Domestic Abuse Survivors: Government Support

I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for domestic abuse survivors.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Twigg. I thank all Members for attending the debate and standing up for survivors of domestic abuse in their constituencies. I also thank the excellent women’s rights campaigners, some of whom have joined us today. Without their relentless research, activism and day-to-day support for victims, we would be unable to fully represent domestic abuse survivors.

I must open today’s debate with a sad reality: according to Refuge, an estimated 2.2 million women and 1.5 million men have experienced domestic abuse in this country in the last year alone, and according to a 2025 report by the Office for National Statistics, this issue is far from niche. Refuge also found that, on average, one woman is killed by an abusive partner or ex-partner every five days in England and Wales. The fact that we use words like “on average”, “approximately”, and “estimated” on such a serious topic beckons us to acknowledge that those numbers still suffer from severe under-reporting, highlighting just how much more work we have to do.

In the light of International Women’s Day having just passed, and with the Government’s long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy still fresh in our minds, I want to take this opportunity to assess how Government support for domestic abuse survivors holds up in practice.

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; he was absolutely right to do so. I am also very happy to see the Minister in her place and I look forward to hearing her response. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about children in emergency refuge accommodation? I bring that to his attention simply because, in Northern Ireland, some 45% of children in emergency refuge are aged nought to five, which has a difficult impact on those formative years. More support is needed to provide a firm foundation for children during those most vulnerable years—it is not just the ladies; it is the children as well.

I thank the hon. Member for that excellent point—I will come on to accommodation issues and the impact on children.

I recognise that really important steps have been taken in recent months, on which I congratulate the Government. For instance, many people will agree that the removal of the presumption of contact puts children’s voices and experience back at the heart of contact decisions, which is a genuine step forward for their safety. The 2025 statutory reforms to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 updated the terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021—replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse”, and “financial abuse” with “economic abuse”—and recognised that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, such as their children.

However, from speaking to my North Cornwall constituents and the charity sector, I realised that the VAWG strategy does not yet place arguably the most crucial protection for victims at the centre of its aims. Of course, societal change is urgently needed to prevent so-called normal people becoming perpetrators of abuse, but what about those victims who are caught up in the cycle of abuse now? How can we help them and free them from harm?

Abusive ex-partners can exploit loopholes in the Child Maintenance Service to get control and avoid paying. A constituent of mine is owed over £15,000 and has been left in financial hardship with disabled children. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government guidance on child maintenance payments to survivors of domestic abuse must be written into law, including a means of getting payments from those using the process as coercive control?

I completely agree; I have actually had some similar casework. I will come back to that point.

In a deeply troubling case brought to me by a wonderful Cornish advice clinic, a female client, who I will call Louise for this debate, was refused legal aid on the basis that she supposedly had too much disposable income and assets, despite the reality that, at the time, she was sofa surfing, effectively homeless and earning only minimum wage. Although she may have passed the merits test, she failed the means test, because she was not paying rent and was not on benefits, so the system deemed her ineligible for legal support.

After Louise fled her partner, who had reportedly abused her, both parties applied for residential custody of their child. Although the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service recommended that the child live with their mother, the judge awarded custody to the ex-partner, arguing that the mother had not followed the correct legal route when she fled from home. She is now permitted to see her child only by travelling hundreds of miles back to the area from which she fled, and the ex-partner refuses phone contact altogether. She is terrified of returning to a family court and knows from experience how one-sided the system can be, especially as her ex-partner has the money and the legal representation, while she would be forced to represent herself. How many women consider the reality that Louise currently faces and, as a result, end up staying with their abuser?

The legal aid Minister assured me that an eligibility waiver is available for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for urgent protections, such as non-molestation orders, yet a survey commissioned by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse found that more survivors had to represent themselves in legal proceedings than were able to access legal aid. The Ministry of Justice’s own harm report found:

“The most important and frequently mentioned form of structural disadvantage was lack of access to legal representation.”

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for my Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill, which he has backed from the start. He is making a very powerful point about the role that businesses can play in supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, who are the reason why we are all here and who we care so much about. Does he agree that we should be doing more to encourage businesses to support women fleeing from domestic abuse, such as through the roundtable that I hosted recently with Women’s Aid, Airbnb and AXA? Does he also agree that the response from Travelodge this week has been simply shameful and that, quite frankly, it has failed to tackle violence against women and girls in one of its properties?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being such a champion on this issue, and I completely agree with his condemnation of Travelodge’s frankly despicable response. His point regarding Airbnb is interesting, and I have been making the same point recently, because it crosses over with the Travelodge issue.

I am sure that many Members have heard from survivors in their constituencies who tell them they have spent all their savings on legal fees or they have accrued tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt. We know that survivors often face crippling financial barriers when trying to protect themselves and, in many cases, their children. Would the Minister tell me why the review period for the threshold has not yet been changed and why the gap between those who are eligible for legal aid and those who can afford to pay for legal services has not received closer scrutiny during the means test review?

The previous Government completed their review in 2022 and then proposed new criteria in 2023. Implementation was later delayed and, as far as I am aware, the current Government have not yet indicated that they intend to progress the work. I would therefore appreciate an update from the Minister on the status of the legal aid means test review.

I welcome the Government’s steps to include economic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act, but claiming that if a victim can prove they are economically abused, they will become exempt from the means test is a bit like asking victims who are under a severe threat to their health—in the most vulnerable state of their life—to sift through a haystack to find a purposefully and impossibly well-hidden needle. The £100,000 capital exemption recently introduced for the means test has been powerfully rejected by Women’s Aid and domestic abuse charities, which say that it does not go nearly far enough.

Sitting on a £1 million property that is co-owned with their perpetrator, who—guess what?—will not sell, excludes someone from any legal support. Such trapped capital should not be included in the financial eligibility calculation. I would go as far as stating that such inaccessible capital should be exempt from the means test, particularly as many victims are too afraid to leave their homes with their children as they are not certain that the family courts will bring them a positive outcome, as I have highlighted in Louise’s case.

Just to be clear, there are no legal ramifications of the homelessness test in part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act. There is a homelessness duty; in the vast majority of cases, people do not have to undertake legal action in order for the homelessness duty to apply to them.

I thank the Minister. Perhaps she can follow up on that point in her speech.

I ask the Government urgently to reform evidence requirements for economic abuse in favour of more accessible evidential criteria. The lack of clarity regarding acceptable forms of evidence causes already limited legal aid solicitors to pre-emptively refuse to take on survivors’ cases. Having discussed and highlighted countless reasons to reform the legal aid means test for victims of domestic abuse, I must ask why legal aid is barely mentioned in the VAWG strategy, despite it being such a vital tool for victims to seek justice and crucial support.

The Justice Secretary in the previous Government, Alex Chalk, is acknowledged by many in the women’s rights sector to have been open to committing to reform the legal aid barriers that victims face. I am sure, and hopeful, that the Government will be open to working with all of us to fix the legal aid means test, which, as I hope I have set out clearly, is the biggest obstacle to so many victims. I recently launched a petition to reform the means test, and I hope to widen the campaign further.

How much more loss—how many more needless deaths—do we as a country need to endure? How many more debates are needed in this place for the Government to consider the issue properly? Until they commit to removing the legal aid means test for all domestic abuse victims and survivors, including those who are not currently accessing universal credit or fleeing the abuser, I hope to see urgent implementation of the delayed legal aid reforms, as pushed for by the VAWG sector. Those include the mandatory disregarding of inaccessible capital for victims of domestic abuse; the raising of the income threshold, which needs to include an annual review of the means test; and reformed evidence requirements when trying to prove economic abuse.

I will end my speech there, in the hope that, by the time of the next Westminster Hall debate on domestic abuse, we will have seen tangible progress to show survivors that we stand with them, we fight with them and we will do everything we possibly can to change the system for them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

I find myself in the difficult position that the debate was tabled for response by the Home Office, but almost its entire thrust is legal aid, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. I will do my very best to answer the points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), but this is one of the main cultural changes that I wish to achieve with regard to violence against women and girls across the Government and across the country. Not a single one of the matters relating to violence against women and girls that he carefully alluded to—issues faced by victims of domestic abuse such as housing and homelessness, the family court, and issues to do with benefits and child maintenance—is the responsibility of the Home Office, and yet whenever there is an issue related to domestic abuse, people look to the Home Office. It is a cultural and an institutional failing that has led to a lack of advancement in this space. I will answer the hon. Member’s questions as best I can, but he will get a much more thorough response on the specificity of legal aid from the Ministers who are responsible for legal aid.

I acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s point about this not being the responsibility of the Home Office. I will say, though, that I excitedly awaited the VAWG strategy to see a cross-departmental approach to this vital issue—not action by one Department or another, but a whole-of-Government approach. I hope that she might agree with me on that point.

I hope that the hon. Member appreciates that that is exactly what this is. I only make the point because there is so often a risk in this place, and in the Government, of one person who cares a huge amount about something becoming the responsible party for it, always.

I will move on to the hon. Gentleman’s broader points. As he stated, the Ministry of Justice is conducting a review of the domestic abuse evidence requirements that need to be satisfied in order to access legal aid for private family matters, to ensure that those requirements are not a barrier to accessing legal aid for victims of domestic abuse.

I intervened on the hon. Member on his point about homelessness. I speak as somebody who, this week alone, has handled more than 10 cases of homelessness relating to domestic abuse. Not a single one of those interacted with the legal aid system, because, thanks to part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act, which I fought very heavily for, there is a duty on every tier 1 and unitary local authority area, with funding provided by the Government, to provide accommodation and house people. I would not want the message to go out from here that people will end up on the streets.

Of course, there need to be massive improvements in the manner in which refuge accommodation is commissioned. That is committed to in the violence against women and girls strategy. We also need to be clear what we mean by the term “refuge”, because one man’s—well, one woman’s—refuge accommodation may not be another’s. As we heard from our friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the housing of children in refuge accommodation is patchy across the entire country. Looking at how we commission that homelessness service is a huge and fundamental part of this.

As a recovering councillor, I remember that my council used to commission a lot of these services through the WomenCentre in Calderdale, which was very good at preventing homelessness and other shocks. I often find—this might come back to the Home Office question—that a lot of post-separation problems happen because of post-separation economic abuse. Perhaps, in the longer term, we need to look at that from a legislative angle, so that post-separation abuse is better recognised in law, and then set up services to better prevent it.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was also—I feel like I have been here for ages—part of work with Surviving Economic Abuse, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned a number of times, to amend the Domestic Abuse Act to ensure that our legislation with respect to controlling or coercive behaviour included behaviour post-separation, because of the level of risk for people post-separation, which both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member alluded to. Over the years, there has been quite a lot of investment in getting somebody out in a crisis, rather than addressing the massive issues that occur in people’s lives afterwards. It is as if we tick a box when somebody leaves their home, and do not think about all the ramifications in their lives. My hon. Friend and I have worked very closely on that issue with regard to the family court and the presumption of contact, which has also been mentioned.

Before she moves on from the subject of housing, does the Minister agree that the partnership between Women’s Aid, Airbnb and the Mayor of London is a really exciting pilot project for those people for whom refuges might not be the right place?

I absolutely agree. When I was running refuge accommodation, we were moving from the era of everybody living in communal refuges to a new era of people needing separate accommodation. Some of that was about the rules on safeguarding with regard to which children could and could not live together, and about boys over the age of 16—actually, I think the age threshold was 14. As somebody who has adult male children, I would not want to flee to somewhere they could not live. That is hugely important.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall made a very important case for the need for legal aid thresholds. As somebody who has managed to amend our legal aid laws to carve out victims of domestic violence, I absolutely agree with him that we need to ensure that people can access the right legal services when they need them. If we had a lawyer from the Ministry of Justice in front of us, they would almost certainly be able to give a considerably more thorough answer, but there is relevant case law. For example, if someone’s asset is a house that they co-own, it cannot be included in the means test.

There are a number of issues, and we need to look at whether the threshold is right. My threshold is that I believe somebody when they tell me that they are a victim of domestic abuse, but I understand that the burden of evidence has to be slightly higher for Government Departments or legal departments. In the strategy, we have committed to addressing tenancies and the economic abuse of those who do not own houses, but who live in either social housing or privately rented properties. We have to look at the threshold for exactly what evidence is needed, and make sure that it is fair and balanced.