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Yet the Bill does not mention social security, even though the draft guidance notes: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