Damian Green proposes action against forced marriages

Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green MP has today announced ideas to tackle forced immigration (he wrote for The Observer earlier today):

• That there should a prerequisite declaration of intention to marry abroad.
• That there should be a time requirement before those who have been previously married to a spouse from overseas are allowed to bring in another spouse from overseas.
• That potential spouses coming to the UK should take the ‘Life in the UK’ citizenship test.

Mr Green issued the following statement:

“The continuing existence of forced marriages in modern Britain is a stain on our social fabric. It is the extreme and unacceptable end of the clash of values between a plural democracy which values individual human rights and belief systems that regard women as second class citizens. Shockingly, forced marriages are not isolated events.

The Government’s Forced Marriage Unit does some good work but more effective action is needed. The Conservative Party has a number of proposals which we are putting out to consultation this week to minimise the incidence of forced marriage."

Action against forced marriage - as suggested by Louise Bagshawe - was one of the first policies to be approved as part of the 100policies.com process.

Comments

[Ali Gledhill]

Something must be done about forced marriages, and fast. Surely this is one issue that will have cross-party consensus? It seems a simple matter of right and wrong.

Even with these new proposals, it will be very difficult to stop forced marriages. Nonetheless, it's good to see somebody trying; let's just hope that it makes a difference.

[Afleitch]

We need to point out that Labour u-turned on this promise a few months back. And if Gordon u-turns on this policy again we need to point that out too!

[Yet Another Anon]

The thing is that the things that go towards making up a Forced Marriage are illegal anyway - Kidnapping, murder, assault, rape, blackmail - all these things are already illegal and the answer is to enforce the law on these things.

Social pressuring such as saying that the family will be dishonoured is also sometimes considered part of Forced Marriage sometimes, but surely this is something that most families practice in relation to one thing or other from various ethnic groups - if this was made illegal then the state would hugely extend it's involvement in family affairs.

This still leaves scope for units within the police aimed at stopping Forced Marriages and government agencies and charities similarily, but a lot of this is being done anway.

[Simon Newman]

Is there any reason not to ban arranged (not forced) marriage for the purposes of immigration?

[TomTom]

How do these proposals differ from those put forward by Ann Cryer ?

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

Oh no, yet another liberal wet waffling on about things which he really has no intention of properly addressing.

Having met Damian Green on numerous occasions, I can safely say that he's probably one of the most ineffectual and irrelevant MPs in the house. Therefore, I suppose it seems fitting that he'd be in DC's shadow cabinet.

Awful, truly awful.

[Yet Another Anon]

Is there any reason not to ban arranged (not forced) marriage for the purposes of immigration?
Arranged marriages are just a method of finding a partner, in many cases it works quite well and the people getting married are all for it, in many ways it's actually a much better system than the sort of cumbersome system in which people run about mostly having one night stands or getting signals crossed. After all a lot of what dating agencies do is really little different than a form of arranged dating, other forms of social interaction use similar techniques - such as finding a job.

[Ali]

Well done Tories, you are hitting the real issues of the day. Frankly this is a no-brainer. This affects less than 0.005% of the British population and when we should be hearing about real policies, we get this one from the Tories.

No doubt, your new minister for Cohesion, Ms Warsi has advised on this.

Wake up and smell the coffee! You will not be able to stop this by bringing in laws. This is ingrained within Asian culture and will change slowly.

Tories have raised a few laughs with this one. Well done, you are about as popular in the Asian communities now as you were when Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Yet Another Anon @ 22.16 - You must know that the arranged/forced marriages that are being referred to here, and that can result in murder or suicide, are NOT arrangements where parents take into consideration what sort of person their daughter/son is, the ones that lead to trouble are usually very, very different, and I am sure that you must know this. Such as when a relative back in the home country wants to come here and is prepared to pay the family here in exchange for the daughter, or some other debt or honour owing back in their old country for which the daughter is used like a piece of currency.

In such cases where it is clear that the daughter, and occasionally the son, not being treated as someone who is loved and considered, the parents need to be strongly made to realise, that they may be able to do these things back in their own country but they cannot do it here.

I also rather think that the first of Damian Green's three points, would not work in practice, because parents with these underhand plans in mind, but keeping it a secret from their daughters, are hardly likely to officially declare that that is what they are going to do.

[Annabel Herriott]

In a male dominated culture, women are nothing, no matter how the leaders of that culture protest.
We DO need an actual LAW prohibiting forced marraige. The Patriarch will not understand anything less. The really tragic part, is that the girls mother colludes.
I know all this from first hand work experience.

[Tony Makara]

I don't claim to know much about forced marriages. However recent stories about women being forced to marry against their will and stories of barbaric honour killings are things that we as a free and open democracy cannot allow. Every woman in our country ought to be able to live her life with personal dignity.

[Yet Another Anon]

You must know that the arranged/forced marriages that are being referred to here, and that can result in murder or suicide, are NOT arrangements where parents take into consideration what sort of person their daughter/son is
Someone was suggesting banning arranged marriages in relation to immigration - the whole point is that arranged marriages aren't necessarily forced marriages.

And as for murder, last time I checked it was still a criminal offence even in Liberal Britain and it has long been a criminal offence to cause someone to commit suicide so what difference will having an offence called "Forced Marriage" make? Or does it mean that it would somehow be a lesser offence for someone to be murdered, raped, assaulted etc.... if it didn't involve a Forced Marriage. There are things people can already be charged for relating to specific offences and there need to be more resources to look into such things, the police need a lot of the bureacracy removed and there need to be far harsher penalties for such crimes.

John Redwood has just done a review in which he has identified regulations that should be scrapped because they fail to achieve what they intend to and just cost a lot of money and a law on Forced Marriages is one of these. It's like having a law against people deliberately annoying their neighbours when the things that would be done as part of that would be or could be defined as offences in themselves, there will end up being millions of extra laws for things that are already illegal.

What would a law on Forced Marriages make illegal that isn't already illegal?

[Simon Newman]

anon 23:51:
"Someone was suggesting banning arranged marriages in relation to immigration - the whole point is that arranged marriages aren't necessarily forced marriages."

My point was that if you don't allow immigration of spouses garnered through arranged marriage, you effectively stop most forced marriages, and people can still arrange marriages within the UK if they want. I'd think that would help with integration & community cohesion also.

[Yet Another Anon]

My point was that if you don't allow immigration of spouses garnered through arranged marriage, you effectively stop most forced marriages
In which case the arrangements will probably just be kept secret and it will be denied that it was an arranged marriage at all, with it probably not actually reducing the numbers of Forced Marriages, but require a massive use of resources in discovering whether an arranged marriage was happening or not.

Statistics on such things are estimates anyway, no one knows whether a majority of Forced Marriages involving people from the UK also involve someone from abroad or not, and where it does it is in many cases someone going abroad and then finding that they have been tricked and are being married off - this is something then happening outside UK jurisdiction.

[Serf]

Is there any reason not to ban arranged (not forced) marriage for the purposes of immigration?

I think it would be prohibitively difficult to prove which marriages were of this type. As has been mentioned, there are plenty of arranged marriages where the parents are trying top find the most suitable partner for their children.

If there were an easy way to show that a marriage were arranged for immigration purposes, then what you say is logical.

What we should ban is first cousin marriages. When you consider the risks, they are a form of child abuse.

[Viz]

Just another cheap shot for the tories to be on the headlines: do you think any of those rusty ever-leaning to the right MPs care about this issue?

And stop hiding behind a leader who doesn't represent your at all !

[TomTom]

The Dutch have policies to reduce these abuses

[ToMTom]

as do the Danes

[steve]

Better than Labour though isn't it Viz?They don't have any meaningful policies to control these abuses at all .Those policies they do have are implemented so incompetently they might as well not bother.Or do you approve of allowing these abuses to remain?

[TomTom]

Well Steve, no party in government has had any real policies on this - it is not new. It is not as if forced marriages started in May 1997.

The Primary Purpose Rule was abolished by this regime, but the issue of forced marriages is not a British innovation - it was there for at least 30 years in British ethnic enclaves.

What we are talking about is whether a 16 year old girl in Britain can be absent from school for an extended period in Pakistan and there married; returning to the UK a year later with her husband and baby with a UK Visa.

Currently under UK Visa rules the foreign spouse cannot be a charge on the public purse but mother and child can be and the marriage has to last 24 months....but even if it doesn't, what are the chances of being deported ?

Under our law a "forced marriage" is an invalid marriage

[steve]

That may be true but do you agree with Damian Greens proposals or not TomTom?

[Louise Bagshawe]

I am delighted to see the party adopting these important measures. Ali says "You will not be able to stop this by bringing in laws. This is ingrained within Asian culture and will change slowly."

What nonsense. We do not accept "cultural" reasons for the abuse of women. Forced marriage is a sentence of violence and multiple rape of the unwilling bride.

In my original 100 policies article on this I quoted a leading Muslim as saying that in Islam, forced marriage is no marriage at all.

These simple and effective measures will greatly advance women's rights. It is a stain on the Labour party that they backed away from protecting young and vulnerable British girls for so-called "cultural reasons". Forcerd marriage and rape of girls is not in any sense "cultural".

[Nick]

There are two problems with Damian Green's proposals. The first is that anyone going abroad to get married, as I did, is already required to give written notice of their intention to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. One has to obtain three months written notice and a "Certificate of No Impediment" before a foreign registry office will conduct a marriage. I think this is the case in almost all countries, although there may be a few exceptions.

The other problem is asking applicants to sit the Life in the UK test. My wife recently took this test and, even after two years living in the UK, it still does require some hard studying. I think it would be almost impossible for someone who has never lived in the UK, never experienced our bureaucracy and never actually had to deal with the different state agencies to actually pass the test. However, maybe that's the hidden agenda.

I do have a problem with policies which seek to make life more difficult for the innocent, as a punishment for the government's failure to deal with the guilty. For example, it's so much easier to make life more complicated for genuine cases where a Briton wants to marry someone from abroad (i.e, America, Europe outside the EU, Asia), than it is for the government to tackle illegal immigration. A crackdown on foreign football players is so much easier than trying to deal with the 500,000 who have come from the EU in the last couple of years. It's such a shame to see the Conservatives emulate Labour's style of governing.

[Traditional Tory]

What we should be doing is taking action to reduce ALL immigration to a trickle, and in particular to restrict the import of terrorists posing as doctors etc.

If members of ethnic minorities wish to prove their commitment to this country they should marry British citizens already resident here.

The rise of Islamofascist terrorism has blown to pieces the cultural Marxist myth of a 'multicultural society'.

[Sarah]

"The other problem is asking applicants to sit the Life in the UK test. My wife recently took this test and, even after two years living in the UK, it still does require some hard studying. I think it would be almost impossible for someone who has never lived in the UK, never experienced our bureaucracy and never actually had to deal with the different state agencies to actually pass the test."

No, it's very easy. They just buy the little handbook with all the answers pre-prepared, readily available from WH Smith. They then memorize all the answers they need to know (without understanding a single one), and only have to pass a multiple choice anyway.

I have knowledge of several people who have passed the test with EXTREMELY limited English, and zero understanding of British "culture". So what purpose is this test actually serving?

[simon]

The words: horse, stable, door, and bolted- spring to mind. The 'ethnic communities' will do exactly as they please with tacit consent from the state. This argument is futile and around 30 years too late. The same goes with 'integration'. If after some 50 odd years of immigration we are STILL on about 'why don't different communities integrate'- doesn't that say something about the general attitude of the populace?

[TomTom]

We do not accept "cultural" reasons for the abuse of women

Of course we do Louise...you must get out more. Visit Keighley or Manningham or Horton or Barkerend or Dewsbury or Batley or Oldham or Blackburn or Rochdale or Darwen.....do leave your white township and visit Commonwealth Britain......your eyes need opening.

Go spend some time talking with Ann Cryer and let her open your eyes and tell you how hard Bradford Labour Party worked to gag her.

Have a chat with W Y Police and watch the Channel 4 documentary and the child abuse in mosques that is covered up in madrassahs - a bit of whipping and beating for little boys can be covered up by culturally-sensitive policing.

[TomTom]

I have knowledge of several people who have passed the test with EXTREMELY limited English, and zero understanding of British "culture". So what purpose is this test actually serving?

Posted by: Sarah | August 13, 2007 at 10:30

You assume they did not take the test "by proxy" as driving tests here and public exams on the Subcontinent are managed

[George Hinton]

Nice to see Damien taking an interest in this issue.
All arranged/forced marriages that results in the other party entering the UK should be declared null and void. If our ethnic guests cannot find spouses within the UK, then they may look abroad, but, only after renouncing UK citizenship and patriality.
I and i'm sure many others, find it a constant irritant that arranged marriages inevitably result in a barely educated tribal peasant coming to the UK, not learning the language, refusing to adapt, adopt and assimilate, and reinforcing the divides that exist as a result of multi-culturalism, which do so much to ghettoise whole swathes of our cities.
Damien might want to make any such legislation retrospective and perhaps add a rider that such individuals have NO eligibility to vote or to the social services structure.

[Yet Another Anon]

but the issue of forced marriages is not a British innovation - it was there for at least 30 years in British ethnic enclaves.
It has been around since the beginning of time and in fact used to be much more widespread, you go back in the past and you will find that there were especially political marriages uniting clans and tribes - including in the British Isles, people were required to marry and to produce heirs to unite different factions. It's just that in the past couple of centuries it has fallen out of practice mostly with only remnants among the upper echelons of the aristocracy and among royalty.

[Yet Another Anon]

What we should be doing is taking action to reduce ALL immigration to a trickle, and in particular to restrict the import of terrorists posing as doctors etc.
The biggest problem doctor of recent years was Dr Harold Shipman - he killed so many people over the years that the figures are not known, probably more than have died in terrorist incidents in the UK in the past 10 years.

[TomTom]

The biggest problem doctor of recent years was Dr Harold Shipman - he killed so many people over the years that the figures are not known, probably more than have died in terrorist incidents in the UK in the past 10 years.

That is tabloid crap. Shipman was hardly a problem compared to noddy policemen and sleepy coroners. It is the cremation Part II that caught him out when the female doctor asked to sign Part II flagged up the frequency to the Coroner and PC Plod was flummoxed when Shipman used a big word and PC Plod was convinced he was in the presence of a genius.

Shipman has been overblown to cover up for the failings of the system - Registrars who are asleep even though deaths are computerised, and the dimwitted nature of operatives who do no analysis or reports on the data they have.

Any old person gets a death certificate with set formula entered - if a GP could see that Shipman's patients were on the heavenly express why couldn't the Registrar of Births, Deaths ?

Like everything else here the operatives are such sluggards they need to make out Shipman was a wily genius when you don't need to be with dimwitted functionaries in public positions.

When will they tell us if the Iraqi doctor arrested in Glasgow was actually qualified ? His tutors in Baghdad were threatened with death if they didn't pass him.....but the British are so PC that they wouldn't consider asking whether he was competent.....

[David Allen]

Damian should have added, as do the Danes already I believe, that where a Danish national marries a foreigner thereby giving that person a right of residence, BOTH parties must be at least 23 years of age. That at least ensures that either or both will have had a greater chance to break away from the evil coercion of their relatives.
We also need to bar marriage to first cousins, which figure in a lot of arranged marriages with someone from Pakistan. The rate of genetic defects in babies born in Britain is soaring due to 1st cousin marriage in the Pakistani community. Ethnically south asian children are grossly over-represented amongst children with a genetic condition. This happens, I understand, because if a girl marries her first cousin, her father does not have to pay a dowry. Hence, an Asian man in Britain can do his (poorer) brother in Pakistan a huge favour if he sends his son over to Pakistan to marry his cousin (and bring her back of course).

[Yet Another Anon]

That is tabloid crap. Shipman was hardly a problem compared to noddy policemen and sleepy coroners.
He was jailed for 15 murders, police were convinced that there were a further 217 murders he had done and there were numerous other deaths that were considered very suspicious of his patients who had an unusually high death rate.

[Louise Bagshawe]

TomTom - by "we" I meant the Conservative party.

We stand up for British citizens and for the weak and vulnerable without fear or favour. It is regrettably true that Labour cannot presently say the same.

[Yet Another Anon]

We also need to bar marriage to first cousins, which figure in a lot of arranged marriages with someone from Pakistan.
Cousin marriages including First Cousin marriages are quite commonplace and have long been in much of the Scottish Highlands, I imagine in other parts of the country too - less common than it used to be largely because people move around more and a lot of communities are much larger than they used to be.

[TomTom]

police were convinced that there were a further 217 murders he had done

Only 217 ? Didn't they have any wilder figures they could come up with ? why not 375 ?

Police "were convinced"....that is Daily Express talk.

Shipman was the kind of doctor these patients liked - he was available all hours, made house calls, was very understanding and friendly - a single-handed practice available for his elderly women patients.

I bet a doctor like Shipman would win awards for dedication and a resounding vote of confidence from his patients. He was the model doctor - he just happened to expedite a few elderly patients on their way - what do they call it nowadays "assisted suicide" ?

Remember Jack Kervorkian ? Maybe Shipman should have set up as a Euthanasia Doctor to help "ease suffering" and then people wouldn't need to go off to Switzerland ?

The Dutch euthanise babies....they don't get much chance to consent

But let us not forget the key factor:

In March 1998, Dr. Linda Reynolds of the Brooke Surgery in Hyde, opposite Shipman's clinic, went to John Pollard, the coroner for the South Manchester District, with concerns about the high death rate among Shipman's patients. In particular, she was concerned about the large number of cremation forms for elderly women that he had needed countersigned. She said he was "killing" his patients, although she was not sure whether it was negligent or intentional.

The matter was brought to the attention of the police, who were unable to find sufficient evidence to bring charges. (The Shipman Inquiry later blamed the police for assigning inexperienced officers to the case

They got interested when MOney was involved - a forged will and a Solicitor-daughter. That the police understood it was their metier - killing and money.

The Police are simple folk without much education and can only function at the basi level of Solicitor + Money + Fraud

[TomTom]

We stand up for British citizens and for the weak and vulnerable without fear or favour. It is regrettably true that Labour cannot presently say the same.

Posted by: Louise Bagshawe | August 13, 2007 at 12:36

Nice slogan Louise. Now tell me how much of that was done 1979-1997 and maybe Douglas Hurd can explain why Salman Rushdie's book was burned in Bradford and Iqbal Sacranie could incite people to murder him

[Yet Another Anon]

Police "were convinced"....that is Daily Express talk
The police and the CPS decided that it was not in the public interest to bring forward further charges although there were a number that they were convinced that had compelling evidence on that could have secured a guilty charge, however he was already well on his way to being convicted for enough to keep him from ever being released and presumably the police felt it would have used too much resources.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Yet Another anon - Yes legislation AND the actions of others can harm 'innocent' people - the effects of the suicide bomber comes to mind, AND wars! But it is 'FORCED arranged marriages' that are being talked about here, you may have a more particular knowledge of the subject than some people posting on this thread, but that does not mean surely, that it is unacceptable to address the subject? The last paragraph in your post at 2.31 this morning does seem to suggest that IF there is a problem, and IF it can be proved which you rather suggest may not be the case, then there is legislation already in place to use. You also add that IF it does happen then in many cases if happens when someone has already gone abroad, and therefore by implication it is none of our business - in the UK. BUT the family, probably will end up shortly, BACK HERE, and therefore the results may well be the business of the officers of law in the UK!

Undoubtedly, in the past 150yrs ago and more arranged marriages used to exist in this country - as you refer to, and occasionally strong 'persuasion', if not actually force would have been used to achieve the marriage. But not for the last 1000yrs IF ever has it been considered in ANY way acceptable for a father, brothers and cousins to group together, like thugs, and brutally wipe out their own daughter/sister/cousin, because, having had some education, she doesn't want to be treated like a commodity!

Some legislation does already exist, although probably not specific, but it seems that what is needed much more, is EDUCATION of the older generation, especially if they have come not so long ago, from remote villages in Asian countries to live here.

[steve]

So do you support Damian Greens proposals or not TomTom?

[TomTom]

So do you support Damian Greens proposals or not TomTom?

Since I knew Damian at University I know he means well. I simply believe this should not be party political but should come from a House of Commons Select Committee or a Committee of both Houses - I simply do not wish this used as a political issue when MPs in all parties wish to take action on this

[Martin Wright]

As the discussion has widened from the specific issue of forced marriage to the wider issue of arranged marriage, I've dug up this interesting commentary from Matthew Parris. Although it's a couple of years old, it is still relevant. I find it particularly interesting because of Parris's generally liberal conservative credentials.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article484063.ece?token=null&offset=12

[steve]

But it is party political.Labour are doing nothing. I take it you do support Damien Greens ideas then TomTom?

[TomTom]

But it is party political.Labour are doing nothing. I take it you do support Damien Greens ideas then TomTom?

Posted by: steve | August 13, 2007 at 17:44

EPolitix

In February 1999 I raised the question of forced marriage in the House of Commons. At that time I remember all too well the criticism that was levelled at me. I was told by many, men in particular, that forced marriages did not exist, that they were a figment of my imagination or an excuse to simply "demonise" the Asian community.

Since then things have moved on significantly. The Government established the Working Group on Forced Marriages, the Community Liaison Unit within the Foreign Office was spawned, there is a greater awareness of the existence of forced marriage and a recognition that they are a crime against humanity.

Iranian

Keighley MP Ann Cryer is putting down an early day motion in the House of Commons calling for the Government to take action against a practice which she said could involve abduction, kidnap, false imprisonment, rape and assault of those being forced to marry.

She says Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights is being breached daily and the Government must legislate to "...deter those contemplating the procurement of this unIslamic and inhuman act." ....."West Yorkshire Police, MPs and the Forced Marriage Unit attached to the Home Office are doing good work but more needs to be done. It is about stopping it before it begins."

Between October 2005 and September 2006, 211 cases of women being forced to marry or about to be made to marry were reported to West Yorkshire Police, with 177 from the Bradford district. Bradford North Labour MP Terry Rooney, who is signing the motion, fears many more incidents go unreported......The Home Office shelved plans to make forced marriage a criminal offence in June but insisted it "remained a possibility" for the future but only if it were in the best interest of victims.

Other MPs to have signed the motion include Shipley MP Philip Davies, Calder Valley MP Chris McCafferty, Cardiff North MP Julie Morgan, Bury North MP David Chaytor and Halifax MP Linda Riordan .

http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/uproot.htm

Forced

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/43906.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1999108,00.html

One Labour peer, Lady Uddin, a Bangladeshi Muslim by background, is expected to speak today against the measure which Lord Lester describes as "tackling a serious social evil - the forcing of children and young adults to marry against their will, often enduring violence, slavery or facing murder". In the Commons, one concerned MP, Keighley's Ann Cryer, supports the bill as a useful way to tackle a real problem for young South Asian women in the Bradford-Keighley area. She had been hoping that the government would create a specific criminal offence - forced marriage - as it once seemed likely to. The best Ann Cryer now expects from Lords ministers such as Patricia Scotland and Kathy Ashton is their personal support for the halfway house: the right to take civil action.......

Ann Cryer, who has long campaigned to make forced marriage a specific criminal offence, said she welcomed the Forced Marriages Civil Protection Bill.

The private members bill has been introduced in the House of Lords. It aims to provide protection for the victims of forced marriage by means of civil remedies in the family courts.

Lords

Ann Cryer (Keighley, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted at last to find myself in the House discussing the implementation of legislation to counter forced marriages. How times have changed since February 1999, when I, with the support of the then Member for Halifax, Alice Mahon, first raised the issue in an Adjournment debate.

At that time, the self-appointed leaders of communities met my comments with hostility and denial. Eight years on, it is extremely gratifying to see cross-party support to challenge what is a brutal crime against humanity based on a mediaeval, patriarchal culture that should have no place in our society. However, my delight must be tempered by a note of caution. This Bill, which has been much welcomed, cannot be the end of the matter, and there is a great deal more to do. Over the past three years, I have argued the case for a new specific criminal offence of forcing or conspiring to force someone into marriage. The main thrust of the argument in opposition to my view is that adequate criminal legislation is already in place.

My daughter happens to work for the Crown Prosecution Service, and she kindly obtained a coffee mat—I must point out that it is not a beer mat—produced by the CPS that is headed "Forced marriage". It states:

"If you are forcing someone into marriage, some of the offences you could be prosecuted for are: Kidnap, Threats to kill, Rape, False imprisonment, Blackmail, Child Abduction, Harassment".

That is quite a list. However, despite the fact that the forced marriage unit, West Yorkshire police, my office and others have all seen an increasing number of cases, there has not been, as far as I am aware, a single prosecution by the CPS under current criminal legislation against such criminal activity being used to enforce marriage. It is therefore imperative that this Bill does not suffer the same fate by going unused and that it is not seen as a soft option. Its success in addressing the matter will depend on political will and ensuring that it is widely known, understood and used.

We now have guidelines for the police, social workers, schools and health professionals to stop forced marriages. As useful and necessary as those guidelines are, I remain to be convinced that they have managed to filter through to the front line. Indeed, recently officers from one constabulary told me that the guidelines were filed somewhere in the chief constable's office. Unless the guidelines are publicised among the professionals who encounter forced marriages and training is offered, then the well-being or even the life of a young girl could be in jeopardy.

I am pleased that the Minister has suggested that all such guidelines will be updated to include information regarding the possible actions that this Bill will enable. The Bill must not simply be filed in a desk somewhere. It must be supported by a programme of publicity and education that reaches every school, mosque and community centre in the country. The same drip feed of information that is proving so successful in tackling the wider issue of domestic violence needs to be adopted for forced marriages.

I have some sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in Committee and tonight regarding the introduction of a pre-marriage register. That would not only add another tier of protection from a forced marriage, but, as we discussed in Committee, give greater protection to disabled people, who might not be wholly aware of the marriage.

Although I am delighted that we are debating the Bill, there is more that can and should be done. Young girls are still disappearing from schools at the age of 14 or 15, their education interrupted or ended, returned to the country of their parents, married, and returned here only when they are able to support an application for the husband to come to the UK. We cannot allow young women to be used as a vehicle to get round immigration rules in order to assist economic migration. We cannot allow the lives of young people to be disrupted, and in some cases destroyed, for the sake of satisfying mediaeval cultural practices. To be denied the right to an education in such circumstances is discriminatory and unacceptable.

An increase in the age limit from the current 18 for migration to the UK must be introduced for applicants and sponsors. I have asked for it to be increased to 21. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) argued for 23 or 24, in line with the Danish regulations. Whatever the age, it must be sufficient to allow young people to go to school, and plan to go to university if they so choose, without the fear of being used, instead, as a tool to strengthen a biraderi or as a vehicle for economic migration to improve the economic well-being of families thousands of miles away. It is better by far that that should be achieved from general taxation through the Department for International Development. Denmark's Integration Minister recently argued that the Danish immigration policy

"works exactly as it is intended. We've gotten a handle on immigration and broken the pattern where generations of young people primarily found their spouses abroad."

Zubair Butt Hussain, spokesman for the Danish organisation Muslims in Dialogue, argued:

"There is a completely different tendency now amongst younger groups of immigrants and their children to instead look for a partner here in Denmark or Europe."

The time has come to abolish the whole concept of indefinite leave to remain after being in the UK for two years. Migrants should, upon arrival, aspire to and work towards citizenship. Only British citizens should be allowed to act as a sponsor for the purposes of immigration through marriage. That would not only address the incidence of forced marriage but increase the move towards greater integration and cohesion.

Decisions and legislation designed to curb the excesses of a culture that are based on a lack of understanding of that culture are unlikely to succeed. Had the Americans bothered to attempt to understand the Vietnamese, they would have realised that theirs was a war they could never have won and should never have fought—similarly with Iraq. Likewise, to challenge criminal, inhumane practices from a position of weakness—that is, a lack of understanding as to why it occurs in the first place—will, history suggests, lead to failure.

The Danes and the Dutch are getting there. The Bill, based as it is on our principles of tolerance and accommodation, may satisfy our understanding of the problem, but does it reflect any understanding of the perpetrators of the crime and their behaviour? I therefore have to say to the families concerned that if this measure, together with changes in immigration regulations, does not stop the enforcement of marriage, I, for one, will seek the introduction of a specific criminal offence, because we simply cannot go on like this—our British-born young Asian women deserve better.

YOur comment Steve But it is party political.Labour are doing nothing. is untrue and an attempt to score party political points

[Yet Another Anon]

You also add that IF it does happen then in many cases if happens when someone has already gone abroad, and therefore by implication it is none of our business - in the UK.
I didn't say if it does happen, Forced Marriages do happen, but if someone gets married in another country then the marriage will remain legal in that other country so long as that other country decides it is, there isn't much the UK can do about that.

What happens if someone leaves the UK and then gets married abroad and they haven't told the authorities they were planning to get married? Supposing they deny that there was a plan to get married? A lot of people from ethnic groups in which there are not Arranged Marriages or Forced Marriages are going to ignore this law thinking it only applies to people from minority ethnic groups where Arranged Marriages or Forced Marriages are commonplace, and then when they get back in the UK end up falling foul of it and people from groups where Arranged Marriages are common who simply fall for someone when abroad are going to be resentful at what they will see as a law based on stereotypes of certain groups.

Under the law, if it can be shown that consent to marriage was not freely given then the marriage can be ruled invalid anyway.

It isn't a matter of not debating it, but rather whether having a law on it will achieve anything; rather than tightening up already existing laws and toughening penalties on them, and indeed having dedicated agencies on particular subjects such as Forced Marriage for example who can work across government departments and with police and courts overseas.

However, despite the fact that the forced marriage unit, West Yorkshire police, my office and others have all seen an increasing number of cases, there has not been, as far as I am aware, a single prosecution by the CPS under current criminal legislation against such criminal activity being used to enforce marriage.
Unfortunately a Law of Forced Marriage will almost certainly simply replicate any existing failures because it will just refer all over again to the same things; the police need more resources, new powers to enforce existing law and far harsher penalties more rigourously imposed and regularily imposed on those breaking such laws.

[TomTom]

So simply make any marriage transacted in any country where the posting has not taken place at a British Register Office (many countries require Certificate of Eligibility to Marry obtained from a UK Register Office translated and certified by the Foreign Office prior to a marriage being transacted abroad) invalid for Visa entry purposes.

Thus the British-born applicant must post banns in a UK Register Office for 14 days seeking objections - and if that is not done the marriage will not be recognised by UK authorities.

[TomTom]

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/marriage_os.html

Certificates of No Impediment to Marriage

Certificates of No Impediment to Marriage are issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade through overseas missions and state and territory offices to Australian citizens seeking to marry overseas. Certificates of No Impediment to Marriage are not a requirement of Australian law. They are issued purely at the request of overseas countries seeking to ensure that a marriage involving one or two Australian citizens, celebrated in that overseas country, will also be recognised as a valid marriage by Australian authorities.

Getting married abroad

If you have any general enquiries about marrying abroad, you should contact the Embassy or High Commission of the country concerned.

It is possible you will be asked to obtain a certificate of no impediment. This is a document required by some foreign authorities to enable a non-national to marry in their country and, under certain circumstances, can be provided by your local register office. If you are asked to provide one, you should contact your local register office.

UK
If you have been asked to provide an Apostille (which is simply formal confirmation that a signature, seal or stamp appearing on a document is genuine) see legalising certificates for overseas purposes or contact the Foreign & Commonwealth Office on 020 7008 1111.

The Japanese government requires foreigners who wish to marry in Japan to obtain a Certificate of Competency to Marry (Konin Yoken Gubi Shomeisho 婚姻要件具備証明書) from your Embassy or Consulate, affirming they are legally free to marry in their country. Just getting it will not make you married in Japan. The certificate only enables you to get married in Japan at a city or ward office.

[steve]

Exactly TomTom. You make my point well. Neither Anne Cryer nor Baroness Uddin are ministers.All they can do is talk. As a well educated person I'm sure you are aware early day motions are not worth the paper they are written on.As a government I'm sure you will agree that LABOUR ARE DOING NOTHING.Don't you? Damian Greens proposals are well worth supporting as I'm sure you'd agree.

[Patsy Sergeant]

The government 'pussy-foots' around this whole subject, having made a fanfare of introducing a measure/law, it dropped it very shortly afterwards, seemingly terrified of offending the sensibilities of some presumably labour voters of theirs - male of course! And the CPS is hardly the most efficient of legal agencies.

[TomTom]

Damian Green has never been a Minister and is never likely to be. His proposals are window-dressing. Even if Conservatives formed a government they would not legislate after receiving representations from "the community leaders".

Uddin is simply a social worker put in the HoL to represent Bangladeshi interests and she has never risen above this limited role.

I am pleased for you Steve that you find solace in Damian's proposals but I take them with a pinch of salt. The everyday reality around here is that 50% of all Muslim marriages are to imported spouses and the birth rate is very high as are birth defects due to in-breeding; but within a generation these will be the most important voters as the schools move from being 45% white to ever lower proportions.

Get a girl from The Subcontinent and keep her away from the Western culture and she can have 4 children before she is 23 and the welfare state will carry her until she is exchanged for another

[steve]

So you don't support Damian Greens proposals then TomTom? I must say I find you a very difficult man to follow.Does that mean you support Labours do nothing approach? Do you support anything at all?

[ToMTom]

Actually Steve, I do not have your puppy-like devotion to anything that is blown out like chaff to distract attention.

You don't need this hot air from Green.

All you need is for ANYONE marrying overseas to REQUIRE a Certificate of Competence to Marry be issued from a UK Register Office.

Without that Certificate NO marriage to be recognised by the UK Government - it would simply bring us into line with other EU countries like Germany.

The Certificate would make it impossible for any foreign spouse to enter the UK unless his/her details had been posted in a UK Registry Office for 14 Days asking for Objectors to show themselves.

The system is already in place for those foreign governments that demand such a Certificate - Britain simply makes it mandatory as it does domestically

[Viz]

I haven't said Labour are dealing with this issue. All what I am saying is that The Tories are NOT that good at camouflage.

We know you

And you won't win the next election :)

[steve]

So you don't support Damian Greens proposals,you don't support Labours do nothing proposals.You don't support anything. Why didn't you say that in the first place?
Looking at some of the other threads this seems to be a common theme with you.Why don't you just go on each thread and say something along the lines of 'My name's TomTom and I like taking the piss!'

[ToMTom]

You intemperate twerp Steve READ THE ITEM POSTED AT 09:02

It explains simply how to solve the issue without Damian Green.

You must be educationally subnormal - you make no attempt to discuss merely slaver over some half-baked proposal without engaging brain.

You may be stupid - that might be nature's joke on you - but to over-complicate a very simple matter is the hallmark of the clouded thinking of people who have no idea.

Maybe you should start thinking Steve instead of soliciting applause for flannel from Damian Green. The issue could be resolved tomorrow and I would not have to spend my time in Tesco surrounded by women wearing the niqab and speaking no English.....but it is always better to fly a few kites and get publicity than solve the problem.

Most of the problems we face today were caused by politicians. They solve nothing but simply create more chaos.

[steve]

My name is TomTom and I like taking the piss