“‘No Recourse' No Safety”
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-1626, in the name of Angela Constance, on "‘No Recourse' No Safety". The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the publication of No Recourse No Safety: The Government's Failure to Protect Women from Violence, a report by Amnesty International and the Southall Black Sisters; is disturbed by the evidence that not having recourse to public funds prevents women with insecure immigration status from accessing the benefits they need to claim refuge, effectively trapping women in violence or destitution; welcomes the Scottish Government's ongoing commitment to tackling violence against women, continuing the good work commenced by the previous Scottish administration; acknowledges the pivotal contribution of local services such as the West Lothian Council Domestic Abuse Service which provides a service to women from a minority population; notes that not having recourse to public funds affects women who have valid visas as spouses, students, visitors and workers and those who are classed as "overstayers" in addition to victims of trafficking; acknowledges that organisations such as West Lothian Women's Aid are accommodating and assisting women with no recourse to public funds, and commends the recommendations of No Recourse No Safety, in particular the need for the Scottish Government to put in place emergency funding while a permanent solution from the UK Government is sought, namely exempting women fleeing violence from the no recourse to public funds requirement.
In a former life, in a former career, I had a client who was serving a life sentence for the violent murder of his wife, an offence that occurred some decades ago now. I will always remember reading the note of circumstance, which described how that young woman attended the social work department with marks on her neck only 10 days before her death, stating that her husband had tried to throttle her. The system and society—the collective "we"—turned its back on that young woman, and she paid with her life.
I extend a warm welcome to the representatives from Scottish Women's Aid, West Lothian Women's Aid and Amnesty International who are in the public gallery today. Due to their vocation and dedication, and the work that is undertaken by government at all levels, both past and present, in regard to domestic violence, I am somewhat confident that in today's Scotland, more women are safer.
However, we are turning our backs on a group of women whom I would describe as new Scots or new Scotswomen. Unless we can navigate or cut our way through the demarcation of devolved and reserved matters, we will continue to fail—perilously—to protect new Scotswomen who are fleeing violence.
Amnesty International and the Southall Black Sisters have produced deeply disturbing evidence that women with insecure immigration status have no recourse to public funds and are, therefore, unable to claim the benefits that they need to flee violence. They have no right to be accommodated under housing legislation and no housing benefit or supporting people money to pay for refuge and support. They have no right to benefits, yet some of the women have no right to work. Women who flee violence often leave with nothing, and women with no recourse to public funds face the stark and cruel choice of either remaining trapped in a violent relationship or entering destitution.
Who are the women with insecure or uncertain immigration status? They are women with valid visas who are here legally as spouses, students, visitors, workers and those who are classified as overstayers, in addition to those who are the victims of human trafficking. Scottish Women's Aid does its level best, but how can it absorb a cost for which it is not funded—a cost in excess of £6,000 per woman per year—with no recourse to public funds? It is simply not acceptable or sustainable for women to have to rely on charitable donations or sheer good will for the accommodation and support that ensures their safety.
Scottish Women's Aid has highlighted the fact that 106 women throughout Scotland have been refused refuge in the past year. In today's Scotland, any woman should be able to access refuge irrespective of her race, ethnicity or origins. To deny that is, in my view, an abrogation of human rights as well as of human dignity. Many of the women have children and Scottish Women's Aid informs us that an increasing number of local authorities are suggesting that they can accommodate the child but not the mother. That may represent the reality of the legal position, but it is, nonetheless, absolutely outrageous and contrary to the wellbeing of children and the spirit of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.
There are many challenges for women who are trying to navigate their way through the immigration process. It is costing one West Lothian woman in excess of £700 to apply to the Home Office, and an application can take between three months and two years. Then, there is the need to obtain evidence from a doctor who has documented injuries that are attributable to domestic violence, yet as we know some offenders are very careful and leave only mental scars.
Scottish Women's Aid and Amnesty International are campaigning for the Scottish Government to put in place emergency funds while a permanent solution from the UK Government is sought—that is, the exemption of women who are fleeing domestic violence from the rule that currently denies them recourse to public funds. Other countries, such as Canada, the United States of America and Austria, have similar rules that deny recourse to public funds, but those rules specify exemptions.
The crux of the issue is reserved to Westminster. As a nationalist, I regret that fact. I hope that the Scottish Government will lead the way in finding a solution and co-operate constructively with—and, when appropriate, cajole—Westminster, just as it is my duty as an MSP both to co-operate with and, at times, to cajole the Scottish Government in the interests of my constituents, whether they be indigenous or new Scots.
Scottish Women's Aid first raised the issue five years ago and, with more new Scots coming to Scotland—indeed, to my constituency—we need action now. Surely, the safety of women and children is paramount.
I thank Angela Constance for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I am sorry that not more members have bothered to stay and listen to the debate. I also thank Amnesty International and Southall Black Sisters for producing the report that spurred the debate, as well as West Lothian Council's domestic abuse services and all others who provide services to women who are victims of domestic abuse.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government is maintaining the previous Scottish Executive's high level of commitment and that it has established a short-life working group on the issue. As the convener of the cross-party group on men's violence against women and children, I am aware of the advances that have been made in raising awareness of violence against women. However, I am equally aware of the gaps in provision. Much more needs to be done to protect women and children and to prevent violence and abuse. I invite those who are taking part in tonight's debate to get involved in the cross-party group, if they are not already involved. It is a valuable link between MSPs and a range of organisations that work to tackle violence against women and children.
The motion highlights a gap that affects women who have insecure immigration status. As we have heard, many of them are here legally on temporary work or study visas, the conditions of which exclude them from many of our welfare benefit systems. They include women whose spouses or long-term partners are British nationals or residents. Although such women can apply to stay in the United Kingdom permanently if their relationship breaks down, it might be impossible to take the first steps towards that if they are not guaranteed access to safe accommodation and refuge. Applying for leave to remain in the event of domestic abuse can take months or years. Any support that does not acknowledge that will be inadequate.
A small number of local authorities provide funding under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 for basic living expenses for children. The payments vary and provide an inconsistent and patchy service across Scotland. When funding was requested in one recent case, the local authority suggested that the child might be placed with the abusive partner. In other cases, local authorities have said that they would take children into care to discharge their obligations to the children rather than provide assistance to mothers and children. It is unacceptable that women should be trapped in an abusive relationship because they cannot get support to escape.
That raises the question of human rights and discrimination, with the Government being accused of failing to act with due diligence to protect women's rights. We need to create a way out of the no-recourse trap by excluding from the rule those who are fleeing abusive relationships, at least in the short term until the rule can be amended by special provision so that such women can access refuge and support.
We need to put pressure on Westminster to reconsider its position. We will be joined in this campaign by others throughout the UK. However, the Scottish Government should provide funding to groups that provide refuge and other help to women who are affected by the no-recourse rule, and I call on it to do so.
I, too, congratulate Angela Constance on securing the debate, which seeks to address a serious and pressing issue that affects many women and children who are already suffering abuse in what, in some cases, can only be called modern-day slavery. I thank Amnesty International for its report, which I wish that everyone would read; it is harrowing reading. I also thank the women's aid groups who are vociferous in pushing this issue forward.
I raised the issue with the First Minister on 6 March and I received a letter from him. I do not want to put the minister on the spot, but I know that the short-life working group met on 27 May, so could we have an update on what was said at that meeting? It is important that we have that.
Like everyone else here, I cannot express how angry I am about the treatment that these women and children have to go through. It is inhuman and wrong that they are not protected and helped just because the Home Office labels them as having insecure status. They are human beings the same as us and they deserve to be treated the same as we are treated. They live and work in our communities and should be afforded exactly the same access to services as everyone else who lives and works here. To deny them that basic human right is to go back to the days when women were treated as chattels.
The situation reinforces the question, what other gender would be treated in this way? Amnesty International succinctly said that these women are being treated as "Second class human beings." That would not be allowed to happen to any other gender, and we have to make sure that we get that across.
As Angela Constance and others have said, women come here with visas, some are students, some, unfortunately, are trafficked and some come on a spouse's visa. They think that they are coming here to have a life and contribute to this society, but inhuman Westminster legislation treats them as if they are chattels and slaves. As Angela Constance mentioned, countries such as Canada, America and Austria provide such women with help on certain aspects, albeit that in some cases they are allowed only a three-month stay in accommodation. In Canada, such women are given status after they have produced various documents. If other countries can do that, why can we not?
Basically, the Westminster Government is going against international law by failing to uphold the human rights of such women and children. I know that the issue is reserved to Westminster, but that never prevented us from considering Westminster issues such as refugee status. Many of us in the chamber today, including Johann Lamont and others, worked together to ensure that we got rid of some of the horrendous circumstances that applied to refugees, such as the voucher system. We pushed for those changes and we achieved a victory. Through pushing the issue together, we in the Scottish Parliament could secure a victory. We need to ensure that the Westminster Government realises that it is culpable if it does not uphold international law by protecting the women.
As Angela Constance said in her speech and in her motion, the Scottish Parliament should provide some form of emergency funding. We can no longer tolerate the fact that women and children in our midst are being treated as second-class citizens like back in the 18th century. I congratulate Angela Constance on her motion, which I support.
I, too, congratulate Angela Constance on lodging the motion, which is an important and timely contribution to what is likely to become a far wider debate.
Clearly, domestic abuse is a blight on any civilised society. That is all the more so when those abused, whether they be women, children or young people, have no access to public funds to help them to escape the place where they are being abused—usually the family home—or to find alternative accommodation. As we have heard, those with no recourse to public funds are usually women who, because of their insecure immigration status, are not entitled to welfare benefits or to temporary or permanent local authority housing.
In its recent report "‘No Recourse' No Safety", Amnesty International put the matter more boldly:
"it is a shocking fact that in the UK some women in desperate need of safety cannot access basic levels of protection and support".
The report claims that abusers will often use their spouses' insecure immigration status as a way of perpetuating their vulnerability and dependency. What makes that plight worse is that, in many cultures, women cannot flee the violence in their homes because their families would disown or ostracise them when they returned to their native countries.
The British Nationality Act 1981 was intended to prevent people from abroad from being able to enter the UK and stay here permanently through marriage. The act contained a provision preventing asylum seekers who did not stay in their marriage for at least a year—subsequently increased to two years—from having recourse to public funds. The act requires that such persons must be supported financially by their spouses or support themselves by working. However well intentioned that provision might have been—one can see the Government's logic in trying to prevent immigration by marriages of convenience or otherwise—for many women the act has become a trap whereby abusive spouses prey on their vulnerability and dependence.
To Scotland's credit, Oxfam's report "Fair Play: Refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland" states:
"there is greater tolerance to asylum seekers in Scotland compared to England and Wales … Glasgow now houses the most asylum seekers of all cities in the UK. Currently, over 5,500 people living in BIA contracted accommodation in Glasgow that equates to around 10% of the UK asylum-seeking population."
However, according to Scottish Women's Aid, a recent survey showed that 176 women in Scotland with no recourse to public funds had sought support from women's aid groups during the previous year. Around 80 per cent of those sought accommodation, but only 24 per cent of them were fortunate enough to find support. As Angela Constance and others have pointed out, the local aid groups simply did not have the money to do more.
I pay tribute to those women's aid groups, such as the one in Cupar in the part of Scotland that I represent. East Fife Women's Aid was established by volunteers in 1996. Last year, its services were used by 163 people, including many from ethnic backgrounds—there was no discrimination. The group is funded by Fife Council and the Scottish Government as well as by charitable donations, but Government funding is not allocated for refuge accommodation and living expenses for women who have no way of accessing public funds. As we have heard, it is true that some local authorities provide basic funding for living expenses for children. However, separating children from their mothers is clearly never in their best interests.
I accept and understand that one of the major difficulties that are facing the Government is that immigration and welfare benefits are reserved powers. However, as we have heard, West Lothian Council and other local authorities are finding ways of tackling the problem. It is important that that becomes the norm throughout Scotland.
As we have heard, Scotland has aid centres specifically for black and minority ethnic groups—one in Glasgow and another in Edinburgh—and I welcome their involvement in the short-life working group that was set up by the Government to seek sustainable solutions to the problems. Like Sandra White, I look forward to the minister giving details of the evidence that was led.
It is perfectly legitimate for the Scottish Government, in line with the Scottish Women's Aid recommendations, to bring to bear whatever pressure it can on the UK Government to make the necessary changes to the immigration and welfare benefits system to provide support for women, children and young people who are currently being denied access to these essential and potentially life-saving services.
There is a clear need for services to deal with women and children who are systematically abused, with many designations attached to their status, such as legal, illegal or trafficked. I agree with everything that I have heard so far, but I want in my limited time to concentrate on those who have been trafficked, although most—if not all—that I have to say will have a direct bearing on all designations.
Amnesty International rightly makes great play of human rights law. I would go further, however, and say that we have a moral responsibility to come to the assistance of women, some of them mere children, who have been trafficked, imprisoned, brutally treated and forced to prostitute themselves while our systems—or lack of systems—keep them as slaves to the traffickers because they fear the worst when they think of what is outside where they are. The women's handlers use the tactic of fear. They ingrain a message into the individual's soul: "If you think the situation's bad now, I can tell you how bad it can be outside, not only for you but for your loved ones elsewhere." Even with considerable assistance and understanding, people in that situation are reluctant to accept that they will be supported if they break out of their imprisonment. Therefore, we must try in every way possible to reach trafficked people. The last thing we should do is send the message that we are not ready or willing to come to their assistance, never mind to their rescue.
We need to take action: we need to have a fully integrated approach to people who have been trafficked, from identification of the whereabouts of trafficked women to reaching out to them with crucial expert support. The status of "illegal" needs to be removed and there must be sympathetic counselling. Of course, none of that will be possible if safe houses are not available. None of it is easy or cheap, but it is achievable.
I know that most of the authority in the matter lies with Westminster, which the non-governmental organisations fully appreciate. However, when the Scottish Parliament debates and gets behind issues of concern, positive action normally follows. If there was ever a subject in relation to which there was a need for positive action and a united front to meet dire human need, this is that subject.
I am pleased that Angela Constance has brought the matter for debate—in doing so, she has done Parliament a great service. I hope that Parliament and the Government speak and act as one. There must be swift action.
I congratulate Angela Constance on securing a debate on this critical issue.
A couple of months ago, I had the privilege of holding the launch of the "‘No Recourse' No Safety" report in the Scottish Parliament. A significant number of MSPs here now, and others, attended to hear at first hand about experiences of the problems that are faced by women in such circumstances, and by the groups that are trying to support them. They also heard how women are caught up in the situations that lead to the dire straits that have been described.
I commend Amnesty International, Southall Black Sisters, Scottish Women's Aid and all the women's organisations, which can as ever teach us all a lesson or two in how to bring an issue to public attention and demand that action be taken.
I welcomed and appreciated in Angela Constance's speech and motion the recognition of the previous Executive's work on the matter. The whole Parliament has ownership of that work, because it was shaped by the Parliament. The reality of that work is that change has emerged because over many years, women across all sorts of divides in the United Kingdom and far beyond have redefined what politics is about, so that issues of violence against women have become a matter for Governments and for political action.
We should not forget the need to challenge male behaviour and male attitudes and to hold men to account. While we raise such issues, I hope that the minister will reassure us that he will consider closely the report of the Women's Support Project on the attitudes of men who use prostitutes and the connections between those attitudes, male violence and trafficking. Those men can carry in their heads the notion that although those women might have been trafficked, using them is legitimate. That report is important and reflects on the context of the problems that we experience.
We must recognise the courage of survivors who have spoken out against male violence in all its forms and who have exposed not only their individual experience, but the pattern of the problem, which Government action at every level must address.
It is clear that the Government alone cannot at every level deliver justice and equality for women, or address issues of violence against women. It is important to give a voice to those who are most vulnerable and to those who understand the need for action and want to shape the action of government at every level. It is right that the organisations that have emerged to meet the challenge of violence against women have been, and—I am glad to say—continue to be, at the centre of government action. By talking to those who really understand the situation, we will take the correct action.
Issues of violence against women provide as powerful an example as any of the challenge to the Government to shape policy not from the top down, but through the experience of individuals and through groups. I am grateful that the Executive has continued that approach.
I welcome the minister's decision to establish a short-life working group to address the questions. Like everybody here, he has resisted the temptation to transplant the discussion into a debate about powers. He has recognised that powers are shared and that responsibility for making progress is also shared. I commend him for what he has done and I welcome and look forward to a report. I assure him that Labour members will do everything they can, as I am sure all members will, to secure support for action to meet and address need and to challenge the problems that are highlighted effectively in "‘No Recourse' No Safety" and by the organisations that have been mentioned.
Like other members, I congratulate Angela Constance on securing the debate. I also congratulate all the members who have spoken in the debate, which has been interesting and filled with emotion and detailed information about what many unfortunate women in our country face.
I am glad to have the opportunity to wind up for the Government. I reiterate my commitment and that of the Government to tackling violence against women. We take seriously the issues that have been raised, which are complex, as they straddle reserved and devolved powers. Immigration law is a matter for Westminster, and the Home Office is actively considering whether to fast-track immigration applications by people who have no recourse to public funds.
In March, the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, and Vernon Coaker, an undersecretary at the Home Office, announced a new scheme under which victims of domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds might be eligible to receive support for their housing and living costs. The new scheme will strengthen how domestic abuse cases are considered and enable vulnerable victims to access additional support. Under the proposals, which are still being developed, victims of domestic abuse whose applications for indefinite leave to remain were successful might qualify for a contribution to their costs.
The Home Office will also work with the UK Border Agency to develop a service level agreement to enable initial applications for indefinite leave to remain to be processed in 20 working days—such applications can currently take several months. That will greatly reduce the financial burden on agencies that support women in that situation. Guidance will be developed to assist voluntary organisations to ensure that the applications that they support have all the necessary detail, which will allow applications to be processed without delay. I also understand that the Home Office will work with the UK Border Agency to look again at the criteria for assessing destitution to ensure that a robust process is in place to implement the destitution rule, which allows for the current £750 application fee to be waived.
Most of that work will have implications at a UK-wide level, and will move towards alleviating the workload and stress involved in processing the applications. It is important that the issues are progressed as soon as is practicable. I am pleased to tell members that we have been advised by the UK Government that the scheme will be in place by this autumn.
Obviously, to the extent that matters are within Westminster's remit, our hands are tied, but I pledge that I will write to the UK Government to set out our concerns and those that were expressed by members during the debate and to reiterate our desire to find a way forward as soon as is possible and practicable.
The Scottish Government is progressing matters, too. As members have said, earlier this year we established a short-life working group to examine the possible options to help women who have no recourse to public funds. Scottish Women's Aid, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Shakti Women's Aid and Hemat Gryffe Women's Aid are among the group's members, in addition to officials from the Scottish Government's violence against women team and homelessness team. Its first meeting took place in February and, as Sandra White said, it met for the second time two days ago.
We are all aware that the issues are difficult, and the group is currently working to establish what information and data it needs to consider possible workable options on the way forward. The group is, of course, aware of the report by Amnesty International and the Southall Black Sisters, which provides a useful context for its considerations; it also has regard to the role of the UK Government and its emerging proposals.
I await the group's report, which I expect later this year, and I assure Parliament that I will take its findings seriously and will consider what practical and sustainable measures we can take to ensure that this particularly vulnerable group of people are treated appropriately. In the meantime, my officials will continue to liaise with their counterparts in the Home Office and to ensure that we are fully aware of the progress that is being made south of the border as far as reserved matters are concerned. As I said, I will write to the undersecretary at the Home Office, Vernon Coaker.
It might also be helpful for views on this area to be fed into the national conversation. I do not seek to make a party-political point, but we clearly need a full exploration of the devolved and reserved aspects of the issue, and there must be clarity over the limitations of what we in the Scottish Government can progress. I encourage all those involved and those with concerns about people who have no recourse to public funds to participate in that discussion.
What we can and will do is continue to support the work of organisations that address the full range of violence against women issues—I include in that the support that is given to Scottish Women's Aid and the network of local groups. In addition, five projects that are currently funded from the violence against women funding stream are working on the issues around women with no recourse to public funds in the context of wider issues of violence and its impacts on women from black and minority ethnic communities.
Obviously, it is of deep concern if Women's Aid or other groups are struggling financially, for whatever reason. If there are ways in which we can help, we will of course consider those fully, but we have to be realistic about what we can do pending further progress at a UK Government level.
I will cover some of the many issues that members raised in the debate. I share the concern that Cathy Peattie expressed about children being taken into care or given to an abusive partner. The fundamental point is that the best interests of children must be paramount. If she has details of the case that she mentioned, I would be more than happy for her to write to me about it. I will take up the issue as appropriate, but I will definitely look into it, because I share her concerns.
Sandra White asked for an update on the working group meeting. It considered the responses to the Scottish Women's Aid survey of prevalence, which was undertaken with all women's aid groups. It agreed a timescale of September 2008 for the first draft of the working group's report, which will include recommendations. It also discussed difficulties faced by individual local authorities. The next meeting will take place in September 2008.
I agree with Gil Paterson's comments about trafficking. For his information and that of other members, the UK Government aims to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings during 2008. I hope that we can all welcome that, because, frankly, it is overdue. I am pleased that the UK Government has taken that step.
Johann Lamont raised several issues. To sum up, she said that the matter is above party politics and that both the previous Executive and the SNP Government have considered it. Of course, I absolutely agree with her comments on trafficking, prostitution and male violence against women, and I thank her for her constructive comments on the short-life working group that has been established.
The issue affects all the parties that are represented in the chamber and all members, whether they are male or female and no matter what their background is.
I thank members for taking part in the debate, which has been constructive. There is a degree of consensus and a shared desire to find a way around the existing obstacles and to help the women in question. I assure members that I will reflect fully on the debate and on what can be done to ensure that we provide help.
Meeting closed at 17:45.