Chamber and committees

I am grateful to the committee for inviting me to contribute to its consideration of the financial issues when someone leaves an abuser. Those issues are covered by many ministerial portfolios, so I will do my best to assist the committee, and I am more than happy to provide supplementary information about issues that cross into other portfolios.

I begin by stressing that the Government is resolute in its belief that coercive control, including financial abuse, has no place in Scottish society. That is why we introduced the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which criminalises such behaviour.

As many respondents have noted, “Equally Safe: Scotland’s Strategy for Preventing and Eradicating Violence Against Women and Girls” explicitly addresses financial and economic abuse, in the recognition that perpetrators control finances and women’s access to employment and opportunities and to highlight the fact that women’s financial inequality with men enables such abuse. The strategy acknowledges that structures and systems exacerbate that inequality and act as barriers to women leaving abusive relationships. Under the auspices of the strategy, it is imperative that we continue to identify and address the barriers that hinder survivors from leaving abusers.

I recognise the importance of social security. Scotland has built a radically different social security system, which supports those who need it, including women and children who experience domestic abuse. Social Security Scotland staff, including a dedicated safeguarding team, are trained to identify and support those who are experiencing abuse. However, as the committee is aware, much of social security in Scotland—particularly universal credit—remains reserved to the United Kingdom Government. I note the many comments from stakeholders regarding UK Government benefits, and I am sure that the committee will want to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions on those matters.

We remain keen to work with the DWP—for example, on splitting the universal credit payment, which stakeholders have told us is essential to removing a major enabler of domestic abuse. Although the Scottish Government has limited powers to change how universal credit is paid in Scotland, the delivery of split payments remains entirely dependent on the DWP.

Regarding council tax, we acknowledge that joint and several liability may sometimes cause harm, which is why we are committed to supporting an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that would require a review of the impact of that in cases of domestic abuse. That is a crucial step in helping councils to handle such sensitive situations with care and understanding.

Our programme for government commits us to taking forward actions that were set out in the recently published discussion paper on legal aid reform, which include bringing forward regulations to simplify the judicare system.

We are determined to support women to get the access that they need. We have provided funding for a pilot project in Edinburgh that provides an early intervention service to offer legal advice to women and children who are impacted by domestic abuse. Next week, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety is due to give evidence to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on what the Government is doing on civil legal aid.

It is important to recognise that the no recourse to public funds condition is applied to people who are subject to immigration control under law that is wholly reserved to the UK Government. Our position is that the UK Government should immediately cease to apply the no recourse to public funds condition to people who are in vulnerable circumstances, including women who are experiencing domestic abuse. Through our ending destitution together strategy, we seek to mitigate and prevent destitution for people with no recourse to public funds, and we support the fair way Scotland partnership to deliver inclusive casework and emergency cash support for people who have no recourse to public funds. We continue to press the UK Government to extend the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession to make it available to anyone who is in the UK as a dependant on someone else’s visa or protection status.

The Government recognises the need to ensure that service provision is fit for purpose and responds to the needs of those whom it is designed to benefit. We are committed to ensuring that we have a process in place to keep improving and to deliver. I look forward to engaging with the committee.

You raise sensible points, Mr Doris. We have an ethos of always strongly encouraging decision makers who are awarding crisis grants to be aware that any awards made must cover the period of crisis to avoid the need for repeat applications. If it is known that the next payment for an applicant who is on universal credit is more than two weeks away, the decision maker can make an award that is longer in duration. That flexibility is there, but you make a good point about the need to ensure more consistency. Is that what you are getting at?

I will bring in Janine Kellett to answer the part of the question on housing.

Yes.

I will come back in on that one. Council tax is a local tax, and local authorities already have the power to write off council tax arrears. We are fully aware that there are unique circumstances involved in the collection of council tax, such as joint and several liabilities, which can cause harm in cases of domestic abuse. That is why we are supporting an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that requires a review of how council tax arrears can affect those people who are experiencing domestic abuse. That will be a critical step to better inform policy and improve support. As James Messis has referred to, we are exploring that issue through a partnership with local government and the joint working group on council tax reform.

The council tax reduction scheme exists to ensure that nobody in Scotland should have to meet a council tax liability—clearly, if people cannot afford it and there is no way that they will be able to pay it, they should not be expected to. The scheme reduces a household’s liability based on the assessment of their income, capital and other circumstances. The long and short of it is that councils already have the ability to write off council tax debt.

I will bring James Messis in on that question.

I am not sure what you are trying to—

I apologise if I did not make it clear, but the Scottish Government’s view is that local authorities should undertake their duties in assessing the situation as thoroughly and as sensitively as possible, and should make their decisions based on that.

I also mentioned that nobody should be liable to pay anything that they clearly cannot afford. Councils have the right to write off council tax debt. The Scottish Government supports the position that, if it is deemed and assessed that that debt should be written off, it should be written off.

There are significant pressures. Given that the member represents a Glasgow constituency, he will be aware that there are particular pressures in the central belt, which we recognise.

We have targeted funding in 2024-25 to the local authorities with the most sustained temporary accommodation pressures. Eighty per cent of the £80 million in capital funding for voids and acquisitions during 2024-25 and 2025-26 has been targeted to areas with the most sustained temporary accommodation pressures, to increase the supply of social and affordable homes through acquisitions and, where appropriate, to bring long-term empty social homes back into use.

That policy is designed to reduce long periods in temporary accommodation, especially for families with children. We recognise that temporary accommodation is not a suitable place for children and families, especially those who are experiencing or fleeing from domestic violence.

The biggest barrier is the policy of no recourse to public funds itself. As you will be aware, that condition is applied to people who are subject to immigration control under UK immigration law, and “public funds” is defined in the UK immigration rules. As the committee will be aware, those who have no recourse to public funds can experience extreme poverty. They are more prone to rough sleeping and are even more prone to domestic abuse and labour exploitation, as well as the social isolation and exclusion that can go with being part of the immigration system, such as it is. They cannot even access the basic supports that are available for those in crisis.

We know all that, and our opinion is that the UK Government should immediately remove and cease to apply the no recourse to public funds condition to people who are in vulnerable situations, particularly in the case of children and families, vulnerable adults and women experiencing domestic violence.

I reiterate Scotland’s long history of welcoming people of all nationalities, including those who are seeking refuge and fleeing war, religious persecution and all of that. We know that they want to rebuild their lives. The UK Government should cease to apply the no recourse to public funds condition immediately.