I thank the noble Baroness for that. I know she has a concern in this area. Clearly, domestic violence is a dreadful form of abuse. We as a Government are committed to providing better support for victims. This is the first time that the definition recognises that the victims may be subject to a wide range of domestic violence and abuse.
On her specific question about whether the move from the old to the new has left any form of abuse stranded and not covered, I am happy to confirm that there is no situation covered in the old form which is not covered in the new form. The attraction of having a single definition is that it makes it much clearer to everyone—supporters and victims alike—what constitutes the abuse and that they can go to all government agencies for help with particular types of abuse.
Running through the questions in no particular order, on the 16 and 17 year-old question, our regulations are set out in such a way that they refer to all claimants. Clearly there are 16 and 17 year-olds who are claimants and therefore we do not have to specifically talk about 16 and 17 year-olds because they are automatically covered.
The other point raised about the structure of the regulations concerned why the definition is not replicated exactly. This is just about wording; the practical effect is the same. It needed to be worded in a way which, in drafting terms, was consistent with the powers in paragraph 8B of Schedule 1 to the Jobseekers Act 1995, which talked about domestic violence which is inflicted or threatened. The conduct we are defining must therefore be capable of being inflicted or threatened. In that light, the reference to “threats” and the “threat” of coercive behaviour, and “threatening behaviour”, are in practice surplus to requirements: one does not threaten to threaten. That is the trouble when one has other legislation into which one needs to fit things. That is all it is.
5.30 pm
On the question about reflecting the definition within universal credit regulations, I am pleased to say that we have already made the equivalent amendments to the definition of domestic violence under universal
credit—as we have for ESA and JSA—in 2013, so we are covered there. On the June report, we are going through those specific recommendations. We have established a steering group to go through and apply them. I will probably need to write on which of them are in. I suspect, because it is a working group, that probably none of them are formally in right now. However, I will come back to the noble Baroness with a little bit more detail on that in a letter if she will allow me.
We had some precise figures on uptake in the Answer to a Written Question from the noble Baroness’s colleague in the Commons, where we gave out the monthly figures. They are not particularly high. We
need to acknowledge that many victims face a challenge in disclosing this kind of information. We need to raise and promote awareness of the easement. That will be tied to the actions we take after the research. This will help staff understand the issues; we are going to work on that. Clearly, however, I share some of her concern that the volumes are low and we need to go somewhat further.
I think that I have covered all the issues apart from the one I need to write on. I hope that I have set out all the issues to the Grand Committee, and ask it to accept these regulations.