A squandered opportunity to protect our most vulnerable women: the Domestic Abuse Bill
When victims of abusive relationships reach out for support, their immigration status should not be scrutinised first.
Source: Pixabay
The evening of 6 July, 2020 saw MPs debate the Domestic Abuse Bill in its final stage in the House of Commons. Many MPs, in particular Conservatives, took to Twitter following the vote to praise the significance of the moment; the bill enshrines a new definition of domestic abuse into UK law, bans the “rough sex defence” and institutes new protections for victims, including the children of the abusers and abused. However, it must not go unnoticed that the bill has in fact been squandered as a legislative opportunity to protect those most vulnerable women in our society: migrants and refugees.
Two key clauses that sought to institute governmental protection for migrant and refugee women, clauses 22 and 23, were voted against. Clause 22 sought to ensure that certain provisions under the Immigration Act, such as exclusion from public funds or the right to rent, would not apply to victims of domestic abuse. Clause 23 sought to establish a statutory duty on the relevant government authorities to commission support to all persons affected by domestic abuse, including refugee and community-based services. The clauses were voted against by 330 votes to 207 and 338 votes to 200 respectively. The votes of Conservative MPs, the very ones who sang the praises of this bill’s passage, comprised all 330 votes against clause 22 and 334 out of 338 votes against clause 23.
Please make no mistake; this government is restricting and even denying women support based on their immigration status. It is continuing to institute a tiered system of recourse to public support and is exploiting legislation on domestic abuse to do so. Currently, domestic violence victims on spousal visas can access support for a period of three months before it is cut and women on any other visa with a “no recourse to public funds” stipulation can access no support at all. That it should be a woman’s immigration status that determines whether or not she can access protection, for herself and her children, from abuse is condemnable and indicative of unjustifiable legislative selectivity with regard to the protection of domestic abuse survivors. Further, these votes are despite a vigorous campaign by the Step Up Migrant Women coalition, fronted by the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, to repair the “gaping hole” in the legislation left by the inadequacy of protection afforded to migrant and refugee women.
Beyond direct legislative implications, the neglect of such women from protection in this bill is further evidence of a government that will not step up to protect the most vulnerable and marginalised women in our society. An opportunity labelled “once-in-a-generation” by Southall Black Sisters, who campaign tirelessly for victims of domestic violence and implored the government to use this opportunity to protect migrant women, has been squandered by a government unwilling to protect its most marginalised and vulnerable.
As Jess Philips commented in an article for The House, the government has faced a decision between foregrounding the protection of victims of violence and abuse or maintaining, if not intensifying, their “tough” stance on migrants and migration. She hoped it would be the former; it seems to be the latter. This “tough” stance on the UK’s responsibility (or lack of) for its migrant population is evident in the government’s attempted justification of the neglect of migrant and refugee victims that those with no recourse to public funds in need of support unavailable in the UK should “go home.” This attitude not only acquiesces to, but propagates the idea that abuse destroys the life of the abused but not the abuser. It suggests that it is the woman, the victim, who must abandon whatever livelihood she might have constructed here for the safety of herself and her children without the implication of the abuser. The government should absolutely not be endorsing such a damaging narrative.
Furthermore, as victims remain in the UK in the most vulnerable of positions, this bill only increases the burden upon organisations like Southall Black Sisters to fulfil the role of supporting vulnerable women where the government fails to do so. Specifically, it is these organisations who provide financial support to women with no recourse to public funds; contribution to their “No Recourse Fund” becomes ever more important. It is nothing short of tragic that vulnerable women should have to rely on these organisations to be able to access support and protection from domestic violence. That these organisations must act as substitutes to the government for protection that should be afforded to all women is an indictment of this government’s failures to protect and, rather, its prioritisation of an exclusionary rhetoric on migration.
It is deeply saddening that an opportunity to provide much-needed support for the most vulnerable in our society was squandered in the House of Commons but through continued and reinvigorated support for non-profit organisations’ initiatives and campaigns, we can seek to push back against the government’s neglect and make it clear that such neglect will not be accepted.
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.