Neither safety nor justice: the UK government response to domestic violence against immigrant women

Abstract

Based on research findings, this article examines the extent to which Labour government's policy towards immigrant women experiencing domestic violence responds to their needs. The research itself was conducted in 2007 and included qualitative interviews with 30 South Asian women with no recourse to public funds due to their status as recent marriage migrants, who were living in the North West and Yorkshire regions of England. The working of a key concession within the Immigration Rules (2002) which theoretically offers an opportunity of exit to immigrant women facing domestic violence – the Domestic Violence Rule – is examined in light of the reality of South Asian women's experiences, including the nature of domestic violence they face, their patterns of help‐seeking, pathways out of the abusive relationship and their experience of service provision. The central thesis of this paper is that the effectiveness of this legislation is severely hampered by a failure to take into account the multiple dimensions of disadvantage that recent marriage migrants face.

Keywords:

• domestic violence
• immigrant women
• no recourse to public funds
• Domestic Violence Rule

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Priya Chopra, Waheeda Farouk, Qamar Haq and Saliya Khan for their help in collecting the data on which this paper is based, and to Amrit Wilson for her critical comments and support through various stages of this research.

Notes

1. Women's refuges maintain themselves on the rentals paid through the benefit system for residents. Although the support costs for women are covered under Supporting People, rents are not, and refuges also have to find living expenses for women with NRPF who are housed with them, hence can rarely afford to accommodate women with NRPF. In an interface of immigration, community care and human rights legislation, Local Authority (LA) duty to support a woman with NRPF who is experiencing domestic violence can arise where the woman is ‘destitute plus’, that is, whose needs arise not ‘merely’ because of a lack of accommodation and subsistence, but are made more acute by circumstances such as ill health, disability, etc. (Southall Black Sisters and Women's Resource Centre 2006). In reality, very few LAs are willing to accommodate women with NRPF unless these additional circumstances include physical disability or clinically diagnosed severe mental health problems (Amnesty International 2008; Imkaan 2008).

2. The Primary Purpose Rule which stipulated that the primary purpose of the marriage should not be to obtain residency in the UK, was interpreted in a racist manner and the focus of immigration control was on countries from the Indian subcontinent, with all marriages between their citizens and UK residents being viewed as suspect (Sachdeva 1993). Following a long campaign by BME women's groups such as Southall Black Sisters through the 1980s and 1990s, the Primary Purpose Rule was abolished in 1997.

3. The provisions of this Rule are available at: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/policyandlaw/immigrationlaw/immigrationrules/part8/ (accessed 28 September 2008).