Domestic Violence, Immigration and No Recourse to Public Funds A Briefing to amend the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill April 2004
Domestic Violence, Immigration and No Recourse to Public Funds A Briefing to amend the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill April 2004 Introduction SBS welcomes the Domestic Violence Bill as a first step in creating a comprehensive legislative approach to domestic violence in this country. However, the Domestic Violence Bill does not grant protection to those minority women in this country who are subject to domestic violence, immigration control and no recourse to public funds (commonly known as the 'no recourse to public funds rule'). We propose that the domestic violence immigration rule, which currently allows some women subject to immigration control and domestic violence indefinite leave to remain in the UK, be extended to all women in this position, and that all types of evidence of domestic violence should be accept as sufficient proof. We also propose that the no recourse to public funds rule be reformed so that all victims of domestic violence are entitled to the financial support and safe accommodation they require to leave an abusive relationship irrespective of their immigration status. We note that the UK is a signatory to a number of international conventions that uphold the right to life and the right to be protected from inhuman and degrading treatment. We believe that failure to protect all women subject to immigration control from domestic violence and the withholding of public funds from victims due to their uncertain immigration status is disproportionate, discriminatory and a violation of human rights. It contradicts the Government's commitment to protecting all victims of domestic violence. Who will be protected by the proposed amendments? The proposed amendments will protect all victims of domestic violence subject to immigration controls as defined under Section 115 (9) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This includes the following: Spouses and unmarried partners of persons with British citizenship or indefinite leave to remain People from abroad who enter or stay in the UK on the basis of marriage or relationship to a spouse/partner who is settled in the UK or a British citizen are initially given limited leave to remain. They are subject to a probationary period, at the end of which, with the support of their British spouse/partner, they can apply for indefinite leave to remain. Previously, the probationary period for spouses was for the duration of one year but in April 2003, this was extended to two years. Married and cohabiting couples are now subject to the two-year probationary period (commonly known as the 'two-year rule'). During the probationary period the spouse/partner from abroad has no recourse to public funds. If a marriage breaks down, the spouse/partner from abroad becomes liable to be removed from the UK, unless they can show the required evidence of domestic violence to qualify under the domestic violence rule.women who are regarded as 'overstayers' This includes women who have entered or remained in the UK on a valid visa, but have not regularised their status on expiry of the visa, for example, those who remain in the UK at the end of the two-year probationary period without obtaining indefinite leave to remain. Women who have leave to enter or remain in the UK as the fiancé of persons with British citizenship or indefinite leave to remain Women who have leave to enter or remain in the UK in a variety of capacities including as visitors, students and workers or have temporary admission as asylum seekers. This leave is not dependent upon them remaining in a relationship. Some of these women will face domestic violence from spouses/partners or relatives who have accompanied them or those they have met and/or married in the UK. Women who have leave to enter or remain in the UK which is dependent upon them remaining in a relationship with a partner/spouse or relative who also has limited leave to enter or remain in the UK (for example as a student or worker) or who has temporary admission in the UK as an asylum seeker. Women who are illegal entrants This is where the person has entered, or sought to enter, the UK unlawfully in breach of the immigration rules e.g.
women who enter the UK with no leave to enter or remain or obtained leave by deception, such as entering the UK as a student, but with the intention of remaining in the country on another basis, such as for purposes of work. Women in these situations may also experience domestic violence by those accompanying them to the UK or from relatives or those with whom they enter into marriage or relationships within the UK. Background Southall Black Sisters (SBS) has campaigned for over 11 years to highlight the failure of legislation to take account of the tragic plight of women subject to restrictive immigration rules and domestic violence. Following the General Election in 1997, we entered into a consultation process with the Home Office to address this problem. We sought not only a change to immigration law but also to benefits and housing legislation which would entitle these women to safe alternative housing and living costs so that they did not have to remain in a violent relationship for fear of becoming destitute. In 1999, the Government introduced the Domestic Violence Concession which permitted women who entered or stayed in the UK as spouses and partners subject to the probationary period to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK if they could provide evidence of domestic violence. The concession was incorporated into the Immigration Rules in December 2002 and has come to be known as the "domestic violence rule". The type of evidence of domestic violence required to qualify under the rule was also extended. We welcome these reforms to the Immigration Rules, which represents an acknowledgement from the Government that women with immigration problems have a right to protection from domestic violence. However, we are concerned that this protection is limited only to women who enter the UK as spouses and partners and who apply within the probationary period. The Domestic Violence Rule is more restrictive than immigration protections offered in other jurisdictions. Women who entered or remained in the UK on the basis of their marriage/relationship, but who apply to remain after the expiry of their visa at the end of the probationary period ('overstayers') are not protected by the domestic violence rule. Neither are other categories of women subject to immigration control who may also experience domestic violence in the UK. We therefore propose that the domestic violence rule should be extended to all women subject to immigration control to provide uniform and accessible protection to victims. The following case illustrates the pressures that women who fall outside of the Domestic Violence Rule face: We are currently investigating a suspected suicide case. The deceased was a woman of Indian nationality who underwent a religious Hindu marriage ceremony with a UK national in India. The woman was sponsored as a visitor into the UK in December 2002 and then married her husband at a civil ceremony. The husband said that he would regularise the woman's status but did not appear to have taken any steps to do this. Through friends of the deceased we are aware that the husband was subjecting the woman to emotional and verbal abuse. In October 2003 the woman died after ingesting poison. Her friends informed us that she had been married once before and had told them that she could not bear the shame of returning to India again as a divorcee. In addition, despite reform, the type of evidence needed to prove domestic violence is not easily available. Due to the hidden nature of domestic violence and numerous problems with reporting, some victims are unable to provide the type of evidence currently required to qualify under the domestic violence rule. We therefore propose that all type of evidence of domestic violence, including victim and witness statements, findings of fact by immigration Adjudicators and the family courts, and reports from statutory and voluntary agencies, should be accepted as proof under the domestic violence rule. The following is an example of current problems: An Asian woman was too afraid of being removed from the UK and of violent reprisals, and ignorant of her rights and services available, to report domestic violence while she lived with her husband during the probationary period. Following separation, and after obtaining advice from friends, she reported a further incident to the police, who failed to take any criminal action against the husband. The Home Office refused her indefinite leave to remain because she could not provide the required proof of domestic violence while her marriage was subsistent. They even refused to accept the findings of an immigration Adjudicator who, following a hearing, determined that the woman had been subjected to domestic violence while living with her husband. This case is now subject to judicial review proceedings. However, even if the Government extends the provisions of the domestic violence rule, there remains the problem of the restriction on public funds to all women subject to immigration control. Whilst the current domestic violence rule has removed some women's fears of being returned to their countries of origin if their marriage/relationship breaks down, it has not removed women's fear of destitution and of being trapped in a violent home. The continuing restriction on public funds preserves the economic dependency of abused women on violent spouses/partners or relatives
and prevents a significant number of women from escaping violence and death. In Safety and Justice, the 2003 Home Office consultation paper on domestic violence, the Government acknowledges that welfare benefits and access to housing are essential prerequisites for all victims of violence as these provide an initial safety net. Yet this recognition is denied to women who have an insecure immigration status and in doing so puts them outside the scope of protection afforded by domestic violence legislation and policy. The no recourse to public funds rule prevents women (and their children) from obtaining not only social security benefits and council housing but as a consequence, access to refuge spaces. This restriction defeats the very purpose of the domestic violence rule aiming to protect victims with immigration problems! The Domestic Violence Bill must recognise that those women whose immigration status is insecure or dependent on that of their husband/partner/ relative are trapped in violent relationships as much by the restriction on recourse to public funds and due to their fear of destitution and financial exploitation, as by their fear of being returned to their countries of origin. Their fear of destitution stems directly from their lack of access to welfare benefits and housing, which prevents many women from making meaningful choices about leaving violent relationships. The scale of the problem Spouses and unmarried partners of persons with British citizenship or settled status who entered the UK on a valid visa Home Office figures show that whilst on average 44,000 spouses are granted settlement each year, between 2000 and 2002 only 119 women applied for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence concession of which 60% were granted settlement. We believe that the restriction on public funds is a major factor in preventing more women making use of the domestic violence rule. Our own national surveys indicate that, on average, about 500 women per year subject to the probationary period are affected by domestic violence. This includes women who are suffering violence, but who do not make an application under the domestic violence rule or do not leave the abusive relationship. All other women subject to immigration control To our knowledge there are no UK wide statistics on the incidence of domestic violence amongst all other women subject to immigration control. Due to our high profile on the issue of immigration and domestic violence we receive enquiries from victims and referrals from refuges, lawyers and other practitioners across the UK. We therefore believe that our figures below, to some extent, represent or help to gauge the national picture of numbers of women subject to domestic violence and immigration control (other than those subject to a probationary period). For the year 2002, we received 72 enquiries from women in this category. Of these, 33 were women who at some point had a valid visa in their own right, but may have become overstayers when they failed to extend their stay on a spousal visa upon marriage. Thirteen women were dependent upon their marriage to men with limited leave to remain or temporary admission to stay in the UK. There were 26 women who did not know what their immigration status was or were overstayers or illegal entrants. For the year 2003, we received 40 enquiries. Twenty four women had entered the UK in their own right whilst 16 entered as dependants of spouses with limited leave/temporary admission. Overall, as our figures indicate, we do believe that a very small minority of women will apply to remain under the domestic violence rule or seek access to public funds. Reforms to the domestic violence and the no recourse to the public funds rules will therefore benefit a small, but significant group of extremely vulnerable women and children. Government response to the problem In Safety and Justice, the Home Office acknowledges that women from ethnic minorities have particular problems in leaving an abusive relationship due to family and cultural pressures, and difficulties in gaining access to specialist support and services when fleeing violence. The paper states that "victims are often deterred from seeking help or leaving a violent relationship because they have nowhere else to go." The paper describes the availability of safe and secure accommodation as "crucial and life-saving" The Government acknowledges it has a "duty" to ensure victims attempting to leave a violent relationship - one of the most dangerous time for victims of domestic violence - can have access to refuge accommodation and services". Home Office figures also show that there is a considerable shortfall in the provision of support and services for ethnic minority women. The Government accepts that women who come within the ambit of the domestic violence rule and who have no recourse to public funds require specialist emergency accommodation. However the Home Office appears to ignore its
findings on the provision of services for ethnic minority women by stating that after consideration it has decided that women with immigration problems and no recourse to public funds will still not be entitled to benefits in order to protect the "integrity" of the immigration and benefit rules. Instead, the Government has made a commitment to "ensure victims can get access to safety and support, including refuge services, funded through the Supporting People arrangement". However, this provision is wholly inadequate because it only provides housing related support (for example the salaries of the refuge workers) and not essential core costs, namely housing benefit and income support for the payment of rent and living expenses. SBS was one of several respondents including Women's Aid and Imkaan that requested that women subject to immigration control and domestic violence should be entitled to public funds in their response to Safety and Justice. In its Summary of Responses to Safety and Justice, the Home Office makes a commitment to "ensuring that those still subject to immigration control can get access to refuge accommodation" and would consider "whether any further support could be offered to this group of victims within the current legislative framework." However, since the publication of the Summary, there have been no concrete proposals for reform or any time frame given within which to carry out legislative or non legislative changes. In the absence of any effective or urgent Government action on the issue of restriction of public funds, we feel that it is imperative that this problem is addressed by an amendment to the Domestic Violence Bill. A violation of human rights The Domestic Violence Bill is concerned with the question of protection for victims of violence. To be meaningful to women, such protection must be afforded to all women, irrespective of race, ethnicity and immigration status. In its present form, the failure to extend the domestic violence rule and the no recourse to public funds rule has the effect of breaching the fundamental human rights of women with insecure immigration status as set out in a number of the international treaties that the UK is a signatory to, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the European Convention of Human Rights incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998. In particular, there are breaches in respect of the right to life, freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment and the right to family life (for example, the right to be accommodated with their children when leaving violent situations). Moreover, to ignore the plight of immigrant women subject to violence makes the law discriminatory in its outcome, since the effect is to render some women worthy of protection, but not others. The most severe indictment of the current policy on no recourse is that it aggravates a woman's sense of dependency, worthlessness and humiliation. They are stripped of their human dignity and are forced to feel grateful for protection that should be their right. It cannot be the intention of the creators of the Domestic Violence Bill to render the most vulnerable sections of our society completely powerless in the face of domestic violence by denying them financial and housing assistance afforded to others who are helped and encouraged to leave violent relationships. International human right conferences and bodies including the Council for Europe have stated that minority women with uncertain immigration status are particularly vulnerable and should be accorded greater assistance and protection when fleeing violence. Several countries including Denmark, Austria, Canada and USA have introduced similar provisions to the Domestic Violence Rule but also provide women with public funds pending an application. In the USA, all immigrants (including overstayers and illegal entrants) qualify for federally funded emergency and short-term shelter and housing programs, as well as other forms of state and federally funded assistance necessary to "protect life and safety". Shelter programmes that refuse to accommodate immigrants are liable to being charged with discrimination in violation of federal law and losing their federal funding. The position is the same in Austria where all women irrespective of their immigration status are entitled to access to a refuge and living costs for themselves and dependants if they use the anti-violence legislation. UK Government policy on this issue flies in the face of international good practice and standards. Holding perpetrators accountable Many victims want their abusers to be held accountable through prosecutions. Women with uncertain status who have been courageous enough to report abusers to the police find that they have no option but to remain with their abuser and risk reprisals. This has led to women withdrawing allegations. In practice we find that perpetrators are being allowed to commit violent offences with impunity, thus undermining the "integrity" of the criminal justice system. The following is a case example:
Our client is an Indian national married to a British citizen and subject to the two-year probationary period. She approached us in December 2003 when she was heavily pregnant. She reported her husband's physical abuse to the police who put him on police bail until they made a decision about charging. In the meantime, we had considerable difficulty finding a space in a woman's refuge - one refuge housed the woman for one night, and were unable to provide any more space for subsequent nights. All other refuges were unable to accept her because of no recourse to public funds. However, while we were still searching for accommodation, as a result of immense cultural pressures and the uncertainty of her situation, the women returned to her husband and withdrew the allegations. The police told us they wanted to continue with a compulsory prosecution, but required guarantees that the woman could access on-going safe accommodation if they did so. We were unable to provide such guarantees. As a result, the police did not prosecute the husband, who has been able to commit violent crime with impunity! Research Over the years, SBS has made a number of submissions with recommendations for reform of the immigration and the no recourse to public funds rules supported by research evidence. In October 2001 we conducted a national survey covering the period 16th June 1999 to 15th June 2001 monitoring the operation of the then domestic violence concession. Of the 200 agencies that responded, the majority wanted the domestic violence concession extended to all women subject to immigration control and to extend the type of evidence to prove domestic violence. They also registered great dissatisfaction and frustration with the restriction on public funds, which many described as "draconian and inhumane." All the agencies described how they struggled to help women to escape violence in circumstances where no help with funds or accommodation was forthcoming from local authorities. They expressed an overwhelming demand for the restriction on recourse to public funds to be lifted for such women. This survey, in line with previous surveys, showed that approximately 500 cases of women subject to probationary period were also experiencing domestic violence and no recourse to public funds problems. Our most recent national survey, which was smaller in scale to previous surveys, focused on access to public funds and was conducted in April 2003. The survey covers a 12 month period during the year 2002 and a snapshot for 3rd March 2003. Over 100 agencies, mainly refuges, responded. Our survey found that: In total, the respondent agencies dealt with 383 cases of women with immigration and domestic violence problems with no recourse to public funds. On 3rd March 2003, they dealt with 77 such cases The refuges which responded were only able to accommodate approximately a third of the women with no recourse who had approached them for emergency accommodation Specialist black and ethnic minority refuges, and refuges situated in areas with a concentration of black and ethnic minority communities bore the brunt of accommodating women with no recourse, simply because others did not have the specialist skills, knowledge or languages necessary to help minority women There was a severe shortage in the availability and accessibility to emergency and specialist refuge accommodation for women with no recourse Refuges are unable to sustain the severe drain on the resources of refuges both financially and in terms of worker hours that they incur when accommodating these women. Refuges frequently found themselves in the difficult position of having to turn women at risk of violence away, in the knowledge that those women had no other alternatives. In the absence of rental income through housing benefit, refuge workers have struggled to find alternative sources to fund refuge places and financial support for women, including turning to charities and churches for handouts. Refuges found that it took, on average, 6-24 months for women's immigration application to be determined, during which time they had no access to public funds. Also, agencies found that although women with limited leave under the probationary period had the right to work, most were unable to do so, at least initially, due to lack of language skills, work experience, professional qualifications and/or the need to care for young children. Local authorities, in particular, social services were providing at best inconsistent and at worst a discriminatory service to women with immigration problems. Irrespective of whether women were entitled to support or not, agencies reported that social services behaviour ranged from unhelpful and obstructive to intimidating. In some
cases social services required evidence of domestic violence before they even agreed to take any action. In other cases, they insisted on taking children into care rather than accommodating them with their mothers or providing financial assistance under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Also, most local authorities failed to provide support under the National Assistance Act 1948, indicating uncertainty and sometimes ignorance as to the rights of vulnerable women with immigration problems. In addition, single women without children or a special need such as, disability or illness, have no access to housing or financial support from the local authority, and often face total destitution. Although the majority of women who approach refuges for help may need ongoing support and accommodation, a minority of women need assistance for a few days until they can submit an asylum application or make arrangements to move to safe accommodation or return home. Even in these cases we find that local authorities are refusing to fulfil their obligations as the following case demonstrates: On 28th January 2004 we were approached by a Pakistani national and her seven year old son. The woman intended to claim asylum on the basis that it was unsafe for her to return to Pakistan as she is at risk of an honour killing by her husband and family. The client was going to be entitled to NASS support and accommodation as soon as she claimed asylum. However as Home Office staff were on strike she was not be going to able to claim asylum until 2nd February 2004. On the day this client attended our centre temperatures were sub zero and there was heavy snowfall and major disruption to public transport and highways. Our caseworkers called fifteen refuges and were only able to find one that could provide emergency accommodation for one night and none that could provide accommodation until she was able to claim asylum. The reason given in each case was that the refuge could not provide a refuge space to a woman with no recourse to public funds. We sent the woman to social services with her son, who, rather than providing her with accommodation, sent her to another voluntary group in south London by public transport. This woman had no money, no knowledge of English and no safe contacts in the UK. Given the extreme weather conditions we were extremely concerned for their safety and made a complaint to the relevant social services department. We finally managed to trace the woman after two days. This woman only required a refuge space for five nights but we had difficulty in finding her shelter for one night. In addition to the above, respondents to the survey identified a particular problem with women who become "overstayers". Women usually become "overstayers" because their spouses/partners refuse to regularise their status at the end of the probationary period as a pattern of their abusive behaviour. Women are unable to apply for indefinite leave to remain "in time" before the expiry of their visa and as a result, even if they can demonstrate that they are victims of violence, they are often refused indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence rule. Yet these women are subjected to the same torture and violence experienced by women whose marriages/relationships break down within the probationary period. The respondents stated that such cases must be incorporated in the domestic violence rule because their status as "overstayers" arises through no fault of their own. Such women faced considerable delays and hardships caused by the uncertainty of their status. Many respondents felt that the Government must rectify this anomaly by allowing "overstayers" the right to indefinite leave to remain in the UK under the domestic violence rule. They also proposed that they should be entitled to public funds pending the determination of their applications. In addition, in order to protect all victims of domestic violence, the respondents felt these provisions should extend to all women subject to immigration control. The result of the survey reveals a bleak reality for those women who cannot access welfare benefits or housing. There is a massive gap in the level of protection and support that women with immigration problems who have no recourse to public funds face when fleeing violence. The survey largely focused on the services provided by refuges. However, refuges only accommodate approximately 15 per cent of those made homeless by domestic violence in the UK. Whilst women who do not have immigration problems can obtain benefits to access other temporary accommodation or support themselves whilst living with family or friends, this is not an option for women with no recourse. Respondent agencies report that without guarantees that they will not have to return to their abusive partner for fear of extreme poverty, hardships and separation from their children, women are prevented from leaving abusive partners in the first instance, or are being forced to be dependent on family, friends and even strangers. Women's economic dependency on those who help them means that they will become even more vulnerable to intense cultural, religious and social pressure to return to an abusive relationship or to financial and sexual exploitation. Under these circumstances, most women are often left with no choice but to return to their abusive partner. In addition, the extension of the probationary period from one to two years has increased the hardship women face, prolonging the period of abuse, thus making them more vulnerable to violence, homicide, suicide and self-harm. The Domestic Violence Bill aims to increase civil and criminal protection against domestic violence. However few
women with insecure immigration status feel able to pursue injunctions or criminal charges for fear of having nowhere to go. They cannot seek legal protection due to the fear of destitution as they lack safe housing and money for basic needs such as food and clothing. The result is that the law presently allows abusers to keep women with insecure immigration status financially dependent upon them. Conclusion Our research and consultations with victims, policy makers and practitioners across the country show that there is considerable public support for the extension of the domestic violence rule to all victims subject to domestic violence and immigration control, and that all types of evidence of domestic violence should be accepted as sufficient proof under the domestic violence rule. There is also significant concern that the domestic violence immigration rule cannot be fully effective without the abolition or reform of the restriction on recourse to public funds. Whilst we welcome any proposal for providing funds for women with no recourse to public funds, we feel that the most cost effective way of doing so is to ensure such women can claim essential welfare social security and housing benefits. This proposal need not result in a huge injection of extra funds, as we believe that any money paid out in benefits would only apply to a small number of claimants (approximately up to 500 per year for those subject to the probationary period and about 100 subject to other immigration controls), which, at the discretion of the Secretary of State, can be reclaimed from the sponsor, who would have signed a declaration to maintain the applicant as part of their sponsorship agreement when first applying for the applicant's entry or stay in the UK. We believe that reclaiming monies paid out to victims of violence is also morally right because as a measure it contains an element of punishment and deterrence for abusers especially those abusers who at present have a license to treat their marriages as 'trial marriages' knowing that they can, with virtual impunity, abuse or get rid of an unwanted spouse. Being forced to maintain their spouse in circumstances where they have subjected her to violence and cruelty will be a major disincentive to abusers. This will have the added advantage of forcing abusers to enter their marriages in good faith. All of the respondents to our national survey agreed that women with no recourse should be entitled to all noncontributory benefits and if necessary to recover the amount paid out from abusive sponsors, except where there is risk of further violence or reprisals either to the woman herself or to her family here or in her country of origin. We feel that such cases however, will be few, since access to funds will enable women to access the safety of refuges where they would be better protected. The principle of retrieving costs paid out in benefits has already been established by the Child Support Agency (which also applies exemptions for women fearing further violence). In addition, this principle, and the mechanism for its implementation, has also been established under immigration and social security regulations which allows the State to recover costs from liable relatives or sponsors who had given formal undertakings to maintain and accommodate a claimant from overseas. In addition under the Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000 certain categories of persons subject to immigration control are entitled to a range of benefits. This includes persons whose funds have been temporarily cut off from abroad and persons whose sponsors have died. We would argue that extending this precedent to a small but extremely vulnerable group of victims is in line with immigration and benefit rules. In other jurisdictions, such as Canada and the USA, similar mechanisms exist for the State to retrieve costs from sponsors where women with immigration problems access public funds (unless the victim fears further violence or reprisals). Moreover, if there were additional obligations on the Home Office to make a decision on an application to remain under the domestic violence rule within 2 weeks on receipt of full representations, the burden to maintain and accommodate an applicant pending such a decision will be minimal. However, public funds should still be available for refusals pending appeals and judicial review proceedings. It should be noted that such a reform, while costing very little to the State, will have enormous benefits in terms of reducing the human and economic costs of domestic violence. Indeed, these reforms will demonstrate the Government's commitment to uphold the human rights of all victims to live free of domestic violence.
Update on the Progress of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill through Parliament with reference to Immigration and No Recourse to Public Funds The proposed amendments The proposed amendments aim to achieve the following reforms: The domestic violence rule is extended to all women subject to domestic violence and immigration control. That all types of evidence of domestic violence should be accepted as sufficient proof under the domestic violence rule, including victim and witness statements, court decisions and determinations such as the Immigration Adjudicator and the Family Courts, and reports made to statutory and voluntary agencies. All women who are subjected to domestic violence and immigration control are exempt from the restriction on public funds. The exemption is triggered when the woman provides proof of domestic violence. Her testimony should be regarded as sufficient proof. The applicant woman should be entitled to all non-contributory benefits including income support, income based job seekers allowance, job seekers allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as housing under the Housing Act 1996. The entitlement should apply until the determination of the application to remain in the UK, including any appeals against refusal or judicial review proceedings. In cases where the applicant has been sponsored to enter or stay in the UK, money paid out in benefits and housing costs can, at the discretion of the Secretary of State, be retrieved from the sponsor, unless there is risk of further violence or reprisals to the victim and/or her family in the UK or abroad. The benefits agency must properly consult the victim to assess the level of risk of further violence or reprisals, and no prima facie evidence of the possibility of further violence or reprisals will be required to prevent the recovery of costs. The costs could be recovered from the sponsor, where the sponsor perpetrates, incites or fails to take reasonable steps to prevent domestic violence. Progress on amendments to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill The purpose of the Domestic Violence Bill was to amend existing civil and criminal protections for victims of domestic violence and create new legislation addressing the rights of victims of crime. It was therefore difficult to amend the Bill to incorporate our proposals. Our proposals on recourse were incorporated into the Bill as amendments to Section 25 in Part 3 of the Bill which requires the Secretary of State to provide grants for victims. Our proposals for the extension of the Domestic Violence Rule to all victims of domestic violence subject to immigration control had to be addressed with an amendment to Section 23 which required the newly created Commissioner for Victims to investigate the impact of immigration rules on victims of domestic violence. Our intention was that such a review would result in proposals to extend the ambit of the domestic violence rule as well as broaden the types of evidence that applicants can use in support to prove domestic violence. In February 2004, Peers from all three parties; Lord Dubs (Lab), Baroness Anelay (Con) and Baroness Walmsley (Lib Dem), jointly tabled the following amendments. Section 23 "The Commissioner shall have regard to the effect of the Immigration Rules on victims of domestic violence". Section 25 "The Secretary of State may exempt victims of domestic violence and their dependants who are subject to immigration control from the restriction on public funds to enable them to access emergency accommodation and living costs, and may recover such funds from the sponsor (as defined by section 113 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) of the victim." The amendments were debated in Grand Committee (House of Lords) on 9th February 2004. On behalf of the Government, Baroness Scotland acknowledged the predicament faced by victims of domestic violence who are subject to immigration control. Baroness Scotland listed the measures that the Government has already taken to assist this group, such as the introduction of the domestic violence rule and proposals to fast track domestic violence rule applications. Baroness Scotland stated that the Government could not accept the amendment as they could not consider making any changes that would undermine the integrity of the immigration and benefits rules. However, Baroness Scotland stated that the Government was considering how to fund living costs for such victims and it would be interested in exploring
the proposal to retrieve funds from sponsors. We remain committed to benefits for all victims of domestic violence subject to immigration control. However, we are not permitted to submit the same amendments twice. We therefore produced revised amendments that focus on areas that the Government may be prepared to concede. New amendments were tabled once again by all 3 Peers and debated at Report Stage in House of Lords on 15th March 2004. The new amendments distinguished between victims of domestic violence who have sponsors and those who do not. They created a two-tier system of protection based on existing models in the US, Canada and Austria. The amendments allowed for victims with sponsors to be entitled to benefits and emergency accommodation. Funds paid out to victims can be retrieved by the Government provided there are no risks of reprisals against the victim or her family. Victims who do not have sponsors will be entitled to grant based funds for living costs and emergency accommodation. The text of the amendments were as follows: Section 25 25 (3) The Secretary of State may exempt victims of domestic violence and their dependants who are subject to immigration control and who have sponsors from the restriction on public funds, and may recover such funds from the sponsor (as defined by section 113 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (recovery of expenditure on support from sponsor)) of the victim. (4) The Secretary of State may pay such grants or make available funds to such bodies or individuals as he considers appropriate in connection with measures intended to assist victims of domestic violence who are subject to immigration control and their dependants and who otherwise have no recourse to public funds and do not have sponsors within the meaning of subsection (3), for the purposes of funding emergency accommodation and living costs." On 15 March 2004, Baroness Scotland once again refused to accept these amendments, although she said she was open to further consideration on the issue of sponsors paying victims for housing and living costs. The Domestic Violence Bill is due to be debated in the House of Commons from May 2004 onwards, where we may re-introduce our amendments. In the meantime, on 12th March 2004, an Early Day Motion was presented in the House of Commons by Diane Abbott MP, which (up to 24th April 2004) was supported by 21 MPs. The following is the wording of the Early Day Motion (EDM 820): "That this House welcomes the Domestic Violence Bill overall but notes that it makes insufficient provision or protection for those victims of domestic violence who are subject to immigration control and the 'no recourse to public funds' requirement; notes that many of these people remain economically dependent on a violent spouse, partner or relative which prevents them from leaving for fear of destitution; further notes that this makes them and their children vulnerable to further abuse and exploitation; further notes that in many other countries victims in this situation are granted access to public funds; calls for such victims in the UK, shown by research to be a relatively small number, to be exempted from restriction on public funds; and proposes that the Secretary of State recover such funds from the sponsor, providing the victim or family are not put at risk of further harm".