APPENDIX 75
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Imkaan
1. The types of services that help
women from BAMER communities to flee violence
Outreach services
Outreach services provide a crucial lifeline
to the vast majority of women who may not want to or be ready
to leave violence situations—it's a key transitional service
for many women.
For BME communities specialist BAMER
outreach services are even more crucial given that we know from
research and experience that:
— BME women are more isolated—less
likely to know about or access mainstream services and more likely
to access services that they can identify with.
— BME women are more likely
to endure violence for longer periods of time and experience post-separation
violence, eg violence, threats as a consequence of child contact
arrangements—outreach is life-saving eg research into women's
outreach services found that 46% of BME women who contacted the
outreach service were living with their abuser at the time—and
the research found that 90% of those women left—which clearly
highlights the effectiveness of these services.
— A woman victim of domestic
violence has on average 11 contacts with agencies before getting
the help she needs—this rises to 17 if she is black.
— We know that BME women are
more likely to underuse refuge services.
Outreach helps in the following ways;
WOMEN can build trust with external agencies
Access information on what help is available
in a safe and confidential way, and find out what their options
are.
Help with the process of decision making and make
plans to exit violence safely rather than leaving when the violence
escalates to dangerous levels.
It enables women to access non-judgemental
support that may help them in their decision to leave at a later
point whilst they remain with the abuser.
There are only seven South Asian specific
outreach/floating support services (one is specifically for Bengalis)—and
one drop-in advice centre yet there is an assumption that there
are too many services for South Asians in London.
These services are not funded under Supporting
People but are key to domestic violence provision and existing
services. For example, BME women are more likely to require access
to emergency overnight accommodation but this aspect of a service
is not recognised as part of SP funding assessments. In many situations
they are being replaced by generic floating support services that
do not cater for the needs of different BME communities—floating
support also focuses mainly on housing related needs eg maintaining
tenancies rather than providing practical and emotional support.
The impact of losing outreach provision and not allocating adequate
funds towards it has already been seen but in two years from now
we will be able to really count the cost in terms of other services
being demanded ie, emergency A&E and police and of course
levels of violence and repeat violence.
Other types of services that are needed
Overall there is a need for more holistic
and preventative approach to service provision in each Borough—By
this we mean an approach that focuses on providing information
and support whilst women are living within the violence, access
to safety at the point they may decide to leave, advocacy and
representation at the point at which they need to access welfare
benefits, housing, legal advice and training, support groups,
therapeutic support and ongoing resettlement work to help them
rebuild their lives and stay out of the violence.
The current picture of services for BME
provision is patchy and fragmented and very much depends on which
Local Authority you are in—Funding is short-term and has
been cut as a consequence of SP. Research has highlighted that
one in 10 Local Authorities has a specialist BME service. There
is also an approach from officers that is now discouraging the
need for BME refuge services.
Services are focused more on the CJS
process without adequately resourcing services that are needed
to help women make decisions about whether to pursue criminal
or civil action—we know women prioritise safe housing over
and above anything else when they leave eg courts,
MARACS—courts will be doubled by 2011 but only 24% women
report to the Police and within that fewer numbers from BME communities—MARACS
also only deal with a smaller number of high risk cases—again
help is being focused on at crisis point rather than through a
more integrated, community based approach which is not a useful
long-term solution to the problem. Sanctions need to be in place
through the law however they are being prioritised over mechanisms
that create the space for women to leave and rebuild their lives.
— For example, at NAWP 1990
we did a survey to explore how many women go back—we found
80% over a year had gone back to perpetrator—we then developed
the resource centre, training, youth work, support groups, counselling
within the refuge and at the RC in 2000—10 years later I
did the same survey we found that 20% went back.
Effective community development work
is essential apart from advocacy support a self-help groups; community
events, courses around personal development are crucial—eg
women who have left invariably loose all of their familial and
peer networks and are extremely isolated— health days or
international women's days, personal development classes may not
sound profound but are vital services to help women see that they
are not alone and harness strength to recognise and acknowledge
what they have been going through.
Specialist Advocacy—We now have
specialist IDVAs who again only work with women who have reported
to the Police and also lack specialism around BME issues. Again
this approach focuses on a smaller number of high risk victims
who have reported to the Police. We need to retain specialist
advocacy for the vast majority who have not yet reported to the
Police but need support to access information and support on an
ongoing basis eg accessing legal advice, counselling, help with
negotiating with Social Services or Housing Departments.
Resettlement—Women often feel isolated
once they leave a refuge and need structured support to readjust
into new communities and regain confidence to live alone—it's
much more than housing related support, helping to sort out bills
etc. For a woman who has never been on the bus alone this type
of support is vital.
Culturally-specific counselling services
are non-existent and not funded under SP yet vital for women to
be able to deal with the trauma of past/ongoing abuse as well
as giving them the tools for building future positive relationships—eg
one service ran a very effective service for women as an add-on
to their resource centre—it also helped with child care
arrangements—the service was cut and now women have been
put on a GP waiting list which is taking weeks and in some cases
months— women are now coming back to the service saying
we don't understand what the Counsellors are saying. If you also
consider the high numbers of women from BME communities who have
been sectioned and are suicidal as a consequence of DV then the
need for services that address mental health needs are crucial.
Access to community-based skills-building,
training and employment courses as an ongoing part of service
provision is an important aspect of providing a holistic service.
Many women may have missed out on formal education opportunities,
lack the confidence to access mainstream provision and therefore
require access to these opportunities via community groups.
Community-based outreach in schools,
in communities to raise and discuss issues around familial violence
is also key to tackling these issues in a more preventative way—prevention
is cure.
For example—Youth-work in schools
At Newham Asian Women's Project (NAWP) they carry out targeted
work with young people—workers approached young women in
the street, to then talk to their friends and to get them start
thinking about what they would need—they then ran sessions
in schools, local youth centres and at the Resource centre. What
started as a broad support project for young women developed into
a project working on critical issues such as child abuse, self-harm,
family conflict etc. Most importantly this work was done without
using labels of forced marriage or honour based violence—through
working with five schools they reached 605 young women to actively
attended the sessions. These discussions are crucial in engaging
with young people to help them to start having discussions about
what is going on in their lives and what their future might look
like.
We feel that initiatives that address
issues according to labels and targeted at specific communities
are in danger of alienating young people eg FM posters within
schools has the potential for leading to racist stereotyping and
bullying within schools. In contrast generic posters around family
conflict, abuse and bullying whilst providing a safe space for
young BME women to come forward would be more helpful—a
specific poster would further isolate a specific group of young
women especially Pakistani Muslim—given current levels of
Islamophobia this would further damage communities that are already
under attack. In that context we are not surprised that schools
will not put it up as they will be accused of racism and cultural
insensitivity.
— Better social housing provision
and housing policies to help women move-on.
Support with women with no recourse to
public funds: There are large numbers of women and children that
are being left destitute and within violence because of the nrpf
rule. Data from a recent Imkaan report (A Duty to Care?) indicates
that from 10 organisations 429 women approached services but 91%
could not be housed and so were left destitute and in danger.
As well as being homeless a number of these women are being left
with significant mental health problems as a consequence of not
having access to safe housing and because of a fear that they
will be deported. Workers told us of women being suicidal, having
eating disorders, health problems as a consequence of a lack of
food and shelter. In one case, the woman did not acknowledge/understand
she had received indefinite leave to remain by the time the case
was processed and had to be sectioned at one stage whilst waiting
for information from the Home Office.
2. Are the needs of BME women different
to those of non-BME women?
Experience of racism
Ultimately the needs are specific rather
than different—the most important difference is that BAMER
women experience racism and this dictates the level of support
they can be offered by mainstream services—and highlights
the need for specialist support. This issue has been well-documented
over the years.
I want to share a quote with you, in
the words of a young woman,—she said "please don't
send me to a white refuge", she was unable to stop talking
about the abuse that she had been through, she said that when
she talked to other women from the Asian women's refuge they took
her experiences on board but in a mainstream refuge where she
had also stayed the women were racist and stereotyped her and
her culture, she found that unbearable.
Workers not intervening in the use of
the word Paki from one resident to another, prayer mats being
stamped over—some of this racism stems not only from external
agencies but also from other women in the refuge.
Furthermore, there are clearly some differences
around culture, language, experience and history, safety needs,
and family and community dynamics. BME women need access to additional
advocacy and outreach and refuge services. There are mainstream
services which are being resourced and perceived as good alternatives
to refuge and other sorts of provision eg there is no evidence
to suggest that Sanctuary schemes work for BME women—and
we are aware that many BME women would feel and be safer leaving
their home rather than having a secure room in their house.
OUR RESEARCH AND EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT
WOMEN WOULD CHOOSE TO ACCESS SPECIALIST SUPPORT—IT IS NOT
ONLY ABOUT THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE IT IS ABOUT HAVING SOMEONE YOU
CAN CONFIDE IN THAT UNDERSTANDS THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR HISTORY,
EXPERIENCE AND COMMUNITY AS WELL AS AN UNDERSTANDING AROUND VIOLENCE.
3. Are there too many services for
South Asian communities?
There is a strong perception that there
are too many services for South Asian communities. There are not
and in fact some of the South Asian services that have been fought
for are now being lost as a consequence of SP—a lot more
work needs to be done and yes its true there are other communities
that are in dire need including Eastern European communities,
Chinese communities—women with different needs eg disability
and/or sexuality (one service in London for Irish travellers;
one outreach service for Chinese women in London, there is one
generic outreach service in London that offers amongst others,
a Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and German language service, there
is an increasing need for support for Somali and Tamil communities.
There is an evolved support structure
for Asian women which has taken over 20 years of community development
work and which has been defined by the Asian women's community
itself and it also entails raising difficult issues within communities,
campaigning, arguing for the need for specialist services. We
have now got to the point where more Asian women are coming forward
but much more work needs to be done. We have a history of organising
ourselves and asking for what we want and we need to empower other
communities to do that. When our parents migrated to this country
they were isolated, not assimilated, they were on the outside
looking in, they organised themselves as a community built networks
social and practical. We have a culture of getting what we need
when it is to supporting those in need of help; it's in our history
and culture our blood, what we know to do. We are being rejected
and that feels familiar as our parents were too, so we know how
to organise support even when we are not wanted.
Without creating this foundation by funding
effective community-based and outreach services women from other
communities will not come forward—new migrant communities
from areas of conflict will not be confident and be suspicious
of authorities because of their past experiences—if you
don't provide appropriate and targeted pathways (not within a
generic BME framework) it will not work women will not come forward.
WE HAVE A HISTORY OF ESTABLISHING SERVICES
AND RAISING ISSUES IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND THERE ARE SOME PARALLELS
THEREFORE EXISTING BME WOMENS AGENCIES NEED TO BE INVOLVED, RESOURCED
AND SUPPORTED TO SET UP SERVICES FOR OTHER COMMUNITIES.
WE NEED A SPECFIC STRATEGY NOT ONLY ON
VAW BUT ONE THAT FOCUSES PURELY ON THE NEEDS OF DIFFERENT BME
COMMUNITIES—NOT AS ONE HOMOGENOUS GROUP.
4. Greater cultural /religious sensitivity
amongst mainstream service providers?
The McPherson report was a key step in
Equality have been trying to make mainstream services understand/train
and promote good race relations.
A really significant point to look at
here is the term generic . . . we generally tend to make the assumption
that when the term generic is used that it means that something
is open to everyone, we would probably say that a generic service
is specialist service for people who are able to speak English—so
when we ask for specialist service we are not asking for extra
services actually just the same level of service provision.
Ensuring that specialist services exist
and worked alongside the mainstream would ensure that you provided
services that were culturally and religiously sensitive. We are
at least a generation and a half behind until them there is a
dire need for specialist services.
THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE FOR REFUGE
ACCOMODATION SINCE OTHER REFUGE USERS MAY WELL BE INSENSITIVE
TO ISSUES OF RACE, CULTURE AND RELIGION.
ALONGSIDE THAT YOU NEED TO COMMISSION
AND RESOURCE EXISTING BME SERVICES THAT HAVE THE EXPERTISE AND
HISTORY TO WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH MAINSTREAM AGENCIES AND IMPROVE
THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SERVICE NEEDS FOR WOMEN FROM BME COMMUNITIES—HOWEVER
THAT UNDERSTANDING CANNOT BE REACHED BY TRAINING ALONE HENCE YOU
WILL ALWAYS NEED A MIXTURE, CHOICE AND DIVERSITY OF SERVICES—MAINSTREAM
AND SPECIALIST.
5. Impact of Supporting People on BME
women's refuges?
The ironically named SP programme was
brought into simplify funding arrangements for housing related
support and we were hopeful that the policy would recognise the
reality of what is needed to support and empower women and children.
Unfortunately, SP for us a sector has
led to;
LAs have had their budgets cut incrementally
which in turn has led to refuges having services further cut and
losing services such as children workers, counselling or outreach
services which have also not been recognised as part of SP.
Commissioners now prefer to contract
with large super providers to provide services to all women—this
is disproportionately impacting on specialist services who are
being told to merge, dilute their services and become essentially
more mainstream. SP officers—why in this day and age do
you need specialist refuges—why don't you merge with generic
refuges, commissioners don't understand the value of women-only
spaces and the range of preventative and crisis based support
that women's groups offer often unfunded—specialist services
are being tested on how mainstream their services are and are
getting targeted for merger if they are not considered generic
enough which totally contradicts the reason for their existence
in the first place.
Refuges receive over 60% of their funding
from Supporting People and along with reductions in grant funding
this is having a huge impact on their future survival.
The cuts have led many groups to delivering
a hostel type service where they are then unable to access funds
for key aspects of their service eg help a woman with understanding
her legal rights, going to the doctor, attending court about child
contact arrangements—as much as you need refuge a roof over
your head, you need the other services to enable you to move on
with your life and effectively live free of violence outside of
the refuge—ultimately it would provide more VFM to have
co-coordinated services in place that may be more costly in the
short-term but help women to stay out of violence—in the
long-run this would save the government money.
ALL OF THE GROUPS WE SPEAK TO ARE UNDER
PRESSURE TO MERGE—IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
CLOSELY WITH ANOTHER FOUR GROUPS WHO ARE CONCERNED THAT THEY WILL
NO LONGER EXIST OR BE REDUCED TO A SMALLER NUMBER OF BEDSPACES
WITH ONE OR TWO BME WORKERS WITHIN A MUCH LARGER GENERIC PROJECT
WITH NO INPUT IN HOW THE SERVICE SHOULD DEVELOP- BRADFORD SP HAVE
APPRECIATED THE NEED FOR HAVING SPECIALIST SERVICE AND DIFFERENT
PATHWAYS TO CARE FOR BME WOMEN ALONGSIDE MAINSTREAM AND WE URGENTLY
NEED HELP FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO GET OTHER LAS TO FOLLOW THAT
LEAD.
SP funding is now being pooled into Local
Area Agreements (LAA's) Each LA will need to adopt national indicators
set by the government—previously there were 11 measures
which included the need for refuge provision amongst other targets
bizarrely his has been replaced by two targets preventing DV murders'
and repeat victimization.
This is not even one of those situations
where we can say "its one step forward and two steps back—this
is just several backward steps".
We also now seeing much more resources
going into specialist DV courts, MARACs and IDVAs which we recognise
as important but how can we expect women to benefit from any of
these developments when the services that they need to access
the CJS process are being wiped out—it will make a lot of
these other interventions effectively useless.
6. Single- issue funding—impact
on the sector
The minister of communities approach
is in direct contradiction with the principles of SP, policies
around involving the third sector to deliver public services—but
both policies are both effectively helping to effectively WIPEOUT
long established women-led BME SERVICES and replace them with
generic services that aim to meet the needs of all—you cannot
meet the needs of all in a one size fit all approach—in
fact these services will effectively become more basic and less
accessible to hard to reach communities. The single-issue funding
approach is not being understood at a local level and Central
Government needs to make this issue clearer as groups are being
targeted for decommissioning and merger as a consequence.
For example—we are working with
a group in Nottingham on their SP funding—Commissioners
have told them that there is no longer any need for services for
South Asian women as (in their words) these women have moved on
compared to new migrant communities and don't need specialist
help—this is despite the refuge being full and having to
turn women away—more alarmingly these decisions and assumptions
are being made about community need without any real consultation
or assessment with the women accessing this service. This project
has been told that one of the reasons for potential closure is
the Government's stance on single-issue funding.
There appears to be a blanket policy
operating within SP teams across the Country where equality principles
are being undermined eg services are being told you need to provide
services for all but ironically it is the BME service that's get
singled out as not being generic or mainstream enough e.g south
Asian women's refuges are secular—they work with women from
different religious backgrounds and have a history of strengthening
links between different communities.
Another recent situation is that of Jewish
WA who went to London Councils grants meeting to get feedback
on their application for funds. At this meeting Councillors said
that according what are the Government are saying we should not
fund single issue groups like this . . . that was pretty bad,
but unfortunately he went on further to say that Jewish women
do not experience DV and that they are wealthy anyway so they
can pay for their services.
OVERALL THE SINGLE ISSUE FUNDING IS BEING
MISINTERPRETED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND GRANT FUNDERS—in
effect both SP AND CC are serving to create another layer of mainstream
services by cutting the specialist routes that women need to access
mainstream services and support—without this we will see
more women remain in violence in years to come—that will
be a costly mistake and one that BME services will have to pick
up in the future.
GUIDANCE FROM GOVERNMENT IS BEING USED
TO SHUT DOWN AND MAINSTREAM ANY SERVICE THAT CATERS FOR SPECIFIC
COMMUNITIES. IN SOME AREAS THIS MAY BE THE ONLY SERVICE THAT IS
AVAILABLE TO THESE WOMEN AND CHILDREN. THE GUIDANCE IS BEING MISINTERPRETED
BY LAs AND OTHER GRANT FUNDERS.
7. Criminalising forced marriage
WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSAL. OUR
MEMBER ORGANISATIONS WHO DEAL DAILY WITH FORCED MARRIAGE CASES
REGARD CRIMINALISATION AS A STEP WHICH WOULD WEAKEN NOT STRENGTHEN
WOMEN'S POSITION.
Experience tells us not to look only
to institutions of criminal law to improve the life of a BMER
female who is victimised by gender-based violence.
Like in other cultures there is a power
imbalance—it is by strengthening the women that you try
and realign that balance—by a sole focus on law against
violence against women you will not address violence and abuse.
The provision for taking out injunctions
already exists under the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA). However the
number of injunctions taken out in Forced Marriage cases is extremely
low (see Imkaan's first Consultation), with women asking for support
services and safe housing rather than injunctions. In our view,
Section 63 D of the proposed Bill, which provides for specific
orders for injunctions on FM, is highly problematic. On the one
hand, it does not provide anything new to women resisting FM (they
can use the existing provisions in the FLA); and on the other
hand, as we discuss below, it could have a detrimental effect
on domestic violence policy relevant to FM, and could also pose
a number of practical problems.
The concerns of our member organisations
can be summarised as follows:
— The process of leaving a situation
of violence is daunting enough without the additional burden of
making a decision about taking legal action in the form of an
injunction. Since injunctions are often breached, they are associated
with a lack of safety.
— Emotional bonds within BME
families can be extremely strong. As a result, women resisting
forced marriage do not usually want to subject their parents to
penalty under the law because they do not want to create deep
and permanent rifts with their families.
Evidentially there are problems in how
effective law will be;
— Currently, and particularly
without a definition of Forced Marriage, it is unclear what will
constitute evidence of coercion. Eg coercion can be very subtle
but not be acknowledged by the woman as forced.
— Young women, particularly
from an Asian background, may find it frightening, difficult or
be unwilling to give evidence in court against family and friends.
— How would evidence be found
in the case of several perpetrators?
We need to raise awareness and empower
women around these issues to prevent forced marriage—this
will save resources the numbers of forced marriage are few enough
to work on a preventative and community strategy.
Women need to access safety before they
make life decisions that impact on their lives, severing links
from their existing communities, considering the potential dangerous
consequences from reporting—we question whether the law
will be used effectively without effective services in place—there
is still only one specific holistic support service for young
Asian women in the UK.
Furthermore there is a focus on FM and
stereotyping of it as a South Asian, Muslim issue—eg A CPS
representative has quoted that there are hotspots between forced
marriage and Muslim areas—this will further alienate communities
rather than encourage women to seek help.
FM does seem to occur where traditional
parental values are strong, we would be much better off the work
on early intervention, prevention, educating communities rather
than a wholly punitive approach—by taking this approach
you are not dealing with this issue in a long-term way and tackling
gender relationships, control and power within family settings.
8. How representative is Imkaan?
Imkaan is the only national second tier
organization in the UK and the concerns we present are those of
over 40 BME service across the UK. We do not speak as one agency
but as a coalition of a number of different organizations who
deal with cases day by day of child abuse, violence within the
home, forced marriage etc—who have input into our consultations
on forced marriage eg we consulted with 25 groups as part of the
FM consultations, on the submission we made to this enquiry (again
over 20 groups were involved)—in effect we are a member
led organization in terms of the work we do and the issues we
raise locally and nationally.
9. Impact of the community cohesion
debate on member services?
The Community Cohesion debate is leading
to commissioners to not understand the need for single issue funded
groups, government policies are being undermined and there is
little understanding around how a number of BME groups operate
in a secular way which has in fact contributed to the principles
of community cohesion for many years.
The Community Cohesion debate is undermining
regional differences in service and community need. It is an approach
which is isolating Muslim communities' eg in the case of focusing
on honour violence and FM—this is leading to a narrow view
and one that is separating communities within communities not
building communities but on Muslim working class communities and
on parts of the North again that don't reflect reality of what
is taking place across the Country. It also gives an impression
that this is solely a Muslim Pakistani issue (this is dangerous
and is now being reflected within commissioning processes and
policy decisions).
Despite this CC appears to support another
trend whereby services are being commissioned according to religion—this
cannot work in practice as the cultural background and experiences
are very different between a Bosnian Muslim than a Punjabi Muslim.
Examples used earlier eg Nottingham and
a group we have worked with in Manchester are some of the casualties
of the CC debate—although the Manchester group have managed
to survive only through standing their ground and spending enormous
amounts of time challenging and negotiating with their LA very
few are in a position to do this. Organisations should not be
put into this position when they need that time to carry essential
life-saving work.
10. The extent of forced marriage in
BME communities
Forced marriage does occur in other communities
and within the broad context of violence against women not as
an isolated feature eg In some cases the perpetrators of FM might
start off a subtle request which may turn into violence, emotional
blackmail and bullying and murder—some parents may believe
they are doing it in the best interests of children and believe
that it is in their wisdom to make these decisions. The underlying
issues are around power, control, violence, gender relations and
coercion (FM is one aspect of this; one proportion involves a
number from abroad). This then could lead to a range of other
violent acts whether this is child abuse, extreme violence, rape,
murder etc, as well as the impact in relation to self-harm and
suicide.
There are gaps in current statistics:
FM stats from the Unit indicate that South Asian communities are
most affected this does not reflect reality of the situation.
The service structure and history is not there for other women
from other BME communities, anecdotally we know that this is an
issue that impacts on other communities other Asian communities
other SA communities other than Muslim—Chinese, Eastern
European, Somali etc. as is DV a feature of these communities
—overall we are aware that less women from other BME come
forward for services. The issue is not routinely recorded by statutory
agencies, few have implemented FM guidelines and services do not
exist that would encourage others to come forward.
FM (as well as honour-based murders)
are also not the dominant issue and has been misrepresented as
the sole source of concern by policy makers, some agencies and
the media. It must be tackled within the broader violence and
abuse that BME women and children experience otherwise the strategies
for service intervention and will remain ineffective and fragmented
as they are now.
11. Is forced marriage mainly an immigration
issue?
No
— What are the implications
of using immigration controls to tackle forced marriage?
12. Do you agree with raising the age
for sponsoring a spouse from abroad? Why?
In our opinion, an increase in the minimum
age at which someone can sponsor or be sponsored as a spouse would
be racist and discriminatory towards minority ethnic communities.
This policy will unfairly discriminate against minority groups
by effectively imposing a higher age for marriage with a chosen
spouse than applies to the majority of the population.
1. In 2004, the minimum age
at which someone could sponsor or be sponsored as a spouse was
raised from 16-18 years. No analysis has been attempted or data
published to show what, if any, impact this increase had on reducing
the numbers of forced marriages, or whether it brought any other
advantages to ethnic minority communities—particularly to
young people in those communities.
3. The increase in the age
of sponsorship could lead to young people being taken abroad and
kept there for long periods of time—ie, until they turned
21. This would lead to these young people missing out on a life
in the UK, and possibly even losing their freedom, for an even
longer period of time than they do now.
4. The financial cost to the
state will be greater for assisting people who have been traumatised
over a longer period of time due to the raised age of marriage.
This cost will be both obvious in terms of care and rehabilitation
and invisible as loss of productive workforce for the economy.
5. One of the reasons given
in the consultation paper for the increase in the age of sponsorship
is that the additional time will give the spouse's time to educate
themselves and settle in. We are not convinced why this condition
should only apply to people wanting to marry foreigners. The assertion
in Section 2.10 on page 6 blatantly perpetuates racism towards
minority communities, and could also be interpreted as ageist.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO
PROTECT THE
BME SECTOR
— An integrated campaign that
addresses an reinterprets issues of honour, forced marriage, child
abuse, violence etc but within a broader remit of VAW and with
resources for effective outreach, awareness raising within BME
community centres, schools etc. This work needs to be developed
and led by existing organizations.
— An integrated cross-departmental
VAW strategy and within that a strategy that focuses on the needs
of BME women and children (an integrated strategy rather than
isolated action plans eg the proposed national action plan on
FM)—there should be a national advisory body made up of
representatives from the BME women's sector which feeds into this
process and directs national policies.
— Ring-fence funds for Violence
Against Women (VAW) services and BME/other equality services.
— Develop minimum standards
and guidance for Local Authorities which highlights services that
are required—preventative work, refuge provision, outreach,
advocacy, self-help groups, therapeutic service, specific work
with BME, LBGT, etc. and has best practice approaches around service
delivery.
— Each LA and other funders
need to conduct equality impact assessments (to include effective
consultation with service users)—gender and race on all
services provided plus those that have been withdrawn/decommissioned—this
information should be publicly available.
— Commission the women's sector
and BME women's sector to train and develop guidance for commissioners
and other funders on service needs, gender and race issues and
the added value of women led BME services.
— Re-evaluate the commissioning
process to reconsider the ways in which services are assessed
on the basis of VFM and unit cost criteria only.
— Call for a public enquiry
into SP and Community Cohesion policies and their impact on the
sector—a need to look into the parts of the policy that
are in direct contradiction to other VAW strategies eg
the outreach closures will lead to more remaining in violence
and will hinder women from exiting violence and exercise, the
closure of specialist services and the impact of this on BME women
and children.
— Maintain and develop grant
funding streams for women's organisations.
— A need for clarity from the
government on the issue of single-issue funding and guidance that
makes a clear statement about the need for commissioning and retaining
specialist women's services.
March 2008
| 
