In the month of International Women’s Day, GMLC campaign volunteer Deborah Okyere examines the Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession (MVDAC), an exception in law that aims to mitigate the harm caused to domestic violence survivors by No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) policies. NRPF excludes some migrants from claiming public funds like welfare benefits, and leaves many migrants – especially women – destitute and without support from public services like homelessness teams. This can have a devastating effect on people experiencing domestic violence – but is the MVDAC enough to protect their rights?
Domestic Abuse is defined by in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 as behaviour of person A to another person, person B, in which A and B are personally connected to each other and the behaviour is abusive. Abusive behaviour is defined in this Act as: physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse and psychological, emotional or other abuse. It is a major problem which affects 2.1 million people over 16 in England and Wales, according to the Office For National Statistics 2023, 1.4 million of whom are women. Many abusers exert control via economic means and so it is essential that victims are able to access public funds such as housing protection and benefits in order for them to escape their abusers. Migrants who have insecure immigration status have a unique dependency on their partners, which puts them at a particular risk of domestic abuse. Recent exceptions in Immigration Law have attempted to account for this added barrier migrant women in particular have in leaving their abusive relationships. However, there have been questions about the effectiveness of such exceptions and whether further changes still need to be made.
No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF)
Immigration law prevents migrants who are subject to immigration control from accessing public funds such as benefits and housing assistance, through the policy of no recourse for public funds (NRPF). Legal aid is funded by the UK Government and is available even for individuals who are subject to NRPF. In the Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Review 2020, organisations reported that refuge centres were turning away some people subject to NRPF policies, because many of these refuges rely on housing benefits. Refuges’ funding is typically made up 50% from their local authority and 50% from the survivor’s housing benefits. Since those subject to NRPF – mostly women – do not have access to public funds, they were therefore unable to access these refuges. Thankfully there has since been an exception to this NRPF policy for migrants who are victims of domestic abuse, which means that in certain circumstances they are able to access public funds. However, there have been questions whether the exception does enough, and whether, by making it an exception, the government have made it too difficult to access in an emergency when it is needed by a survivor fleeing abuse.
The exception
The exception to NRPF is the Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse Concession (MVDAC) and this enables those who have either ‘leave to enter’ or ‘leave to remain’ as a result of their partner’s status to have access to public funds following a breakdown of the relationship as a result of domestic abuse. This gives those individuals access to benefits, local authority housing assistance and employment. This is essential because it ensures that they are able to leave the abusive household and access refuge centres, alternative housing and have a source of income. Otherwise, these survivors would have no way to meet their basic needs. Once the MVDAC is granted, the survivor of domestic abuse will have 3 months’ leave, separate from their partner’s status, and will have access to the aforementioned public funds. In the 3 months’ granted leave, the survivor must:
- Apply for domestic violence indefinite leave to remain (DVILR) if they are eligible to;
- Submit a separate application;
- Or leave the UK.
This exception in immigration law was a necessary change to give victims of domestic abuse access to resources which will allow them to leave abusive households safely. However there have been questions about whether the exception is enough for victims of domestic abuse to actually be able to leave their partners and whether it fulfils the UK’s obligations under the Istanbul Convention.
The Istanbul Convention
Article 59 of the Istanbul Convention states that: “parties shall take the necessary legislative and other measures to ensure that victims whose residence status depends on that of the spouse or partner as recognised by internal law, in the event of the dissolution of the marriage or the relationship, are granted in the event of particularly difficult circumstances, upon application, an autonomous residence permit…”. The MVDAC’s granting of 3 month leave for the survivor of domestic abuse appears to fulfil this commitment on face value as without the exception, the survivor would have had to leave the UK at the breakdown of the relationship. However, we have to look at the intention of this Article. People whose leave in the country is dependant on their partner’s status have additional barriers to leaving their relationship as a result of this insecure status. Many migrants have a real fear of deportation for reasons: they may be fleeing abuse in their previous country of residence, fleeing poverty, they may have children in the UK who they do not want to leave – or a range of other factors which make deportation a significant fear. This fear is often used as a form of coercive control by the abuser. If the purpose of this article in the convention is to negate this barrier, can a limit of 3 months’ leave be seen as sufficient?
In these 3 months, the survivor must seek legal advice, submit and be granted a separate application to remain, all while also navigating the real world realities of escaping an abusive relationship. In the 2020 Review of Migrant Victims of Domestic Abuse, the argument that the time needs to be extended from 3 months to 6 months minimum was presented partially because some migrants struggled to obtain legal support and necessary documentation in this time frame. The short time given does not account for all the extra difficulties in a survivor’s life, particularly in cases where the survivor was previously completely dependent on their abuser. Furthermore, the 3 months does not provide enough security to negate the fear of deportation weaponised by a victim’s abuser in order to keep the partner under their control. If someone still in an abusive relationship is told that in the event that they leave their partner, they have 3 months to sort everything out or they will potentially be deported, this creates a real fear which adds to their fear of leaving. The 3 month limit also affects the resources a survivor can access. In the 2020 review, it was found that some migrant women were turned away from refuge centres because they would only be eligible to access public funds for 3 months whereas the average stay of a survivor in these shelters is 4-12 months. And so, while the DV exception does on its face address the Convention, if we look to the purpose of this article, I would argue that it is insufficient.
Article 4 of the Istanbul Convention states: “the implementation of the provisions of this convention by the parties, in particular measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as…migrant or refugee status or other status”. The exception in the law may be viewed as a way in which the government is actively preventing discrimination by extending the resources available to victims who are British Citizens to migrant women. However, the MCDVC being the exception and not the rule may be seen as discriminatory in itself. The exception only applies to survivors whose leave is dependent on a partner’s and many believe it should be extended to all migrants so that any migrant who is a victim of domestic abuse can access resources necessary to meet their basic needs outside of this abusive relationship regardless of their immigration status.
Practical issues with this being an exception also means that an application has to be made by the survivor and this has to be approved and accepted before they can access public funds/get into a safe refuge. This means that either this application has to be done while they are still in the abusive relationship, which is a risk in itself, or the individual has to live without access to basic needs, including housing, while awaiting approval. If migrants are given access to public funds as a basic right instead of an exception, it would remove the problem the MCDVC attempts to solve.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the MVDAC exception to NRPF is definitely a step in the right direction. It acknowledges the particular difficulties whose immigration status is tied to an abusive partner have in leaving. It acknowledges that these survivors need to have access to public funds in order to be able to escape these relationships and so gives them the resources to begin to meet their basic needs and gain a temporary autonomous status. However, it is not perfect, and there are changes which need to be made in order to be confident that it sufficiently satisfies the Istanbul convention.
Despite these changes which still need to be made, it is important to acknowledge that there are resources available for victims of domestic abuse who wish to escape these relationships so that there is enough hope to override the fear which is so often weaponised by abusers to coerce and control them. The UK must have zero tolerance to domestic abuse, regardless of the survivor’s immigration status,. Organisations must continue to campaign for a continual minimisation of barriers to leaving.
_________
Image credit: Funk Dooby, Flickr, 2018, ‘Budding’
