Potential Danger Areas for Women in Vulnerable Situations

1

Briefing: Immigration Bill 2015

Potential Danger Areas for Women in Vulnerable Situations

On Behalf of the Nia Project (formerly with Eaves) and Southall Black Sisters

Summary

The 2015/16 Immigration Bill invokes punitive treatment of migrant communities by limiting access to accommodation, work and support provisions that will disproportionately affect women subject to immigration control with intersecting high needs, such as survivors of trafficking and domestic violence.

Restrictions to government support will affect women and families who have yet to make representations to the Home Office to regularise their stay and will force individuals and families into destitution.

The new accommodation ‘right to evict’ power invokes racial profiling andincreases the risk of homelessness and further exploitation of women fleeing abuse and those awaiting response to their asylum claims, or with recently rejected asylum claims which they intend to appeal.

The restrictions on illegal work through the proposed Labour Market Enforcement Agency, and new criminal offences for those working illegally, with new rights for enforcement officers to seize their property and earnings, place an overwhelmingly unfair burden on vulnerable workers and potential victims of trafficking - this will inevitably carry a major risk of trapping people in exploitative situations.

We have presented the government with a list of our concerns, with case studies highlighting how these changes will impact women with multiple, intersecting high needs, who access our support services on a regular basis.

Major Danger Areas

Support

• Removing Section 4. Support for asylum seekers. Support for refused asylum applicants only available if they can prove there is a practical obstacle to them leaving the UK.

Difficult for those who have yet to make submissions to the Home Office or are due to appeal a decision, or make fresh representations with more evidence when an application has been refused.

• Families with children who reach the end of the asylum process would no longer qualify for any financial, medical, housing or other vita support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Makes life extremely difficult for destitute survivors with children when their asylum process initially fail –they would be ineligible for financial, accommodation, medical or other support.

• Support under section 95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 would be extended to those who lodge further submissions, however this only protects those making further submissions on refugee and humanitarian protection grounds and only if these have not been considered by the Home Office within a specified timeframe.

There is no indication whatsoever to suggest that this will discourage vulnerable people from seeking asylum in this country, or encourage them to leave (which is expectedly the government’s aim), but it will force families into further destitution and poverty.

Accommodation:

• Right to Rent: the Bill makes law the ‘right to rent’ restrictions which were trialled in the west midlands but not reviewed, as promised. It obliges landlords to ascertain that tenants have a ‘righ’ to rent’ a property, or risk criminal action and a fine. For existing tenants who are deemed to not have a ‘right to rent’,there is a specified notice of 28 days and this notice is to be treated as a notice to quit. This notice will be seen as enforceable as if it were an order of the High Court.

High risk of homelessness and further exploitation forthose waiting for asylum claims or with recently rejected asylum claims.

Places onus upon landlords to ascertain ‘right’ when they have no specialist knowledge of handling documentation which might prove a right to rent. Increases likelihood of foreign nationals being refused properties because they are considered higher risk.

Domestic violence survivors with a spousal visa, granted support through the Home Office Destitution Domestic Violence Concession from the Home Office, might not have adequate documentation to prove a right to reside, or are considered a rental risk as the concession only lasts three months while their immigration matter is dealt with, so their options for safe accommodation away from abuse are dangerously limited.

Major challenges faced by non-EEA nationals with a right to reside under EU law, such as non-EEA spouses with a right to reside fleeing DV & non-EEA primary carers of British children.

Domestic violence survivors with a spousal visa, granted support through the Home Office Destitution Domestic Violence (DDV) Concession from the Home Office, might not have adequate documentation to prove a right to reside, or are considered a rental risk as the concession only lasts three months while their immigration matter is dealt with, so their options for safe accommodation away from abuse are dangerously limited.

Vulnerable women with a right to reside under EU law are denied the right to rent despite having a right to reside in the UK and are either placed in positions of risk or, if they have children, forced to rely on Local Authority support placing further burden on Local Authorities.

• Banks and building societies will be required periodically to check the immigration status of current account holders and to notify the Home Office if a person does not have the correct legal status.

Again, extremely difficult for those waiting for asylum claims or with recently rejected asylum claims.

Difficult for domestic violence survivors who may become overstayers as a result of abusive situation. Blocking their access to bank accounts and taking punitive action against survivors of abuse leaves them with a stark choice of leaving abuse and risking destitution and enforcement action, or remaining in an abusive situation and avoiding these difficulties.

Work:

• The Bill would create a new Labour Market Enforcement Agency to tackle exploitation.
  

Rather than targeting exploitation, the new agency would actually carry a major risk of trapping vulnerable people.Other European countries, for example the Netherlands, have shown the danger of labour inspection being used to enforce immigration since the agency does not have a proper understanding of how to recognise and properly combat trafficking. Trafficking victims are punished rather than helped.

In addition, trafficking victims and allies avoided reporting to the labour agency in fear of being punished by immigration officials, so remain trapped in their exploitative situation.

• The Bill would create a new criminal offence for people working illegally with a maximum prison sentence of 51 weeks and/or a fine in addition to their wages being seized.

If victims of trafficking have not yet been referred into the NRM and accepted as such, they could face prison. Victims and allies may fear reporting cases of trafficking as they would face imprisonment and other punitive punishment.

With no wages, vulnerable people would be left isolated and at risk for further exploitation.

Other

• Extends current “deport first, appeal later” powers to enable it to be applied in all cases if removal pending appeal would not cause serious irreversible harm, or otherwise breach human rights.

Could send trafficked women back without proper consideration to their situation.

• In addition to the disproportionate affect on vulnerable migrant women, the new provisions for limits on government support run the risk of changing the welfare system for all. Immigration enforcement is a mechanism that reduces support for legal citizens. For example, the 2014 Immigration Bill introduced ‘the right to rent’ which, as well as preventing certain non-citizens from renting, opened the doors for the government to trickled restrict this right for citizens who claim benefits the ‘bedroom tax’ means that benefits claimants cannot rent in any property they choose.

Case Study: Eaves – Celine

Celine had fled her partner following ongoing sexual abuse from him and her child was from this relationship. Celine had no access to welfare benefits or public housing support as she was subject to the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) visa condition. She was being housed in a domestic violence refuge (which has since been closed due to ongoing cuts to specialist domestic violence support services). She had been there for almost two years, not having anywhere else to go. She quite frequently was left with none of the basics she needed to look after her son and the living conditions were appalling. She was bi-lingual and had a law degree, yet she had been made dependent, made to feel stupid and lacked any confidence in her own abilities.

The first part of the advocacy her support worker provided was to negotiate for Celine and her son to be moved into more suitable accommodation. This had to be in an area that was familiar to her and remained close to her health visitor and care coordinator. Her support worker then advocated for social services to continue with their duty to fund her accommodation, when they were thinking of closing her case. Finally her support worker helped her to negotiate a payment for her immigration application, which should have been completed when she left her partner. Celine was eventually granted indefinite leave to remain with access to public funds and has more stable and suitable accommodation.

Under the New Immigration Bill:

Right to Rent

Under the new rent scheme proposed in this Bill, Celine’s situation would have been even worse under these new provisions. She would have found it near impossible to secure safe, appropriate accommodation upon leaving the refuge because of the ‘right to rent’ provisions which would apply even after she was granted leave to remain because of the strict evidence requirements, which many vulnerable migrants cannot satisfy.

Case Study: Eaves – Manisha

Manisha’s marriage had been arranged and took place in India. She arrived in the UK to live with her husband and in-laws once her spousal visa had been secured. Manisha disclosed that she had been abused and neglected by her husband’s family throughout the time she had been in their home. No efforts had been made to regularise Manisha’s immigration status in the UK; she was kept ignorant of legal procedure for doing so and became an overstayer on her visa. She was kept trapped in the home and would not be allowed out unaccompanied, even to drop off her young son to nursery school.

A few months prior to leaving the home for good, Manisha eventually left the family home with her son and stayed with distant relatives nearby. The couple were elderly and lived in a small house so they could not accommodate Manisha and her son indefinitely, though they provided Manisha with money and tried to get her support from social services and relevant agencies.

Eaves supported Manisha in getting safe accommodation in a refuge and opening up a bank account and setting up a national insurance number, all of which she had been prevented from doing when trapped in the home. We arranged her to seek urgent immigration advice; an application for the DDV Concession was made on her behalf, followed by an application for indefinite leave to remain in the country as a victim of domestic violence. She was granted indefinite leave to remain and was later able to move on and secure a home for her and her son.

Under the New Immigration Bill:

Bank account access

Manishawould have found it difficult to open a bank account under the restrictions of the Immigration Bill.

Right to rent

She did not have much identification paperwork, due to the vulnerable situation she was kept in, so this would have made it extremely difficult for her to rent a property under the terms of this Immigration Bill.

Case Study: Southall Black Sisters – Ms B

Ms B was born and raised in Punjab, India. In 2008, her parents arranged her marriage to her husband. He lived in the UK at the time and Ms B regularly spoke to him over the telephone. Ms B’s husband did not have settled status to sponsor her to come to the UK but he assured her that he had a right to live in the UK. Ms B’s cousin therefore arranged for her to come to the UK on a visitor’s visa. Ms B entered the UK on 12 December 2008 and married her husband on 15 December 2008. Ms B’s and her husband lived with her sister-in-law.

Three days into her wedding, Ms B’s husband and sister-in-law accused her of not being able to cook and clean properly and stopped talking to her. They became hostile and aggressive and frequently ignored her and threw away the food that she prepared. Ms B was expected to do all the household chores despite her sister-in-law’s taunts, which intensified following two miscarriages in 2009. Ms B’s sister-in-law called her a ‘bad omen’ and said that she would never be able to conceive. She was isolated and suffered trauma as a result of her miscarriages which was compounded by the ill-treatment that she suffered at the hands of her husband and sister-in-law.

Despite repeated pleas, Ms B’s husband failed to obtain immigration advice following the expiry of her visa. Instead her husband and sister-in-law threatened to send her to India. They did not help her to regularise her stay in the UK. In 2010, Ms B became pregnant and gave birth to her daughter. However, the abuse towards her escalated and her sister-in-law told her and her husband o leave the marital home. They found rented accommodation but Ms B’s husband blamed Ms B for the break up of his relationship with his sister. Ms B’s relationship with her husband deteriorated further and he became all controlling. He became suspicious and suspected her of having extra-marital affairs and began to isolate her from her friends and often assaulted her. Despite the violence and abuse, Ms B stayed with him due to family pressure to remain married.

In August 2015, Ms B’s husband called the ambulance service and falsely alleged that Ms B had assaulted her daughter. A paramedic attended the property and after an examination, was satisfied that her daughter was safe and well. However, the paramedic noticed that Ms B had swollen eyes (she had been crying) and questioned her> Ms B then revealed to him she was being abused by her husband and she and her daughter were taken to West Middlesex Hospital for further medical checks. Ms B remained in hospital for four nights pending a referral to Social Services, who eventually provided her with temporary accommodation and referred her to Southall Black Sisters.

Despite referring Ms B to SBS for the purpose of obtaining legal advice about her immigration status, Ms B’s social worker hastily arranged for Ms B and her daughter to claim asylum in Croydon (without informing SBS). SBS was concerned that Ms B’s social worker did not possess the legal qualification to advise her to make an asylum application and that such advice contravened the OISC rules. SBS was also concerned that the social worker advised her to make an asylum claim in order to avoid its s.17 duty ( Children Act 1989) which clearly states that the local authority has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in need in its borough regardless of their immigration status. SBS compelled social services to cancel the asylum appointment as Ms B was in no position to claim asylum without seeking independent legal advice.

Under the new Immigration Bill

Support – NHS

Ms B would be unable to access free NHS care and would have to pay a charge before receiving medical treatment.

If Ms B attempted to apply for discretionary leave to remain in the UK, she would have to the pay the NHS surcharge which amounts to £200 every year of her stay in the UK. The fees would be included in her application to the Home Office. Ms Bar’s application will be delayed or turned down if she does not pay the health surcharge within 10 working days if she is inside the UK or within 7 working days if she is outside the UK. This causes a problem for those who are restricted from working.

Accommodation

Had not SBS intervened to safeguard Ms B’s right to accommodation and support for herself and her daughter under the Children Act 1989, Ms B would have found it difficult to obtain accommodation due to the uncertainty of her immigration status. Landlords are not immigration law specialists and would not know that she is entitled to make an application to remain in the UK on a number of grounds. It is very likely that in these circumstances, Ms B would have chosen to remain in her abusive marriage and would not have found the courage to leave her husband and seek alternative accommodation.

Under the new ‘Right to Rent’ provision, Ms B would also be vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous landlords. She would be at great risk of having her essential documents retained in return for sexual favours and financial gain. This bill provides contexts conducive to the exploitation by landlords of vulnerable victims.