CAMPAIGNS

In the early 1980s the Tory Government introduced a set of immigration rules to prevent people from abroad from being able to enter the UK and stay here permanently through marriage. The key changes were the introduction of the primary purpose rule, one-year rule (OYR) and the no recourse to public funds requirement. The one-year rule introduced the requirement that people coming here to join their spouse must remain in the marriage for at least one year before they can apply to stay here permanently. The application for leave to remain must be supported by both parties. A person from abroad who does not apply at the end of the probationary period automatically becomes an overstayer liable to being removed from the UK even if the marriage is continuing. A person whose marriage breaks down for whatever reason before obtaining settlement is equally vulnerable to removal.

The no recourse to public funds requirement dictated that persons coming to the UK must be financially supported by their spouses or must support themselves by working. They are not entitled to welfare benefits, council housing or to use publicly funded facilities such as refuges unless they are able to pay rent. The OYR made no concession to those in genuine marriages whose marriages had then broken down, particularly due to violence from the UK based spouse. Women whose marriages broke down due to domestic violence had only two options in order to avoid deportation: to apply for refugee status on the grounds of gender persecution; or apply for leave to remain on compassionate grounds. These cases were rarely successful even where women had remained in marriages for a number of years and had children unless a co-ordinated and long-term public campaign was fought on an individual basis.

We campaigned for the abolition of the OYR. The Home Office was not prepared to discuss this even though our research had shown that only a small number of women were affected by this - about 500 women per year. We put forward a range of options including a change to the OYR itself and the introduction of concessions to those affected by it. We concentrated on three areas of concern; firstly what proof women would have to provide that domestic violence had taken place, secondly pressurising the Home Office to remove the no recourse to public funds rule so that women would not face financial destitution if they left their homes and finally arguing that women who had been in violent marriages for several years and who had effectively become overstayers should be included in the concession.

Finally in 1999, concessions were introduced to allow women whose marriages had broken down as a result of domestic violence to stay in this country. The standard of proof of domestic violence required under the concession was still too high, too rigidly applied and generally unreasonable. In November 2002 the Government announced that it intended to incorporate the domestic violence concession into the Immigration Rules and, as a result of pressure from us, widened the type of evidence that was acceptable. Although this was a great victory for us, the issue of overstayers remains unresolved and the no recourse to public funds now offers women the stark choice between domestic violence and destitution. To make things worse, the Government extended the one-year probationary period to two years in 2003. We are continuing to campaign for the abolition of the no recourse to public funds rule.

Added 01/02/2007: To register with the Home Office as an approved Domestic Violence organisation providing evidence under the Domestic Violence Immigration Rule should complete the declaration and send to: Andrew Harris, Managed Migration Strategy and Review, 11th Floor, Apollo House, Croydon CR9 3RR.

Lobbying on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill 2003

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill 2003 is the first piece of legislation that exclusively addresses the needs of victims of domestic violence. The Bill improves civil and criminal protection for victims of domestic violence and creates the post of a Commissioner for Victims. However the Bill fails to address the needs of victims of domestic violence subject to immigration control including women who are now subject to the two-year probationary period as spouses and partners.

Southall Black Sisters has been lobbying for reforms, which include making changes to the Domestic Violence Bill, to help these women. We propose that:

These amendments are supported by a number of organisations including the Women's National Commission, Women's Aid, the Law Society, Imkaan, Amnesty International UK, the Greater London Domestic Violence Project, Respect, Rights of Women and many refuges.

The Bill received its 2nd reading in the House of Lords in December 2003. Amendments based upon these proposals relating to access to public funds and extending the Domestic Violence Immigration Rule were tabled by peers from all three parties to Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Bill. The amendments were debated in Grand Committee in the House of Lords on 9th February 2004 and at Report Stage on 15th March 2004. To read the debates click on the following pdf. Although the amendments received cross-party support they were withdrawn in the face of Government opposition to them. The Bill should receive its second reading in the House of Commons just after the Easter recess. The Bill will then be scrutinized by a Standing Committee of MP's in the Commons possibly from early May onwards. Southall Black Sisters will continue to lobby for reforms to the Bill throughout its passage in the House of Commons.

back to top