Dear James,

I am writing further to your recent announcement about a statutory duty for local authorities to support survivors of domestic abuse in secure accommodation. I warmly welcome this move and think it represents a positive opportunity to potentially make a real difference to the lives of those who have experienced domestic abuse.

However, this will only be realised if local authorities are properly funded to deliver. A 60% cut in local authority funding between 2010 and 2020 means that many are already struggling to provide the bare minimum of core services, whilst more than 150 women a day are now being turned away from refuges. Women’s Aid report that in 2017-18 one in ten of the refuges that responded to their survey received no funding from their local authority. A new legal framework must be matched with a new financial framework, and whilst I acknowledge that your Department has made emergency funding available for refuges, overall the national network of refuges remains threatened by years of being starved of investment.

Going forward, funding must be drawn from the range of government departments and statutory agencies which accrue cost savings from refuges – not only MHCLG, but the Department for Education, Department for Health, Home Office, Ministry of Justice and many more. I very much hope you will work with Women’s Aid and others to establish the true ‘cost of provision’ for refuges and domestic abuse services, and to ensure that the new funding model is safe, sustainable and delivers the resources that services urgently require to support all women and children fleeing domestic abuse.

Women’s organisations and campaigns have also identified some other key questions which will need to be addressed if your Government’s aspirations are to be fully met.

Firstly, please can you advise on what safeguards will be in place to ensure that local areas are providing holistic refuge services, rather than generic ‘accommodation-based’ provision?  Quality standards need to be at the heart of the proposed model and women’s organisations are best placed to identify these and keep them under review.

Your commitment to requiring local authorities “to work together with neighbouring councils to ensure domestic abuse services reflect the needs of local people – including targeted, specialist support for BAME, LGBT and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller survivors” is welcome. Highly specialised services, including those led by and for black and minority ethnic women, disabled women and LGBT survivors, have been disproportionately damaged by austerity. Please can you comment on how the current model will ensure the sustainability of the unique services which deliver tailored specialist support for BME, LGBT and disabled survivors, who face multiple forms of discrimination and barriers to accessing help.

Finally, you will know that around two thirds of women flee to a refuge outside of their local area, yet local authorities all too often impose unsafe ‘local connection’ restrictions in their contracts and commissioning of refuges. In order to offer the best possible provision, it will be crucial for the model to go further than ‘monitoring’ local practices and for local authorities to be held accountable in this area.

There is real hope that your proposals can start to transform the lives of survivors of domestic abuse. Your response to the matters I have raised above will be of enormous interest to refuges in my constituency and I very much look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,