Domestic Abuse

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support survivors of domestic abuse and to prevent future abuse.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to open this short debate, which provides an opportunity to discuss the consultation document published on International Women’s Day. For all my criticisms of the Prime Minister, I applaud her commitment on this issue and that of the Minister. Indeed, it was she who negotiated the concession on the Housing and Planning Bill which led to the Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill, which had its Third Reading last week.

I do not join in the criticism that this is only a consultation document, because consultation is good. I am particularly pleased that it aims,

“to harness the knowledge and expertise of victims and survivors”.

What is disappointing is that it has taken so long to get to this point.

There is much of value in the document and many of the proposals should help tackle what the ministerial foreword rightly describes as a particularly shocking form of violence and abuse. I commend in particular the recognition that domestic abuse is a gendered crime, overwhelmingly, though not uniquely, perpetrated by men against women especially in its most serious forms, and the proposed new statutory definition’s emphasis on economic abuse—of which, more in a moment. However, Women’s Aid has expressed some concerns about the definition which I hope the Government will look at.

I welcome the emphasis on protecting children and a degree of recognition that there is considerable room for improvement in how children’s services deal with domestic abuse—although it will need to go further here. I was also pleased to see acknowledgement of the need to improve how the immigration system deals with victims of domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds, and the support for Southall Black Sisters, whose work in this area has been an inspiration. It is good to see proposals designed to enable ratification of the Istanbul Convention. Do the Government have a target date for ratification?

That said, I am sure that noble Lords would be surprised if I spent all my time praising the Government, so here come two big “buts”, both of which relate either directly or indirectly to universal credit. First, due to the rollout of UC, the Government have proposed a new funding model for refuges. At present, most of the housing funding element comes from housing benefit, but, as that is incorporated into UC and paid monthly in arrears—often with delays—it will no longer work easily. In its place, the Government have proposed combining refuges with a disparate group of short-term supported housing services and devolving all the funding in a ring-fenced grant to local authorities. This has caused dismay among refuge providers surveyed by Women’s Aid, to which I pay tribute along with other organisations in the field for its work on behalf of victims and survivors. Main concerns include: given that more than two-thirds of women flee to a refuge outside their area, a totally local funding model is inappropriate; the history of the Supporting People programme does not instil confidence in the longevity of any ring-fencing; and, as we have seen with devolution of funding from the national social fund without a ring-fence, this can lead to complete closure of local schemes.

As a joint report of the Communities and Local Government and Work and Pensions Committees emphasised, the unique challenges faced by refuges requires,

“a distinct model of funding, separate to the arrangements for other forms of supported housing”.

Otherwise, the kind of specialist support required by the Istanbul Convention, and in particular that for marginalised groups such as disabled and BME women, will be at risk. Indeed, it is already highly insecure, as noted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was then a member, in its 2015 report on the issue.

This is highly relevant to Ministers’ reassurances that there are 10% more bed spaces since 2010 for those fleeing abuse, which no doubt the Minister will repeat later. What that figure hides is the loss of beds in specialist refuges, as competitive tendering and commissioning have driven a trend to larger, more generic providers and funding reductions have meant less funding per bed, thereby making it harder to provide the necessary support for women with complex needs. It is important to emphasise that specialist services are essential in supporting often traumatised women. In its latest domestic abuse report, Women’s Aid warns that such services are already,

“facing a funding and sustainability crisis”.

It believes that the impact of the proposed funding model will be catastrophic. It is therefore welcome that the Government appear to be listening and have now said that no options are off the table. But to provide reassurance, they should go further and drop the proposed local model completely. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, said recently:

“It is important that we recognise that there is a national dimension to the funding of refuges, not least because people … often are fleeing from the area where they live, understandably, to another area. Also, specialist services could not necessarily be provided on a local basis”.—[Official Report, 6/3/18; col. 1017.]


Indeed, my Lords.

My other big “but” relates to question 35 in the consultation document. It asks:

“What practical barriers do domestic abuse victims face in escaping or recovering from economic abuse and how could these be overcome?”.


I would argue that one of the biggest barriers is the Government’s own so-called welfare reforms, which it is in their power to overcome very easily. Among those highlighted by Women’s Aid are: the reduced benefit cap—which is undermining the exemption of refuges from the original cap because the exemption applies only to the housing benefit element—and the barriers it can create to women moving on to new accommodation; the need for a transitional period of exemption from the bedroom tax for women in a refuge or temporary accommodation, to ensure that suitable move-on accommodation can be secured; and the two-child limit, which could affect a significant minority of survivors.

While conception in the context of an abusive relationship might qualify for exemption, it requires disclosure to a work coach, which can be problematic—just think about having to tell a work coach about that. It requires the victim not to be living with the alleged perpetrator which, according to Women’s Aid, demonstrates a “lack of understanding” of the nature of coercive control. Indeed, the Prime Minister herself said in an International Women’s Day interview with the Independent that,

“we need to remember those women who don’t make that move to leave ... and what support they need”.

What is more, the payment of UC into one account—single or joint—has, in the words of one commentator, reshaped the benefits system into a weapon for abusers. The Women’s Budget Group, of which I am a member, has long warned that,

“the routine application of a single monthly payment can give perpetrators further mechanisms of financial control, putting survivors at greater risk of abuse and limiting their access to the benefit they are entitled to”.

A discretionary split-payment exemption lays the woman open to potential further abuse when the abusive partner’s benefit is then reduced. Such concerns have also been raised by the JCHR, among others, more than once.

In Scotland, split payments are to be routine following a consultation in which some nine in 10 responses recommended this. If the DWP refuses to follow suit elsewhere, it could be accused of aiding and abetting the offence of economic abuse. Will the Minister please take this message back to the DWP? Can she and colleagues in the Home Office and Ministry of Justice do what they can to persuade the DWP that this policy risks undermining the Government’s flagship domestic abuse policy, and that the DWP should include an assessment of the impact on domestic abuse survivors in all future policy impact assessments? My focus on the DWP also points to a wider concern raised by Women’s Aid: that if the domestic abuse Bill is really to transform the response to survivors, we need action across all parts of the public sector—including, for example, health and housing, about which the document says little that is new.

In conclusion, I have identified two ways in which government policy itself might undermine the welcome proposed domestic abuse strategy. In addition, for the strategy to be successful it needs to be adequately resourced, yet it is not at all clear from the document that it will be. The document itself cites research which puts the overall cost of gender-based violence to both victims and society at £26 billion a year—and that was back in 2012. On the principle of spend to save, it makes sense to invest in this policy, but more importantly this is a matter of human rights, equality and social justice.