§ Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue of long-standing concern: the unique and often terrifying position of women suffering from domestic violence at the hands of their spouses, on whom they are totally dependent for their right to reside in this country. In 1995–96, a survey by Southall Black Sisters found 512 black and migrant women in such a situation. There are no current figures, but evidence from law centres and refuges around the country suggests that, while known numbers are relatively small, for obvious reasons which 1 shall outline, the problem, sadly, is still with us.
Domestic violence is a crime and an outrage whenever and wherever it occurs, and it cannot be tolerated, but the situation for such women is immeasurably worse. Theirs is truly the silent scream. For them, the choice is stark, and, at its worst, is continuing abuse and violence or deportation. I do not need to remind hon. Members of the horror of domestic violence, or of its effect on women in this country.
I worked for a housing association for more than 13 years, and dealt with women who were fleeing domestic violence. I was also involved in campaigns on the issue for many years before that, and saw far too often the way in which domestic violence affects women and their children. Women experience constant terror of doing something—anything—that might set him off, and do not know when or why that might happen. They fear for their children, for themselves and for their self-worth, and fear that the neighbours or the family will hear what is happening. They experience fear and guilt over and over, until all that remains is a bruised body with the inner self sucked out of it.
It takes courage to run, but there are far too few places to run to, and they are struggling to get by. Where could these women run to? Newly arrived in this country, they may have to cope with a strange language, a strange country, a strange family and strange institutions. In addition to the fear of violence, they are in constant fear of almost certain deportation if they speak out or seek help.
I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has a long-standing interest in this issue, not least because he, too, was impressed by the evidence given by Southall Black Sisters to a Home Office inquiry on domestic violence. Happily, he is now in a position to ameliorate the worst effects for women faced with this dual dilemma, and I am sure that he will want to act to demonstrate the Government's commitment to making zero tolerance of domestic violence a reality.
It would be remiss not to applaud the work that my hon. Friend, his colleagues and the Ministers for women have done in the short time since taking office. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women is on the Front Bench today. As the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), said in a recent speech, action to tackle domestic violence that has been taken so far includes a commitment to core funding to the Women's Aid Federation and to women's refuge spaces, money for training, facilities in refuges, 1024 and an extra £31 million for Victim Support. I welcome the forthcoming strategy to tackle violence against women being developed by the Ministers for women.
The Government have shown, in contrast to their predecessors—none of whom, sadly, is in the Chamber to hear this—that they consider domestic violence to be a widespread problem which needs to be tackled swiftly. We urgently need to improve the scant and uneven resources and remedies available to abused women. When 25 per cent. of violent crime is by men against their women partners, and 48 per cent. of murders of women are by current or former partners, no one should underestimate the extent of the task we all face, but many of the sources of advice and help available to women are effectively denied to women with immigration problems.
Many such women cannot turn to state agencies, because of language difficulties or because they fear the agencies' role in relation to immigration rules and that their spouse may threaten to get them deported. The one-year rule places them in an invidious position. A woman arriving in the United Kingdom as a spouse will be given temporary right to remain, which remains temporary for 12 months, when she is required to apply for indefinite leave to remain. If the marriage breaks down within that period, she is required to leave. If she does not, she faces deportation.
These women face a stark choice. Luton law centre, which should be commended for its professional approach to dealing with legal problems in my constituency, has informed me that clients often stay in appallingly violent relationships rather than risk deportation. That cannot be right, but there is no doubt that that rule creates a power imbalance which violent men clearly exploit.
Women become reluctant even to report the violence, for fear of deportation. Luton law centre has told me of a current case in which a Bangladeshi woman will not report her husband' s violence or even seek medical help for her injuries because she is so afraid of the effect on her immigration status. That is compounded when women and their children are terrified to return to their countries of origin, where they may face discrimination or even persecution from their families and communities—sometimes, sadly, with state support.
Divorced or separated women may be considered to have "defiled" the honour of their families, and may face destitution or worse. No wonder that Luton Women's Aid has been contacted by three women in such a situation in the past six months, all of whom have either stayed in this country or returned to violent relationships. Their temporary status does not allow them to have recourse to public funds, and inability to afford a refuge place can compound that decision, although refuges such as Luton Women's Aid work hard to raise funds to assist women in such circumstances.
We also have evidence that women are kept in ignorance of their legal rights and the need to apply for indefinite leave. Hon. Members should consider the situation of a women in my constituency, who married and moved to this country, only to discover her husband's progressive violence—including, on occasion, violence against the children. Eventually, the abuser was arrested and charged with common assault. He was bailed, but so terrified was my constituent that she fled with her children, and little else, to a refuge. Her family in her 1025 country of origin has ostracised her, and she fears to return. Her children have been traumatised—the more so now that she has been told that she may be deported.
What is my constituent to do? What is to become of her children? The options are losing them to care, or returning to fear and the involuntary deportation for her youngest, British-born child. She has no source of income, and relies on help from the refuge and emergency social services payments. The sad fact is that our immigration rules say that she must go if her marriage had broken down before an application for right to remain had been made. She can appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use his discretion outside of the immigration rules, but Luton law centre has told me that, in its experience, not a single approval to remain has been allowed since September 1995.
The chances for such people are slim, because the rules do not allow the reasons for the ending of the relationship to be taken into account. Although there are limited rights of appeal, that process can consider only whether the Home Office followed immigration law. If it decides to deport such a women, as in my constituent's case, there is no meaningful right of appeal unless she had been in this country for seven years.
Our system takes no account whatever of the fact that a woman may have fled violence and abuse, for her own sake and that of her children. We cannot be telling such women that they have no right to security against domestic violence in this country—that surely cannot be the message we are sending them. In a civilised society, are we really telling women that they have no right to protection against violence?
I have outlined in some detail the dilemma which women in this situation face, because I believe that to understand their problems and fears will help us to formulate the good policy needed to end the sad, stark choices those women face.
What are the options? Southall Black Sisters are to be commended for their work in respect of proposals for changes to the one-year rule and levels of evidence required in such cases. I hope that the Secretary of State will fully recognise the difficulties that these women have in seeking recourse against violent men in the courts. It is a difficult decision for any woman to go to law, but more so for women in this situation. Requirements for evidence in these cases, which risk exacerbating a violent situation, could be counter-productive. I know that some solicitors advise women, in good faith, not to pursue civil proceedings, in order to avoid worsening an abusive domestic situation.
As the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in its 1993 report on domestic violence, said:
Neither the criminal nor the judicial statistics will ever prove a full picture of the incidence of domestic violence since many victims will neither report the violence to the police nor take action in the civil courts.How true, and how much more so in the case of women who fear that the repercussions will be further abuse and threat of deportation.I hope we will hear from the Minister a commitment to make the urgent changes which are so desperately needed for these women. I hope, too, that his conclusions will lead him to the view that the standards of proof needed in such cases must be set at a realistic and workable level. 1026 We need changes that are transparent and accountable, and which allow a right of appeal based on the evidence of domestic violence.
The Southall Black Sisters report, which my hon. Friend has seen, offers many solutions to the problem. He and his colleagues have said that they seek a fair and firm immigration policy. Currently, the immigration rules for these women do not provide that. They entail several useless appeals that clog the system, none of which take into account the real reason for the breakdown of the relationship and the horror of domestic violence.
Southall Black Sisters have recommended the ending of the one-year rule. However, I appreciate that it may not be appropriate to do that immediately, in the context of a full review of immigration rules. However, regulations may be amended to enable the Secretary of State to take into account domestic violence, the effect on children and the fear of being returned to the home land.
Other options that have been suggested include a change in the benefit rules, under which women currently have no recourse to any means of support. Women need to have some independence. The benefit rules currently exist to give temporary assistance to certain persons from abroad who are awaiting a decision on their immigration status. A relatively minor change could be made to include women fleeing domestic violence. I hope that the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister will look sympathetically on some of those proposals.
Domestic violence is a cowardly crime. It cannot be right that our immigration system implicitly condones, or at least does nothing to prevent, that crime. That is why I and the Southall Black Sisters, to whom I pay a whole-hearted tribute for the dedication and detail with which they have pursued this issue, believe that my hon. Friend must act to give some hope to the women who endure this tragic choice. For the sake of my constituent and all women in this position, we ask my hon. Friend to act soon.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House today. As she is aware, I was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee which investigated and reported on this very issue. I am therefore deeply aware of the misery and anguish that can arise from the feeling of being trapped in a violent situation. I shall refer further to that report in a moment.
I shall begin by explaining the rationale behind the policy on the admission of spouses. The immigration rules provide for an overseas spouse to join a person settled here, as a way of enabling the continuation or formation of family life. As admission in that capacity leads to settlement, it is a category which has attractions for those intent on abusing the provisions of immigration control. In an attempt to minimise the scope for such abuse, the immigration rules require a number of other criteria to be met before entry clearance can be granted to someone as the overseas spouse of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom. They include the couple's ability to maintain and accommodate themselves and an intention to live together permanently as husband and wife.
Once entry has been gained in that capacity, a further measure against abuse is applied. That is the arrangement whereby the person admitted is given leave to enter for 1027 12 months in the first instance. At the end of that period, the overseas spouse may apply for indefinite leave to remain, or for settlement. If checks at that stage show that the marriage is subsisting and the other requirements of the immigration rules continue to be met, settlement is granted. If, for whatever reason, the marriage has broken down during the probationary year, settlement is normally refused. That is because the fundamental reason for the person's admission in the first place—to continue or commence a stable family life—no longer exists.
I hope that the House will agree that, in the generality of cases, that is the only sensible way to operate a firm but fair immigration control. I do, of course, accept that the policy relating to the probationary year—commonly referred to as the one-year rule—has its critics, including Southall Black Sisters. I would only say at this stage that the United Kingdom is not alone in operating such a policy in relation to the admission of spouses. Indeed, a number of our European Union partners impose a considerably longer probationary period before permanent residence is granted. Because of its importance to the integrity of immigration control, the Government do not intend to abandon the one-year rule.
However, as we have heard today, what may be entirely defensible for the generality of cases can also place a relatively small minority of individuals in a particularly distressing dilemma. When the overseas spouse becomes the victim of domestic violence during her first year here, she faces the prospect either of staying within that violent relationship or of being refused settlement if she escapes from it, because the marriage would then be no longer subsisting.
Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the work of Southall Black Sisters, who brought this matter to the attention of Ministers and the House. My hon. Friend has already referred to the fact that I was a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee when it looked into issues surrounding domestic violence. Its third report in the last Parliament dealt with domestic violence. It drew attention to a number of sensitive issues relating to black and ethnic minority victims.
The evidence given by Southall Black Sisters was described by the then Minister—I endorse the description—as moving and poignant. They warned, rightly, against creating any stereotype of Asian cultures and life styles. However, they said that it was important to deal with some special problems within the Asian community. They identified three main problems: first, the lack of confidence in the police and the criminal justice system; secondly, that the police tended to be reluctant to intervene in Asian communities because of their perception that they had their own internal mechanisms of policing; and thirdly, the grave pressure felt by Asian women about not breaking the norms and values of their religion and culture, and bringing dishonour and shame upon their families by reporting domestic violence.
We need to overcome some of those problems. Since that report, the police have begun to take domestic violence seriously, both generally and in ethnic minority communities. We also need to encourage ethnic minority communities to feel that, when women are victims of domestic violence, it is right either that they should report it to the police, who must ensure that the criminal 1028 procedure is operated, if that is appropriate, or civil orders are put in place. That is one of the conclusions that I have come to from looking again at the evidence from Southall Black Sisters.
Paragraph 35 of the Select Committee report sets out the problem graphically. It says:
Some black and ethnic minority women may be particularly inhibited from reporting domestic violence because of the provisions of immigration legislation. In essence, a spouse of a person who is present and settled in the United Kingdom is admitted to this country for an initial period of 12 months. During that period, she or he may not have any recourse to public funds, and, if the marriage breaks down, is liable to deportation. If a woman with this immigration status is the victim of domestic violence, as the Southall Black Sisters told us, she is likely to be fearful of using either the criminal or civil justice system because she realises that she is at risk of being required to leave the country, and believes that the authorities will take action against her. Consequently, her choice is stark—she must risk her physical safety or risk deportation, and she will not even have the opportunity to use the social security system if she needs refuge accommodation. According to the Southall Black Sisters, some men and their families exploit this position of power over their spouses so that women fear that even if the police do not denounce them to the Immigration Nationality Department . their husbands will.The report went on to conclude:We recommend that the Home Office inquire further into the scale of the problem, and consider what changes in IND practice might be appropriate to accommodate cases of genuine hardship whilst avoiding any collusion or deception intended to circumvent the Immigration Rules.I was a Back-Bench member of the Select Committee that inquired into the issue and heard that evidence, and now that 1 am a Minister, I have worked closely with Southall Black Sisters to see how we can change the law. We want to ensure that we comply with the Select Committee's recommendation. We need to consider the nature of the problem, which involves a relatively small number of women. We must create mechanisms that prevent the exploitation of any gap in the immigration rules, and, at the same time, deal with the problem of domestic violence.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have given much thought to what, if anything, could be done to help those who are in the invidious position described in the report. In doing so, we found it helpful to discuss these issues with Southall Black Sisters. I pay tribute to them for putting their case with lucid and reasoned argument.
In areas such as this, where the need for flexibility on humanitarian grounds is recognised, it is incumbent on us to ensure that, in addressing the issue at hand, we do not at the same time run the risk of opening doors to new ways of defeating the proper requirements of immigration control. The recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs recognised that risk.
It is also important to look at the evidence that an applicant may be asked to produce to show that he or she has been the victim of domestic violence. Victims of domestic violence are usually women, but we must recognise that men are also sometimes the subject of such violence. When I was a practising lawyer, one of my first such cases involved a man who was the victim of severe domestic violence. However, most cases involve women victims of appalling domestic violence. We want to tackle that problem, not only in our broad policy agenda but in the particular area of immigration control. 1029 We should examine the evidence that the person produces and see whether the applications can be dealt with swiftly—which is very important—and with fairness and consistency. Above all, there must be objective criteria. Anything less would place on officials the impossible and inappropriate burden of making judgments about the quality of a relationship, and apportioning blame for the breakdown of the marriage.
We cannot agree to all that Southall Black Sisters have sought. Our task is to balance the need for firm immigration controls with the need for compassion. Such a balance is difficult to achieve, but the case for some change is well made. We shall have to see whether the changes we make work, or need to be further refined in the years to come.
I have considered whether we should make a change by way of concession or by way of rules. Initially, it would be appropriate to make any change by concession, and to see how that works before considering whether a 1030 rule change is required. A rule change is a bigger step, and we must ensure that we get it entirely right. A period of concession would enable us to refine the operation of any possible rules before we put them into the rule book.
We are trying to balance control and compassion. That raises difficult issues, but they are not insurmountable. I have listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South, and to those made by Southall Black Sisters. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will take account of all that has been said, and I should be able to announce our conclusions shortly. I hope that any measures we take will be seen as a step in the right direction. No one can guarantee that they will be an endgame or a panacea, but I hope that in due course we shall be able to take that step.
§ It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.