Women's Refuges

HL Deb 11 March 1992 vol 536 cc1416-28

8.56 p.m.

Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the provision of women's refuges should be regarded as a local or as a national responsibility.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe that this is a completely non-party debate. At this stage of the proceedings, I think that that may be something of a relief to all of us. There are of course matters about which we agree as well as matters about which we disagree. I take it that we are agreed in all parties that help should be provided for women who are the victims of domestic violence; that women's refuges are a good way of providing such help; that refuges are much cheaper to administer than bed-and-breakfast accommodation; and that they also provide for women the sort of help and a sense of security which are not normally available in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In fact there is a group therapy element in it.

I also take it that we are all agreed that refuges cannot normally be run for profit and that there is a need for some form of funding from public sources; that is, above housing benefit and income support. All those considerations are not in any way a matter of party debate. I believe that the Government are making great attempts to do the best they can in the area and have, especially since Mr. Patten's speech at King's College, London, been giving the subject a rather higher priority.

I have heard people who are active in the field speak of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, with the sort of warmth that one does not normally hear from members of pressure groups when speaking about Ministers. Therefore, I hope that there is no need for party contention here. I trust that it is a matter of agreement between us that refuges must provide for women a place to go outside their own area. There are many cases where women are followed by the man who was the source of the original injury. First, there are pleas to come home, and then, if they are not heeded, far too frequently they are followed by further violence.

There was the notorious case reported in the newspaper last week of the murder which took place inside a police station. That is an extreme and unusual case. But it is, I think, a caricature of something which if we look at the literature on the subject we all recognise happens. I regret to say that, in spite of the efforts of the judges in this area, the idea of "the man of property" is not yet extinct. Therefore, secure refuges frequently need to be located away from the woman's home area. For the same reason, any permanent rehousing needs to be away from her home area so that she can go out into the street without needing to look over her shoulder all the time, wondering who is behind her.

I should like to bring three questions to the attention of the House. The first is the familiar question: "Are we doing enough on this subject?"; the second is: "Are we doing it in the most effective way?"; and the third is: "Have we come to a stage in the growth of awareness about this problem when there is a need to consolidate the measures that have been entered into with a great deal of good will and in a great many quarters but which nevertheless still have about them something of the character of Topsy?".

The funding for refuges comes from a large variety of sources. A good deal of it comes from the Government, but under a great many different headings. It comes from the urban aid programme and from the Departments of Health and of Social Security under two different sections of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. Such funding also comes through the housing associations, formerly aided by hostel deficit grant, but now by its successor. On occasion, funding comes also from the local authorities—sometimes from their housing budgets, sometimes from their social services budgets and sometimes from a mixture.

So, the funding is available, but there still seems to be a considerable shortage of places. I wonder whether to an extent the Government might wish to plead that they are a victim of their own success and whether the increased numbers of women seeking places shows that there is a far greater pent-up demand in this area than we were aware of.

Women's Aid (Scotland) issued its annual report this weekend. It was reported in the Sunday Times in Scotland—there are certain advantages to having one's party conference in Scotland. That organisation states that the number of women who have been admitted to refuges in Scotland has doubled since 1982 but that the number who have had to be turned away has increased two-and-a-half times. That shows not only an increase in the number of women coming forward to refuges—although it is a great indication of that, the number of calls that are being made to helplines is perhaps a pointer of even more untapped demand—but also reflects the problem of the slower dispersal of women from refuges. That seems to be the result of the increasing difficulty in finding rented housing. But that is a larger subject than I wish to cover tonight.

Although there are various sources of funds, there is only one source of legal responsibility. Part III of the Housing Act 1985 places an obligation on all local authorities to house the homeless. Although there is specific provision for housing women who are the victims of domestic violence, an equally clear duty to take responsibility for their children does not seem to rest on the local authority social service departments. One area of difficulty seems to be the division of responsibility in local authority administered hostels between housing and social services. The departments do not always seem to be entirely successful at getting their acts together.

The 1985 Act lays down a responsibility only to house such women—not to house them in any particular manner. As I understand it, there is no specific responsibility to provide a refuge. If the provision of such housing is to remain the responsibility of the local authorities, I wonder whether such a specific responsibility should not be created. Many local authorities—I understand that there are five such authorities in Wales—simply do not want to take notice of the fact that this phenomenon exists. They find it uncomfortable to think about—a view with which I can sympathise—so they try not to notice it. The fact that it costs a great deal more to use bed-and-breakfast accommodation instead of a refuge seems to slip their attention.

Local authorities also have a responsibility to rehouse. Under paragraph 8(2)(c) of the code of guidance there is a responsibility not to send such women back to their own local authority for permanent rehousing. That is an important provision that needs to be maintained. If it needs strengthening in any way to be effective, then it should be strengthened because that point may slip the attention of local authorities, which tend to have a resistance to anything that is in effect a non-local obligation. It is the fact that we are talking about a "non-local" matter that raises the problem of trying to get local authorities to take responsibility.

The Minister may be surprised to hear anyone on these Benches suggest that any function might be taken away from a local authority because I admit that we more often make the opposite suggestion. Usually, we are talking about functions that are inherent in the local community. However, what strikes me about this matter is that we are not talking about a responsibility that arises from a local community but about a national responsibility. It is a national problem of women moving, not a problem affecting members of a home community only. Local authorities have always tended to resist taking responsibility for anyone from outside their boundaries.

Many centuries ago, it used to be a rule that single parents and their children were sent back to their home parish, but there was so much resistance to that that it was sometimes ruled that the home parish of the mother and the child were different. It took the intervention of central government to stop that.

That national character is even clearer if one thinks of the more specialised types of provision of refuge; for example, refuges for Asian women. Apart from any cultural arguments for them, there can be a strong language argument for them. I have heard of a case of a woman being taken up and down a local London high street after arriving at two in the morning severely injured until at last a local shopkeeper who spoke Punjabi was found. Your Lordships will see why I argue that there is a case for specialist Asian provision. After all, it does not make much sense for every local authority to keep a Punjabi speaker, a Bengali speaker and a Gujarati speaker in every area of the British Isles. It is because of that case for specialisation that I wonder whether this is inherently a national function.

A research report on the funding of refuges produced by Nicky Charles for Welsh Women's Aid has recommended a system of centralised specific funding. The point about "specific" is important. The system of housing benefit is designed for tenancies. It does not fit ideally with a floating population, which is what in a refuge one must be getting. There will always be some people who are there for one night only and who move on. There will always be a variation in the number of people in the room because one does not turn away people who arrive in distress at two in the morning. There is a greater misfit between that need and the housing benefit system than there was between the need and the old board-and-lodging system. That might be taken into account in any review of the funding.

From the Welsh report it seems that housing benefit does not altogether cover the costs. It worked out the cost of one family place—a mother and child or children—at £95 a week. That is not that exorbitant, but it seems that there are only three refuges in the whole of Wales where housing benefit covers that cost.

There is here a question which is worth thought. There is scope for consolidation. There is a question to investigate about whether the legal obligations are specific enough and whether they are in the right place. The alternatives to refuges are not necessarily satisfactory. I have mentioned the cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. If a refuge cannot cope, one may often end up with children in care. It is striking how many of the women in refuges bring with them children who have been sexually abused.

There is a case here for a new central system. We can all investigate how strong that case is without any party division between us. When we have that up and running, which will take quite a time, we might go on to wondering about what can be done to help with the rehabilitation of the men who created the original problem.

9.12 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House and for instigating the debate. I am the joint chairman of Chiswick Family Rescue which will be known to some of your Lordships as the first of the women's refuges, started by Erin Pizzey. It is now in its 21st year. It is sad that the problems are not just continuing but are increasing or perhaps being brought increasingly to our attention. It may also be appropriate in its 21st year that we should consider the role of women's refuges.

At Chiswick, which is only one of 200 refuges in this country, we see the scale of the problem. Chiswick runs a 24-hour crisis line and receives 10,000 calls each year. That represents 10,000 distressed women. Its referrals in the year to last April, from a number of agencies, totalled just under 2,500. Of those it is known—I say that because some of the sources of the referrals were not known —that 1,400 came from London. The balance came from well beyond the immediate area and may have come from outside London. Of the admissions, about 75 per cent, of the women came from the London area.

As my noble friend Lord Russell said, the issue is not just about funding, although it is notable that women's refuges have limited success in raising funds. I have recently seen an estimate that on average only 4 per cent, of income is raised from donations. Only a small number succeed in attracting funds from non-statutory sources. Certainly, our experience in Chiswick is that independent income is unpredictable. We are extremely grateful for it. There have been major donations; but I do not feel that it is appropriate. It is an uncertain existence to have to rely on donations.

Perhaps I may say a little more about Chiswick. The refuge is able to provide bed spaces—I use the words "bed spaces" because they give an indication of how crowded some of the refuges inevitably are—to just under 50 women. At any given time, 75 to 100 children are also accommodated. Chiswick runs—as it must—a nursery and other facilities for those children. It runs the facilities for the women and children with nine members of staff. Because of funding problems, last year six full-time refuge workers had to be made redundant. So a staff of 15, who had their work cut out anyway, was reduced to nine. Only three of the staff were available to do the case work. I am sure that your Lordships can imagine the amount of counselling required and the practical assistance that is needed by the 50 women residents.

Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that the workers at the refuge have to work very long hours. They share evening and weekend duties on the 24-hour crisis line. There are two nursery workers catering for the needs of all the children. As my noble friend mentioned, the costs to society from the situation are enormous. As domestic violence escalates, so do the costs to the police who have to make repeated calls to the same addresses, to the courts, to the hospitals who treat injuries, to the social services, and to the housing authorities. On average, residents at Chiswick stay in the refuges for 18 months to two years before they are able to be rehoused. Many are placed in bed and breakfast accommodation which is an expensive alternative, as we all know. There is a cost to society as well as a personal cost of which I was not aware. It is a horrifying statistic that 29 per cent. of all murders in Britain are of women killed by their partners.

It is not only the social services, hospitals and so on who count the cost. Many working hours are lost to industry and commerce as a result of women being assaulted. Children are left scarred by the experience, emotionally, psychologically and physically. I am told that some children arrive at Chiswick so traumatised that they are unable to speak. I am sure that we can all imagine the different symptoms that many children exhibit. I understand also that recent figures show that about 50 per cent, of all recorded crime is committed by young male adults. About 50 per cent, of them have grown up witnessing or experiencing abuse.

It is difficult to establish preventive programmes when funding is so difficult. In this country, we have relied very much on refuges and on the police to contain the problem, and containment is perhaps the right term. We have 200 refuges. To put it in perspective, although I have no quarrel with those who support the protection and care of animals, the 200 refuges for abused women compare with about 1,500 refuges for animals. Those are the registered animal shelters; many more are unregistered. The 200 refuges are only one-eighth of the provision recommended in 1975 by the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage. Again, it is no surprise, given the funding difficulties, that many of the refuges are overcrowded and in a state of disrepair.

Those who work at Chiswick, the professionals, believe that we need to review our policies, programmes and legislation to co-ordinate the services and to co-ordinate the agencies involved in the problem. The following are required: an arrest, charge and prosecution policy; increased refuge provision; more services for children; second stage accommodation for women who are moving on from refuges; guidelines for the various agencies; training programmes; and training materials for professionals.

In Canada the federal government are spending 136 million dollars over a four-year period. They are adopting a three-pronged approach of prevention, enforcement and improved services. I understand that they estimate that the approach will save something over 390 million dollars over a period of 14 years and will involve less call on police time and hospital services, less dependence on state benefit and less need for foster care for children. As my noble friend so clearly stated, this is a cross-departmental problem. I know that the Minister is extremely sympathetic to the difficulties this matter raises. Chiswick Family Rescue refuge is aware of that sympathy but realises that its hands are tied.

However, I have two final reasons for stating that this is a national issue. We rely on front line workers to help us make policy. Chiswick Family Rescue has provided a resource for information and advice to the Home Office and to the police. The Home Office has asked the director of Chiswick Family Rescue to go to Canada to report back on the Canadian approach.

The women in refuges have taken a major step in leaving home. Many of them are not able to take that step. I am sure we were all shocked and outraged to learn of the recent case of Sally Emery. Her paralysis was such that she could not leave home and she watched as her child was killed. She is now in Holloway. I am not attempting to analyse that case but it must have come as an appalling realisation to many of us that women could be reduced to that state.

If women are able to leave home and find a sanctuary—they cannot find that sanctuary on their own doorsteps—they must be able to start to live as normal a life as possible as soon as they can. They will need help to do that. Their children must be able to live as normal a life as possible as soon as they can. The blunt fact is that abused women cannot risk staying in the same location. They cannot live in a location where, if they go outside the front door, they may encounter the person who has brought them to their abused state. Refuges cannot assist purely on a local basis because the risks are too high.

9.22 p.m.

Lord Meston

My Lords, I wish to speak only briefly in full support of the thrust of the remarks of both my noble friends. Like most lawyers practising family law, over the years I have had a good number of clients who are in women's refuges or who have been in a refuge. It is quite apparent that refuges are all-important first-aid posts in the immediate aftermath of the breakdown of a marital or other relationship. They provide not just protection for women, which is often much needed, but also shelter for children. The refuges offer a respite from the parental crossfire of which they are the innocent victims.

My observation is that the refuges also provide impressive emotional and practical support. Such support comes both from the staff and from other occupants. The support is particularly important when the newly arrived women and children are at their lowest ebb and when they are physically battered, frightened and lonely.

It is quite apparent that no one chooses to be in a refuge. The women are only there because they have no other bolt-hole, either in the wider family or in the community. The refuges with which I am familiar are both situated in new towns where the extended families of the victims of abuse are often far away. There is nowhere else to provide protection from the unwanted attention of the violent, obsessive or remorseful male partner.

The availability of refuges received very strong support from a Select Committee of another place in its 1975 report on violence in marriage, to which my noble friend has just referred. That report observed that in some areas the relationship between women's aid groups and local authorities was excellent. However, it pointed out that in other areas the relationship left much to be desired. I strongly suspect that the same is true today.

It is not just a question of providing hostels but of keeping them well equipped and reasonably repaired and decorated. Some women and children have to stay in refuges for some time, particularly in the present climate to which my noble friend Lord Russell referred. Responsible local authorities recognise that if they did not provide or subsidise refuges the alternative would often be scarce and grim hostels for the homeless or temporary accommodation, which the local authority also has to provide and finance.

Therefore, if, as it seems, there is no consistency in the provision or standard of amenity of refuges the matter must surely be considered on a national footing, if only to ensure reliable funding in place of the ad hoc arrangements to which both my noble friends referred.

I conclude by pointing out that in 1975 the report recommended one family place per 10,000 of the population as an initial target; that target to be adjusted as might prove appropriate. I ask the Minister whether there is any target now and whether it is being met.

Lord Desai

My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing the topic and making us all pause and think seriously about the problem, which is clearly not only urgent but very serious. In the spirit in which the noble Earl spoke, I shall make this a non-partisan statement. I shall also try to minimise the overlap between what others have said and what I have to say.

The problem is clearly serious and the size of the problem has been pointed out. Since we have become aware of the problem of domestic violence to women —and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the Chiswick refuge—the number of cases has grown, partly because we have been able to make some provision. However, we are all aware that the provision is woefully inadequate for the size of the problem.

The fragmentation of responsibility among different government departments has already been mentioned. The Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the Department of Social Security are all involved. The responsibility rests on local authorities but the funding to allow them to help women's groups is also fragmentary and inadequate.

Perhaps I may raise one or two points which have not already been mentioned and which may be helpful. One of the ways in which women's refuges could derive income would be from rent. If the women concerned were to pay rent towards their stay that would be helpful. However, typically the problem is that women, especially women who have been subjected to domestic violence, are either not aware of their entitlements or, if they are aware of their entitlements, may have to claim them far from their home base because they have run away from where the violence occurred. From all I have read, it seems that there is great arbitrariness about how much entitlement to housing benefit is received. It depends very much on local rent officers. A code of guidance was issued to local authorities about Section 73 of the Housing Act 1985, but it does not seem to be followed in all cases. The arbitrary variation in what people are entitled to should be removed so far as possible.

One way to strengthen the capacity of women to seek shelter would be to strengthen their entitlements. In our society, even today many entitlements are channelled through the family. One problem of domestic violence is that the family is no longer the appropriate unit through which to channel a variety of income entitlements. We need to reconsider how we can restructure some of the entitlements that we want to extend to people in need and channel them not through the family but to the individual. That having been said, there clearly needs to be some kind of national guidelines in respect of what people are entitled to. Somehow, local authorities must be encouraged to follow a consistent practice as to what people can claim by way of rent.

I should like to say a few words about the position of Asian and black women. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the case of Vandana Patel. For many reasons, it is a very serious case. It clearly shows that over a number of years, although the police have tremendously improved their understanding and appreciation of the problems of domestic violence, there is still further progress to be made. In the case mentioned, it seems that in an attempt to accommodate what was seen as a cultural variation of normal practice, a mistake was made. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, there cannot be an expert knowledge of Asian languages in every local authority. Nonetheless, we need to rethink the problem in a very serious way.

I know more about Asian women than about Afro-Caribbean women. It seems to me that Asian women especially, because of a lack of knowledge of the English language and the structure of the family, are less used to claiming entitlements and are more dependent for day-to-day living not only on their spouse but on the community. The problem may be precisely that the community cannot be appealed to because the community may not sympathise with the woman. One must understand that. A woman may have to go far away from the place where domestic violence occurred. At that stage she needs a variety of help, some of which may relate to income entitlements and some being instructions on how to reconstruct her life in a new environment.

The women's aid groups are very helpful and, as was pointed out, many local authorities are very good to them. But there is a need for a denser network of aid groups and women's refuges across the country than we have so far. The situation of Asian women may have to be looked at again with some care.

I speak from a rather sparse knowledge about the matter, but it seems to me that it is more difficult for women without children to obtain help than it is for women with children. Women with children are helped by social security. It is not a matter for the Department of the Environment. I gather that women without children—and women who are subject to attacks which are not domestic but attacks from outside—find it difficult to get help. Again it is a serious problem faced by Asian women in the East End as well as other parts of London and elsewhere. If we were to frame a national code, we might be able to arrive at a solution to the problems relating to women with and without children.

First, we must improve, strengthen and standardise income entitlements for women and extend understanding among women of their entitlements. Secondly, although the available facilities are very good, they are insufficient. The financing of them is precarious. Having strengthened the income entitlement of "clients", we have to strengthen the funding of those bodies. That point has been made by other noble Lords. Whatever we do, we ought to make the funding of women's refugees more secure, more generous and more adequate to the existing need.

There are problems about which a government department would take charge. Without being partisan, we need a women's department which could co-ordinate the different problems that women face.

I do not wish to take up more time. Again I thank the noble Earl for bringing the difficulty to our attention. It is a problem that the majority—not the minority—faces. We are all agreed that it is serious. We are all agreed that we ought to help. We need to get our heads together to devise a better solution.

9.36 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl and to everyone who has contributed to the short debate for enabling us to concentrate on this area of anxiety and, by doing so, I am sure, to improve the level of awareness and consequently the level of provision.

The noble Earl and his noble friends made a powerful case for that area of concern to be a national responsibility. However, I must preface my remarks by saying that the Government regard the issue as primarily a local responsibility. I am aware of the difference in approach in other countries. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am aware of the approach that Canada takes. It must be one of the leading countries in its action. As a Government we recognise that domestic violence is a serious problem which has serious consequences for everyone concerned. We have taken a number of initiatives which aim to improve the response to this criminal offence and to reduce its incidence.

In responding to domestic violence, we need to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice—we have heard of very worrying cases which make us anxious—that victims should receive the necessary emotional and material support and that action should be taken to prevent future violence.

Such responsibility straddles a number of different government departments. As one of his three questions the noble Earl asked whether that was the most effective way of dealing with that responsibility. The action is overseen by the ministerial group on women's issues. That is our answer to the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for a separate ministry. We believe that the activities of the ministerial group are most effective. Recent initiatives have included the issue of guidance to the police and to the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure a quick and effective response to incidents of violence in the home and a number of local schemes for tackling domestic violence which are being funded by the Government through the safer cities programme.

The Government also recognise that women who find it necessary to leave the marital home because they are the victims of domestic violence, or because they are in fear of domestic violence, are in an especially vulnerable position. As has been said, the refuge which pioneered the provision of accommodation and support for women in this predicament — and, indeed, for their children—was the Chiswick Family Rescue with which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is associated. It was started as a local initiative, initially without any help from statutory sources. I wish to take this opportunity to express my admiration and gratitude for the pioneering and ongoing efforts.

During the years that followed a network of other refuges was established, again almost invariably as a consequence of local initiatives. Sometimes they had a little direct or indirect help from local authorities, sometimes there was no statutory involvement. The Select Committee report on violence within marriage was published in 1975. It welcomed the expansion of refuge provision but commented that it was not enough. I am pleased that the provision has since expanded significantly beyond its 1975 position. There are now about 275 refuges in England and Wales, although I appreciate that that is still a great deal fewer than the target set out in the Select Committee report. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred specifically to that matter, asking whether the Government had set any targets. Making accurate estimates of need is particularly difficult. That must be recognised when considering the figures that were suggested in the report. For that reason the Government have not set any targets. They believe that it is sensible to leave the creation of new refuges to local initiatives on the reasonable presumption that if more refuges are needed that will be recognised locally.

The Women's Aid Federation of England was established in 1975 to co-ordinate and support the work of the refuge movement. Parallel women's aid federations were established in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have all been grant-aided by the Government. In 1991–92 the Department of Health provided £137,000 for the Women's Aid Federation of England under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. In addition, it made a contribution towards the cost of employing a special adviser on child care. We must remember that at any given time more children than adult women are accommodated in refuges. In the same year, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office made additional grants. The Northern Ireland Women's Aid Federation has also been grant-aided. We believe that it is appropriate that the federations should be grant-aided by central government because of their representative and supportive role. Their task is to help locally-provided refuges to do a better job both through co-ordinating their activities and providing expert advice and professional support. We greatly value the work that they do in that respect.

While dealing with that, I should point out that the Women's Aid Federation recognises the special needs of women from ethnic minorities, especially Asian women. Several refuges are especially geared to that sort of provision and the federation is able to advise. However, I appreciate the particular needs of that group, and it was useful to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Desai.

I said earlier that it was our view that the provision of women's refuges should be regarded primarily as a local responsibility. There are a number of ways in which centrally provided money is channelled indirectly to local refuges. In Northern Ireland, local refuges are grant-aided directly by the area health and social services boards. But I must stress that decisions on the allocation of this money are made by the boards and not by central government, so the principle of local autonomy is preserved.

In England, a number of refuges have obtained help towards the salaries of paid workers through the Manpower Services Commission and through the Urban Programme. The Urban Programme is administered by local authorities, which co-ordinate bids on behalf of local initiatives. Recently the grant has included provision for the support of refuges in inner city areas, mostly towards capital costs but also towards running expenses. In Wales, certain refuge worker posts are funded through the Urban Programme and some child worker posts under the Support for Child and Family Services Grant Scheme. Another important source of indirect central funding is the Housing Corporation, and it is estimated that in 1991–1992 about £5.1 million was allocated to housing associations providing refuges for women victims of domestic violence. In all these cases the important decisions about provision are made locally.

In arguing the case for a national network, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the fact that a great many women in refuges are accommodated a significant distance away from their matrimonial homes. In some cases that is because of a desire to escape social stigma but much more frequently it is because of the need by the woman to get some distance away from a violent husband, who is likely to search her out and harass her and in some cases inflict further violence. I accept that that happens, and I appreciate the reasons for it. It is recognised in the homelessness code of guidance which is followed by local authorities. But that is not an argument against the principle of local provision.

The approach is, however, dependent upon the adequacy of capital and revenue funding. I mentioned earlier the Urban Programme and the Housing Corporation, and I know that in England the accommodation used by a number of refuges has been provided by local authority housing departments and by housing associations. The most important source of revenue funding for refuges is social security, and that is likely to continue. Important changes in the social security arrangements for claimants in residential care are being introduced in April 1993 under the community care arrangements, but the arrangements that affect refuges will not change. Women's refuges come within the scope of community care, and I hope that refuges in England are already discussing with their social services authorities the contribution that they are able to make to social care provision and that they will be mentioned in the authorities' community care plans which are due to be published by the beginning of next month. It will then be for refuges to discuss with their local authorities the kind of contractual arrangements that are appropriate for providing the sort of care that they are able to offer.

I accept that it could be argued that women's refuges may not be among the top community care priorities of local authorities. Nevertheless, the implementation of community care is a long-term process. It creates a much greater transparency about the provision and gives the opportunity for people who are anxious about any deficiencies in that provision to make their views known. There are therefore continuing opportunities to adjust the balance of provision to meet the need. I hope that the community care arrangements will ensure a more satisfactory framework than any system based on central funding.

The noble Lord, Lord Desai, raised the issue of entitlement to benefit. Once a woman has established her entitlement to benefit, she is entitled to the full range of benefits including income support and housing benefit. She is therefore not dependent upon having a partner, and her entitlement is not reduced.

We have talked this evening about the provision of women's refuges. Some important and useful arguments have been advanced and they will certainly be considered in terms of future policy and decision making. I should like to conclude by quoting again from the 1975 Select Committee report. It said, refuges are not an entirely satisfactory solution to the problem, and we believe that our other recommendations, especially the legal ones, will have a significant effect for the future. Ideally, in the pattern of violent family break-up, it should be the perpetrator of the violence—the man—who leaves the home, not the wife and children". I am sure that the noble Earl and others who have spoken in the debate will agree with that.