APPENDIX 46
Memorandum submitted by Southall Black
Sisters
1. INTRODUCTION
We welcome the opportunity to make this
written submission to the above inquiry.
It is hoped that the Committee will appreciate
that discussions about black and minority women should not be
ghettoised and that all legislation, policies and initiatives
on domestic violence should be assessed from the point of view
of their impact on black and minority women.
In view of the word constraint on written
submissions, we encourage the Committee to consider oral evidence
from members of our group including our users, to understand and
assess in greater detail the strengths, weaknesses and gaps that
exist in current legislation and policies as it impacts on the
experiences of black and minority women subject to domestic violence.
In this submission, we identify two of
the most significant areas of concern to black and minority women
in the UK today. In our view, they represent their greatest barriers
to protection. At the end of this submission we briefly mention
other areas of concern, although the list is by no means exhaustive.
2. THE
"NO RECOURSE"
PROBLEM[278]
The domestic violence rule was incorporated
into the immigration rules in 2002.[279]
It enables women who arrive in the UK following marriage to a
settled spouse to apply for leave to remain in the UK indefinitely
if their marriage breaks down due to domestic violence. To be
eligible under the domestic violence rule, the applicant must
demonstrate that she is a victim of violence by providing evidence
in the required form.
However, following arrival to this country,
the vast majority of women who are abused are unable to utilise
the domestic violence rule because of the existence of the "no
recourse" requirement within immigration and welfare rights
legislation. A condition of entry for spouses or partners is the
requirement not to claim benefits or any form of public assistance
that is regarded as "public funds" under the rules.
This condition remains in place until their immigration status
is regularised. As is now well documented,[280]
the rule has the effect of locking women in abusive relationships
since they cannot access emergency housing or benefits. Access
to housing and benefits are acknowledged by the government as
essential prerequisites for all victims wishing to escape domestic
violence because they provide an initial safety net,[281]
yet this recognition is denied to women who have an insecure immigration
status and in doing so, the government puts them outside the scope
of the protection afforded by domestic violence legislation and
policies.
Abusers are well aware of the economic
dependency that is created by the rule and this in turn, gives
them a licence to abuse with impunity. They know that abused women
have nowhere to go and no means of supporting themselves. Most
are unable to return to countries of origin due to fear of rejection
or persecution from families and the wider society for being divorced
or separated and the lack of State protection. The result is that
many women endure the most horrific violence and abuse imaginable
in which starvation, domestic servitude and imprisonment are common
features. Needless to say, mental health problems, depression
and suicide attempts also feature strongly in such cases.
Between 2001 and 2003, SBS undertook
a survey aimed at monitoring the impact of the domestic violence
concession/rule. Over a 100 agencies, mainly refuges responded.
The majority stated that the "no recourse" requirement
prevented women from reporting domestic violence because they
were unable to obtain welfare benefits and emergency local authority
accommodation or access women's refuges.
The response showed that only a third
of all women who had immigration problems were accommodated in
refuges and that specialist black and Asian women refuges bore
the brunt of accommodating women with no recourse because of their
language and cultural needs. Most refuges were unable to sustain
the severe drain on their resources which is inevitably incurred
when accommodating women who cannot access any form of benefits
such as housing benefit to pay for rent or income support to cover
basic living costs.
In 2004-05 a Women's Aid survey found
that there were 477 women with no recourse problems in refuges,
and on a census day (2 November 2005), 177 women and their children
with no recourse to public funds were provided with refuge-based
services. Of these, 54% were partially funded via social services,
the remaining 81 women and children were supported by charitable
donations. An additional 54 were turned away because refuge providers
could not afford to support them.[282]
Women's Aid concluded that women were mainly being accommodated
because the government had made a one-off payment to their Last
Resort Fund, which had supported many of the women. However,
it was predicted that the numbers supported were unlikely to rise
in 2006 because of the depletion of funds.
Since the demise of the Last Resort
Fund, many refuges complained that they are unable to accommodate
women with no recourse. For example, in 2006, Ealing Women's Aid
based in the London Borough of Ealing reported about a 50% refusal
rate (out of a total of 20 women) for women with no recourse.
This state of affairs is repeated throughout the country. Many
refuges are turning away women with no recourse. And all front
line services including the police struggle to find safe alternatives
for women and children.
Although there is no restriction against
working (except for students and overstayers), even if women manage
to leave an abusive situation, they are unable to work due to
trauma, lack of English or other skills, the presence of young
children and the lack of child care. Some cannot obtain an NI
number because they cannot prove their identity. In most cases,
all documents and immigration papers are retained by abusive husbands/partners
and or their families.
Our experience also shows that many women
want their abusers to be held accountable through prosecutions
or civil court injunctions but without security of accommodation
and financial help, they have no option but to remain with their
abuser. This often results in the withdrawal of allegations and
legal actions.
The "no recourse" requirement
has an inhumane impact on children too. Many destitute abused
women who are pregnant or with young children are being turned
away by local authorities who refuse to assist or interpret their
duty to protect children under for example the National Assistance
Act 1948 or Children Act 1989, extremely narrowly. Often the response
is to take the children but not the mother into care or offer
to pay for a flight back home to countries of origin, irrespective
of the conditions or harm they will face in that country. Cases
in which children are involved can be very difficult to address
because local authorities remove or threaten to remove children
from the care of destitute women who have no accommodation and
instead take steps to ensure that residence is awarded to abusive
fathers. It is clearly disturbing to see that the standards of
protection for children in the wider society are not being applied
in cases where such women have insecure status.
Single women have even less of a chance
of obtaining local authority assistance, even thought many are
vulnerable. The help that is afforded to them is very much dependant
on the stance taken by a particular local authority. It is a post
code lottery situation.
The desperate circumstances of such women,
places a heavy, indeed impossible burden on charitable individuals
and organisations such as women's groups and churches, temples
and mosques to accommodate and support women. An extremely worrying
trend observed by SBS, is the sheer dependency that is created
on total strangers. As is inevitable, such dependency is a "hit
and miss" affair and extremely undesirable since it can expose
women to unscrupulous individuals who take advantage of their
vulnerability, subjecting them to further economic and sexual
abuse. Turning to religious institutions for help is also an extremely
dangerous step for many Asian and other minority women, since
they are encouraged to reconcile with abusive partners for the
sake of preserving family honour. We are of the view, that if
this was the experience of women in the wider society, an outcry
would ensue compelling the government to take appropriate measures
to enable women to access safety and protection.
The continuing existence of the "no
recourse" requirement has led to widespread condemnation
of the government's policy on domestic violence because it is
unjust and profoundly discriminatory towards women who do not
have settled status. Moreover, it defeats the very purpose of
the domestic violence rule[283]
since the vast majority of women are unable to report their experiences
in the absence of safe and secure options of exit and survival.
If they cannot report their experiences, they cannot show that
they have been subject to violence and thus fail to qualify under
the domestic violence rule. It is a vicious cycle from which it
is difficult to break out.
The continuing existence of "no
recourse" requirement also forces refuges and other charitable
organisations to subvert the very principles upon which they are
based, which is to uphold the human rights and dignity of all
women and children irrespective of background. Instead, they are
compelled to perform an immigration control function by denying
black and minority women access to their services.
Proposals for reform on no recourse
Space does not permit us to outline in
detail the proposals we have made for reform in this area. However,
we highlight the following and refer you to our submission to
the Office of the Prime Minister for details. (not printed.)
— Exempt women who
are subject to domestic violence from the "no recourse"
to public funds by amending relevant immigration/welfare benefits
and homelessness rules. Funds could be retrieved from abusers
at the discretion of the Home Secretary, provided there is no
risk of reprisals to the victim.
— Create a special
fund for all victims of domestic violence subject to "no
recourse". It could be financed by the Victim Fund or other
sources.
3. CLOSURE
OF SPECIALIST
SERVICES FOR
BLACK AND
MINORITY WOMEN
FACING ABUSE
Despite the fact that specialist black
and minority women's refuges and organisations in the voluntary
sector bear the brunt of meeting the needs of the overwhelming
majority of black and minority women, the combined effect of a
severe lack of resources and policies on "equality"
and "cohesion" threatens their existence in two major
ways:
Firstly, at a local level, we are witness
to changes to funding which seeks to encourage only "single
providers" of domestic violence services. Even in areas where
specialist black and minority services exist and have proven track
records in addressing domestic violence and abuse, they are under
threat of closure. In 2008 for instance, SBS is threatened with
closure because the local authority proposes to take away its
funding in order finance a single provider of services on domestic
violence for all women in the borough. Yet no account is taken
of the adverse impact that this will have on black and minority
women due to the unequal economic, cultural and social contexts
of their existence. They will be left without a single organisation
in the area that can address their specific needs including protection
from forced marriage and honour killings. Instead larger organisations
such as housing associations that have no expertise or experience
in addressing the needs of black and minority women are being
encouraged to take over the provision of domestic violence services
because they can demonstrate "value for money". This
trend is noticeable around the country and is affecting not just
black and minority women's groups but also other specialist services
addressing issues of domestic violence and rape.
Secondly, around the country, the implementation
of flawed "equality" and "cohesion" policies
also threatens the existence of long standing reputable organisations
such as SBS. The rationale behind these policies is the need to
recognise, create and support single faith (Muslim) groups and
enable them to build their capacity to address social issues.
Yet this comes at the expense of existing Asian and other minority
women's groups that have worked successfully across religious
and ethnic lines in creating networks of mutual support amongst
women in the face of community hostility and religious intolerance.
In Ealing for instance, at the same time as taking away funding
for specific domestic violence services for black and minority
women, the local authority has created a budget in pursuit of
its "cohesion" strategy which will be utilised to set
up Muslim projects, even though no identifiable Muslim women's
groups exist. Indeed Muslim women constitute the second largest
category of women who attend SBS' centre and none throughout our
27 years of existence have demanded the need for separate services
for Muslim women. The ultimate danger of such "cohesion"
strategies is that it will be highly divisive and the gains that
have been achieved by secular black and minority women's groups
will be severely undermined. Many social issues will be addressed
within a religious framework which will inevitably reduce the
options that black and minority women and children will have in
the face of violence and abuse.
4. OTHER
CONCERNS
We also wish to highlight the following
for urgent consideration:
No tightening of immigration controls:
We are very alarmed by the proposals on marriage to partners overseas
made by the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) in its recent
consultation paper (December 2007). Although made in the name
of tackling forced marriage, the proposals have nothing conceivably
to do with addressing forced marriage and every thing to do with
restricting the rights of certain communities. (SBS will be making
a detailed submission to the BIA. If requested, we will be willing
to provide a copy to the Home Affairs Select Committee when it
is completed in February 2008.)
On principle, we object to an approach
that consistently links violence against women in minority communities
with immigration matters, as if such women have no intrinsic right
to liberty and life unless they are addressed as an aspect of
immigration control. The approach is blatantly discriminatory
towards minority women and to the wider communities to which they
belong.
It is recognised that addressing violence
against women in the wider society requires a raft of measures
including effective civil legal remedies, a robust criminal justice
system response and extensive welfare and housing options. Yet
this same recognition is not afforded to minority women whose
problems are simply viewed as a consequence of flawed immigration
controls. The irony of the approach is that those who advocate
more immigration controls to address forced marriage never show
the same interest to women who are subjected to violence and immigration
controls. As highlighted above, such women are barred from relying
on state support, without which they cannot escape violence and
abuse.
Criminal Justice Response: We
have now had over two decades of legislation and policies on domestic
violence but these are not effectively implemented. Failure of
implementation now lies at the heart of the criminal justice response.
The problem lies not with senior ranking officers, many of whom
have considerable awareness of the issues but with rank and file
officers, many of whom continue to view domestic violence as a
"waste of time". The case of Bahnaz Mahmood[284]
was important not just because of the tag of "honour killing"
that was attached to the case but because basic warning signs
that could have saved her life were not heeded by the police.
Notwithstanding the different cultural context, the issue is one
of basic police failures repeated all too often throughout the
country. See for example Learning the Lessons (Bulletin
1 June 2007) by the Independent Police Complaints Commission on
domestic violence. It makes for sobering reading.
January 2008
278 We refer you to our submission to the Office for
the Prime Minister for a detailed analysis of the Domestic Violence
Rule and "No recourse" and suggestions for reform. (not
printed.) Back
279
Prior to 2002, the domestic violence and immigration concession
was introduced in 1999 following Ministerial consultation with
SBS. Back
280
See SBS submission to the Home Office Affairs Select Committee
on Immigration Control in 2006. Back
281
See Safety and Justice, The Government's Proposals on Domestic
Violence (Home Office: London, 2003). Back
282
Dr E Williamson 2005 Survey of Domestic Violence Services Findings
Women's Aid Federation of England, March 2006. Back
283
On 26 July 1999, Margaret Moran MP raised a question in the House
of Commons about the purpose of the (then) domestic violence concession.
In reply the Home Office Minister, Mike O'Brien stated:
"The domestic violence concession has been introduced for
overseas spouses who wish to remain in the United Kingdom, but
who wish to leave their partner because of domestic violence before
completion of the 12 month probationary period. The concession
allows them to settle in the United Kingdom even if they are no
longer living with their sponsor provided they comply with the
conditions set out in the concession." Back
284
Bhanaz Mahmood was a 20 year old Kurdish woman who was killed
in 2007 by her father, uncle and other members of her family/community.
Her high profile case received considerable media coverage as
an honour killing. The main focus of attention however, should
have been police failure to protect her. On four separate occasions,
the police were made aware of the threat to her life but did not
act adequately to protect her. Her case is now the subject of
an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Back
| 
