Source · Select Committees · Home Affairs Committee
3rd Report - Tackling violence against women and girls: funding
Home Affairs Committee
HC 741
Published 11 July 2025
Recommendations
2
Deferred
Introduce standardised VAWG definition into government strategy and report annual levels
Recommendation
We recommend that a new standardised definition of VAWG, to be used across government, police and the third sector, should form part of the Government’s VAWG strategy. We further recommend that the Government reports annually to the Committee on the …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government's response explained why minutes of cross-government VAWG strategy meetings are confidential and not in the public interest to publish, completely deflecting from the recommendation about a new standardised VAWG definition and annual reporting.
Home Office
View Details →
4
Deferred
Publish minutes of cross-government groups tackling VAWG as soon as practicable
Recommendation
We recommend that minutes of cross-government groups that have been set up to tackle VAWG should be published as soon as practicable after their meetings. (Recommendation, Paragraph 13)
Government Response Summary
The government's response detailed the analytical work behind the VAWG strategy, performance metrics, and governance structures for implementation, but it did not address the recommendation to publish minutes of cross-government groups.
Home Office
View Details →
6
Deferred
Conduct local VAWG funding mapping and publish cross-government mapping with annual updates
Recommendation
We recommend that local authorities, police and crime commissioners and mayors conduct mapping exercises to identify where they allocate funding to tackle VAWG. We recommend that the Government publish alongside the VAWG strategy its cross-government mapping of where funding to …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledged difficulties with short-term funding and stated it is working through the details of future VAWG funding for 2026-2029, but it did not commit to any mapping exercises of VAWG funding at local or cross-government levels, nor to publishing such maps.
Home Office
View Details →
12
Deferred
Establish longer-term funding (three to five years) as the norm for all VAWG services
Recommendation
We recommend that longer term funding for VAWG services, for three to five years, should be the norm, unless there are extenuating circumstances. This should be accompanied by an evaluation of the effectiveness of long-term funding. (Recommendation, Paragraph 30)
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledged the difficulties of short-term funding and aims to provide longer-term grant agreements where possible, but decisions on future VAWG funding (2026–2029) are deferred until after the ongoing departmental allocation process.
Home Office
View Details →
14
Deferred
Establish a national ringfenced funding pot for 'by and for' services with standardised bidding
Recommendation
We recommend the establishment of a national ringfenced pot of money for ‘by and for’ services. This pot should be designed so ‘by and for’ services apply for funding using a standardised bidding process to minimise the administrative burden. (Recommendation, …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledged the barriers for 'by and for' services and is considering a standardised bidding process, but deferred a decision on establishing a new national ringfenced funding pot until after the ongoing Spending Review.
Home Office
View Details →
17
Deferred
Insufficient additional funding for primary prevention will prevent meeting VAWG halving target
Recommendation
If there is not additional funding to invest in primary prevention the Government will not meet its target to halve VAWG in a decade. If the Government is to have a chance of meeting its target, it needs to be …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government deferred a decision on additional funding or ringfencing for primary prevention, stating it needs to evaluate existing interventions and that further details will be set out in the new VAWG strategy.
Home Office
View Details →
18
Deferred
Ringfence government money for primary prevention in future Spending Reviews
Recommendation
We recommend that the Government ringfences money to invest in primary prevention in future Spending Reviews, based on the evidence produced by commissioned research. (Recommendation, Paragraph 47) 25
Government Response Summary
The government deferred a decision on ringfencing money for primary prevention in future Spending Reviews, stating it needs to balance flexibility, evaluate existing interventions, and that further details will be set out in the new VAWG strategy.
Home Office
View Details →
Conclusions (5)
3
Conclusion
Deferred
Assessing the Home Office’s previous work, we are not convinced that it has the capacity or imagination to deliver on the Government’s target to halve VAWG in a decade. The Government needs to be more transparent about the work that cross-government groups are undertaking in order to build confidence and …
Government Response Summary
The government declined to comment on the Home Office's capacity, and instead of addressing the need for transparency on cross-government group work, it explained how PCCs fund victim support and how VAWG funding decisions are made during the Spending Review.
5
Conclusion
Deferred
Mapping of where central and local government are spending money to tackle VAWG should lead to reduced duplication of services as well as fewer gaps in the services funded. Each local authority should annually map, and update, their funding provision in the interests of transparency and accountability, and to deliver …
Government Response Summary
The government stated that individual departments are responsible for value for money and highlighted the upcoming Duty to Collaborate in the Victims and Prisoners Act, which will require local bodies to coordinate commissioning, but did not commit to annually mapping and publishing VAWG spending at either local or central government levels.
9
Conclusion
Deferred
We are concerned that current value for money criteria are skewing funding decisions in favour of larger providers who are better able to meet existing value for money assessments. There needs to be a reassessment of value for money criteria for funding in relation to VAWG. Services to tackle VAWG …
Government Response Summary
The government states that Spending Reviews are led by HMT and that future VAWG funding approaches will be informed by ongoing budget allocations. It defers to future evaluations and the new VAWG strategy for details, without committing to a specific reassessment of value for money criteria for VAWG services.
11
Conclusion
Deferred
Short-term funding can severely limit the impact of VAWG services. We welcome the steps that the Minister has taken so far to improve the decision making process, and the consequent considerable reduction in the underspend, but there is scope to be bolder and go further. (Conclusion, Paragraph 29) 24
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledged the problems with short-term funding and aims to provide longer-term grant agreements where possible, but decisions on future VAWG funding are deferred until after the ongoing Spending Review.
13
Conclusion
Deferred
There needs to be certainty of funding for ‘by and for’ services. These services deliver significant positive benefits for their users, which they would not be able to access elsewhere. (Conclusion, Paragraph 36)
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledged the importance of 'by and for' services but deferred a decision on providing certainty of future funding until after the ongoing departmental budget allocation process following the Spending Review.