Forced marriages and age

Two more things on this topic. One, I’ve belatedly discovered that UKBA released a draft version of the research report covered previously on this blog. The final version is in fact a more polished piece of work. One can only assume that UKBA deliberately released the less polished version in order to undermine it somehow.

Secondly, an interesting article has been published in the journal Feminist Legal Studies on age as a risk factor in forced marriages. I’m not normally an avid reader of this journal, I admit, but the article is well worth reading if you are interested in the subject. The authors are two of the researchers commissioned by the Home Office for the suppressed report. It’s an academic piece but here are just some of the interesting ideas raised:

1. Forced marriage should be seen as a species of domestic violence. Age would never usually be said to be a risk factor in other types of domestic violence cases as it is accepted that women of all ages can be victims. Why is this reasoning not applied to forced marriage cases, where there is evidence to suggest that applies equally?

2. The increase in the spouse visa age is based on the ‘common sense’ presumption that with age comes ‘maturity’ and independence. However, maturity is a cultural concept. For example, in many Asian families moving away from parents is not considered to be a sign of maturity but of something dysfunctional.

3. One perceived benefit of the visa age increase was allowing young people to complete their education. This ignores several considerations, including that marriage and education are not mutually exclusive, lots of people do not pursue higher education but will still not be able to live with their spouses in the UK.

4. The change has a disproportionate effect on minority communities and reinforces racist stereotypes. In short, it is discriminatory.

These are just a few points I’ve taken away from the article, though. As I said, I’d recommend reading it yourself.

Filed under: Spouse visa age

Spouse visa age… again

Back to this old chestnut. I’ve been doing a bit more work on the subject and thought I’d share a minor revelation I had while writing an article for one of the immigration law journals. I’ve also learned that there is a judicial review application on this to be heard on 30 October 2009, although having spoken to the barrister instructed he’s not currently planing to challenge the rule itself, just the treatment of the individual client.

As to the minor revelation, I’m ashamed not to have picked up on this before. It is hardly rocket science. The statistics used by the Home Office in the announcement that the spouse and partner visa age would be increased showed that there were more reported forced marriages at certain ages. UKBA then used this information to argue that because there were more forced marriages at these ages, raising the visa age beyond this age bracket would help prevent forced marriages. Simple.

The problems are really, really fundamental ones. First of all, the sample size is tiny in comparison to the total number of marriages that take place at the ages affected. This is one of the justifications used by UKBA for not publishing the research report on forced marriages they commissioned, incidentally. Secondly, I suspect there are more marriages at these ages in the communities believed to be most affected by forced marriage. One would therefore expect there to be more forced marriages as well. If anyone has any ideas on how to find out how many marriages there are at different ages in, for example, the British Asian community, I’d be very interested to hear. There is therefore nothing at all to show that proportionately there are more forced marriages before the age of 21 (and in the research commissioned by the Home Office almost everyone said age is not a factor in determining risk of forced marriage). Thirdly, there is also nothing at all to show that forced marriages are more likely to be a problem if the marriage is to a foreign national – i.e. changing the visa age does nothing to tackle domestic forced marriages.

So, what UKBA are really trying to achieve is a reduction in the number of marriages to foreign nationals, in the alleged hope that this will reduce the number of forced marriages. Yet there is nothing to suggest that the age bracket affected by the change is particularly at risk of forced marriage and there is nothing to suggest that forced marriages are more of a problem in foreign marriages.

Are ministers and civil servants so daft that they think the statistical ‘evidence’ they relied on is strong? Or is this cynical and discriminatory pandering to the anti-immigration lobby? Take your pick, using my statistically sound sampling technique:

I’ll be returning to the theme of dodgy ’science’ in my next post, on the ominously entitled ‘Human Provenance Project’.

Filed under: Spouse visa age

Forced marriage research rejected

I’ve created a new category on the visa age to keep track of the different posts I’ve written on this subject over the last couple of years.

The Home Office have provided further reasons for rejecting the research that found that increasing the spouse visa age would be harmful to victims of forced marriage. In fairness, I feel I ought to post them up. The reasons looks very weak to me, but you can judge for yourself.

The reasons certainly do not deal with the fact that all of the acknowledged experts and the actual survivors of forced marriage interviewed by the research team thought there were substantial risks in increasing the visa age. For example, it is said that:

Participants from some groups might perceive the study as instrumental in further restricting immigration and in potentially interfering with cultural practices around arranged marriages.

I can’t see how this applies to Bradford police, IND Croydon and Sheffield or the Forced Marriage Unit. Criticising the study for ‘only’ taking place in three study areas (Birmingham, Manchester and Tower Hamlets) is ridiculous, as is the alleged ’sample bias’ to South Asian populations. It is widely thought that forced marriage is a particular problem in that community, but the researchers were very careful to look at the issue of forced marriage in other communities. See section 4 of the report on methodology:

In addition, so that information regarding the practice and perceptions of forced marriage from a wider range of communities might be obtained, 15 focus groups were carried out with 97 individuals (82 women and 15 men) from South Asian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, African, Irish and lesbian friendly communities, and including a range of religious communities: Hindu, Christian, Sikh and Muslim, with a minority of respondents identifying themselves as atheists or non believers. Ages ranged from 15 to 60 and participants were also from different social classes. Where respondents were not British, they had a variety of immigration statuses, including indefinite leave to remain, refugee, work permit, dependent visa and student visa.

The Home Office reasons are woefully unconvincing, as was the pathetic so-called statistical ‘research’ that was relied on to justify the measure. It genuinely disgusts me that ministers are willing to dress up deliberate immigration reduction measures as serving to protect victims of forced marriages when in fact good research and the government’s own experts show that the opposite is true.

Filed under: Spouse visa age

Forced Marriage Unit warned Home Office of risks in increasing spouse visa age

Courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act, I can exclusively report (I’ve never written that before!) that the Home Office has finally released the full research report it commissioned into the issue of forced marriages and the spouse visa age. I have previously posted on the research summary that had already been published.

The research was carried out between March 2006 and February 2007 in three locations – Birmingham, Manchester and Tower Hamlets. It set out to examine four main issues:

1. The impact/outcome of the recent increase the age of sponsorship/entry from 16 to 18 years;
2. The benefits and risks of increasing the age of sponsorship or entry to 18, 21 and 24;
3. The range of communities in which forced marriage happens; and
4. The factors which were perceived to increase or decrease the risk of forced marriages.

As can be seen from the issues, the research was commissioned to look into the effect on the existing increase in the spouse visa age and to look at the possible effects of future increases. The research strongly suggested that a further increase would be harmful to victims or potential victims of forced marriage (sections 10, 13.1). It also concluded that the no recourse to public funds policy is very harmful to victims of forced marriage (section 7.3.2).

So, what has the Home Office done? It has gone ahead and increased the visa age and maintained the no recourse to public funds policy, all in the name of helping to prevent forced marriages. The report was not published by the Home Office because, I quote “the report (rather than how the research was conducted) is not of sufficient quality to be published in the Home Office research series. The report contains unsubstantiated findings and what appear to be potentially misleading statements. It is also difficult to establish how individuals or groups/organisations have responded to certain questions.” So says Kate Hitchcock, Head of Managed Migration Research.

Having read the report, I find it is very difficult to understand this criticism. Section 10, on the visa age, looks scrupulously fair. None of the three survey groups (stakeholder groups, including Bradford police and the Forced Marriage Unit, forced marriage survivors and community focus groups) thought that increasing the visa age would be helpful to victims or potential victims and all thought it would be harmful. The most serious identified risk was that young people would be taken outside the UK until they had reached the new visa age, thereby completely removing them from any realistic possibility of access to help or support. Both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s own Forced Marriage Unit and the Home Office’s Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Sheffield considered that there were ’some benefits’ to increasing the visa age to 21 but there were ’substantial risks’ (page 62). IND Croydon thought there were no benefits at all to such an increase. These are the government’s own front-line workers and experts and they have been ignored.

Their opinions might be said to be ‘unsubstantiated’ but I can’t think of better qualified people than these three survey groups to offer an informed opinion. And I trust their judgment somewhat more than that of still Immigration Minister Phil Woolas.

Many of those surveyed also expressed the opinion that an increase in the spouse visa age would target certain communities to reduce immigration selectively. Given that in raising the spouse visa age the Home Office has gone against the only research that was available on the subject and has quietly dropped the other measures it was announced in July 2008 it would implement to prevent forced marriages, these fears were well founded. The measure is clearly a discriminatory one, in reality aimed at reducing immigration from certain communities but disguised as a way to reduce forced marriages.

Filed under: Policy, Spouse visa age

Forced marriages and the new visa age

The Home Office recently increased the minimum age for both spouses to 21 if a foreign spouse is to enter the UK on a spouse visa. The same requirements apply to unmarried, same sex and civil partners.

As discussed previously on this blog, the justification given by the Home Office was that the change will help prevent forced marriages. Some very thin statistical evidence is cited for this claim, and the Home Office very lightly dismissed the concern that increasing the visa age would not stop foreign spouses coming in, it would force young settled men and women to move abroad instead, to be with their foreign spouses.

It turns out that the Home Office commissioned a respected team of specialist researchers to look into the question of whether raising the spouse visa age to 21 or 24 would help prevent forced marriages. The researchers did what sounds like some excellent work on the subject and found that forced marriage survivors and everyone else thought that the risks outweighed the benefits, Nand that there was no evidence at all to suggest that the previous rise in the visa age from 16 to 18 had done anything to prevent forced marriages. A summary of the findings is available [29/5/09: I've had to upload a saved version as the University of Bristol one vanished]. The risks were, amongst other things

“Increased risk of physical and psychological harm to victims and potential victims of forced marriage, which included young British women being taken abroad to marry and kept there forcibly until they were old enough to sponsor their spouses; entering the UK with false documentation; and implications for mental health, particularly attempted suicide and self-harm. The concern was that an increase in age could also prevent victims from accessing some potential sources of support, such as those provided via child protection legislation and education-based counselling support.”

It was also suggested the change would have a discriminatory effect and would adversely affect the human rights of those who entered into marriage by consent (the vast, vast majority).

These outcomes are the opposite of what the Home Office says that it hopes to achieve. Does the Home Office have access to some research results that suggest the above is all wrong? I think not. In truth, what has happened is that the Home Office commissioned the research, disagreed with the evidence and despite the risks to young people in this country and abroad have decided to go ahead with it anyway.

Oh, and the Home Office have decided not to publish the research in full. Evidence based policy making this most certainly is not.

Increased risk of physical and psychological harm to victims and potential victims

of forced marriage, which included young British women being taken abroad to

marry and kept there forcibly until they were old enough to sponsor their spouses;

entering the UK with false documentation; and implications for mental health,

particularly attempted suicide and self-harm. The concern was that an increase in

age could also prevent victims from accessing some potential sources of support,

such as those provided via child protection legislation and education-based

counselling su

Filed under: Immigration rules, Policy, Spouse visa age

Spouse and partner visa concession

UKBA have announced a limited concession to the rise in the visa age to 21 for spouses and partners. The concession is simply that the rule will not be applied to spouses and partners seeking entry to accompany or join immigrants in the temporary visa categories, such as students or Points Based Scheme migrants. The rise will continue apply to spouses and partners accompanying or joining persons present and settled in the UK.

This is rather odd, to put it mildly. It looks a lot like the reverse discrimination commenters on this blog have legitimately raised with regards to Metock and EEA citizens, where British citizens have far less extensive rights to be joined or accompanied by family members. Temporary migrants can be joined by spouses and partners under 21; British citizens and those with ILR cannot.

And how does this concession fit with the stated aim of reducing forced marriages? No explanation is given as to how this is consistent with the supposed aim, nor can I imagine reasons justifying how it fits with it at all. In my opinion, the concession further highlights the real aim of this discriminatory measure: preventing British Asians and minorities from marrying abroad.

The concession will be more grist for the legal mill when challenges against refusals start to come through. I reiterate my earlier opinion: anyone refused on the basis of being between the ages of 18 and 21 who can show they are not party to a forced marriage (which is pretty easy to do!) has a very strong case based on human rights and discrimination law.

Forced marriages are appalling and a very serious issue, but this is not the way to deal with the problem. It is disproportionate and disingenuous.

Filed under: Immigration rules, Spouse visa age

Minimum age for marriage visas to rise to 21

Only yesterday I was telling someone there is no timescale for the Home Office to introduce this controversial measure, but today it has been announced it will take effect from 27 November 2008.

The history is that a consultation was put out in 2007 about raising the minimum age of a sponsor for a marriage visa from 18 to 21 amongst other measures. The Home Office then put out their own response to the various consultation responses received, saying that they would go ahead with raising the minimum age but not giving any idea as to date. I wrote a post about it at the time.

Well, the date has been announced now, and not only that but both parties to the marriage have to be 21 before a visa will be issued.

This is purportedly to protect young people from exploitation and specifically to combat forced marriages. No explanation is given of how this measure achieves this aim, though, and in reality it looks a lot like an attempt to reduce the number of young British Asian men and women bringing in spouses from Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. It is only a few years since the minimum age of the UK-based sponsor was 16, the same age as for consent to marriage. It is really hard to see the justification for raising it beyond 18. The effect may prove to be that a young person getting married to someone from the Indian sub-continent will now have to go and live there for a few years first, before their spouse is eligible for a visa.

Filed under: Immigration rules, Spouse visa age

Forced marriage cases

Yesterday the Foreign and Commonwealth Office launched a new forced marriage survivor’s handbook. A specific team, the Forced Marriage Unit, was set up two years ago to deal with this issue and is reported to be dealing with 250 cases a year.

Obviously, these cases are extremely traumatic for the victims and their families. They are also challenging for lawyers and advisers, and it can be difficult to imagine what steps might be taken to resolve what looks like an impenetrable, intractable situation.

Usually the balls starts to roll when a relative or boyfriend tips off the Forced Marriage Unit. They will do a preliminary investigation to try and establish whether it looks like a genuine forced marriage situation. The unit will then contact one of the solicitors firms they know and trust. These solicitors then swoop in from nowhere with a legal aid certificate to make a wardship application. The application includes evidence in support, consisting mainly of a statement by the solicitor describing the known or suspected facts so far. The solicitor has no instructions as such other than from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is not a party to any proceedings, and at this stage the victim knows nothing of the fact that they are being represented. In some cases, the ‘victim’ is pretty annoyed when they do get dragged back to the UK and I’ve seen someone instruct their own representative on return to the UK to get the wardship discharged.

The solicitor instructs a barrister to head off to the High Court Family Division at the Royal Courts of Justice and make the application before that week’s duty applications judge. The application is made ex parte – it will just be the barrister, the solicitor, the court staff and the judge who are present, no one else is allowed in.

Wardship is an ancient legal device that has been dated to pre-Norman times. Previously concerned mainly with the control and disposal of the property of a bereaved minor, it evolved in the nineteenth century to make the interests of the child the paramount concern of the court. Until the Children Act 1989 came into force, it was widely used in child care proceedings. Today it is mainly used in non-Hague Convention country child abduction and forced marriage cases.

In theory, a high court judge assumes the responsibilities of a parent, although in practise day to day care and control is delegated to someone else. However, the court must give its consent before any major decisions are taken about the child’s upbringing, particularly removal from the jurisdiction or marriage.

Assuming the judge does ward the child concerned, a number of court orders are made, essentially the same as the orders made in a child abduction case. These include a location order, which authorises the court’s enforcement officers, known by the archaic title of the Tipstaff, to locate the ward and when possible take any relevant passports into their control. This is often delegated to the police in reality, or in forced marriage cases the Forced Marriage Unit liaise with the relevant embassy or High Commission and try to perform this function. In order to actually find the child a number of disclosure orders are often made, requiring various government departments and utility companies to disclose information that might assist in locating the ward. A ‘port stop’ is also issued, which alerts the immigration authorities and hopefully prevents the child being removed from the UK and also alerts the Tipstaff if the child enters the UK.

It is only possible to ward a minor (and arguably an unmarried minor), but several High Court judges have proven willing to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make similar protective orders in cases involving adults, even though there are no mental capacity issues. Mr Justice Munby has led the way in this respect, but a sympathetic hearing can also be expected from Mr Justice Ryder and some others.

If the child can be found, the co-operation of relatives or the local authorities in the country concerned is needed. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot simply abduct the child. In one case the FCO conducted a visit but reported that the relatives, living in the Frontier Provinces of Pakistan, were basically armed to the teeth. Not against the FCO specifically, just because everyone carries a Kalashnikov there.

If the child can be returned to the UK, a company called Travelcare is often used to meet and greet him or her at the airport. A hearing will quickly be arranged with the judge, who usually wants to see his or her ward, and will actually refer to the child as ‘my ward’. An appropriate social services department – usually that for the last address of the child in the UK – needs to be identified very quickly so that proper arrangements can be made for his or her interim care.

The case then either starts to morph into care proceedings and perhaps a public law case where the social services department takes the lead or some sort of reconciliation will be effected, where everyone decides the whole thing was a big mistake and the marriage was actually just a betrothal ceremony.

What happens in the longer term? I don’t know, I’m afraid, it’s not a legal problem.

Filed under: News, Policy, Spouse visa age

Keeping out Johnny and Jane Foreigner

Until 2002 or thereabouts, the minimum age for the fiance in the UK who was to marry the person from abroad was 16 but the minimum age for the person from abroad was 18. These ages were then equalised at 18. It would appear that the age for both is soon to rise to 21. The Home Office report and press release include some patronising waffle about allowing adults to establish an independent life and take advantage of higher education opportunities. There is also reference to combatting forced marriages.

I’d suggest these are very weak smokescreens for the the real justification, which can only be (i) to reduce the numbers entering the UK on marriage visas and (ii) to encourage UK immigrant communities to marry within the UK rather than abroad. As it happens, these are both semi-official Government policies. The forced marriages reference deserves to be taken a little more seriously than the rest, but the Government has recently made time for a much needed Private Members Bill to address this problem and there are plenty of other ways to deal with what is, fortunately, a relatively infrequent problem.

The Government’s immigration policy encourages immigration to the UK. There can be absolutely no doubt about this, and the figures speak for themselves. However, the type of immigrant the Government encourages is important. As Don Flynn has observed, the modernisers in the Labour Party see immigration as an economic tool to modernise the economy with highly skilled workers and maintain a low inflation economy. Economic migrants entering the UK on different forms of high skilled work permits contribute towards this policy and their number has increased dramatically since 1997. Similarly, relatively low skilled workers from the expanded EU also contribute to this policy, and the UK was almost the only country to grant access to the employed workforce on the accession of the new EU countries in 2004.

In contrast to these ‘useful’ immigrants, those entering on a marriage visa are perhaps considered by the Government to add only to social unrest and ghettoisation. Anne Cryer MP has certainly been banging on about this issue in these sorts of terms for some time (see section 5 of a submission she made to the Home Affairs Select Committee last year) and David Blunkett used to give these views a lot of credence in his day. John Denham MP and others have picked up his fallen mantle.

The same Home Office report also proposes that those from abroad visiting family in the UK will bring down upon the heads of their UK families a £1000 fine if they, to put it in colloquial terms, do a runner. This measure would also fit with the above analysis: encourage economically beneficial migration, discourage or prevent family-based immigration.

Why do I use the words migration and immigration slightly differently? Immigration has a permanent ring to it, at least to my ears. An immigrant may stay for the long term and acquire rights and responsibilities in the host community. A migrant is temporary in nature and can be disposed of once used.

Filed under: Comment, News, Spouse visa age