|
Correspondence
between government Minister David Lammy and Black
Women's Rape Action Project & Women Against Rape Erosion of asylum rights The asylum bill will deny rape
victims the right to legal aid and therefore full representation. Like
Andrew Phillips, who opposed this sexism in the Lords, we find this an
"astonishing proposition". It is a malevolent and
life-threatening erosion of rape victims' rights. Full list of
signatures: Published on the
same page: These measures are a first for an EU country. The Joint Committee for Human Rights has already advised that, given the exemption for Church of England marriages, the measures may discriminate on religious grounds, as well as contravening the right to marry and found a family enshrined in international law. Despite this advice, and opposition in
the Lords, the government is due to press ahead with these measures.
They will discriminate against people of minority faiths and ethnic
groups, as well as impinging on the rights of UK nationals and others
legally settled here to marry whom they wish in the UK. The government
should reconsider these ill-conceived measures and at least ensure they
are given adequate scrutiny by MPs. Legal
aid is still available What has changed is the provision of funding for legal representatives to be present at initial interviews with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. These changes were made because, in most cases, it was not a solicitor who was present. The interviews are a non-adversarial, fact-finding process and the representative is not usually able to intervene; their role is often simply that of a note-taker. For that reason, it has been accepted practice for many years that a clerk from the clients' legal advisers is present at substantive interviews with IND officials, rather than a solicitor. But I recognised that there were important exceptions. For example,
unaccompanied minors, fast-track applicants and those suffering from a
recognised mental incapacity (including where this is as a consequence
of rape) can have an adviser. The IND protocol confirms that any other
person may be allowed to accompany an applicant to an interview for
medical or emotional support at the discretion of the interviewing
officers. The regulations introducing these changes were fully debated
by parliament. Women
respond to David Lammy David Lammy claims legal aid is still available to asylum seekers “subject to the usual rules.” In fact recent changes have so dramatically reduced legal aid that it is impossible for asylum claims to be thoroughly prepared or presented. And he neglects to address our alarm that he insists that rape (and other torture) victims are no longer to ”be regarded as being in a category of vulnerable people”. Instead he makes the astonishing claim that rape survivors don‘t need lawyers when they attend asylum interviews because these are “non-adversarial”. (Letters 12 July). No asylum seeker would agree: your life depends on convincing often hostile interviewers, often men, often in translation, who can use even minor “discrepancies” to undermine your credibility and deny your claim, and whose interview notes may record your distress, but not as clear indications that you are struggling to speak about intensely painful experiences. In these circumstances, women need more help and protection - not less. It is well-known that the standard of much of the legal representation available to asylum seekers is shockingly low. This includes failing to intervene to protect women at their interviews. Mr Lammy uses this to deny all women legal aid - not better lawyers but fewer lawyers! Cristel
Amiss, Black
Women’s Rape Action Project
|