Domestic Abuse Bill

Written evidence submitted by Refuge (DAB33)

About Refuge

Refuge is the largest specialist provider of gender-based violence services in the country supporting over 6,500 women and children on any given day. Refuge opened the world’s first refuge in 1971 in Chiswick and 49 years later, provides: a national network of 48 refuges, community outreach programmes, child support services, and acts as independent advocates for those experiencing domestic, sexual, and gender-based violence. We also run specialist services for survivors of modern slavery, ‘honour’-based violence, and female genital mutilation. Refuge provides the National Domestic Abuse Helpline which receives hundreds of calls a day.

Summary

1. Domestic abuse affects millions of adults and children every year, with women making up the majority of victims, [1] costing the UK economy £66 billion annually. [2] The Domestic Abuse Bill is a once in a generation opportunity to transform the collective response to domestic abuse. The Bill contains many measures Refuge warmly welcomes. However, if the Bill is to bring about meaningful change, it must be strengthened and expanded beyond what is currently included.

2. As it stands, the provisions in the Bill are largely focussed on the criminal and family justice systems. However, the opportunity to amend the criminal law to better protect survivors has not been maximised. Refuge is increasingly working with survivors who have no legal remedy against abusers that threaten to share intimate images and videos of them without their consent, as these threats are not explicitly criminalised. We are calling for the Bill to amend the criminal law so that survivors have recourse to justice in these cases.

3. However, criminal and family justice measures will only impact a minority of survivors as the majority do not report the abuse they have experienced to the police. For example, only 15 per cent of the women who stayed in one of our refuges last year reported the abuse to the police. [3] If the Bill is to benefit more than a small number of women, it must address the most pressing issues for many survivors. These include aspects of welfare policy that do not work for survivors, funding for specialist domestic abuse services, and the removal of barriers to accessing public funds for women with insecure immigration status.

4. The current Covid-19 pandemic has served to expose the sheer scale of violence against women and girls in this country, with calls and contacts to the National Domestic Abuse Helpline run by Refuge increasing by 66% compared to pre-lockdown averages, and traffic to the helpline website increasing by 950% compared to pre-lockdown. It is clear now more than ever that we need a comprehensive government strategy to prevent abuse and support survivors through a full range of public services which meet their needs, as well as the provision of specialist support services which can meet demand. The Domestic Abuse Bill is an opportunity to make significant progress in reducing domestic abuse and affording greater protection and support to survivors. It is vital that this opportunity is not missed and the full range of legislative changes needed to offer increased support and protection to survivors is implemented.

5. As such, Refuge welcomes the recent announcement from the Government that they will extend automatic priority need for housing assistance from local authorities to all survivors of domestic abuse, in recognition that accessing a home away from the perpetrator is a barrier for many survivors seeking to flee. Currently only survivors who can prove an additional vulnerability in addition to their experience/risk of domestic abuse are deemed in priority need, meaning many survivors struggle to access a safe, secure, stable home away from their abusers. We look forward to the Government bringing forward an amendment on this issue.

6. The following submission sets out Refuge’s views on existing provisions in the Domestic Abuse Bill including how they can be strengthened. We also make recommendations for additional policy and legislative measures that need to be included in order for the Bill to be truly transformative. We argue that t he following provisions covered in paragraphs 7 - 10 must be added to the Bill to maximise this opportunity for impactful change

7. Threats to share intimate images or films without consent. Currently, survivors whose abusers threaten to share sexual photographs or films of them are sufficiently protected by the criminal justice system as this behaviour isn’t explicitly criminalised. This is an increasingly common tool of coercion and control that particularly impacts survivors following separation with an abusive ex-partner. The criminal law must be amended so that survivors can access protection against abusers who use threats to continue coercing and controlling them.

8. Economic abuse and welfare policy. The benefits system is a vital safety net for many women when escaping abuse and rebuilding their lives away from a perpetrator. However, some aspects of Universal Credit are failing to meet survivors’ needs as they limit access to finances and leave long periods without income while waiting for the first payment. The Bill must be amended to implement separate Universal Credit payments by default, to minimise the opportunity for abusers to use the benefits system to perpetrate abuse and exert control and coercion through controlling the entire household income. The Bill must also be amended to exempt survivors from repaying benefit advances, budgeting advances, and hardship payments, in recognition that the minimum five-week delay for Universal Credit frequently applies to survivors at the point of fleeing, which is a very expensive point in survivors’ lives, when they typically flee with little money and few possessions. Finally, the Bill must be amended so that the two-child limit on child-related benefits is reversed, as the policy increases survivors’ financial dependence on perpetrators, and the non-consensual conception exemption traumatises rape survivors.

9. Migrant survivors. The Bill must be amended to ensure that migrant survivors have access to adequate support and protection, which includes abolishing the no recourse to public funds rule. We also recommend that the Domestic Violence Rule is extended so that all migrant survivors are eligible for indefinite leave to remain, regardless of initial immigration status and that the Destitute Domestic Violence Concession is extended so that all survivors are eligible to claim benefits while they apply for indefinite leave to remain. In addition, the Destitute Domestic Violence Concession should be amended so that it lasts for a minimum of six months rather than the current three months.

10. Refuge also supports amendments to the Bill which will abolish the so-called rough sex defence, introduce a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, extend the coercive and controlling behaviour offence to include post-separation abuse, and introduce a statutory defence for survivors driven to offend by their abusers or because of the abuse they have experienced. The full list of amendments we support is contained in the joint Violence Against Women and Girls sector evidence submission to this Committee, submitted by Women’s Aid Federation England.

11. Refuge makes recommendations regarding existing clauses in the Bill in paragraphs 12-19.

12. The legal duty on local areas to assess need and commission domestic abuse safe accommodation (part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Bill as introduced). Refuge welcomes the legal duty for accommodation-based domestic abuse services. This measure has the potential to increase refuge provision and put these life-saving services on a more sustainable financial footing. However, if the legal duty is to have the impact desired, it needs to be strengthened and fully funded, with enough money to ensure that existing refuges are safeguarded but also to enable more refuge spaces to be provided to ensure that demand can be met. It is estimated that at least £174 million per year is needed to fund sufficient refuge places to meet demand. [4] The Government must also clarify how it is intending to safeguard the existence of community-based services which are just as important to survivors of domestic abuse but are not covered under the new duty. There must also be a statutory ban on local connection criteria in accessing domestic abuse services and the statutory guidance accompanying the legal duty regarding domestic abuse safe accommodation must include robust quality standards for services and commissioning practice. The National Steering Group must be required to conduct a national needs assessment in recognition that domestic abuse safe accommodation is a national service, where combined local provision must meet national demand. The National Steering Group should also have strengthened powers so that it can effectively hold local areas that are failing to meet their duties or fall short of minimum standards and provision to account and act where necessary. The definition of ‘domestic abuse safe accommodation’ should be narrowed to ensure that the duty does not inadvertently incentivise placing survivors in move-on accommodation rather than settled homes.

13. A gendered definition of domestic abuse (part 1 of the Bill as introduced). The definition of domestic abuse is going to be a major driver of awareness of this crime amongst the public, and amongst public sector professionals, such as the police and local commissioners. The definition must therefore accurately reflect the reality of this crime – that it is a form of gender-based violence that disproportionately impacts women.

14. Direct cross-examination of survivors by abusers (part 5, section 59 of the Bill as introduced). Refuge strongly welcomes the provision in the Bill that extends automatic protection against direct cross-examination of survivors by their perpetrators to the family courts in some circumstances. Refuge welcomes the Government’s commitment to expand the range of evidence accepted, however, too few survivors will be covered by this protection, so it must be extended so that direct cross-examination of survivors by abusers is prohibited in all cases where domestic abuse is alleged.

15. Special measures in the criminal courts (part 5, section 58 of the Bill as introduced). Refuge similarly welcomes the provision that extends automatic eligibility for special measures in the criminal courts to all survivors of domestic abuse. However, this provision is desperately needed in the family and civil courts as well; Refuge strongly supports extending automatic eligibility for special measures to survivors in the family and civil courts.

16. Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (part 3, sections 24-46 of the Bill as introduced). Refuge welcomes the creation of DAPOs. However, the introduction of DAPOs must be met with adequate training and resourcing to ensure that all police forces use them whenever appropriate and that perpetrators are arrested and charged when they are breached. Refuge welcomes that applications for DAPOs will be free to the police during the DAPO pilot and we support a continuation of this after the pilot to ensure that the burden for application is not pushed on to survivors. It must be clear in the police training and guidance set to accompany the Bill that DAPOs can and should be used to prohibit and sanction technologically facilitated abuse wherever appropriate. It is also currently unclear how the positive conditions attached to DAPOs will be monitored and breaches recorded and acted upon. This requires exploration and monitoring during the DAPO pilot.

17. The Commissioner (part 2 of the Bill as introduced). Refuge welcomes the creation of a Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the appointment of Nicole Jacobs as the designate commissioner. The Bill should also be amended to ensure the Commissioner has the power to intervene and compel agencies to take action where necessary, and the Commissioner’s office should be adequately resourced in line with the prevalence and cost of domestic abuse.

18. Polygraph testing of domestic abuse perpetrators (part 7, section 63 of the Bill as introduced). There is little evidence that polygraph testing provides reliable evidence. Refuge would prefer to see the resources earmarked for polygraph testing diverted towards disruptive technologies with stronger evidence of effectiveness.

19. The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (aka Clare’s Law – part 7, section 64 of the Bill as introduced). Refuge cautiously welcomes putting the DVDS on a statutory footing. It is essential that all relevant police officers receive adequate training on the DVDS so that it is used as effectively as possible, and that everyone who makes an application under the Scheme is told that domestic abuse perpetrators are usually not known to the police and are given information about specialist VAWG organisations.

Recommended additions to the Domestic Abuse Bill

20. The following section details Refuge’s priority recommendations for additional clauses to improve and strengthen the Domestic Abuse Bill. It is Refuge’s view that without these additional provisions, the Bill will not meet the Government’s objective of transforming the response to domestic abuse.

Threats to share intimate images

21. There is currently a gap in the criminal law which leaves survivors who are being abused via the use of technology without protection. Refuge’s specialist tech abuse team, which is comprised of 40 tech abuse champions, supported by seven specialist staff who have been expertly trained to support and respond to complex tech abuse cases, works with survivors who are experiencing abuse facilitated by technology.

22. Technology is increasingly being used as a tool to perpetrate domestic abuse. As of January 2019, more than 72% of our clients  reported experiences of technology-facilitated abuse. Tech abuse is often experienced as part of a pattern of controlling behaviour perpetrated by the abuser: many survivors experience tech abuse in addition to other forms of domestic abuse such as physical violence, sexual, economic and emotional abuse.

23. A common feature of these cases is abusers threatening to share intimate images of survivors, either by publishing them online, sending them to friends and family, or both. Threatening to share images is used to control, coerce, and frighten survivors both during a relationship with an abuser, and following separation. It can cause constant fear, affecting their everyday lives.

24. Natasha, a survivor supported by Refuge, described her experience of her abusive ex-husband threatening to share intimate images as a tool of domestic abuse. ‘I’d been in a relationship with my ex-husband for six months when he first ordered me to remove my clothes and pose for intimate photos. "Come on, you need to wear this," he’d say, handing me a set of lingerie he’d chosen. In the beginning, I thought taking these photos was an act of intimacy, but they were actually being used as another form of domestic abuse – and as another way to control me. When I met my ex I was a confident, 17-year-old woman, but he wore me down until I didn’t recognise myself anymore. I’d repeatedly tell him that I didn’t feel comfortable taking intimate photos. When I refused, he would taunt me saying, ‘you’re so uptight,’ then bring up things I’d disclosed to him about my past sexual experiences. He would berate me and mock my appearance until I gave in. Posing for these photos made me feel so dirty and worthless, but I was just a teenager and I wanted to make him happy. I never imagined these pictures would become leverage for my abuser’s campaign of isolation and coercive control. One day, I’d arranged a visit with my mum. I’d planned to meet her at the local train station, but my ex-husband was adamant that it was too dangerous for me to walk there alone. Reasoning with him was useless, he just wanted me all to himself. What about if I send these photos to your Mum and Dad then?" he said, revealing a folder on his laptop with the intimate pictures he’d taken. "Do your parents want to see their slut of a daughter?" It was like having a bucket of ice-cold water thrown over me. I was gripped by terror, fearing he would share something so deeply intimate without my consent. I felt so exposed and ashamed. The threat of those photos being shared was my worst nightmare – I had no choice but to comply with his continued abuse or face potential humiliation. The photos were a part of his plan to intimidate and pressure me into submission and compliance. He would also post the photos on dating websites and try to arrange ‘threesomes’ for us. The threat was always there and as the years went on, it was like I ceased to exist. He made me feel invisible to everyone and if I displeased him in any way, I knew he could use those pictures to ruin my reputation. As my ex-husband’s abuse escalated to physical and sexual violence, the threats to share those images became less but until the day I was able to escape, the fear never left me. He would still talk about going through my phone and sending intimate pictures to my contacts. Today I’m happily re-married and my ex is in prison, but I know he still has those photos of me somewhere. I’m concerned about where they might have been published or shared without my knowledge or consent. Knowing an abuser has intimate photos feels like you’re being violated. Those images were for his own gratification and a tool to keep me compliant. I had no way of proving my ex had shared these images but the threat of sharing them was equally distressing and compounded my isolation – this is why I believe the law must be changed. It saddens me that police are turning women away when they report these threats. It makes women in my position feel even more powerless as we have no legal recourse until the images are potentially shared and police can treat the matter as a criminal act. Women need legal options to challenge this unacceptable behaviour. I firmly believe that threatening to share intimate images should be made a criminal offence in England and Wales.

25. In Refuge’s experience, when the survivors we support approach the police about these threats, they are often told to wait until the images have been shared by the perpetrator and then come back, as only then is it a police issue. This leaves survivors without the protection of the criminal law, and few other options to try to prevent further abuse. Reform is therefore urgently needed.

26. At present, threatening to disclose intimate images is not adequately covered by the criminal law. Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 created the offence of disclosing private sexual photographs or films without consent, with the intent to cause distress (colloquially known as the "revenge porn" offence). Data collected via Freedom of Information requests from the BBC show that in 2017/18 almost 3,500 reports of this offence were recorded by the police. However, the section 33 offence does not include threats to disclose private sexual images. This contrasts with the equivalent offence under Scottish Law, where the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 criminalised both threats to share as well as the actual sharing of private sexual images.

27. Theoretically, a small proportion of threats to share intimate images without consent could be prosecuted under the coercive or controlling behaviour offence (section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015), or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. However, the coercive control offence does not cover acts carried out post-separation when couples are no longer living together, which is when threats to share intimate images are frequently used to coerce, control, and abuse survivors. This group would therefore not be protected against threats to share intimate images. Both the coercive and controlling behaviour offence and the harassment offence require a course of conduct to be perpetrated, however a threat to share intimate images need be made only once for this to have a devastating, long-term impact on survivors.

28. Even though a small proportion of incidences of threats to share intimate images and videos could theoretically be prosecuted under existing laws, in Refuge’s experience, when survivors approach the police about this behaviour, the response is often poor as it is not explicitly criminalised under the current law. The following case studies demonstrate what Refuge’s tech abuse team describe as a typical police response to reports of threats to share intimate images.

29. Following separation, the ex-partner of a woman Refuge was supporting told her that during their relationship he had drugged and raped her and recorded the incidents on his phone on numerous occasions. He threatened to share the videos with her family and friends. With the support of Refuge, the survivor reported these threats to the police. The police officer involved said there was little that could be done until he shared the videos. However, the police offered to speak to ex-partner, who informed them that he had deleted the videos. The ex-partner subsequently contacted the woman again and told her he had lied to the police, still had the videos and threatened to share them again.

30. A woman being supported by Refuge was trying to flee her abusive ex-partner. She had to move repeatedly to different areas as her ex-partner was stalking her, moving to each new area in which she was trying to settle. Her ex-partner harassed her by sending numerous messages every day. When she ignored the messages, he sent her some naked pictures he had taken of her during their relationship. He threatened to share the images if she did not talk to him. When the woman approached the police they said that they would talk to the perpetrator about stalking but explained that they could not do anything about him threatening to share the images as he had not shared it with anybody else yet.

31. The Domestic Abuse Bill presents an opportunity to close this gap in the law and better protect survivors form this form of coercion and control. Refuge strongly recommends that Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 be amended so that threatening to disclose sexual images is criminalised in addition to actual disclosures.

Economic abuse and welfare policy

32. Refuge welcomes the inclusion of economic abuse in the proposed statutory definition of domestic abuse. Domestic abuse comes in many forms, with research by the Co-Operative Bank and Refuge in 2015 finding that one in five British adults have experienced economic abuse. The majority of women who had experienced economic abuse also experience other forms of abuse alongside economic abuse, including physical, sexual and psychological abuse. [5] While Refuge welcomes recognition of this form of abuse in the definition, we are concerned that some of the current welfare policies in operation serve to facilitate and exacerbate economic abuse. We therefore recommend that the most damaging aspects of the welfare system are addressed in this Bill.

33. In 2018, Refuge surveyed 65 expert frontline workers and conducted eight in-depth interviews with survivors accessing its services about their experiences in relation to recent welfare reforms. It found that recent reforms have had a significant negative impact on survivors of domestic abuse at all points in their journeys – when in relationships with abusers, when in the process of fleeing, and when rebuilding their lives following abuse.

34. The benefits system and access to money also plays a key role in preventing domestic abuse. If a survivor cannot access money, her options for staying safe, including fleeing, can be very limited. Therefore, if the benefits system is reformed to ensure survivors are able to access sufficient money to leave and support themselves and their children immediately after leaving, this could significantly reduce the length of time she lives with a perpetrator and suffers abuse. Refuge therefore strongly recommends that the opportunity the Domestic Abuse Bill presents is seized to reform elements of the benefits system so that it works for survivors, particularly Universal Credit.

Separate welfare payments by default

35. At present Universal Credit payments are, by default, paid monthly, via one single payment into one bank account, following a built-in five-week delay. Universal Credit single household payments, by design, facilitate and exacerbate economic abuse and coercive control by making it very easy for abusers to control all the household finances, further limiting the ability of survivors to make decisions about their daily lives as well as increasing barriers to leaving abusers. Refuge frontline staff have encountered numerous cases where the perpetrator has had the Universal Credit payment paid directly into their bank account and has used the money as a tool for coercive control.

36. One of Refuge’s frontline staff surveyed said "Universal Credit payments going to one person in the household have meant clients have found it very difficult to put any money aside in order to flee – sometimes not even enough to travel to a refuge." Another said "where the housing element of Universal Credit has gone to the perpetrator, many don’t pay the rent and instead spend the money, yet our clients are jointly responsible for the rent arrears – which if they do flee and move on, could have a significant impact on their ability to access future housing."

37. A survivor we spoke to, Ruth*, came to one of our refuges in October 2018 with her child after fleeing her abusive husband. She suffered physical, verbal and emotional abuse. The Universal Credit payments Ruth was meant to receive were paid to her perpetrator and Ruth was not able to access any of the money. Ruth and her son suffered severe financial hardship. After Ruth left her ex-partner she had to deal with the stress of not having any money and the process of making a new claim, alongside managing the impact domestic abuse has had on her and her child. Ruth was referred to the Community Mental Health Team as her mental health suffered due to the extreme pressure and stress that she was under.

38. Some areas of the UK have already recognised the importance of implementing separate payments by default. The Scottish Government introduced the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, which requires separate payments by default under Universal Credit. [6] The Scottish Government is, however, dependent on centralised Department for Work and Pensions IT infrastructure in order to administer Universal Credit payments. Refuge urges the DWP to support the Scottish Government in their introduction of separate payments by default, as supported by the Work and Pensions Committee in 2018, [7] and the Home Affairs Committee in 2018, [8] with the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill also recommending the Government examines how to pay Universal Credit separately to prevent the benefits system being used to facilitate and exacerbate economic abuse. [9]

39. Refuge acknowledges that it is possible to request split payments in cases of domestic abuse. However, in our experience, this is not fit for purpose and is highly likely to put survivors at greater risk of further abuse. Perpetrators discover any request to split the payment as they receive a notification of the request on the survivor and perpetrator’s shared online Universal Credit account (although the reason for the request will not be disclosed). The monthly income received by the perpetrator will also decrease if the request is granted. The overwhelming majority of the women Refuge supports would not request a split payment as they fear it would lead to further abuse. This argument is supported by Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) data which shows that as of November 2019, only 86 split payments were in operation. [10]

40. In January 2019, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced plans to pay Universal Credit to the main carer by default. Refuge welcomes this step forward. However, we are concerned that this does not dismantle the single-payment model, which can be easily controlled by abusers and does not assist survivors without children. Separate payments by default are the safest option for survivors and ought to be implemented for all couples. Refuge therefore supports amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill which would implement separate benefit payments by default.

Five-week delay in receiving Universal Credit payments

41. The long delay between application and receipt of Universal Credit payments is also causing enormous problems for survivors. Under Universal Credit, applicants must wait a minimum period of five weeks before they receive a payment. [11] This delay is particularly challenging for women fleeing domestic abuse. They often flee with very little or no money, frequently due to economic abuse, and are unable to take more than a few items with them before they leave. Many survivors are in debt as a consequence of the abuse they have suffered. Therefore, women will need to replace essential items for themselves and their children during that period of crisis, as well as cope with the traumatic effects of abuse. The extreme poverty many women are forced into by the in-built delay in receiving the first payment means that some are reliant on food banks or other charities providing donations after they have fled. Some women question their decision to flee and return to their abusers.

42. For example, one of our frontline workers said "the changeover to Universal Credit has caused a significant delay in accessing benefits when women arrive at the refuge. The five-week waiting time means women have to survive with their children with no income, and only a few food bank vouchers. This means that many struggle with whether they've made the right decision to leave if they can't even feed their children on their own."

43. Another frontline worker said "women I have supported who have had to make a new Universal Credit claim at the point of move-on have experienced very real difficulties in relation to having no income for a significant period of time at the point when they need to furnish a new home, get to know a new area, and make their children feel secure in a new home. Move-on from refuge should be a positive experience."

44. A survivor, Amy*, said: "I don't know if they understand the impact that it has when you have to wait so long. Especially in that period when you're fleeing. I think if they understood the additional stress that it causes you, for something mundane when you're trying to cope with all these massive issues, I think if they realised the additional pressure that it puts on women who are fleeing, I think maybe they would try and do something to try and quicken the process, or something to help access funds quicker in that first space of time."

45. We recognise that survivors (and other claimants) are able to apply for advance benefit payments while they are waiting for their first Universal Credit payment. However, these have to be repaid from the first full benefit payment. Survivors who flee domestic abuse frequently flee with very little money and very few possessions. Many are in debt as a consequence of the abuse they have suffered. As such survivors commonly have very few resources to replace essential items over the months they are rebuilding their lives. Repayments on advances can, therefore, impoverish survivors at the time they and their children are most in need of financial support.

46. Refuge estimates that exempting all survivors from repaying Universal Credit advances would cost a maximum of around £52 million per year. This is an upper limit based on limited available data. In this calculation we have assumed all eligible survivors of domestic abuse will claim Universal Credit and request advance payments. The real cost is likely to be much lower. The methodology used to calculate this estimate can be found in Appendix 1.

The two child limit

47. Refuge is strongly opposed to limiting entitlement to the child element of Universal Credit and other child-related benefits to a maximum of two children. This limit has a disproportionate impact on women, reducing their income and exacerbating poverty. The limit forces survivors and their children into poverty and increases financial dependence on abusers, restricting survivors’ options in seeking safety. Refuge found that its frontline staff are concerned the two-child limit enables perpetrators to increase financial control over survivors.

48. For example, one of our frontline workers said "[the] victim feels unable to support her three children financially as single mother". Another said: "the two-child cap means that some women will be pressured into having more children and becoming financially reliant on the partners for support".

49. The opposite has also shown to occur. One of frontline worker who was supporting a pregnant woman said she had been violently attacked by her partner due to the two-child limit. The worker said: "whilst pregnant with her third child, her ex demanded she have an abortion because he said they could not get any more money for it and when she said she didn’t want [an abortion] he tried by being violent to enforce a miscarriage."

50. In addition to the serious consequences of the two-child limit for survivors, the non-consensual conception exemption to the policy, which applies to third or subsequent children born of rape, re-traumatises survivors who are forced to disclose an emotionally painful experience to DWP staff. Additionally, in order for survivors to invoke the non-consensual conception exemption, they must not be living with the perpetrator. This does not take into account the dynamics of domestic abuse, whereby a survivor may return to their abuser before leaving again. It also fails to acknowledge the severe danger a survivor is exposed to when leaving the abuser – 55% of women killed by their ex-partner or ex-spouse were killed within the first month of separation, with 87% killed within the first year. [12]

51. In January 2019, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced that the planned extension of the two-child limit to include all children born before April 2017would be cancelled. Refuge warmly welcomed this announcement. However, children born after this date will still be affected by the two-child limit, exposing survivors and their children to the devastating consequences of this policy. Given the impact on survivors of domestic abuse, while the cancellation of the extension is welcome, Refuge strongly supports the reversal of the two-child limit on child related benefits in its entirety. Refuge therefore supports amendments that would reverse the two-child limit on child related benefits.

Migrant survivors

52. As it stands, the Domestic Abuse Bill does not address the significant barriers migrant women face in accessing protection, safety, and support. Many migrant women have ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) due to their immigration status, meaning they are prevented from accessing the support necessary to flee abuse, such as alternative accommodation, refuge and financial support in the form of benefit payments – only 5% of refuge spaces are accessible for women with NRPF. [13] Therefore, as a result of their NRPF status migrant women are highly vulnerable and are often forced into destitution as a result of fleeing gender-based violence and are often reliant on charities to avoid sleeping rough and being found by perpetrators. In some cases, survivors have no choice to remain with their abuser(s). We are concerned that the cohort of migrant survivors with no recourse is likely to increase post-Brexit given gaps in the EU Settlement Scheme and the proposed post-Brexit immigration system. Refuge therefore supports amendments to the Bill that abolishes the no recourse to public funds condition.

53. No recourse to public funds conditions enable perpetrators of abuse to weaponise the immigration status of the women they abuse, where some survivors are told that if they tell anyone about the abuse, or try to leave, they will have nowhere to go, their children will be removed from them, and they could be deported. There is evidence that the police share information about migrant women who approach them due to the abuse they are experiencing to immigration enforcement. Therefore migrant women are further deterred from reporting abuse.

The Destitute Domestic Violence Concession

54. The Destitute Domestic Violence Concession (DDVC) means that women on a spousal or partner visa, who would normally have NRPF but have fled domestic violence, are entitled to State support for three months while they apply for leave to remain under the Domestic Violence Rule (DVR). However, the DDVC is only available to those who entered the UK on spousal or partner visas. All migrant women who entered the UK on other visa types, such as student or working visas, and those who have overstayed on their original visas, are not eligible to apply for the DDVC. This arbitrarily bars some migrant women from accessing life-saving support, as the majority of survivors in refuge financially support their stay via entitlement to housing benefit.

55. Refuge is in agreement with other sector experts including Southall Black Sisters, Latin American Women’s Rights Service, Women’s Aid, the Step Up Migrant Women Campaign, and Imkaan, that eligibility for the DDVC must be extended to all migrant survivors regardless of immigration status. While we acknowledge the Home Office has undertaken a review into the overall response to migrant survivors of domestic abuse, they are yet to publish the findings and recommendations, or their response. Additionally, it has been well established for a number of years that NRPF status severely limits the options open to survivors with insecure immigration status. Additionally, numerous experts submitted evidence to the Government’s Domestic Abuse Bill consultation, and to the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill, stating that extending protection to all women, regardless of immigration status, is urgently needed.

56. Even migrant survivors that are eligible to apply for the DDVC are only eligible for support for three months. During this time survivors are expected to gather all the evidence needed for their leave to remain application and progress it to completion, all at a time when they are experiencing acute trauma. In our and others’ experience, such as Southall Black Sisters, three months is not sufficient to ensure survivors are supported to access legal advice and complete their application, particularly when survivors are dealing with the aftermath of abuse. The three month time limit is also insufficient in part due to lack of legal aid immigration lawyers in parts of England and Wales. The Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill agreed that eligibility for benefits under the DDVC should be extended to six months, in recognition that applications for leave to remain frequently take much longer.

57. While we acknowledge the Government’s announcement of a £1.5 million fund for migrant survivors with no recourse, we are firmly of the view that this is not enough to ensure all migrant survivors are supported to leave their abusers, and the case for ensuring all migrant survivors have access to public funds is well established. Refuge therefore supports amendments that extend eligibility for the Destitute Domestic Violence Concession to all survivors regardless of immigration status and extends the length of time the Concession lasts from three to six months.

The Domestic Violence Rule

58. Individuals who are in the UK on a spouse or partner visa are typically required to have remained in the UK on this visa for five years before they are eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain. However, under the Domestic Violence Rule, survivors experiencing domestic abuse that are on a spousal or partner visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain straight away, and do not need to wait until they accrue five years of residence. This makes it much more difficult for perpetrators to weaponise survivors’ immigration status as survivors can apply for leave to remain independently of the perpetrator.

59. However, as with the DDVC, only survivors on a very limited number of visa types are eligible to apply for leave to remain under the DVR. This leaves survivors vulnerable to their immigration status being weaponised by the perpetrator, deterring survivors from seeking support from the police and other public services. It is essential that eligibility for the DVR is extended so that all survivors are eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain, regardless of immigration status. Refuge therefore supports amendments that extend eligibility for indefinite leave to remain under the Domestic Violence Rule to all migrant survivors of domestic abuse regardless of immigration status.

Other forms of support

60. For women with no recourse to public funds who are pregnant or have children, social services have a responsibility to support them. However, our frontline staff report numerous problems with securing this support, which is often flatly refused. Social services have been known to offer support to the children by taking them into care and refus ing to provide any assistance to the mother, thereby separating the family.

61. Refuge runs a specialist Eastern European service, which supports a significant number of women with no recourse. One frontline worker in this service told us about a survivor she recently supported: "The migrant woman had fled her abuser with her young children and was on the streets, terrified the perpetrator was going to find her. We advocated for the survivor, however, social services and the housing team in the local authority refused to provide her with a place for the night. They advised her to go back to the perpetrator and call the police if he were to do anything. She has found some temporary accommodation, but her options remain limited."

62. As such, the responsibility on social services to support migrant survivors with children is not fit for purpose. Additionally, this support is unavailable to migrant survivors without children, and does not support survivors to establish an immigration status independent of their abuser(s). Refuge therefore remains convinced that in order to ensure migrant survivors can access support and protection, the DDVC and DVR must be extended to include all migrant survivors regardless of immigration status, and that the length of time the DDVC lasts for must be extended to a minimum of six months.

The "rough sex" defence

63. Recent cases of women killed by partners as a result of claimed "rough sex" have gained significant public attention, however this is not a recent problem. The ‘We Can’t Consent to This’ campaign found that since 1972, 67 people in the UK have been killed in claimed sex "gone wrong", and more injured. All suspects in these killings and injuries are male, and 60 of those killed were female.

64. Many of the accused men were previously abusive to their partners or had convictions for serious violence. We support calls from Harriet Harman MP and Mark Garnier MP that the law should be clear that you can't consent to serious injury or death, and ensure that all cases are investigated, charged and sentenced with offences and sentences commensurate with the harm caused. Refuge therefore supports amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill that will prohibit defendants relying on a "rough sex" defence that the victim consented to her injuries or death.

Non-fatal strangulation

65. It is widely recognised that non-fatal strangulation and asphyxiation (eg. suffocation with a pillow) are a common feature of domestic abuse. Strangulation and asphyxiation are the second most common method of killing in female homicides: 29% as compared to only 3% of male homicides. [14] In addition, research highlights how non-fatal strangulation is frequently used as a tool to exert power and control, and to instil fear, rather than being a failed homicide attempt. [15]

66. There is currently no distinct offence of non-fatal strangulation or asphyxiation [16] and it can be difficult to prove intent for an offence of attempted murder. In the majority of cases prosecutions can only be brought for an assault offence. The lack of observable injuries means that offenders’ conduct is often minimised, and they are charged with common assault rather than a more serious offence. Refuge therefore supports amendments to the Bill that will introduce a new criminal offence of non-fatal strangulation.

Post-separation abuse

67. In 2015, coercive and controlling behaviour in an intimate or family relationship became a criminal offence. [17] However, in order for domestic abuse to be covered by this offence, two people must be ‘personally connected’, where either a) they are in an intimate relationship or b) they live together and are either family members or have previously been in an intimate relationship. This means that couples that are no longer in a relationship and do not live together do not count as personally connected. This means that coercive control that takes place post-separation when the survivor has fled the perpetrator and lives separately from them does not qualify as a crime under the 2015 offence.

68. This ignores the fact that domestic abuse and coercive control frequently extends well beyond when survivors separate from their abuser. Many forms of domestic abuse do not require immediate proximity to be perpetrated – such as economic abuse and tech abuse. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with the proposed new definition of domestic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Bill, which does not require individuals to be in a relationship or living together to count as personally connected. Refuge therefore supports amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill which will extend the coercive and controlling behaviour offence to include post-separation abuse.

Statutory defence for survivors who offend due to domestic abuse

69. Official figures show that nearly 60% of women in prison are victims/survivors of domestic abuse and this is likely to be an underestimate. Many have been driven to offend by their experience of abuse, yet they have no effective defence. Amending the Domestic Abuse Bill to introduce a new statutory defence for survivors whose offending behaviour had been driven by their experience of domestic abuse would reflect the increased knowledge and awareness of the nature of domestic abuse and the long-term impact this has on survivors.

70. A statutory defence for survivors driven to offend by their experience of abuse could be adapted from the defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for victims of human trafficking or modern slavery who are coerced into offending. Additionally, an amendment to the law on self-defence, modelled on the provision for householders in Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration act 2008 would allow survivors acting in self-defence against their abuser to have the same protection currently available to householders who act in self-defence against intruders in their home. Refuge therefore supports the Prison Reform Trust’s calls to amend the Domestic Abuse Bill to introduce a statutory defence for survivors who are driven to offend due to their experience of abuse.

Recommendations for existing Bill provisions

The legal duty on local areas to assess need and commission domestic abuse safe accommodation (part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Bill as introduced).

71. In 2019, the Ministry for Housing, Communities, and Local Government consulted on its proposals for the future of accommodation-based domestic abuse service funding. Refuge welcomed the Government’s public consultation on this issue and commitment to act – the need for reforming the way in which refuges are funded is urgent. Specialist refuges are vital life-saving services for survivors of domestic abuse and their children. However, they are currently in crisis, in large part due to a lack of funding and poor commissioning practices. According to research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, local authorities cut their spending on specialist domestic abuse refuges by nearly a quarter (24%) between 2010 and 2017. [18] Last year, almost 64% of all refuge referrals were declined, the main reason for this being lack of space or capacity to support the survivor. [19]

72. Refuge therefore believes that the statutory duty on tier 1 local authorities to assess need for domestic abuse safe accommodation and commission services on the basis of that need has the potential to be transformative and could result in the desperately needed increase in refuge provision and a more sustainable funding model. We welcome many of the changes to the original proposal included in the government’s response to the public consultation. In particular we welcome: the change in terminology from ‘accommodation-based domestic abuse service’ to ‘domestic abuse safe accommodation’; amending the definition of the types of accommodation that would be eligible for funding under the duty, which makes it clearer that the intention of the duty is to fund only dedicated, specialist domestic abuse services, and the announcement of a £15 million interim fund for 2020/21 to cover the period before the legal duty comes into effect in April 2021. However the duty needs further amendment if it is going to be fit for purpose, result in the much needed increase in refuge places, place refuge funding on a more sustainable footing, and ensure that specialist domestic abuse refuges can operate as a national network and not a local service.

73. Ensure the duty is fully funded - this is essential if the duty is to lead to the increased number of specialist refuge places that are urgently needed. The number of refuge spaces in England is now 30% below the minimum number recommended by the Council of Europe, [20] and on just one day in 2017, 94 women and 90 children were turned away from a refuge. [21] In addition to this, existing refuge spaces are extremely precariously funded, with almost half of service providers last year providing an area of their service with no dedicated funding whatsoever, of which 34% ran refuge accommodation without funding. [22] The overwhelming majority of service providers cite the funding crisis as the biggest issue facing the sector, including uncertainty around future funding, funding not covering the full costs of the service, and running an area of work with no dedicated funding.

74. Refuge acknowledges that the government has committed to reviewing the amount of funding needed to ensure the legal duty is implemented ahead of the 2020 spending review, but we are concerned that it remains unclear whether the Government will meet the full costs of the duty. An estimated £174 million a year is needed to ensure the duty is to effectively increase the number of specialist refuge bed spaces to levels that meet demand for this vital service, as well as ensure that services are funded sustainably, addressing some of those issues outlined in paragraph 73. The Domestic Abuse Bill and funding duty contained therein is real opportunity to place refuge funding on a more sustainable footing and increase the number of refuge bed spaces to meet demand. We would therefore welcome an explicit Government commitment on ensuring the duty is fully funded, or else risk missing this opportunity. We are also concerned that the duty could have unintended consequences if not fully funded.

75. Secure the future of community based domestic abuse services. It is essential that the government sets out how community based services that fall outside of this duty will be funded. There is a risk that introducing a statutory duty to fund domestic abuse safe accommodation will lead to a widespread decommissioning of IDVA and outreach services that are equally important to survivors of domestic abuse, this risk is greater if the duty is not fully funded by central government and local authorities must find funds from existing stretched budgets. The estimated cost of fully funding specialist domestic abuse community-based support services is £220 million a year. [23]

76. Introduce a statutory ban on local connection criteria. It is essential that specialist refuges are able to operate as a national network – survivors and their children frequently flee across local authority borders as it is often not safe to remain in the same local authority they are fleeing from. While the government has said that tier 1 local authorities must ensure that survivors and their children that need ‘cross-border support’ have their needs met, they have stopped short of introducing a statutory ban on requirements that refuge residents live in the local area. In many cases, it is unsafe for survivors to remain the local area – 76% of Refuge’s refuge residents fled from another local authority. We strongly support amendments which introduce a statutory ban on local connection criteria, ensuring the survivors and their children do not experience additional barriers when fleeing to safety.

77. Introduce a requirement to conduct a national needs assessment on the National Steering Group. In response to the consultation on the future of accommodation-based domestic abuse service funding, the Government proposed the establishment of a National Steering Group to oversee and monitor compliance with the duty. If the duty is to be successful, it is vital that refuges are able to function as a national network and that a mechanism is built into the legal duty to ensure that across the country there are sufficient services to meet national demand. Assessment of need for refuge spaces cannot be limited to local need for refuge, as fleeing across local authority boundaries and indeed across the country is common for survivors and their children. There is no guarantee that commissioning services on the basis of local needs assessments will ensure that national need is met. A robust central oversight mechanism is therefore essential. Refuge strongly recommends that the National Steering Group is required to conduct a national needs assessment to ensure that national provision meets national demand.

78. Introduce strengthened powers for the National Steering Group so that it can effectively hold local areas that are failing to meet their duties or fall short of minimum standards and provision to account and act where necessary. We suggest the National Steering Group should have the responsibility and power to: compile an assessment of national need; develop strategies for specialist provision for minoritised groups including BAME and LGBT survivors; work with Local Partnership Boards to ensure the needs assessments and strategies of all the Boards together provide sufficient national provision; scrutinise local needs assessments, strategies and commissioning practice; and take action where local areas fall short of the minimum standards and provision required.

79. Remove sanctuary schemes and move-on/second stage accommodation from the definition of domestic abuse safe accommodation. We are concerned that the definitions underpinning this model could unintentionally incentivise the commissioning of services which are primarily accommodation with very little specialist domestic abuse-focussed support, which is why we support the removal of move on/second stage accommodation from the definition. Additionally, sanctuary schemes are primarily infrastructure measure, and not a specialist service. As such we support the removal of sanctuary schemes from the definition.

80. Include robust quality standards for services and commissioning practice in statutory guidance. The legal duty provides a vital opportunity to ensure minimum quality standards are met across all accommodation-based domestic abuse services and end the proliferation of generic services which do not meet the needs of survivors, nor offer value for public money. The statutory guidance should therefore include detailed quality standards which must be met in order for a service to be commissioned. This should include the requirement that all services are specialist, independent from the State, and provide a person-centred service in a trauma informed environment. The shared VAWG sector quality standards provide a framework for this. Further, commissioning best practice should be at the centre of the new model with clear rules and standards set out in the statutory guidance, and compliance monitored at a national level. Statutory guidance should be made available to be scrutinised alongside the Bill.

Gendered definition of domestic abuse

81. The Domestic Abuse Bill proposes to define domestic abuse in law for the first time. The Government agrees that the new statutory definition of domestic abuse will be the primary driver of awareness amongst the general public and professionals tasked with identifying and responding to the crime. [24] Refuge therefore strongly welcomes introducing a statutory definition of domestic abuse for the first time, as this crime is all too often misunderstood by a multitude of key actors. However, it is essential that the definition of domestic abuse accurately reflects the reality of this crime to ensure, in particular, that individuals coming into contact with survivors have an accurate understanding of what domestic abuse is.

82. Gender inequality is a cause and consequence of domestic abuse, particularly intimate partner violence, with women making up the overwhelming majority of victims, and men the overwhelming majority of perpetrators. We strongly believe that clearly stating the gendered nature of domestic abuse in the definition itself, as a form of violence against women and girls, on the face of the Bill, is essential if we are to avoid limiting the effectiveness of our responses to domestic abuse and letting survivors down.

83. Statistics consistently demonstrate that the vast majority of victims of domestic abuse are women, and the vast majority of perpetrators are men. More than one in four (28.4%) women aged 16-74 in England and Wales will experience domestic abuse at some point in their lives compared to 13.6% of men. [25] An average of two women a week are killed by current or former partners - a statistic which has remained consistent for decades. [26] Over the past ten years, women have made up 76% of all domestic homicides, with four in five of these women killed by a current or former partner. [27] Similarly, the majority of perpetrators of domestic homicides are men – in England and Wales, there were 270 domestic homicides recorded by the police between April 2015 and March 2018 where the victims were women. [28] In 260 of these cases, the suspect was male. Over the same time period, there were 96 domestic homicides where the victims were men – in 50 of these cases the suspects were also men, with the remaining 46 suspects female. [29] Furthermore, in England and Wales, 92% of defendants in domestic abuse-related prosecutions were men in the year 2018/19 and 75% of victims were women. [30] In 2017, 468 defendants were prosecuted for coercive and controlling behaviour, of which 454 were men and only nine were women. [31]

84. Official figures clearly demonstrate that women are disproportionately victims of abuse and men are disproportionately perpetrators. However, we also know that official figures present an artificial picture of gender disparity in domestic abuse, particularly regarding repeat victimisation. The headline statistics on the number of violent crimes published as part of the Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW) are currently capped for each victim. This has served to obscure the extent that domestic abuse is gendered as women are more likely than men to experience sustained and repeated abuse - over 80% of ‘high frequency victims’ (who have experienced more than 10 domestic abuse crimes) are women. [32] Official figures demonstrate that if the cap were to be removed entirely, the number of incidents experienced by women compared to men would jump significantly. [33] Moreover, coercive and controlling behaviour is not captured by the CSEW, which again disproportionately impacts women. [34]

85. The way in which you define a problem determines your response to it. Refuge frequently sees the lack of understanding about the distinct impact and prevalence of domestic abuse on women influencing decisions made by local commissioners regarding specialist service funding. For example, it is becoming increasingly common for local authority contracts to require inappropriate and potentially dangerous service models, such as mixed-gender refuges and services which are required to work with both survivors and perpetrators together. Refuge frontline staff also tell us that the police frequently misunderstand the dynamics of domestic abuse, sometimes leading to the arrest of survivors rather than perpetrators. Refuge believes that this is driven by a fundamental misunderstanding of the power dynamics of domestic violence, particularly its prevalence and impact on women.

86. We acknowledge the concern raised by members that a gendered definition of domestic abuse risks leaving out men from the definition of domestic abuse. Refuge is firm in its belief that the definition of domestic abuse should not exclude any survivors, including men and non-binary people, from the definition of domestic abuse. However, we are clear that a definition of domestic abuse can be introduced that recognises the disproportionate impact of domestic abuse on women, without excluding men.

87. The Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill agreed with this argument that the definition of domestic abuse should be gendered on the face of the Bill, and that this can be done in a way that does not exclude any survivors of domestic abuse from falling within the definition. The Committee said: "We believe many of the objections to a gendered definition of domestic abuse come from concerns that it could exclude men from the protection of the Act. We recognise this concern but our evidence shows it is based on a misunderstanding of what a gendered definition means in practice. A gendered definition of abuse does not exclude men. Anyone can, sadly, suffer from domestic abuse just as anyone, regardless of gender, can perpetrate it. In recommending a gendered definition of domestic abuse we want to embed a nuanced approach to the most effective response to domestic abuse for all individuals who suffer such violence, and to ensure that public authorities understand the root causes of this complex crime. We also believe our recommendation on how a gendered definition should be drafted allows the courts to continue to judge the raft of cases they currently hear without any fear of perpetuating discrimination towards men and boys. Incorporating a gendered definition of domestic abuse ensures compliance with the requirements of the Istanbul Convention in demonstrating a gendered understanding of violence against women and domestic abuse as a basis for all measures to protect and support victims." [35]

88. One way to include a gendered definition of domestic abuse that does not exclude anyone from falling under the definition is to make clear that domestic abuse is a form of violence against women and girls, defining violence against women and girls as any act of gender-based violence that disproportionately impacts women. This approach would recognise that domestic abuse disproportionately impacts women, but does not only impact women, therefore ensuring that people of all genders are not excluded. Refuge therefore supports amendments which would establish domestic abuse as a form of violence against women and girls, whilst ensuring that no one is excluded from falling under the definition on the basis of gender.

Prohibition on direct cross-examination of survivors by their perpetrators part 5, section 59 of the Bill as introduced)

89. Survivors often tell us that the experience of going through the family court is traumatic, and in many cases presents an opportunity for perpetrators to continue to abuse. In 2019, Refuge surveyed 42 of its frontline staff and the survivors we support on their experiences of the family courts, including experiences of direct cross-examination of survivors by their perpetrators.

90. Survivors that do not receive legal aid and are unable to pay for legal representation, and whose abusers are in the same position, are typically extremely frightened about potentially being cross-examined by their abuser in family court. Several staff that responded to the survey said that even the possibility that this may happen is extremely distressing to survivors and that the vast majority of the women they had supported through the family courts felt further victimised by the process.

91. Refuge is therefore very pleased that the Government is taking steps to prohibit direct cross-examination of survivors by their perpetrators in the family courts, in line with the prohibition in the criminal courts. This is essential if we are to limit the ability of perpetrators to co-opt the court system to abuse and intimidate their partners or ex-partners. Refuge welcomes the Government’s commitment to extend the range of evidence that can be accepted so that abusers are prevented from directly cross-examining survivors in the family courts. However, Refuge is still concerned that some survivors will be simply unable to provide such evidence, which in these cases would mean that prohibiting direct cross-examination will be left to judicial discretion.

92. However, responses to our survey showed that the understanding of domestic abuse and the ways in which the court process can be used to continue to exert coercion and control is at best patchy and therefore relying on judicial discretion is not adequate.

93. For example, one survivor told us she had been directly cross-examined by the perpetrator, despite requesting that this did not happen. Neither party had legal representation as they were ineligible for legal aid but could not afford to pay for lawyers. She said she found the experience extremely distressing, saying that it affected the quality of her evidence. Another survivor told us that the perpetrator deliberately dismissed his barrister so that he could cross-examine the survivor himself, and use this opportunity to further abuse her. The survivor in this case said that what was particularly traumatic about this experience was that the perpetrator asked questions in a manner that was the same as when they were in a relationship and the abuse was at its height.

94. Further, the fear and worry that they could be cross-examined is a major cause of stress and trauma to survivors and leads to some to disengage from the family court process entirely. Ensuring survivors can be confident at the beginning of the family court process that under no circumstances will they have to cross-examine or be cross-examined by their perpetrators is enormously important to improving the experience of women in the family courts.

95. Therefore, in order to ensure that as many survivors of possible are protected against additional abuse and trauma, we recommend that the measure is extended to all cases in which domestic abuse is alleged. This would offer protection to far more survivors and give women the confidence, at the very beginning of the process, that they would not have to directly question or be questioned by their abuser in court. The Domestic Abuse Bill is the perfect opportunity to ensure that no survivor has to suffer through the trauma of being directly cross-examined by the perpetrator. Refuge therefore supports amendments which automatically prohibit direct cross-examination of survivors by perpetrators in the family courts in all cases where domestic abuse has been alleged.

Special measures in the criminal courts (part 5, section 58 of the Bill as introduced).

96. Refuge welcomes the provisions in the Bill to ensure that survivors will automatically qualify for special measures in the criminal courts for all domestic abuse cases, such as giving evidence via video link or behind a screen. This will limit the potential for intimidation and re-traumatisation, enabling the survivor to give their best evidence. However, our frontline staff and the survivors we work with tell us that this measure is desperately needed in the family courts as the process can be extremely traumatising. In response to a Refuge survey on experiences of the family courts, the 42 staff and survivors reported a huge variation in whether any special measures were provided, and if they were, which measures were provided and under what circumstances.

97. Survivor responses to the survey demonstrated this inconsistency. One survivor had requested screens to be put up so she could not see perpetrator when giving evidence, which was granted by the judge. However, no other special measures were provided, such as a separate waiting room before hearings. Another survivor said that the court provided a separate waiting room and separate entrance and exit times, but were not able to give evidence behind a screen or via video link. One survivor said the court provided nothing, so instead her solicitors and Refuge case worker ensured that she was never alone with the perpetrator, that they planned entry and exit routes to minimise the risk of entering and exiting at the same time, and sourced private rooms to wait in before hearings (although this was never guaranteed). Another survivor said that while the court did provide a private room to wait in before the hearing, these were not able to be booked and were often full. Instead the survivor spoke about having to sit ‘wedged on a bench’ with just her support worker between her and the perpetrator. The survivor said she always had to use the same entrance as him and was often in the same queue to go through security, where he would deliberately talk loudly enough for her to hear, in order to intimidate her. Only after the fact-finding hearing was the survivor given separate entrance times and provided a screen in the court room.

98. The staff that responded said there was a huge variation in regard to the use of special measures, with some saying that they had never been to a family court hearing where there had been special measures, with others saying that the court in their area was purpose built to accommodate special measures, so were always available to survivors if they needed them. No member of staff or survivor said that special measures had been offered, they always had to be requested.

99. The staff that responded to the survey said that the impact of not receiving special measures, or not knowing whether they would receive special measures, was substantial on survivors of domestic abuse. Several staff members said that a lack of special measures, particularly the provision of screens in the court room or being able to give evidence via video link, has led some survivors being unable to disclose the full extent of the abuse as they felt so frightened and intimidated, and are worried about being further abused by the perpetrator. Some staff pointed out that a lot of survivors have anxiety disorders and other mental health issues as a result of the abuse, and having to disclose the abuse while being in the same room as the perpetrator, when he is in full view, can cause survivors to experience symptoms related to the mental health condition. For example, one staff member said that when a survivor was giving evidence, the distress meant that they found it difficult to breathe normally, and they couldn’t remember key events and points they wanted to make, reducing the quality of their evidence.

100. In addition to the lack of special measures in some cases leading to the survivor giving lower quality evidence than they might otherwise have given, lack of special measures had led to violent attacks at the hands of the perpetrator and their family.

101. For example, one staff member described a case where the survivor was not given a separate entrance and exit time from the perpetrator. "The perpetrator and some members of his family waited outside the court building until the survivor and I had left, and began to shout abusive things at her. The survivor and myself got into my car, after which a member of the perpetrator’s family attempted to drive into us. The survivor and I managed to leave the car park and get away from the perpetrator and his family, but it severely distressed the survivor, making the family court process even more traumatic."

102. Given the traumatic nature of domestic abuse, the lasting impact it has on the survivor and on their ability to give evidence to the best of their ability, and the opportunity the court process provides to the perpetrator to further abuse the survivor, Refuge strongly recommends that all survivors of domestic abuse are automatically eligible for special measures in the family courts. Courts which do not have the physical infrastructure to provide these should be adapted as a matter of priority. Refuge therefore supports amendments that extend automatic eligibility for special measures to all survivors in the family court.

Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (part 3, sections 24-46 of the Bill as introduced).

103. The survivors Refuge work with consistently report that existing injunctions are limited in their effectiveness. Breach of some existing orders, such as Domestic Violence Protection Orders (DVPOs) and Occupation Orders, is not a criminal offence. This leaves many women feeling unprotected as there are no meaningful consequences if the perpetrator breaches an order. In Refuge's experience, breaches of orders are rarely responded to by the relevant agencies with the seriousness and urgency they deserve. On the rare occasion that a perpetrator goes to court for the breach of an order, a small fine is the most common outcome. Refuge, therefore, welcomes the provisions establishing the new consolidated Domestic Abuse Protection Order (DAPO) and that breach of a DAPO will be a criminal offence. Further, Refuge is pleased that the new DAPO can be applied for, and recognised, in both criminal and civil courts. We would welcome the Government providing guidance on how parity will be achieved across court jurisdictions and how it will be monitored.

104. Key to the success of the DAPO will be the extent to which police use them and take breach seriously by arresting and charging the perpetrator. Currently, use of Domestic Violence Protection Notices (DVPNs) and DVPOs is fairly low and varies significantly across police forces. [36] Significant training and investment, as well as support and emphasis on use of the orders from senior leadership, will be needed if DAPOs are to become a significant tool in preventing domestic abuse and protecting survivors. Without this, we would expect the use of DAPOs to be low, in line with existing orders. We are therefore concerned that at present the Government does not anticipate any significant additional costs on the police as a result of introducing DAPOs. Police officers will need training on the new orders, as well as increased resource, if DAPOs are to be used, and if breach will be taken seriously and enforced. Refuge therefore strongly recommends that the introduction of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders is met with adequate training and resourcing to ensure all police forces use them whenever appropriate and that perpetrators are arrested and charged when they are breached.

105. We welcome that that applications for DAPOs will be free to survivors, as well as the police during the pilot. We recommend this continues after the pilot phase, as w e are concerned that making DAPOs free to survivors but not to the police could inadvertently incentivise the police to encourage survivors to make applications themselves, pushing the burden on to survivors rather than encouraging the police to make their own applications.

106. DAPOs also present an opportunity to protect survivors from tech abuse - a widespread, damaging form of abuse that limits survivors’ ability to keep themselves safe and rebuild their lives. Refuge runs a ground-breaking tech abuse project which has shown that perpetrators are increasingly monitoring the activity and location of survivors and their children, contacting survivors online, and posting images of the survivor online, or threatening to do so, in an attempt to intimidate and harass. Widely including specific tech-abuse related prohibitions in DAPOs and treating breaches as seriously as any other breach will be important in providing protection for survivors. It will also send a clear message that online harm and abuse is a serious offence that will not be tolerated. We recommend that in the guidance set to accompany the Bill, and in police training, that DAPOs can and should be used to prohibit and sanction technologically facilitated abuse where appropriate. The use of tech abuse provisions in DAPOs should be monitored.

The Commissioner (part 2 of the Bill as introduced).

107. Refuge welcomes the proposal to establish the office of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in the Bill. If properly resourced, the Commissioner could have an important role in investigating and highlighting gaps in service provision both geographically and by type (such as accommodation-based services, outreach services, and culturally-specific services). The Commissioner could also promote best practice amongst relevant professionals, such as VAWG service commissioners, oversee the collection of data, and ensure minimum service quality standards are met across domestic abuse services. However, the extent of the Commissioner’s impact and effectiveness will depend on the remit and powers of the role and the resources made available.

108. The Commissioner should have the power to intervene and require agencies to improve the response to domestic abuse. At present, the Bill requires agencies to cooperate with the Commissioner and respond to their recommendations, but we are concerned that these powers are not strong enough to effect real change for survivors and make domestic abuse ‘everyone’s business’. We are also concerned that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner role has been advertised as part-time and that only £1.1 million per year has been set aside for the entire office of the Commissioner. [37] Given the prevalence of domestic abuse, with one in four women experiencing it in their lifetime and the estimated £66 billion annual cost of domestic abuse, [38] this is far from sufficient. Refuge supports amendments that ensure the Commissioner has the power to intervene and compel agencies to take actions where necessary, and that the office of the Commissioner is adequately resourced in line with the prevalence and cost of domestic abuse.

Polygraph testing of domestic abuse perpetrators (part 7, section 63 of the Bill as introduced).

109. Refuge is concerned about the proposed use of polygraph testing on perpetrators of abuse released on license. The explanatory notes published alongside the draft Domestic Abuse Bill suggests that the imposition of polygraph testing on domestic abuse perpetrators would assist offender managers to assess perpetrator risk. Specifically, the guidance said tests would provide offender managers with information regarding contact with survivors or the formation of any new relationships.

110. Refuge is concerned about the lack of evidence regarding the validity of polygraph testing results in identifying deception. If offender managers are to use polygraph test results to inform their risk assessment of the perpetrator this could put the survivor and their children at higher risk of harm given the unreliability of test results. Whilst Refuge supports the use of technology to monitor and disrupt the behaviour of perpetrators, investment and focus should be on technologies with a stronger evidence base. Refuge supports the removal of provisions to permit polygraph testing of domestic offenders, and recommends that resource be diverted in pursuance of disruptive technologies with stronger evidence of efficacy.

The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (aka Clare’s Law – part 7, section 64 of the Bill as introduced).

111. Refuge cautiously welcomes the Government’s plans to put the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) on a statutory footing. This could act to increase the number of right to ask and right to know applications and improve consistency across different police forces.

112. However, it is important to note that the DVDS is a very limited tool for preventing domestic abuse and protecting women. The majority of survivors do not report abuse to the police. Even when they do, it is increasingly unlikely that the perpetrator will be arrested and charged, as both arrest rates and referrals to the CPS have fallen over the last few years [39] [40] . If a woman enquires about her partner under the disclosure scheme, she may be told that he has no history of violence; she may then believe that she is safe, but this will not necessarily be the case. The DVDS should therefore only be regarded as having a very limited role in the prevention of domestic abuse.

113. Refuge recommends that all relevant police officers receive adequate training on the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme so that it is used as effectively as possible. Everyone who makes an application under the scheme must be told that domestic abuse perpetrators are not always known to the police and be given information about specialist VAWG organisations.

Extending extra-territorial jurisdiction to domestic abuse related offences (part 6 of the Bill as introduced)

114. Refuge welcomes the provisions extending extra-territorial jurisdiction to a range of VAWG-related offences committed by UK nationals overseas.

Granting secure tenancies to survivors of domestic abuse (part 7, section 65 of the Bill as introduced)

115. Refuge welcomes the provisions ensuring that survivors who had a lifetime tenancy for a social home that they had to leave due to domestic abuse and are subsequently rehoused by a local authority, will be offered another lifetime tenancy. However, it is likely to only apply to very few women, as the overwhelming majority of survivors are not offered another social tenancy.

Conclusion

116. The Domestic Abuse Bill is an opportunity to transform this country’s response to domestic abuse which must be maximised. Refuge welcomes many of the measures set out in the Bill, but alone they do not go far enough to make a significant difference to the lives of survivors and to prevent domestic abuse. In order to strengthen the Bill, Refuge is in favour of the following:

Additional provisions

117. The Bill is amended so that threats to share intimate images without consent with the intent to cause distress is criminalised

118. The Bill is amended to implement separate benefit payments by default

119. The Bill is amended to exempt survivors from repaying benefit advances, budgeting advances, and hardship payments

120. The Bill is amended so that the two-child limit on child-related benefits is reversed

121. The Bill is amended to abolish the no recourse to public funds condition

122. The Bill is amended so that all migrant survivors are eligible for the Destitute Domestic Violence Concession

123. The Bill is amended so that the Destitute Domestic Violence Concession lasts for a minimum of six months instead of three

124. The Bill is amended so that all migrant survivors are eligible for indefinite leave to remain under the Domestic Violence Rule

Existing provisions

125. The legal duty on local authorities to assess need and commission domestic abuse safe accommodation on the basis of that need is adequately funded

126. The future of community based domestic abuse services is secured

127. The Bill is amended to introduce a statutory ban on local connection criteria

128. The Bill is amended so there is a requirement to conduct a national needs assessment on the National Steering Group

129. The Bill is amended to introduce strengthened powers for the National Steering Group so that it can effectively hold local areas that are failing to meet their duties or fall short of minimum standards and provision to account and act where necessary

130. The Bill is amended so that sanctuary schemes and move-on/second stage accommodation are not included in the definition of domestic abuse safe accommodation

131. The statutory guidance accompanying the legal duty regarding domestic abuse safe accommodation includes robust quality standards for services and commissioning practice

132. The Bill is amended so that that the definition of domestic abuse would establish domestic abuse as a form of violence against women and girls, whilst ensuring that no one is excluded from falling under the definition on the basis of gender

133. The Bill is amended so that the prohibition of direct cross-examination of survivors by their perpetrators is extended to all cases where domestic abuse is alleged

134. The Bill is amended so that all survivors in the family and civil courts are automatically eligible for special measures

135. The introduction of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders is met with adequate training and resourcing to ensure all police forces use them whenever appropriate and that perpetrators are arrested and charged when they are breached.

136. DAPO applications should be free to the police as well as survivors

137. In the guidance set to accompany the Bill, and in police training, it should be clear that DAPOs can and should be used to prohibit and sanction technologically facilitated abuse where appropriate

138. The Commissioner is a VAWG Commissioner, rather than a Domestic Abuse Commissioner

139. The Bill is amended to ensure the Commissioner has the power to intervene and compel agencies to take actions where necessary

140. The office of the Commissioner is adequately resourced in line with the prevalence and cost of domestic abuse

141. The provisions to permit polygraph testing of domestic offenders is removed, and that resource be diverted in pursuance of disruptive technologies with stronger evidence of efficacy

142. All relevant police officers receive adequate training on the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme so that it is used as effectively as possible.

143. Everyone who makes an application under the DVDS must be told that domestic abuse perpetrators are not always known to the police and be given information about specialist VAWG organisations.

Appendix 1

These estimates refer to business as usual (i.e. in a non-pandemic scenario) to give a more realistic estimate of the ongoing cost of paying Universal Credit advances as grants to survivors of domestic abuse. This is primarily because, as a result of the pandemic and associated economic impact, the number of Universal Credit claimants has increased dramatically, which would significantly alter cost estimates.

Data on advanced payments is collected but is not published regularly as part of official statistics (according to this written question). An estimated 60% of new claims take up an advance in the first month of their claim, and this has remained consistent for at least the past 12 months. [41]

Total number of new starts to Universal Credit: February 2019-January 2020: 2,347,742 [42]

Estimated total number of advances paid (2,347,742*0.6): 1,408,645

Households on Universal Credit February 2019-January 2020: [43]

Mean claim value (consistent for every month during this time period) = £610-£680

Mid-band value = £645

2.4 million adults aged 16-74 experienced domestic abuse April 2018 – March 2019, equating to a prevalence rate of 5.7%. [44]

Assuming that the prevalence of domestic abuse amongst the general public is the same as among Universal Credit claimants, the number of advances paid to survivors will be equal to:

Total number of advances paid to survivors annually 1,408,645*0.057 = 80,293

Assuming the median value of Universal Credit claims made by survivors is equal to that of all Universal Credit claims, survivors, on average, will claim £645 a month in Universal Credit.

Assuming survivors will claim 100% of their Universal Credit award value, for one month, the value of new claim advances for survivors of domestic abuse annually is:

80,293*£645 = £51,788,833

However, this includes individuals who are migrating over, either via managed or natural migration, from legacy benefits. Therefore the cost of paying advances as grants to survivors will likely decrease as legacy benefits are phased out and the full rollout of Universal Credit is completed.