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

I will come back with formal written confirmation, but my understanding is that the legislation is framed in terms of there having been a move rather than a move being contemplated. As I say, I will write to confirm that, but I feel relatively confident about that point. I want to pick up on the point made by my noble friend Lord German and by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the definition. For technical reasons the word ““abuse”” was not used in 2009. The term used was ““violence””, but I think that things are moving on. However, the substance of the title makes it clear that we are not referring to situations in which there is physical abuse—my noble friend read out the wide definition set out in the handbook. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, we are using a wider definition than the cross-government one that is in current use. I refer in particular to the point about the under-18s because we do have people who are less than 18 years old and they are not excluded from this regulation. That is one of the issues that the Government are looking at in the cross-government discussion. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I must say that I think that all the areas of concern have been dealt with in the Explanatory Memorandum—both those that we accepted and the couple that we did not. I think that I have responded to all the questions that I can remember, although I will quickly double check. There is a last one: why does the provision apply only once in a 12-month period? There are other reasons. I talked about the domestic emergency provisions that are available. This regulation reflects what was agreed in the primary regulation, which is why it applies once in every 12-month period. As I said earlier, this provision clearly protects a vulnerable group, and it is important to do so. This is even more important in light of the reduction in the age at which the youngest child moves from income support to jobseeker's allowance. As I said earlier, I am concerned about the level of complexity in the interplay between discretionary and automatic. I am trying with universal credit to drive towards a system that is simple both in enabling the claimants to understand their rights and for Jobcentre Plus to operate. As we are talking about 3,000-odd people who are currently likely to claim under this scheme, that is not much more than three or four people per Jobcentre Plus. Having two sets of regulations to cover what is in practice a very rare occurrence is not a very clever way to run any kind of business. I am therefore very keen to simplify this without losing any of the protections. Indeed, I am determined to maintain them. People need to understand what kind of protection they can look for without needing a PhD in reading regulations. With that, I commend these regulations to the House. Motion agreed.