Proceeding contribution from Baroness Williams of Trafford (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 27 April 2021. It occurred during Debate on bill on Domestic Abuse Bill.
Domestic Abuse Bill
My Lords, to recap, Amendment 41B seeks to lift the no recourse to public funds condition for migrant victims of domestic abuse until the conclusion of the support for migrant victims scheme. The amendment also provides that, within two months of the scheme’s conclusion, the Secretary of State must consult the domestic abuse commissioner and specialist sector, and publish a strategy for the long-term provision for victims who do not have leave, or have leave subject to the no recourse to public funds condition. I am conscious that after two full debates, in Committee and on Report, along with our consideration last week of the Commons reasons, we are all likely to be well versed in the points that I have highlighted and will highlight now, and those which proponents of Amendment 41B will outline. For that reason, I will try to make my points relatively short.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester knows how much I respect her, and I share her commitment to providing protection and support for migrant victims of domestic abuse. But I still do not believe that Amendment 41B represents the appropriate course of action. The other place likewise disagreed with this amendment, again on the basis of financial privilege. Waiving the no recourse to public funds condition for 12 months—double the six months provided for in the earlier Amendment 41, which sought an extension to the DDVC—would clearly involve a significant charge on the public purse.
2.30 pm
As I have emphasised previously, there is a clear precedent for our current position regarding the no recourse to public funds condition. Successive Governments
have taken the view that access to publicly funded benefits and services should normally reflect the strength of a migrant’s connection to the UK. We continue to believe that such access should become available to migrants only once they have settled here. There is a clear rationale for this policy; namely, that it seeks to assure the public of the benefits to our country that controlled immigration can yield, to ensure that public funds remain protected for permanent residents, and to manage the UK’s finite resources. Automatically waiving the no recourse to public funds condition irrespective of the diverse financial circumstances of victims is not a desirable or necessary outcome.
Moving beyond the precedent for our position, Amendment 41B presents other significant difficulties. Leave and access to public funds cannot be separated as easily as it suggests. As I highlighted last week, to provide access to public funds, one must also necessarily confer leave. We have launched the support for migrant victims scheme because it can provide support for migrant victims of domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds by funding the required support directly from Southall Black Sisters and its delivery partners, bypassing the need to access public funds. To reiterate, the support for migrant victims scheme will provide support to this vulnerable cohort.
As I have highlighted many times during the passage of the Bill, the support for migrant victims scheme is designed to provide support to those individuals who fall through the gaps of other support mechanisms, such as the DDVC. It provides a safety net of support through provision of accommodation in a refuge or other relevant safe accommodation. Additionally, the scheme can provide wraparound provisions, including practical support such as immigration advice. The support provided by the scheme can be tailored to the needs of the individual victim much more than a blanket automatic granting of public funds.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for her continued commitment to the cause of migrant victims of domestic abuse. It truly is a cause that I share. However, while we seek a similar outcome, we have different ways of getting there. I hope that noble Lords are mindful of the votes in the elected House, along with the reasons given for disagreeing with this amendment, and are content to agree Motion C. We must now ensure that the Bill is enacted and implemented. I assure noble Lords that this Government have not, and will not, forget about migrant victims of domestic abuse. I have no doubt that the right reverend Prelate will continue, rightly, to press us to act on the outcome of the support for migrant victims scheme in the months to come. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 811 cc2176-7
- Session
- 2019-21
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Data protection Databases Codes of practice Judiciary Immigration controls Domestic abuse Offenders Protection Staff Social security benefits Vetting Stalking Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence Child contact centres Domestic Abuse Commissioner
- Legislation
- Criminal Justice Act 2003
- Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-05-01 06:56:00 +0100
- URI
- http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-04-27/21042747000060
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-04-27/21042747000060
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2021-04-27/21042747000060