24 July 2020

Just months since Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated that “Britain is not a racist country”, MPs have voted against proposed amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill to protect migrant women from domestic violence. As the Bill heads to the House of Lords, campaigners have a clear message: a woman’s safety must not be made dependent on her immigration status.

The Bill has been lauded by campaigners, particularly as it sees a ban on killers using the “rough sex defence” in England and Wales. Whilst this is undeniably a landmark in women’s rights, there is a tangible injustice in the government’s failure to make life-saving changes to the Bill in relation to migrant women. To be clear, migrant women make up a multifaceted and diverse cross section of society. In this instance, we are talking of those individuals with irregular or time limited immigration permission in the UK, who represent the intersection of race, gender, ethnicity, class and nationality.

One of the proposed amendments to the Bill, New Clause 22, would allow for recourse to public funds to be granted to domestic abuse survivors. Ministers voted against the amendment on 6 July 2020 by 330 to 207 votes.

The majority of non-EEA Migrants have ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ as a condition of their immigration permission in the UK. No access to public funds can mean no access to life-saving support and assistance for survivors of domestic abuse.

Take, for example, access to refuge spaces. It can be unsustainable for refuge spaces to support individuals who are unable to pay for their space through benefits. No recourse to public funding can mean that migrant women face a choice between domestic violence and sleeping rough.

In response to the no recourse to public funds clause, some charities have chosen to refuse government funding to ensure that their services are accessible to the most vulnerable. However, this can have a major strain on resources.

There are currently Domestic Violence Concessions in place which allow the Home Office to grant individuals three months leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules, enabling survivors to live independently from their partner and to access public funds. However, ‘Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse’, a review published by the Home Office last month, indicates that such concessions are predominantly in place for those who hold a partner visa, which makes up just one segment of the UK’s immigration system. Delays to the issuing of new Biometric Residence Permits as well as uncertainty among local authorities as to who does and does not qualify for public funds can mean the current three-month timeframe is simply not long enough.

Perpetrators of abuse often leverage immigration status as a tool of coercive control. The shadow minister for domestic violence and safeguarding, MP Jess Phillips, told the Guardian newspaper: “The argument the government uses is that these women should go home – and have their whole lives taken away by their abuser,” said Phillips. “In these situations the state is continuing the threat of the perpetrator who says ‘no one will believe you, you won’t have anywhere to go and have no support’ – and right now the abuser is absolutely right”.

The ruling of 6 July 2020 is a chilling reminder that racism, sexism and xenophobia are ever present in the systems of power in this country. This comes in the context of the Black Lives Matter movement, which has shone a stark light on systemic racism across the globe. In order to combat systemic racism in Britain today, our legal system must protect all survivors of domestic violence, irrespective of their immigration status.