Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Sarah Mullally (Bishops, Unknown): My Lords, Amendment 140 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, asks the Committee to consider again the debates that we had during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill. Indeed, this amendment was passed in your Lordships’ House last year, only to be rejected by the Commons In short, the issue is that immigration enforcement and the sharing of data too often serve as a significant barrier, preventing survivors of domestic abuse coming forward and receiving the help they need. Research from the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, to which I am grateful for its support and briefings, has repeatedly shown that in cases of domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women and girls, victims with insecure immigration status are unlikely to approach the police because they believe that the police will prioritise their lack of legal status instead of protecting them as victims of a serious crime. As many as 50% of domestic abuse victims never report the crimes committed against them Immigration enforcement is not perceived as a neutral or safe space for victims, or one conducive to safeguarding, but as an agency concerned primarily with enforcement, which defaults to detention and deportation as its primary tools. How could it be the opposite when the focus of the Bill and years of policy from the Home Office have been weighted towards deterrence, enforcement and hostility? In seeking to eliminate abuse, too often the cost of the hostility in the system is borne by the genuine victim in need of help. Every front-line agency has been consistent in making this point; indeed, the Government themselves concede it. The Domestic Abuse: Draft Statutory Guidance Framework states that perpetrators routinely use immigration status as a tactic of coercive control towards migrant women. The evidence therefore that fear of immigration enforcement serves as a barrier is overwhelming It is worth emphasising again that this fails victims, who are often trapped in abusive situations, but also fails law enforcement. If victims are not confident in their ability to come forward, they cannot access valuable intelligence needed to identify and prosecute abusers and exploiters. This situation results in migrants being denied safety and justice, and offenders going unpunished and remaining free to abuse others, creating a significant threat to public safety During the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Minister answered that the Government were waiting for the results of the Home Office review of the treatment of victims of domestic abuse and argued that data sharing is necessary for safeguarding. On both points, I believe the debate has moved on since we were last here and I hope that the Government may be more amenable on this occasion Since the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, the independent domestic abuse commissioner has published her review Safety Before Status, which states in its recommendations: "The Home Office’s data-sharing review and Code of Practice should … establish a firewall between the police and the Home Office, alongside safe reporting mechanisms and funded pathways to support and legal advice" We have already heard that this comes in the wake of the super-complaint submitted by Liberty and Southall Black Sisters, which ruled that this data sharing and confusion of function between enforcement and safe- guarding causes "significant public harm". It is extremely disappointing that, faced with the super-complaint and the independent domestic abuse commissioner’s report, and with the evidence from front-line agencies, that the Government continue to argue that this data sharing is necessary. The government response to the super-complaint put before Parliament last December lays out some legitimate details about the practicalities of creating a firewall and I do not dispute that there is work to be done on finding the best practical route forward However, the proposed remedy—the immigration enforcement migrant victim protocol—,is not a credible alternative. It is extraordinary that in response to fears over the ties between police and immigration enforcement, the solution should seek to actually expand the role of immigration enforcement in the process with proposed visits from immigration enforcement officers. That does nothing to allay the fears of victims, and it ought to be of enormous concern that so many key agencies in the sector have refused to engage further in the development of the protocol It is not too late to take an alternative path. Amendment 140 has the support of the sector and would provide a route to a more effective firewall between data use for the purpose of seeking or receiving support and assistance and immigration enforcement. I beg to move.