Jobseeker's Allowance (Domestic Violence) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

My Lords, I, too, welcome the order. I particularly welcome the very broad consultation that appears to have taken place, and the fact that—for once—there have been changes as a result of that consultation, which is very good to see. The Explanatory Memorandum says that concerns were raised about some of the detail. In particular, it discusses: "““imposing time limits on the time a claimant can have to obtain evidence, and about having a maximum allowable deferral period””." Were any other concerns raised that are not discussed in the Explanatory Memorandum? If so, perhaps the Minister could relay them. The main issue I want to raise is in support of what my noble friend Lord McKenzie said about this being confined to victims of domestic violence or abuse where the perpetrator is living at a different address. Research in the United States shows that it is not unusual for a man who is abusing his partner to use violence to prevent her seeking paid work—for the obvious reason that he wants that woman under his control and if she gets paid work she can be independent of him economically. We know that economic dependence is linked to psychological dependence and makes women much more vulnerable to abuse. I am not aware of similar research having been done in this country but it seems quite plausible, now that partners are subjected to conditionality rules, that there will be situations in which someone may be prevented from seeking work by the violence or abuse of someone they are living with—and this will not allow for that. I would welcome the Minister's response on that.