Baroness Lister of Burtersett:

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 statementThis 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.

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.

With regard to the European Court of Human Rights ruling that the removal of the spare room subsidy—AKA the bedroom tax—unlawfully discriminates against victims of domestic abuse with a panic room, the Minister responded that the Government recognise the important role played by the sanctuary scheme

“in a victim’s long-term safety and well-being”,

and that:

“Work is under way to establish what steps are necessary to support claimants”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1703.]

in such schemes who are affected by the bedroom tax. In the meantime, government guidance to local authorities recommends that they take this into consideration when deciding whether to award a discretionary housing payment.

However, why is it taking so long to implement a judgment made in October 2019? If the application of the bedroom tax in such cases is unlawful, is not the answer to stop applying it? The obvious mechanism for doing so is Regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, which is how the Government resolved unlawful discrimination with regard to the bedroom tax in relation to disability.

Discretionary housing payments are inherently unsatisfactory because, as the name makes clear, they are discretionary and do not afford domestic abuse survivors the confidence given by a clear right. This is a clear example of how a social security policy change has had a specific and negative impact on survivors of domestic abuse, which could have been prevented if a proper impact assessment of such policies on survivors had been undertaken before it was made. The issue has been pursued with the Secretary of State, but there is still no action. Will the Minister undertake to raise this with the Secretary of State herself?

Amendment 10 also exemplifies why we need a domestic abuse-sensitive impact assessment of new social security measures. It would require the domestic abuse commissioner to investigate the payment of universal credit separately to members of a couple and to lay a report before Parliament. I will not repeat the arguments made in Committee, but I note the recent call of the Women and Equalities Committee for urgent research into the gendered impact of UC design, including the single household payment structure, having argued that it

“creates risks for women’s financial independence, which can have severe consequences for women in abusive relationships.” 

In Committee, the Minister made much of the argument that it would not be appropriate to mandate the commissioner in this way, as it is for her to set her own priorities. Yet the commissioner herself has welcomed this amendment, while understandably also looking to a government commitment to provide the necessary resources to undertake it. Moreover, the Government have required the commissioner designate to map community-based services, now enshrined in government Amendment 17, and presumably did not consider that that impinged on her independence, so I hope that we will not hear that argument today. I will respond to the Minister’s other arguments in the order that they were made.

First, the Minister pointed out that for many legacy benefits, payment is already made to one household member and that, therefore, the UC model is not new. But what is new is that, whereas before different benefits might have gone to different members of a couple, UC rolls up six benefits in one. This increases the risk of financial abuse and is why it has only now become such an issue. She then argued that most couples

“keep and manage their finances together”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1700.] and therefore do not want state Intervention in the joint management of their finances. But research into household finances indicates that the realities of management, power and control in ostensibly joint finances are far more complex than that statement suggests. Moreover, as the Economic Affairs Committee pointed out, payment into a single account does not in fact

“reflect reality for many families today, who are used to both partners having their own income”,

which is important

“for reducing the risks of financial coercion and domestic abuse more widely and for encouraging more balanced and equal relationships.”

The implication of the Minister’s statement is that we are talking about only a small group. But, unfortunately, financial abuse is all too common and she herself acknowledged elsewhere in Committee that:

“As we all know, domestic abuse is widespread”.—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 100.]

As for state intervention, the current default position of joint payments itself represents state intervention.

What I find depressing is that in arguing that

“it is important that we allow the individual experiencing domestic abuse to decide whether split payments will help their individual circumstances”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1700.] the Minister simply ignored the points made by myself and others, as well as domestic abuse organisations on the ground, that to put the onus on the individual victim in this way is to open them up to considerable risk. If she were in this situation, would she feel safe asking for a split payment in the knowledge that her partner would quickly work out why his payment had been reduced, potentially leading to frightening repercussions? Indeed, the DWP’s own operational guidance acknowledges this risk. Yes, messaging to encourage payment into the main carer’s account has been a welcome step but it is not seen as the answer by those on the ground and does not help those without children.

The Minister then raised a number of issues and practical challenges that would need to be addressed in a system of default separate payments. That is exactly why we need an in-depth, independent investigation of the kind envisaged in this amendment. If the Government genuinely wanted to achieve the best outcome for victims and survivors, they would embrace this amendment with open arms in the same way that the commissioner-designate has done.

Turning to Amendment 69, I start with a mea culpa. To my horror I realised too late that I had tabled the wrong amendment in Committee, and I apologise to the Minister for that. As originally intended, this amendment would exempt domestic abuse survivors from having to repay any benefit advance to protect them from having to wait at least five weeks for their first payment.

As anticipated, the Minister responded that this would

“raise equality concerns and lead to calls for the measure’s extension to other groups.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1702.]

But the existence of the special job search easement for domestic abuse survivors demonstrates the scope for exemptions for this group, and to my knowledge it has not led to such calls. The particular vulnerability domestic abuse survivors face at the point of claiming surely justifies their exemption from repaying the advance.

Typically, survivors of economic abuse already carry significant debt and the last thing they want is to then become indebted to the DWP, even taking into account the welcome relaxation of the repayment rules mentioned by the Minister and now brought forward in the Budget. Yet the noble Baroness totally failed to address this point. If she had left an abuser, with few possessions and in debt, would she really want to sign up to a further DWP debt? Because debt it is, even if interest-free.

Concerns about fraud are addressed by the amendment which sets out the evidence that would be required to prove domestic abuse, with reference to the legal aid requirements. I take the Minister’s point that this could delay payment, which is the very opposite of what is wanted, but surely it would be possible to make an emergency payment, making it clear that evidence would be required to confirm it.

I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Best, to introduce Amendment 72, which would mitigate the impact of the benefit cap on domestic abuse survivors. I am grateful to him and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for taking this amendment forward and to DWP officials and Ministers who met with us after Committee. I hope we can find a resolution to this important issue.

In conclusion, while I welcome the Minister’s assurance that the Home Office has regular discussions with the DWP, there is no evidence that this has had any effect. If nothing else, I hope this debate will encourage a more critical engagement with the DWP and that the arguments put forward here will be shared with it. It is so sad if, having taken the pioneering step to include economic abuse in this Bill, such abuse is then perpetuated by the Government’s own social security policies. It is an issue raised time and again by organisations on the ground.

As the Minister herself said in Committee,

‘economic hardship should not be a barrier to someone leaving an abusive partner’.”—[Official Report, 1/2/21; col. 2010.]

Yet it is a barrier, thanks in large part to current social security policy. I quote a survivor of economic abuse, whose situation was highlighted in a recent online article:

“All of society—the police, the benefits system, the courts—are missing the simple fact that the massive reason that most victims cannot leave their abuser is because of finances, especially when children are involved. Money is your escape, it’s your way out. I really don’t know where I’d be without universal credit. That’s why I want to raise awareness and talk about how it needs to be easier to access. I know how hard it is to access support when you're so traumatised by what’s happening that waking up every day and looking after your children is hard enough already.”

These amendments would help to make life easier for women in this situation— women whom we must remember on International Women’s Day.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 72 and the consequential Amendment 102 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I speak for the three of us and I also thank the Chartered Institute of Housing for expert technical advice.

Amendment 72 calls for a period of grace from the imposition of the cap on the benefits of those escaping domestic abuse. In Committee, we noted that the benefit cap is a particular problem for those desperate to leave their current accommodation, both those victims of abuse who move out into a rented home and those who flee first to a refuge or temporary accommodation but need to move on into rented housing. The cap on benefits means that someone suffering from abuse may simply be unable to leave their abuser because this would mean that their income, after paying the rent, would not be enough to live on. The cap is likely to cut the benefit that they would otherwise receive by over £50 per week outside London and well over £100 per week in London. The benefit cap, therefore, traps them where they are.

There are other, special, unfairnesses caused by the benefit cap in domestic abuse cases. If an abused woman had been working and was forced to move out and start claiming benefits, she would be allowed a period of grace from the benefit cap, but not so if she was not in work. Yet as the debates on this Bill have illustrated, not working may have been the result of coercive control where the abuser has prevented the survivor from working. Even more unfairly, the imposition of the cap because the survivor has a third child may mean penalising someone for being the victim of non-consensual conception—the so-called rape Clause.

Our solution is the simple one of exempting from the benefit cap for a year all those forced to claim benefits because of domestic abuse to give them the breathing space to shop around for more affordable accommodation or, where appropriate, to get a job. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman- Scott, the appropriate Lords Minister, who met with the three of us, introduced us to Mims Davies, the DWP Minister, and subsequently ensured that we received a full explanation of her department’s position.

It appeared to us that there is not an objection in principle to supporting victims of domestic abuse who could be greatly disadvantaged by the benefit cap, nor that there were difficulties in defining and identifying those who would be covered by the period of grace. However, because of administrative difficulties, the department’s preferred approach is for those facing this hazard to apply to the local authority for help in the form of a discretionary housing payment to assist with their rent.

I am bound to say that this alternative to allowing a straightforward, automatic period of grace is not very helpful. It represents a somewhat cumbersome and certainly insecure basis for overcoming the problem. Will the local authority be able to offer a discretionary housing payment to the abuse victim in these circumstances? DHPs must fund so many other cases—for example, relieving the hardship created for thousands by that notorious bedroom tax. The £180 million per annum set aside for DHPs is spread across all local councils. Moreover, DHPs are very often awarded for only a short period, such as three months. A woman who is desperate to get out of an abusive relationship but is trapped by knowing her capped benefits will not cover the basic necessities for life for herself and her children cannot risk moving out.

We have considered whether the task of monitoring a claimant’s circumstances would create extra work for jobcentre staff, but this amendment’s proposal would not involve any monitoring of claimants; it is for a simple one-off fixed exemption from the benefit for 12 months. This contrasts with the alternative suggestion of passing the job to hard-pressed local authorities for them to make DHPs, which indeed require monitoring because they are discretionary. The number of people who would be affected by the period of grace is small, but for those who are affected it is of the utmost importance. The victim of the abuse may be forced to suffer indefinitely if the benefits system means that to leave their abusive partner would be financially ruinous.

It seems that the administrative processes for DWP officials may stymie our hopes of securing this period of grace, but perhaps we can be assured that the alternative route of using the DHP option will be facilitated by the Government recommending that local authorities prioritise these cases, and by enhanced liaison between local authorities and DWP Jobcentre Plus offices. The problem will not go away just because it is administratively inconvenient. We believe that Ministers are sympathetic to the approach that the amendment puts forward, and we hope the Minister today can offer us some hope that it can be resolved.

My Lords, I was going to pass a short comment on each of the amendments because I agree with them all, but I will confine myself to Amendment 10.

I hope the Minister has taken on board the central point that my noble friend Lady Lister made: the social security system is undermining the processes and procedures in the Bill. We do not have joined-up government. It is terrible, really, because I have come across this several times. In 2001 I moved, after two years at the DSS, to the Home Office. It did not take me long, bearing in mind my responsibilities at the Home Office, to work out that we were not really joined-up at all. That was 20 years ago, and the situation does not seem to have improved at all. It is the problem of working in silos and allowing the DSS—or the DWP, as it is now—to use the administrative route out that is causing a problem, and there is no doubt that there is a solution.

The fact is that research from Refuge has shown that—I have to say I am astonished at this figure— 1.6 million adults have seen their experience of economic abuse start during the pandemic. We need some serious amendments to the universal benefits system; that is the priority.

The single payments are clearly open to abuse by perpetrators. As my noble friend said, it would not take long for a person to work out why their money had gone down: they would know that their partner’s had gone up and they would start to ask about the reasons. I understand that, some two years ago, the DWP said that it would encourage joint claimants to nominate a bank account for the main carer of the children in the house. But, while I am nowhere near an expert, I have seen no evidence that that advice has been followed, let alone effective. I simply do not believe that separate payments are impractical. It is all very well to claim that many couples manage their finances jointly, but that is not the case. We all know that it is not the case for millions of women who are experiencing economic abuse.

Amendment 10 is very reasonable, although I note that the Local Government Association wants a parliamentary inquiry. I do not think that that is the route here. On balance, I would favour the route set out in the amendment through the commissioner, with resources; it is more precise and it has a time limit, and it would not be side-tracked by other pressures on elected Members in the Select Committees. There is an argument there, but I do not accept the LGA view. This route would be a much better one.

As I said, I agree with the other amendments and do not propose to say again what I said in Committee. While it is not for me, and probably not for my noble friend, to say, frankly, there should be a vote on one or more of these amendments on Report to buttress the pressure and the force that the Minister could take back to the department—or even better, take back to the Government—to seek a joined-up solution. If it is just a question of the House having a little debate but there is no pressure, I fear that very little will happen.

My Lords, I agree with these amendments and in particular with what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has just said. However, I want to concentrate on Amendment 68, and I declare an interest as the chairman of the National Commission on Forced Marriage. I am not asking for comments on forced marriage to be put into the Bill on Report, but I want to see it in the statutory guidance. When looking at Amendment 68, I think it is very important that an assessment should be made of the impact of social security reforms by the relevant government department. There is a group of young people whose needs must be assessed in the social security reforms: those who are being forced into marriage—they are usually coerced. They include, in particular—this is what I am concerned about—those who are aged under 18. I hope that they can be taken into account when the impact of these policies is taken into account.

My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 10, and I am afraid I am going to make the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, did not want to hear again today. I will speak to Amendment 17 later in the debate, but, in the main, I do not think that the exception should prove the rule. I am not sure that it is right to demand a report on such a specific issue on the face of the Bill, nor do I think it is right to demand that it is done within a year of the passing of this legislation. While the commissioner-designate has said that she is happy to do the work, she has indicated that she would need additional resources and support to do so.

I am not making any comments on the value or otherwise of the work itself, but I believe that it is for the commissioner’s office to decide priorities within the budget allocated to her, rather than it being the role of legislation. She is the “independent” domestic abuse commissioner and it is not for us to dictate in such fine detail what she should and should not be doing.

My Lords, I begin by acknowledging my noble friend Lady Lister and her heroic persistence in seeking welfare reform. The staggering statistics which have just been shared by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, are shocking. In that light, I would argue that economic abuse is an integral part of coercive control that has been experienced by survivors. The Government’s recognition and inclusion of economic abuse in the new statutory definition of domestic violence is therefore welcome.

As has been said by all noble Lords, we know that financial control is a barrier to escaping violence and abuse, and therefore immediate access to financial assistance through welfare benefits is a lynchpin for women survivors if they choose or are forced to flee their homes. I am particularly concerned about women without secure immigration status, including those whose marriages have not been registered, and, of course, migrant women who find it impossible to access refuge accommodation and other welfare support, making it impossible for them to escape abuse.

Refuge and Women’s Aid, among other leading organisations, are seriously concerned about and are seeking changes to welfare benefits as regards all survivors of domestic violence, without which women will not be in a position to leave their abusive perpetrators. The single payment of universal credit, the five-week wait for payment, the two-child tax credit limit and the benefit cap all disproportionately impact single women and children. We are all too aware that the law detrimentally impacts them and other welfare support hinders women’s choices and decisions.

I therefore ask the Minister—I am sure these points have been made, but I want to reinforce them—if the Government will heed the call of women’s organisations and place a duty on the Government to assess all welfare reforms for their impact on women’s ability to escape abuse. Will the Government deliver separate payments of universal credit and ensure that they are safe for survivors of domestic abuse? Will they end the benefit cap for victims and survivors of violence and abuse which deters survivors from finding safe and secure homes as well as preventing some from being able to move on from secure refuge space?

I am very thankful to have been able to speak to these amendments, specifically highlighting Amendment 10. All noble Lords have spoken with a great deal of expertise, of which I profess I have none, so I am very grateful. I just wanted to stand in support of these amendments.

My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 10, 68 and 69, to which I have added my name. I also support the other amendments in this group, although I will not speak to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has, as always, introduced her amendments with great thoroughness and therefore I will try not to take too much of your Lordships’ time, although I do want to speak a little more on Amendment 10 than on the other two.

The proposed new subsection (7)(a) in Amendment 10 makes very good sense, requiring as it does that the commissioner within a year publishes a report on the impact of these universal credit single payments on victims of domestic abuse. Whether or not the amendment is accepted, I certainly hope that the commissioner will seek the resources from the Government to enable her to implement this recommendation.

Paragraph (b) is absolutely vital because, as organisations such as Refuge know perfectly well, action is urgently needed to resolve the problem for domestic abuse victims of the default position that universal credit is paid into a single bank account on behalf of a household. I applaud the announcement from the Department for Work and Pensions that it will “encourage” joint claimants to nominate the bank account of the main carer of any children in the household, but that simply does not go far enough at all. Too often, the abusing partner will make sure that the money goes into their account. The main carer of the children is then exposed to the perpetrator using money in a coercive and controlling way, adding economic abuse to any other forms used.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, a victim can ask for payments to be split between the two partners, but that is a dangerous thing to do when your partner is abusing you and is perhaps dangerous to be with. The ideal is the policy adopted in Scotland, where separate payments are the default. However, I remember the UK Government arguing strongly against such a policy when the universal credit legislation was being debated in this House all that time ago. To introduce it as the default option now would be a sharp change of direction but, in the domestic abuse context, I hope that the Minister is sympathetic.

The alternative would be for a single payment to be paid to the primary carer of the children as the default position—not here and there but as a matter of general policy. This would be more straightforward for the Government to do and would, in my view, provide considerably greater security for the Majority of victims of abuse and a fairer system for everyone.

When the majority of perpetrators are men and the majority of primary carers of children are women, it is easy to fall into the position of regarding all men as undeserving and all women as in need of support. I know of cases where the perpetrator is a woman and many cases where the carer of the children is the father. In fact, the father as the primary carer is a lot more common than it used to be. The proposal, therefore, to pay universal credit to the primary carer is not sexist but is very important, in my view. These primary care fathers are unlikely to be the perpetrators of domestic abuse, so this is a helpful way forward.

All the amendment does is to require the commissioner to publish a report, which investigates and presents alternative options for universal credit payments that protect victims of domestic abuse. The important point is that change is needed; it is not enough for the commissioner to produce a report. However, this amendment leaves it to the Government to decide which way to go.

Briefly on Amendment 68, again the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has cogently argued the case and I only want to add my support. Again, the commissioner supports measures to ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions carries out a full impact assessment of changes to welfare policy on survivors of domestic abuse and their children. Clearly, detailed pre-legislative scrutiny is vital in the social security arena, where policy changes can have a devastating effect on individuals and, in particular, on vulnerable victims of domestic abuse. Surely the Minister will agree with us on that. I hope, therefore, that the Government accept this modest amendment.

Finally, Amendment 69 is more of a challenge for Ministers, as it would cost a bit of money, although not very much. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has set out, what is known as the five-week wait is devastating for victims of domestic abuse. We know that five weeks can become eight, 10 or even 12 before a claimant receives their first benefit payment. Claimants can have an advance, which sounds nice, but it is ultimately a nightmare when claimants have their benefits reduced by up to 25% each week to repay the debt. Universal credit is now at such a low level that repayments leave parents unable to feed their children and keep them warm and clothed. These basic human needs become choices: do we eat or keep warm? Can any of us say that that is remotely acceptable?

When domestic abuse victims generally leave home with little or no money and few possessions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the only two options of a complete lack of money or a loan are just not reasonable in a civilised country. The five-week wait is surely the most widely criticised aspect of universal credit—and there are many. But if the Government will not get rid of it for all claimants, as they should, I hope that the Minister accepts the modest proposal in Amendment 69.

My Lords, I was very pleased to be able to attach my name to Amendments 10, 68 and 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, also signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Burt of Solihull. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her tireless work in these areas. I also express the Green group’s support for the cross-party backed Amendments 72 and 102—linked amendments which I would have signed had I recognised that there was a space.

I begin with Amendment 68, which gives the Government a duty to assess the impact of social security forms on victims or potential victims of domestic abuse. I go back to 2010, when the Fawcett Society—I had better declare an historic interest as a former member of the board—took the Government to court for a judicial review over their failure to conduct a gender assessment of the impacts of the Budget. It was one of those cases where the society lost the case but won the argument. The Government conceded that the gender impact assessments did apply to the Budget and should have been carried out in two key areas. The challenge also led to an investigation of gender assessments by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, also referred to the European Court of Human Rights ruling in 2019 that the bedroom tax unlawfully discriminated against vulnerable victims of domestic violence living in sanctuary schemes. If an assessment had been made, victims of domestic abuse would have been exempt in the first place and—of far less concern to me personally, but none the less possibly of interest to the Government—embarrassment to the Government would have been avoided. I suggest that the Government, by either accepting this amendment or introducing something similar of their own, would be avoiding similar events in future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton, suggested that we should not be telling the commissioner designate what to do, but I think that requesting and providing the requisite resources—a small sum in the overall context of the government budget—is entirely appropriate when the Bill becomes an Act and is implemented and enforced.

As a noble Baroness said on one of the previous groups, so much of our debate on the Bill has focused on the criminal justice system, but we know that that is not the only place or, for many victims, the primary place where their problems lie. In our Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, acknowledged with admirable frankness that earlier legislation passed on his watch had been inadequate: it was inadequate when it was passed and it has been exposed since. I would say to the Ministers working on the Bill for the Government, “You do not want to be in that position in a decade’s time”. Ensuring that an assessment is made will ensure that the appropriate actions can be taken as they are needed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, current assessments are not taking account of the impact of government policies on victims and potential victims of domestic abuse.

Finally, to conclude on Amendment 68, I note that an amendment that might have been here is not. There has been strong pressure on Bills across this House to deal with the disastrous impact of the immigration status of no recourse to public funds. Victims of domestic abuse who have that status are the most vulnerable victims explicitly pushed away from the benefit system. I noted that in Committee the Government said, “Oh, exceptions are made”, but being an exception is not a comfortable, safe or certain place. Only by abolishing the entire status of no recourse to public funds could we ensure that no victim or potential victim of domestic abuse was left, all too literally, out in the cold. I would ask for a change in policy, but an impact assessment would be a start to expose what is happening.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. I note that the Women’s Aid briefing for this stage, which says that it is essential that the Bill delivers reforms beyond the criminal justice system alone if it is truly to make a difference to women and children experiencing domestic abuse. The lack of funding, the inadequacy of our support system, is a fundamental barrier to escaping. Over half of the survivors surveyed by Women’s Aid and the TUC could not afford to leave an abuser. Amendment 10, providing separate payments as standard, has been extensively covered. All I would say in addition is that we do not have to look just at the situation of abuse to consider the damage that single payments of universal credit are doing. I should like to add to my argument on the second group that, even where a relationship does not fit a definition of abuse, the gendered nature of power relationships in our society is still marked by years of male breadwinners, unequal pay and discrimination, particularly against mothers in the workforce.

I recommend that anyone who has not encountered the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed look it up and consider how reports we have heard about the likelihood of abuse starting in pregnancy fit with the level of pregnancy discrimination experienced in the workplace.

Amendment 69 is about the argument that, when you have just taken the brave, frightening and dangerous step of leaving an abusive relationship, it is unarguably damaging and wrong to take on the weight of a loan; that should be changed.

Finally, on Amendments 72 and 102 on the benefit cap, this is a heartless, disastrous and damaging policy that explicitly and by design throws children into poverty. I note the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Best, made about the Government suggesting that this could be covered by discretionary housing payments from local councils. Here I should perhaps declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Local councils are seeing enormous pressures, with continuing austerity in the supply of funds from Westminster. We have heard from Ministers that they want to make this Bill the best it can be. A postcode lottery in the ability to escape from abusive relationships, due to the benefits cap, is not the best this Bill can be.

My Lords, back in the days of the joint consultative committee on this Bill, on which I sat, we identified that

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

for all the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. This is why she returns to this theme today, and I am delighted to continue my support.

We have long discussed single universal credit payments as a major tool of the perpetrator of economic coercive control—a tool handed to him by the Government. Amendment 10 requires the domestic abuse commissioner to look at this and to report to Parliament.

In her remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said that she believed this is not appropriate or realistically achievable in one year, and that it is for the commissioner to decide what investigations she makes. She has a point. Frankly, I for one do not understand why a review should be necessary at all. For me, the case has already been made several times over.

Maybe those who design the payment systems would prefer to consign the work to enable split payments to the “too difficult” box, but, if they can design a mostly working model to incorporate six benefits into one payment that fluctuates with income—universal credit—I do not see why split payments should not be a doddle.

Amendment 10 is a very moderate amendment that calls for the facts to be laid bare so that the Government can be absolutely sure they will achieve the effect of greater economic independence, not just for the victims of domestic abuse but to generate greater economic independence for women receiving universal credit in all circumstances. Split payments reflect modern-day life. If we purport to see the independence of women in an equal society as a desirable thing, for so many reasons, why hand financial control in the vast Majority of cases to the man?

Amendment 68 does the same thing as Amendment 10 from the perspective of relevant government departments, getting everyone involved in implementation looking at the issue from the perspective of what they can do. Amendment 69 takes the strain and worry of having to pay back benefit advances from victims who have received them. As I said in Committee, if the benefit system is not up to helping victims under great duress in a timely manner, those victims should not be made to suffer the worry of where to find the money to repay all the additional expenses they have incurred because of government tardiness.

This is a time of extreme vulnerability, as many noble Lords have said, not only for the victim but, potentially, for her children. Changes in the light of these amendments could make the difference between a decision to escape or to stay and face the misery and danger of remaining with an abuser.

I also support Amendments 72 and 102 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, for all the excellent reasons he and other noble Lords have given. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who always makes interesting observations, bemoaned the fact that government is no more joined up and working for victims today than it was 20 years ago.

All the amendments in this group are designed to relax or change some of the rules to enable greater independence from the perpetrator and make the possibility of escape, survival and a life free from fear for the victim and her family a greater reality. They are all well worth supporting but, I fear, not by this Government.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for her superb introduction and to all noble Lords who have spoken.

Amendment 10 relates to single payments of universal credit. The case has been made overwhelmingly clearly that the system of single payments facilitates financial abuse by allowing perpetrators to control the entire household income. Ministers only seem to have three arguments against acting on this: first, that claimants can ask for split payments, although, as my noble friend pointed out, that just puts survivors at risk; secondly, that most couples keep and manage their finances together, although, as Refuge points out, the finances of those experiencing economic abuse are not managed jointly but controlled by their abuser; and thirdly, that it would undermine the nature of universal credit and be a bit difficult. These are pretty weak arguments. All this amendment does is say that the commissioner will look into the matter further and report to Parliament. If the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and the Government do not want the commissioner to look into it, can I suggest that they simply sort it out themselves? That would save our having to do so.

Amendment 69 would exempt domestic abuse survivors from repaying benefit advances made to mitigate the five-week wait. There is a real risk that survivors wanting to flee will be deterred because they know it is five weeks until they get paid—many are already in debt and do not want to take on more—and if they take an advance on, their monthly income falls below survival level, yet they have other debts to service. Does the Minister accept that this is a genuine barrier? I would be really interested to know the answer.

Amendment 72 would disapply the benefit cap for 12 months for survivors who fled and claimed universal credit. I am not going to repeat the devastating critique made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I do think Ministers owe it to this House and to survivors to engage with those arguments properly. Normally, Ministers argue that people can escape the cap by moving to cheaper housing or by getting a job, but those are not practical for someone fleeing abuse. There are already exemptions for those in refuges, so why not for those in any accommodation? There is already an exemption from the work requirement of universal credit for someone who has fled abuse in the previous six months, but what use is that exemption if survivors cannot afford to take advantage of it because they would still be hit by the benefit cap and so could not afford to pay their rent?

These issues are all examples of social security policy or practice which have a differential impact on survivors of domestic abuse. If Amendment 68 were accepted, government departments would have to assess the impact of any social security reforms on victims or potential victims of domestic abuse before making changes, rather than afterwards. It would stop us being here over and over again, trying to point out the problems of systems already changed, by trying to address them beforehand. Had that been done before creating universal credit or imposing the benefit cap or the bedroom tax, these problems could have been designed out at an earlier stage.

The survivor quoted by my noble friend Lady Lister was right: you need money to escape. Our social security system should enable survivors to flee abuse, but it does not. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, this is a failure of joined-up government. The sad reality is that problems do join up, and at the level of the individual survivor, but the Government response fails to address that. There is no point in the Government legislating to support survivors of domestic abuse while steadfastly ignoring problems in their own systems, which risks exacerbating or even enabling abuse and making it hard or sometimes impossible for survivors to flee and rebuild their lives. I say to the Minister, whom I know cares about these issues, a lot of work has gone into researching, evidencing, and debating the issues, and the fact that the noble Baroness is a Home Office Minister is not a reason not to engage with them. The House, the country and survivors deserve to have these arguments taken seriously. I look forward to her reply.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for explaining their amendments, which relate to the operation of the welfare system, including universal credit and the benefit cap, and their impact on victims of domestic abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is absolutely right: just because I am a Home Officer Minister does not mean that I should not and do not engage on these matters.

Amendment 10 seeks to place a duty on the domestic abuse commissioner to investigate universal credit single household payments and lay a report before Parliament within a year of Royal Assent. As I indicated in Committee, and as my noble friend Lady Sanderson said, as an independent officeholder, it should be for the commissioner to set her own priorities as set out in her strategy plan, as provided for in Clause 13. I understand that the commissioner has no current plans to examine this issue in the next year. If this amendment were to be made it would necessarily mean that other issues which she might have regarded as more pressing would fall by the wayside. Moreover, the way the amendment is drafted arguably prejudices the conclusions of the commissioner’s report and makes it difficult or impossible for her to comply with the duty if those conclusions do not then come to pass. If the aim of this amendment is to secure a particular preordained outcome, I see no benefit in asking the independent commissioner to investigate the matter. She has already embarked on the mapping exercise in relation to community-based services, so there is no contradiction between government Amendment 17 and the concerns we have about Amendment 10.

DWP is committed to doing all it can to support victims of domestic and economic abuse, including giving split payments when requested, easements to benefit conditionality and referrals to local specialist support. However, by default, a core principle of universal credit is that it is a single household payment. Where a claimant is part of a couple and living in the same household, they will need to make a joint claim for universal credit. Many legacy benefits, including housing benefit, child benefit and child tax credit, already make payment to one member of the household, so the way universal credit is paid is not a new concept. Instead, we believe that this reflects the way that most couples can and want to manage their finances—jointly and without state Intervention. We have therefore taken a proportionate response, ensuring that universal credit meets both the needs of the many and the most disadvantaged, including victims of domestic abuse.

Recognising that there are circumstances in which split payments are appropriate, we have made them available on request to anyone at risk of domestic abuse. As part of that, it is important that we allow the individual who is experiencing domestic abuse to decide whether they think that split payments will help their individual circumstances. Once that choice is made, the request for such payment can be made in whatever way works best for the claimant, including during a face-to-face meeting or a phone call. Once paid, the larger percentage of a split payment will be allocated to the person with primary caring responsibilities, such as childcare. This is to ensure the health and well-being of the Majority of the household. We can also arrange for any rent to be paid directly to the landlord to protect the family tenancy. No information relating to why a split payment has been requested or granted will be notified to the claimant’s partner. In addition to the right to split payment on request, we have also taken measures to encourage payment to the main carer in the family. Evidence suggests that 60% of universal credit payments are made to women, who are usually the main carer. Given this, we have changed the claimant messaging on the service to encourage claimants in joint claims to nominate the bank account of the main carer to receive their universal credit payment.

I hope that noble Lords will see that, although universal credit’s single household payment mirrors the model of the legacy benefits it replaces, much has been done to offer alternative payment arrangements to victims of domestic abuse. However, universal credit cannot solve all the problems of domestic abuse and split payment is not a panacea. It is crucial to acknowledge that abusive partners may still take money from their victims, whether that is payment of universal credit or any other source of income, including through intimidation, coercion and physical force. Payment to the victim’s individual bank account is no guarantee, with such people capable of learning passwords and taking control of bank cards.

The Government therefore view calls for split payments to all couples claiming universal credit as disproportionate. This would be a fundamental change to the payment structure of universal credit, from a single household payment made to one individual of the benefit unit to payments split between joint claimants by default, rather than made available to those who need this method of payment. It would add very significant cost and complexity. For example, split payments are currently a manual process. To introduce them by default they would have to be automated, at considerable cost and disruption. This would also deflect limited resource from the improvements already prioritised for the universal credit system. Such fundamental change from a single to a multiple-payment model for all, regardless of need, may also put the stability of the system at risk for all 6 million current universal credit claimants, and at a time when numbers have grown significantly in response to the pandemic.

Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, advocated split payment by default, pointing to the Scottish Government’s wish to adopt this method of payment. For the reasons I have set out, that is not the Government’s position. It is also noticeable that the Scottish Government are yet to come forward with firm proposals. I say this not to criticise, but merely to illustrate to the House that this is a complex area in which to design a workable policy. Nevertheless, we will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government to establish the practicalities of delivering split payments in Scotland. Should they come up with a policy capable of being implemented, we will observe their implementation to further understand the impacts, any potential advantages and disadvantages. We would ask advocates of split payment by default to do the same, in a “test and learn” approach, so that future debate on this may be based on practical evidence.

Amendment 68 would require the DWP to assess the impact of welfare reform on victims, and potential victims, of domestic abuse. The DWP already does this, in accordance with the public sector equality duty. An equality impact assessment to support the introduction of universal credit was published in November 2011, and an impact assessment was published in December 2012. Equality impacts have been further considered in developing subsequent plans surrounding the implementation of universal credit. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention in proposing the amendment, but I do not think that the additional duty is required.

Finally, Amendment 69 seeks to make victims of domestic abuse exempt from repaying universal credit advances. It is important to note that there can be no such thing as an advance that is never intended to be recovered. Advances are simply an advance of a claimant’s benefit, paid early, resulting in the same amount of universal credit being spread across more payments. It is, therefore, more appropriate to say that this amendment would effectively create grants or additional entitlement to universal credit solely for victims of domestic abuse. While the Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to supporting victims of domestic abuse by introducing additional benefit entitlement, we would effectively be unfairly discriminating against all other vulnerable cohort groups who may be facing substantial challenges.

Instead of extensively altering the universal credit system, we should look at how else we can support individuals who have to flee from abusive partners. We have already brought forward changes to universal credit that will help claimants manage their debt in a more sustainable way. From April, claimants will have the option to spread 25 universal credit payments over 24 months, giving them more flexibility over the payments of their universal credit award. We are also reducing the normal maximum rate of deductions in UC from 30% to 25% of a claimant’s standard allowance. These changes, coupled with deferrals of up to three months available for advance repayments, mean that all universal credit claimants can take home more of their award and have greater control over their income.

Amendment 72 seeks to provide a period of grace for survivors of domestic abuse, so that they are exempt from the application of the benefit cap for a period of 12 months when a UC claim is being considered. The benefit cap seeks to restore fairness between those receiving benefits and taxpayers, and provides an incentive to move into work where possible. I acknowledge the difficulties that domestic abuse survivors face, particularly when preparing to move on from a refuge, where their benefits are unlikely to be limited by the benefit cap. There are limited examples of periods of grace in legislation. There are considerable challenges to delivering them because people’s circumstances change, and can change again across the period of grace. Accordingly, the Government are reluctant to add to the number of grace periods and the inherent complexity they bring, particularly if they overlap with each other.

Victims of domestic abuse are not afforded easements in the benefit cap policy. Instead, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned, support is available through discretionary housing payments. Funding for DHPs is provided to local authorities to enable them to protect the most vulnerable claimants. While the allocation of this funding is at local authority discretion, the DWP has strengthened guidance to ensure that individuals or families fleeing domestic abuse are considered a priority group. Support through DHPs will be an advantage in a wider range of circumstances for domestic abuse survivors, due to the flexibilities afforded to local authorities in administering them. Such payments can be immediately available. The Government will make £140 million available to local authorities for the next financial year.

That concludes my remarks. I am not sure if I have reassured the noble Baroness. She had three further questions. She asked whether a DWP Minister would meet with Women’s Aid. I can certainly make that request. She asked for an update on the spare room subsidy judgment. I do not have one, but I shall see if I can get it for her. She also asked me to raise something with the Secretary of State, which I did not manage to write down. If she can remind me of that, I shall do it. Otherwise, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

I have received one request to speak after the Minister and ask a short question of elucidation. I call the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to this group of amendments, in particular to Amendments 72 and 102, to which I have added my name. I also thank her for her reassurance that local authorities will be given clear encouragement to prioritise the needs of domestic abuse victims, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, requested. Can she ensure that national statistics on the number of such cases accepted and rejected in each year will be counted and made public? Visible success for the Government’s preferred approach may serve as encouragement to those facing the unenviable decision of whether they can afford to flee their abuser’s home.

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

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.

We now come to Amendment 11. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make it clear during the course of the debate.

Clause 12: Advisory Board