Written submission from Southall Black Sisters (PTN0056)

Introduction

1. We understand that the scope of this inquiry is to examine the harms associated with buying and selling sex. Southall Black Sisters welcome the opportunity to make this submission to the inquiry. We submit evidence to draw attention to a much neglected aspect of the issue - the ways in which migrant women with insecure status are rendered vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation by immigration laws and policies. Many are often compelled or coerced into exploitative sexual relationships or further exposed to sexual abuse – an experience that is specifically linked to their insecure immigration status and associated destitution created by the ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ requirement (NRPF) in immigration law. SBS is concerned about the government’s immigration and related policies that keep migrant women destitute and dependent on abusers and non-state support (including from private landlords, employers, friends and strangers) for their survival. Locking migrant women with NRPF out of state welfare support institutionalises their vulnerability and marginalisation and creates the conditions that make them vulnerable to financial and sexual exploitation and abuse.

About Southall Black Sisters

2. Southall Black Sisters (SBS) is one of the UK’s leading organisations for black and minority women (BME), in existence since 1979. In 1983, we set up a not-for-profit advocacy and campaigning centre for black, minority and ethnic women (BME), with a particular focus on the needs of South Asian women. The bulk of our work is directed at assisting women and children - overwhelmingly victims of domestic and other forms of gender-related violence - to obtain effective protection and assert their fundamental human rights. SBS provides advice, advocacy and support to BME women who represent some of the most marginalised and disadvantaged in our society. Many arrive at SBS having experienced violence and abuse and related problems of homelessness, mental illness, poverty and insecure immigration status. Our advice and casework ranges from dealing with one-off enquiries to undertaking mid to long-term casework which covers a number of overlapping support needs. We handle on average 500 cases and 3000 (national) enquires a year.
    
3. At least 60 per cent of the women that SBS works with have insecure immigration status. Some of these women have been dependant on their partners or spouses for their immigration status whilst others arrive in the UK through other immigration routes. Most become destitute once they flee domestic abuse but they then find themselves unable to access emergency accommodation and benefits due to NRPF. They are left homeless and penniless, and often forced to find other means of survival that are full of immense risks and dangers.

This Submission

4. Evidence suggests that there are an estimated 72,800 people who sell sex in the UK, with the majority (32,000) in London.[1] People who sell sex are a heterogeneous group. In 2014, this included 1,139 known victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation,[2]  but this is likely to be an underestimation given that many migrant women are too fearful to report to state authorities.  A 2008 guidance document by the UK Network of Sex Work Projects on the UK’s migrant sex work population estimated that around 37 per cent of UK commercial sex workers were migrants.[3] A 2014 literature review also found that there are a wider range of factors which can push migrant women into sex work.[4] This is also echoed by our experience.

5. This submission is based on 40 years of experience of working with migrant women who have insecure immigration status and cannot access any form of social housing or benefits due to the NRPF requirement. We provide below case examples of how destitution amongst migrant women is a key driver of sexual abuse and exploitation. We conclude with some key recommendations to ensure that regardless of immigration status, there is effective access to protection and welfare support so that no woman is placed at risk of sexual exploitation or compelled to turn to sex work for survival.

No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), Social Services and Asylum Support

6. The NRPF requirement is a legal restriction imposed by the UK Border Agency on people subject to immigration control, preventing them from accessing non-contributory welfare benefits and social housing. Breaching this condition puts a person’s current or future right to be in the UK at risk.
7. A substantial proportion of persons with NRPF are single women or women with dependent children. Between 2013 and 2015, over 50,000 individuals with dependents were granted leave to remain in the UK but with a NRPF condition attached.[5]

8. Where there are destitute women with children subject to NRPF, according to legislation local authorities are obliged to safeguard the welfare of children, young people and other vulnerable adults. This includes the provision of accommodation and financial support. However this is not always realised in practice for a number of reasons, including the climate of austerity and in the absence of adequate government statutory guidance and support for those with NRPF.  There appears to be considerable inconsistency of practice across the UK, particularly in the context of funding cuts to local authorities which amount to nearly 50 per cent since 2010/11.[6][7] Our experience and that of others, show that local authorities are regularly failing to meet their responsibilities to vulnerable families. This is echoed by Project 17 for instance, which finds that many families that seek assistance from local authorities are refused a ‘child in need’ assessment. Those who do get help receive only subsistence-level support.[8]  In 2012/13, data showed that of those families with NRPF that were assisted, 89 per cent were single-parent families, mainly headed by mothers.[9]

9. On an almost daily basis, SBS is also witness to the ways in which abused women and children are turned away by local children’s services. Sometimes they are deliberately and disingenuously sent to another agency or another borough and sometimes they are advised to return to their abusers or to their countries of origin - without having received the requisite risk or needs assessment. We frequently have to challenge both the failure to carry out assessments, and the poor quality of such assessments when they are carried out. In practice, the domestic abuse that women suffer is often underplayed or simply dismissed.

10. SBS operates a ‘no recourse fund’ to provide short term assistance to abused and destitute women and children with NRPF or those who are denied Section 17[10] or Asylum support, however it is nowhere near enough to meet the level of need or to meet rising demand across the UK. The amount that we can give is also insufficient to protect women from poverty and sexual abuse and exploitation.  Nor does it provide an effective long-term solution to the problem of destitution (see our recommendations below).

Destitution and sexual exploitation

11. The lack of access to welfare support and benefits has a detrimental impact on migrant women who have experienced abuse. It creates fertile conditions for their sexual and financial exploitation and gives rise to other forms of discrimination.[11] Available research also points to the ways in which the lack of financial stability makes people more vulnerable to sexual exploitation, particularly single mothers and women marginalised from mainstream employment - and we would add - welfare support structures.[12]

12. Ms B’s case below demonstrates the way in which the simultaneous experience of destitution, due to her status as an asylum-seeker, and the lack of access to basic social security benefits; has forced her to turn to sex work for survival, which includes raising the finances needed to regularise her status in the UK. Women like Ms B are made destitute by the open-ended nature of their destitution and the lack of access to or inadequacy of the limited public funds that may be available.  Many in such positions also face extreme isolation due to the operation of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) dispersal which results in abused women being accommodated well away from any support networks that they may have formed. This can leave abused even more traumatised and isolated – factors that also drive women into the hands of unscrupulous strangers or acquaintances on whom they become dependent to meet their housing and other needs. Such dependency in turn creates further risks and an abusive power dynamic from which it is difficult to exit.

Case study – Ms B
 

Ms B was born in Sierra Leone in a conservative Christian family. At the age of 17 she was kidnapped by three men wearing masks and raped. She became pregnant as a result of the rape and when she sought help from her family, she was forced to hide the pregnancy. When she was seven months pregnant, Ms B’s parents sent her to the UK at, to hide the ‘shame’ that she had brought on her family.

Ms B arrived in the UK in 2014 and immediately sought asylum. She was placed in foster care and received limited financial support for herself and her child for the first few years. In 2015, her first asylum claim and appeal were refused. She feared returning to Sierra Leone as her family had rejected her and she remained fearful that the men who raped her would harm her again or take away her child. So, she made another claim for asylum.

In 2018, when she 21, and her son, fours year old, she was transferred to NASS accommodation and received £75 a week. However, she was moved to an area where she felt very isolated, depressed and suicidal. She had little or no support, lived in poverty and feared that she would be deported. Desperate for security and stability, a friend persuaded her to seek help from a private immigration solicitor regarding her asylum claim on the basis of new evidence. Lacking access to sound legally aided immigration advice, she was forced to pay for legal advice that landed her with a bill of £1500 which she simply could not afford to pay. Her weekly income of £75 was barely sufficient to cover her own or her child’s basic needs.

As a result of her growing desperation, Ms B confided to a male acquaintance that she had financial problems and asked for help.  He offered to ‘help’ her in return for sex with men. Ms B found it difficult to consent to the request, but ultimately felt she had no choice but to accept as she needed to pay the solicitor’s fees. Between 2018 and June 2019, Ms B agreed to have sex and to perform sexual acts in exchange for money. She was paid between £25 and £45 an hour. Ms B does not see these acts as consensual because she only agreed under duress and to aid her survival. Indeed one of the men reminded her that she would be returned to Sierra Leone if she did not pay her solicitor’s fees, in order to ensure compliance.

These experiences have led Ms B to suffer from sleeplessness, low moods, flashbacks and suicidal thoughts. She feels ‘disgusted’ and demeaned by her experiences. SBS is currently supporting Ms B with her asylum claim, and she has been provided with food vouchers to supplement her meagre income. She still faces an outstanding debt of £1000 in relation to her previous immigration solicitor’s services.

NRPF and sexual harassment

13. It is well known that the lack of safe and adequate accommodation can increase the risk of sexual violence towards vulnerable women[13]. Our experience shows that as a result of the NRPF rule, women are more likely to face homelessness and destitution, exploitation and concordant mental health problems.  For instance, between April 2016 and March 2017, 42 per cent of SBS’ users with insecure immigration status and NRPF were also identified as having problems with housing and/or homelessness and related issues.

14. Their NRPF status prevents them from accessing public funds or support. They are routinely turned away even by refuges and agencies established to provide humanitarian care or support for women who have been abused. Many services simply do not have the specialist skills to assist women with insecure status – and others lack the resources to do so. Refuges tend not to accommodate women with NRPF because of uncertainty as to how long they will have to accommodate and support women on a rent-free basis. Women with insecure status are also often too afraid to access health services or police protection as they fear (with considerable justification) that these services are linked to immigration enforcement.

15. Even women eligible for the Destitute Domestic Violence Concession (DDVC)[14] that gives them access to benefits for a limited 3-month period, struggle to obtain refuge space as there is no guarantee that their immigration status will be regularised. Others are refused because there are often delays in the processing of the limited benefits to which they are entitled by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
16. In our experience, in the absence of safe housing and adequate financial support many abused migrant women with NRPF are forced to turn to relatives, the private sector and even strangers to meet their basic needs - including help with legal and medical costs. Yet a significant number also go on to experience further abuse, domestic servitude and sexual exploitation.

17. The case study below highlights our key dilemma: finding accommodation for women whilst also safeguarding them from the enormous risks that are generated by turning to the private and unregulated sector for accommodation.

Case study – Ms A
 

Ms A arrived to the UK from Pakistan in 2015 on a spousal visa. She had been married to her partner since 2012 and was subjected to both verbal and physical abuse at the hands of her husband and mother-in-law in the UK. She was threatened with deportation to Pakistan if she did not comply with their demands.

In 2016, the police were called to the matrimonial house after an incident of physical abuse by her husband. Ms A was hospitalised and placed in B&B accommodation. Both her perpetrators were arrested but released without bail conditions attached causing Ms A to be terrified of returning to the matrimonial home. Although Ms A was entitled to the DDVC, she faced delays in obtaining benefits which made it harder for SBS to secure refuge accommodation for her. We were forced to look to the private B&B sector to obtain temporary accommodation.

Within the first few days of arriving at the B&B, the owner began befriending Ms A and regularly sought her out to offer ‘help’. His behaviour often caused her distress. He would often approach Ms A and ask inappropriate questions about her marriage and her husband. She felt uneasy but did not complain because she had nowhere else to go. She was warned about the owner’s behaviour by a female acquaintance living in the same property and was advised not to leave her room and to visit only SBS. A week later, the owner of the B&B went into Ms A’s room whilst she was sleeping and attempted to sexually assault her.  Ms A managed to run out of the room and when the owner left her room she slipped back in and locked the door. Following this incident, the owner continued to harass her. Ms A was greatly distressed by the incident but was too frightened to disclose her experiences to anyone. She felt that she had no choice but to stay at the B&B due to delays in obtaining benefits. The refuges that we contacted on her behalf were unwilling to accept her without the certainty of knowing she had an income and could pay the rent. 

Through other residents in the B&B, SBS eventually discovered that Ms A had been sexually harassed and that there were ongoing risks to her and to the others. SBS immediately moved all the women with NRPF placed there by SBS and found alternative B&B accommodation using SBS’ own emergency funds. None of the women felt able to make a complaint to the police because of their ongoing vulnerable immigration status.

18. Ms A’s case demonstrates powerfully the ways in which abused migrant women with NRPF are made vulnerable to sexual harassment due to their experience of destitution. Many SBS users also tell us that they are fearful of being located in accommodation with male residents and staff. Actual sexual harassment or fear of it appears to be a widespread problem. For instance, in its 2019 report, Women’s Aid notes that sexually inappropriate behaviour by male hotel staff’ is a cause for concern.[15]  

19. In these circumstances, specialist refuge services are vital for BME women, who experience higher rates of domestic homicide and suicide.[16] It is well known that BME specialist refuges and services have a significant impact on safety and justice outcomes.[17] However, they are fast disappearing, especially outside of London, due to cuts and changes in funding structures. In England as of May 2017, there were just 28 refuge services run specifically for BME women.[18] The impact of these cuts is that there is even less access to safe alternatives for homeless migrant women.

Challenges for women accessing services

20. We have set out some of the challenges above. The government’s policy of creating a ‘hostile environment’ for migrants with insecure immigration status, including the denial of access to key health and welfare services, has created tangible barriers for abused migrant women. These generate further physical, financial, sexual and mental harm - as shown by the example below.

Case study – Ms E

Ms E was a victim of domestic abuse in India. Her abusive husband later trafficked her to the UK in 2007. He deceived her into thinking that he had obtained a job for her as a babysitter. In the UK, Ms E was made to carry out domestic chores for a family known to her husband, for almost two years. She was physically abused, and her pay and passport were withheld. She was told that her wages would be sent to her husband and children in India. On one occasion in 2009, she was suddenly given new clothing and make-up to wear by the family.  However, another member of staff alerted her to the fact that the family intended to enter her into sex work. Ms E fled from the home in the middle of the night with the help of the domestic staff. In the following years, Ms E was regularly forced to move accommodation, mainly because in each property she was subject to sexual harassment and sexual assaults from men who also lived in the same accommodation. On each occasion, the accommodation had been arranged by acquaintances and strangers upon whom she was dependent for help. She was also unable to return to India due to ongoing threats from her husband. 
 

In 2014/15, Ms E went to her GP due to health problems and was found to have a serious illness. Her GP asked about her immigration status and reassured her that she was entitled to healthcare as she was seeking asylum. He referred her to hospital for surgery. Following the treatment, Ms E received a bill from the hospital for £875 which caused her great distress. She enquired about the bill with the hospital staff and informed them that she was seeking asylum and did not have the money to pay.  The staff told her that she had to pay the bill or the Home Office would be informed. A week later, Ms E subsequently received letters from the Home Office stating that her failure to pay the bill would impact on her claim for asylum. Ms E was both confused and distraught by this and desperately approached friends to ask for them to lend her money to pay the bill.  She has since been granted refugee status.

21. This experience captures the predicament that migrant women with insecure status find themselves in; with their access to essential services obstructed by the threat of detention and deportation. Most migrant victims are simply too fearful to use key services or even report crimes because of discriminatory and punitive responses by services that prioritise immigration enforcement above their duty to protect and safeguard lives. A recent report from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration confirms that a Home Office programme called Operation DINTEL uses information supplied by NHS Trusts to aid the work of their Immigration Enforcement Teams. These policies place migrant women with NRPF at risk of arrest, deportation, and destitution when they seek support. More specifically, such policies deter migrant women who face sexual harassment and exploitation from accessing protection and help.[19]

22. Sexual abuse and exploitation clearly occurs at the point of intersection of migration and gender-related abuse. Many abused migrant women are made even more vulnerable by immigration and welfare laws and policies that deny them access to safe housing, advice and support. Policies to address sexual exploitation and inequalities must therefore contend with immigration and other structural factors that place migrant women with insecure status at greater risk of harm.

Recommendations

• Abolish the NRPF restriction for all migrant women and children subject to gender-based violence;
• Extend the DV Rule and DDVC Concession to all migrant women subjected to abuse so that all women irrespective of their immigration status, can access emergency safe housing, benefits and health care;
• End the ‘hostile climate’ immigration policies that drive abused migrant women underground and expose them to heightened forms of harm;
• Establish a ‘firewall’ to separate immigration control from key public services, with safe and confidential reporting systems for those with insecure status;
• End the policy of dispersal for abused women asylum seekers;
• Place a legal duty on all local authorities to provide refuge accommodation or other emergency accommodation to women and their children irrespective of their immigration status;
• Increase funding to local authorities so that they can adequately meet their legal duties to support vulnerable  women and children;
• Provide adequate funding for specialist BME women’s refuges and advocacy services across the UK;
• Restore legal aid for all immigration and asylum cases;
• Review the exorbitant fees for all vulnerable applicants.

October 2019