long it has taken us to get to this point on this Bill. I hope the Government will listen to the experts, the domestic abuse commissioner designate and organisations on the ground and extend the duty on local authorities to assess the need for community-based services and accept this amendment as a way of doing so.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 176 and 177, in my name, and I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Rosser, for their support. Amendment 176 is broad, and, to try to help the House, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby will speak to non-discrimination and the need for specialist services; the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will speak on community-based services and how they support victims and provide perpetrator programmes; and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, will speak to the unintended consequences that the Bill risks having.

As I said last week, I am delighted that it is my Government who are putting forward this Bill, which has my strong support. I thank Barnardo’s and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, among others, for their help and advice.

At the outset, I welcome the announcement today of £40 million funding for community-based sexual violence and domestic abuse services. The Government have acknowledged the effect that the pandemic has had. This welcome government support only strengthens my argument that community-based services need long-term and sustainable funding. I hope the Government can solidify their good intentions by announcing that they will place community-based services on the same statutory footing as accommodation-based services.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was right just now. On 16 June last year, the domestic abuse commissioner designate wrote to the Domestic Abuse Bill Public Bill Committee in the other place to follow up on her oral evidence to it. I am happy to quote from her letter:

“As I said in my oral evidence, I strongly welcome the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s proposal to require Local Authorities to provide accommodation-based services, but it must go further. In order to address the breadth of domestic abuse services, the statutory duty must encompass those community-based services that are accessed by the majority of victims, survivors and their children, and must also include quality provision for perpetrators. I have very real concerns about Local Authorities redistributing their funding simply to meet the statutory duty, and therefore deprioritising those critical community-based services that can intervene earlier and prevent a survivor from being forced to flee to a refuge. There is already ample evidence to support this, and while my mapping work may well add to this evidence base, it is wholly unnecessary for Parliament to wait for it to complete before considering this issue.”


This is very clear. The commissioner designate acknowledges that the exercise will provide useful analysis of spending by local authorities on community-based services, but, crucially, she says that Parliament does not need to wait in legislating. She said this in June, and she has not changed her mind. This governmental concern about waiting is not shared by the commissioner and so many others, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to look at this again.

The other main concern has been the need to consult other public authorities. The new clause in Amendment 176 is structured so that it would improve service provision with immediate effect, with public bodies able to take into account relevant circumstances in deciding what constitutes “reasonable steps” and sufficiency. Taking new information into account, the nature of what constitutes “reasonable steps” and sufficiency will change accordingly as and when the outcome of any consultation or mapping exercise becomes available.

Many agencies are needed to tackle domestic abuse: among them are the police, housing, children’s services and the NHS. A multiagency approach is critical to ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are able to live and rebuild their lives free of abuse. The amendment brings these agencies together in a holistic approach.

The path to tackling domestic abuse is ensuring that all victims, adults or children, are able to access the support they require to recover from the trauma that they have experienced. For some victims, fleeing their home and seeking refuge in safe accommodation —a truly traumatic event in itself—may be their only option. Of course, this is no easy decision to arrive at: they may move miles away from their support networks and abandon their possessions and, sometimes, livelihoods, and their children may be taken out of their school—all for the pursuit of safety, while the perpetrator remains in the comfort of their own home.

For many victims, leaving home is just not an option: 70% of domestic abuse victims never set foot in safe accommodation, and it is clear that victims who are disabled, elderly, BAME or LGBTQ all face additional barriers to accessing safe accommodation—not to mention the vast number of child victims who are trapped. This is why I urge the Government to be bold and ensure that the Bill will help as many people in need as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the Part 4 duty in the Bill does not preclude the provision of community-based services. I understand what the noble Lord is saying: because local authorities have the duty to provide accommodation-based services, that means they will not provide community-based services. However, I do not think it does. There is a recognition that we need to explore this further, hence we have committed the domestic abuse commissioner to doing this mapping exercise. That work clearly needs to be explored, but it is very hard to make a bid to the Treasury without knowing exactly where the gaps lie. That is not to say there are no gaps—I am sure there are— but we are just not clear on what the actual ask of the Treasury will be.

As to whether we can ensure that some of the money given to local authorities goes to community-based services, local authorities clearly know the needs of their area, and I hope that they would allocate the money accordingly.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister gave the arguments that were given when the Social Fund was replaced by local welfare assistance schemes. Can she explain how the one in seven local authorities that do not have a local welfare assistance scheme will assess and meet the needs of domestic abuse survivors through such schemes when they do not exist in their area?

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

34: Clause 8, page 5, line 29, at end insert—
“(7) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Commissioner must publish a report under this section, which—(a) investigates the impact of Universal Credit single household payments on victims of domestic abuse; and (b) investigates and presents alternative options for the payment of Universal Credit (single household payments) that protect victims of domestic abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a legal duty on the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to investigate the payment of Universal Credit separately to members of a couple and to lay a report to Parliament.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 34 would require the domestic abuse commissioner to investigate the payment of universal credit separately for members of a couple and to lay a report before Parliament. I will first speak to Amendment 153, which would require an impact assessment of any future social security reforms on domestic abuse victims, because this frames the other amendments in the group.

I am grateful to Women’s Aid, Refuge and the Chartered Institute of Housing for their help with the various amendments, which address issues they see as crucial. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have put their name to them, as well as to DWP Ministers for a helpful meeting this week.

At Second Reading, the Minister explained that one of the Bill’s objectives is

“to improve performance across local and national agencies.”—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 21.]

This reflects the Istanbul convention’s stipulation that measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence against women and girls should involve

“all relevant actors, such as government agencies”.

Pursuing a similar theme, the Work and Pensions Committee argued:

“Getting the right support and systems in place for Universal Credit claimants … could play a small, vital role in minimising harm”,


and that the DWP

“has a moral duty to ensure the benefit system does not in any way facilitate abuse.”

Yet the Bill does not mention social security, even though the draft guidance notes:

“DWP employees are highly likely to come into contact with victims of domestic abuse”,


and the response to the Joint Committee report acknowledged that

“access to money is one of the main barriers to ending an abusive relationship”.

Indeed, over 50% of survivors surveyed by Women’s Aid and the TUC said that they could not afford to leave their abuser as they faced a stark choice between safety and poverty, heightened during the pandemic. Research by Women’s Aid and others shows how while the social security system, as a vital safety net, can “keep some survivors going”, it can also create barriers and an additional source of stress in the aftermath of abuse.

The DWP is to be commended for certain easements and exemptions for domestic abuse victims and survivors, and for domestic abuse training of one point of contact in each office. But I understand that there are difficulties in retaining this knowledge and expertise in jobcentres because of staff turnover. Can the Minister follow up in writing with information about how widespread a problem this is and what provision exists to refresh training, and respond to Women’s Aid’s request for the future full training of all work coaches.

More fundamentally, the very welcome inclusion of economic abuse in the Bill’s definition of domestic abuse will be undermined by the cumulative impact of some of the Government’s own social security reforms, including the two-child limit and bedroom tax, as well as those that are covered by other amendments in this group. It is worth noting here that the European Court on Human Rights ruled last year that the bedroom tax unlawfully discriminates against victims of domestic abuse who have a panic room as part of a sanctuary scheme. Women’s Aid has discovered from FoI responses from 79 local authorities that almost one in 20 households using the sanctuary scheme has been affected by the bedroom tax. Yet nothing has been done to rectify this. Can the Minister explain why, if necessary in writing?

When a similar amendment was tabled in the Commons, the Minister responded that the Government were already obliged to consider the impacts of their policies through existing equality assessments, in line with the public sector equality duty. But as a Women’s Budget Group report noted, DWP equality impact assessments are very limited from a gender perspective and do nothing to assess, for instance, the impact on who in a couple controls resources, on the financial security and autonomy each enjoys, or on the ability to escape an abusive relationship. Surely it makes sense to consider such key implications for the Government’s domestic abuse strategy at the design stage of social security policy.

The case is exemplified in particular by the subject of the lead amendment. The payment of UC into a single account, even if a joint account, has been described by one commentator as “a weapon for abusers”. It can encourage and exacerbate economic abuse, potentially with long-term consequences. No one is arguing that separate payments are a solution to economic abuse, as Ministers often suggest we are, in response to criticism of this policy. But, as the Economic Affairs Committee pointed out in its recent report on UC,

“the design of the single household payment can, in certain circumstances, exacerbate the risk that financial coercion may take place and make it more difficult for people who have suffered from any form of abuse to escape.”

The committee also points out that payment into a single account

“does not reflect reality for many families today, who are used to both partners having their own income … This is important both for reducing the risks of financial coercion and domestic abuse more widely and for encouraging more balanced and equal relationships.”

This last point addresses the Government’s argument that separate payments would be out of line with how most couples manage their finances. I point out that according to a Refuge and Co-op survey, as many as 16% self-reported experiencing economic abuse; this is equivalent to 9 million people.

The chief executive of SafeLives told the Commons committee that

“split payments are something that everyone across the whole sector is crying out for.”

That organisation knows from experience that the current policy of allowing domestic abuse victims to request a split payment simply does not work, not least because it puts victims at risk, because the abusing partner would immediately guess why they are not getting the full payment for the family, or could easily discover the reason. Indeed, the operational guidance acknowledges the risk.

From the Minister’s responses in Committee in the Commons, she did not seem to understand this. When asked:

“Can the Minister not see the problem with a woman going in and asking for a split payment, and then returning home that evening?”,


she responded:

“That is why we do not have it as a default.”—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, 16/6/20; col. 376.]


But if a separate payment were the default, the abuser could not blame the abused because the couple would be treated like everyone else. The Joint Committee recommended nearly two years ago that the DWP,

“should examine how different approaches to splitting the Universal Credit single household payment might mitigate against the effects of domestic abuse.”

The most recent of a series of such recommendations from parliamentary committees and others comes from the Economic Affairs Committee, which, like others, suggests that any review could draw on work being undertaken in Scotland.

Welcome as the decision to encourage joint payment into the bank account of the main carer is, it is not seen as the answer by those on the ground and does not help those without children. The consensus is that a review is still needed—hence, this amendment, which would allow for an independent, focused review that could take a detailed look at the evidence on how joint payments are working and consider the options for separate payments, which I know raise complex issues.

I turn to the other amendments, which are examples of how policies that have had a wider damaging impact could be mitigated for domestic abuse survivors. This is not the place to make the wider case against these policies, much as I should like to, but a precedent for exempting this group from them already exists in the job search easement. I trust that that will not be used as an argument against these amendments.

Amendment 150 would exempt domestic abuse survivors from having to repay any benefit advance made to protect them from the effects of having to wait at least five weeks for a first UC payment. The Economic Affairs Committee observed that this wait

“is the primary cause of insecurity in universal credit. It entrenches debt, increases poverty and harms vulnerable groups disproportionately.”

While, as I said, the Bill cannot be a vehicle for introducing the general non-repayable grant recommended by the committee and others, including the Joint Committee, the particular vulnerability that domestic abuse survivors face at the point of claiming justifies their exemption from repaying the advance. Think about it. If I had just fled an abusive situation, I could well be traumatised and have minimal possessions with me, and may need to replace essential items. I could be one of the nearly three out of five survivors of economic abuse identified in Refuge research as already in debt because of the abuse—an average debt of over £3,000, and over a quarter with debts of over £5,000. I could be one of the three out of five survivors that Surviving Economic Abuse found had been subject to at least one coerced debt. The last thing I would want would be to add to that debt through a repayable grant, even though it is interest-free and despite the welcome improvements made to the repayment terms, which, I am afraid, do not solve the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will not go through all those who supported the amendments individually, but their contributions deepened the case that I made and brought a number of different, very helpful perspectives to it. I add my welcome to the right reverend Prelate and look forward to his future contributions to our debates on these and related issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, did not support the amendments. I hope that she will not mind if I address what she said along with what the Minister said, because she made some of the same points. I am grateful to the Minister for her full and detailed response. I am not going to try and answer it all now: I need to read what she said in Hansard. Some of her points were ones that I and other noble Lords had already countered in our contributions, so I do not want to go over all of that.

I take the point about the domestic abuse commissioner, but my understanding is that she is sympathetic. I know that she is certainly very concerned about economic abuse and I understand that she is, in a sense, already undertaking an investigation on community-based services which will be relevant to a later amendment for the Government.

Both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, made a point about legacy benefits. The whole point of universal credit is that it puts all your eggs in one basket. With legacy benefits, one benefit might be going to the man in the household; another, probably the one for children, to the woman—child benefit still does usually. This is why this has become an issue now. It was not the same under legacy benefits, yet Ministers continue to trot this argument out as if legacy benefits were somehow the same: they were not. Putting everything into one basket in that way is one of the problems with universal credit.

My noble friend Lady Sherlock, other noble Lords and I made the point that it is simply too risky to ask for a split payment. It may be done in privacy but men—it usually is men—are not so stupid that they do not realise that if the benefit they are getting is suddenly halved, that may be the reason for it. Women are, of course, frightened to go back and face the consequences. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, refuge workers on the ground say that women are just too scared to ask for split payments: they are not an answer. I know that the best way of doing this is complex and that is why a review, which has to be independent, is the best way to deal with it.

I am glad that the Minister referred to training, but she did not actually answer my questions on it. I would be grateful if, when she writes following this debate, she answers my specific questions on that.

I will not try to go through everything else that has been said; as I say, I need to read the details. I am glad that the Home Office is having regular discussions with the DWP on these issues, but, while it may not be able to say this to us, the evidence must worry it that what is happening in the social security system is undermining its objectives for dealing with domestic abuse, particularly economic abuse. I hope that it will relay to the DWP the messages that came across from virtually everyone who spoke in today’s very good debate —because we owe it to women who are suffering, or survivors of, domestic abuse to provide a social security system that gives them genuine security. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too welcome the Bill and pay tribute to all who have contributed to it, including organisations on the ground, whose experience and expertise must inform our debates. But these organisations are very clear that if the Bill is fully to achieve its aims, the Government have to make good its key omissions.

First, as noted already, the Bill must address the needs of migrant women, in particular those denied assistance because of the “no recourse to public funds” rule. While I applaud the Government’s willingness to act on the criticisms of the draft prospectus for the support for migrant victims scheme, they should heed the consensus—including from the commissioner-designate—that we do not need additional information from a pilot. Therefore, the protection of migrant women and the non-discrimination principle, in accord with the Istanbul convention, should be written into the Bill.

Also important from the perspective of the convention is the failure to integrate the domestic abuse and VAWG strategies in recognition of domestic abuse’s gendered nature, as acknowledged by the Government in their response to the Joint Committee’s report. At the very least, the Bill should state explicitly that the statutory guidance must take account of the VAWG strategy. Failure to do so ignores the reality of women’s experiences and threatens further to undermine specialist service provision, especially those led by and for black and minoritised women, which take an integrated approach to domestic violence and other forms of violence again women. Support for specialist services also needs strengthening and the welcome duty to assess need for accommodation-based services has to be complemented by a similar duty on community services, otherwise they will suffer, as the commissioner-designate has warned.

The inclusion of economic abuse in the definition of domestic abuse is welcome, but the failure to reform existing legislation on coercive control means that the Bill does nothing to address post-separation abuse, which all too often means that economic abuse continues or even escalates post separation, with devastating effects on survivors. In the Commons, the Minister acknowledged that this is

“a particularly potent and cruel weapon”—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, 17/6/20; col. 392.]

but deflected an amendment with reference to a review of the coercive control legislation due to be completed by early autumn. That was in June. Nearly seven months later there is no sign of the review, despite an assurance in a Written Answer that the intention was to publish it in time to inform our debates. Can the Minister explain why it has not been published and when we can expect it? We will want to pursue this further in Committee.

I also plan to pursue aspects of social security policy, such as the joint payment of universal credit, the repayment of advances made to mitigate the impact of the five-week or more wait and the benefit cap. As many organisations and parliamentary committees have warned, such policies can facilitate and aggravate economic abuse, thereby undermining the Government’s own laudable goals. Could the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the DWP to ensure that social security policy supports domestic abuse policy?

Finally, I welcome the inclusion of the provision from earlier legislation, on which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and I worked, to protect the lifetime tenancies of domestic abuse survivors, but note the need for training of all local authority housing officials, and issues raised around joint tenancies and the Government’s homelessness amendment.

We have the opportunity to turn a good Bill, as far as it goes, into a truly great Bill. I hope we will seize it.

Migrant Women: Domestic Abuse

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect migrant women who have been subjected to domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, it is essential that migrant victims of domestic abuse, including those with no recourse to public funds, are treated first and foremost as victims. Already, the destitution domestic violence concession provides emergency crisis support to protect victims on certain spousal visas. We are taking steps to provide further protection through the £1.5 million scheme to support migrant victims, and to assess and address shortfalls in the current provision.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, instead of listening to the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill, organisations on the ground and the commissioner-designate, the Government’s review of migrant domestic abuse victims has produced a pilot widely condemned as unnecessary, totally inadequate and, despite what the Minister has just said, potentially discriminatory, because it subordinates abused women’s needs to their immigration status. Will the Government act on these concerns and rethink the pilot or, better still, enshrine in the Bill protection for abused migrant women and the Istanbul convention principle of non-discrimination, as is widely called for?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

We listened very carefully to the Joint Committee’s recommendations. I will discuss with colleagues whether there is any discrimination inherent in the scheme. While it will be in force for only four months, we fully intend to roll it out far beyond March. I will keep the noble Baroness updated, and certainly take back her point about discrimination within the scheme.

Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v Home Office

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to when the fees were last agreed. They were set out in Section 68(9) of the Immigration Act 2014, during the coalition Government.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, could the Minister confirm that the “task and finish” exercise which she promised at Report stage of the immigration Bill will address the barriers to children registering their citizenship, as covered in my amendment, and that the outcome will be reported to your Lordships’ House?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

On Report, I promised to meet with noble Lords. I called it “task and finish”, but I am still thinking of the best way to set that up. And yes, I would like to report some of the findings of that discussion to your Lordships’ House.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 24, which appears under my name, is one of a suite of amendments that I moved in Committee. I continue to stand by all of them, but in achieving a disappointing response from the Minister then, I have restricted myself to just one. I record now, as I did then, the role of Liberty in working on all of them. When I saw that no one else had brought forward a similar amendment, I felt that this issue had to be raised in any immigration Bill.

This amendment is about “no recourse to public funds”. It is something I find myself talking about so often that the phrase rolls off my tongue like poetry, but of course this is the stuff of nightmare, of personal desperation and great suffering. It is the situation of the victim of domestic violence facing the choice between homelessness and penury for herself and her children and the very real danger of being maimed or killed if she stays. It is the situation of the child going hungry, suffering the miserable, desperate pangs that prevent concentration or hope, when his peers get free school meals.

I assume there is no Member of your Lordships’ House who would deny the human right to life, but “no recourse to public funds” denies access to the most basic essentials. People are forced to rely on the fragile, overstretched resources of specialist charities, and people fall through the cracks of that hopelessly underresourced, fragile net of support.

I fear that in this Bill, the Minister and I are trapped on a merry-go-round. I believe I can foresee the response I am likely to receive: that this is discriminatory if applied only to people newly covered by immigration law, EU and EEA citizens, and not to everybody. At the risk of sounding like a recording, I want this to apply to everybody. The Government could and should end any application of the “no recourse to public funds” rule. In this amendment, I have tried to save as many as the rules of the Table Office will allow me. Saving some people from being penniless and homeless, from hunger and abuse, and perhaps from death, is better than saving none. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling Amendment 24. In supporting it, I will not repeat the evidence I rehearsed in Committee showing the damaging impact of the “no recourse to public funds” condition on children denied free school meals, in particular—she mentioned that particular group. But I will draw attention to a national survey published since then by the Children’s Food Campaign and Food Active, which found that nine out of 10 parents agreed that eligibility for free school meals should apply regardless of immigration status.

I also want to return to some specific points I raised in Committee. First, I would like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for responding to my question about data in her letter. I hope the department will follow this up with the Children’s Society, to see how it might improve the data so as to provide a better indicator of the levels of hardship created and the demographics of the groups worst affected.

In Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister referred to what I said about the temporary extension of eligibility for free school meals to support families with NRPF. But she did not acknowledge the point I made that this was a partial concession covering only some NRPF families, nor that the concession has now been withdrawn. I asked what possible justification there could be for this, and I quoted from a letter from 60 organisations to the Education Secretary, which among other things noted that these children will face having to make up half a year of lost learning on empty stomachs. Could the noble Lord the Minister who is speaking today respond to that point now and, at the very least, commit to taking it up with colleagues in the Department for Education?

According to a briefing from the Children’s Society and others, the Government have indicated that there will be a full review of the free school meals system and that that is needed before the extension to NRPF families can be made permanent. But why? Why does it need a full review? Hunger cannot wait for a review. What is the scope and timetable of this review? If the Minister cannot answer that now, please could it be covered in a subsequent letter?

The Minister did not respond either in Committee or in her letter to a specific question that I posed, echoing the Work and Pensions Select Committee. I asked for a definitive clarification as to whether local welfare assistance funds counted as public funds for these purposes. They act as a kind of safety net below the safety net—a rather ragged safety net below the safety net—but if even those are not available, it makes life that much harder for this group. Again, if the Minister does not have the answer, could it please be covered in a subsequent letter?

The comprehensive improvement plan, published last week in response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, identified the NRPF as one of six primary streams in the compliant—aka hostile—environment. It is interesting that the Home Secretary, as far as I can see, did not refer to this rather important plan of the Home Office in her speech on Sunday at the Conservative Party conference. But in contrast to the plan’s emollient tone, while talking about compassion and so forth, we have learned in the media—and I know that the Minister will say that he cannot respond to leaks, but it did not seem like a leak; it seemed like it had been deliberately placed—that there is a push by Downing Street to

“radically beef up the hostile environment in 2021.”

If this is true, it makes a mockery of the review of the hostile/compliant environment detailed in the Home Office’s plan. Can the Minister provide a categorical denial that the intention is not to radically beef up the compliant/hostile environment, because that certainly was not what Wendy Williams was calling for?

I refer back to the exchange that I had in Committee with the Minister on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review—and I thank her for the offer of the meeting. It seems to me from the comprehensive improvement plan that the review of the hostile/compliant environment will not include questioning its legislative underpinnings. For instance, it will not question the right-to-rent legislation itself, but simply how it is being implemented. What if the review concludes that the legislation itself is not proportionate in meeting the Government’s stated aims, which is part of what Wendy Williams’s recommendations said it should be looking at? I would be very happy if the Minister responds to say that I have misinterpreted what the plan says, and that the terms of reference are that it is open to those reviewing the hostile/compliant environment to question the legislation, if that is where the evidence takes them. Surely—going back to my first point—the denial of free school meals to hungry children is not proportionate.

Asylum: British Overseas Territories and Ferries

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Well, I think any noble Lord who listened to my right honourable friend yesterday will at least concede that humanity was at the heart of what she was saying. She was talking about a “firm and fair” immigration system, and about the people traffickers who exploit the most vulnerable. I can confirm that we will act in accordance with our international conventions, and I will not comment on the leaks.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I have read the Home Secretary’s speech, but how do such ideas, which are widely condemned as inhumane and dehumanising, square with her stated ambition to build a

“more compassionate … Home Office that puts people first”?

Are asylum seekers not people with human rights who are entitled to be treated with dignity? According to the central recommendations of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, that should underpin all Home Office policy.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Baroness will appreciate that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s words do not accord with many of the things that were leaked. She is absolutely committed, as the noble Baroness will have heard, to accepting all the recommendations in the Wendy Williams lessons learned report. We are working through those now and we want a humane, fair but firm immigration system.