§ Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley)I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, not only for his presence this afternoon but for his continuing and active interest in this subject.
I sought the debate to discuss the report of the Home Office working group on forced marriage, "A Choice by Right". My intention was not to give the Minister a load of moans about the Home Office but to stress the cruelty of forced marriages, whether the enforcement is carried out or avoided. My message is to parents and community leaders—secular, political and religious. I also want to put it on record that neither the Government nor I are opposed to arranged marriages. I am well aware of the many problems arising from our own less organised, less well-thought-out practices.
Arranged marriages, as explained to me by people of Asian and North African descent, are an excellent way to achieve the most important agreement into which people enter. The basic ingredient is one of valid and voluntary consent—their choice by right—with an absolute right to refuse, whether because the suggested partner or the timing is wrong for them. Many suggestions that might help greatly in achieving consent have been made, including that families should alter radically their views on where their future son or daughter-in-law should come from. They should question the received wisdom that their children should be perfectly happy marrying a first cousin from a tiny village in a rural area. Such a person may have no English, and, frequently, little education, with not much chance of getting a job in the UK. That combination leads to sons and daughters refusing to go along with parental demands, leading to the young person being forced into an unsuitable marriage or losing their family, either of which is a tragedy for the young person. The family, however, may feel that their honour has been protected, that there is no other way to deal with such a bad girl or boy, and that they are justified in their actions.
The community must discuss what is family honour and family shame, and examine the outcome of their actions, not only for the child but for the fortunes and the image of the community. Were families to seek potential sons and daughters-in-law from their own community in the UK, and preferably not first cousins abroad—I have been prompted to mention that the Bangladeshi community tends not to have a tradition of marrying first cousins—we would see a marked improvement. Children would start school with English and the ability to take on many other demands straight away. The number of children born with genetically transmitted diseases and disabilities would be reduced almost immediately. I have seen far too many parents and families devastated by the constant demands put on them by caring for such children.
According to the Department for Education and Employment publication based on research by Warwick university—"Minority Ethnic Participation and Achievements in Education, Training and the Labour Market"—the Pakistani and Bangladeshi population, time and again, do less well than the Indian population in academic achievements and levels of employment. Table 8.2 shows that, in 1999, 49 per cent. of the Indian
111WH population who were economically active qualified to at least NVQ level 3, whereas the figure for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis was 37 per cent. As many of my constituents are from the latter communities, I am deeply concerned by those findings, and want to know the reasons why.
I attended a meeting recently at one of my local schools. I joined the head teacher and the chairwoman of the governors in a discussion with three local imams about why children from the two local Asian communities were underachieving. It is too early to assess whether the kind, well-considered comments of that dedicated head teacher will have a positive effect on the lives of the children. Two of the imams recognised the problems and said that they would do their best to influence their communities, and I hope that the third imam will recognise the need for change eventually. Were families not only to allow but to encourage their children, especially daughters, to stay on at school, go to university, perhaps enter the professions or obtain another kind of job, the academic and economic well-being of their communities would eventually be enormously improved, especially if English were spoken in the home to give children the kick start that is too often lacking at present.
Low self-esteem is often given as the reason for students of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin underachieving. Perhaps more of our schools should challenge accepted attitudes and practices within communities. For example, if the schools do not weigh in on the side of those trying to stop forced marriages, the work of implementing the recommendations of the Home Office working group will be more difficult, lengthier and will produce more heartache for a growing number of young people.
I should like to touch on the two categories of victims created by forced marriages. The most vulnerable are without doubt those young people, but particularly girls, brought in as spouses. Often their only view of the UK is while they are taken from the airport to their in-laws' home. They then, in the worst cases, are expected to be virtual domestic slaves. If they complain, they are sometimes beaten and/or threatened with being sent home. They do not speak any English and do not know their rights. They frequently do not realise that their treatment is against the law and totally unacceptable. They have nowhere to run to and no one to turn to.
In Bradford and Keighley, help is at hand only when their predicament is noticed by an observant doctor, nurse or health visitor, or, if they have children, a teacher. Then the admirable Philip Balmforth comes on to the scene. If the woman so wishes, he will help her and her children to escape to a safe place. Philip is employed jointly by Bradford social services and West Yorkshire police. He is loathed by some, but greatly loved and appreciated by many more.
We could question whether those unfortunate women were forced into marriage. The question is academic. The outcome, whether they were forced or simply not asked, is tragic. If her husband has not obtained her permanent right to remain, the refuge or other secure accommodation to which she is taken may well not receive money as she is not entitled to benefits. One refuge in Bradford, having taken in a number of such 112WH women within a short time, faced financial problems. I should appreciate a comment from my hon. Friend as to how we can deal with that problem.
The other category of victim of forced marriage or threat of it, is better documented because it involves girls and young women—sometimes young men—born in the UK who have a better idea of their rights and where to turn to for help. The Home Office working group report is full of the sad stories told to them by this second category. I will just add my most recent cry for help, which happened yesterday. It is typical of what goes on in West Yorkshire. It is so typical and I know it so well that I could almost set it to music.
A girl telephoned my office yesterday saying that she had been forced into a marriage in Pakistan. She wanted to see my assistants, but was frightened to do so. She asked to be let in at the back door because if she was seen entering by the front door she would probably be beaten by her parents. She explained to us that she had been to Bradford Law Centre to ask for help in getting out of applying as a sponsor to bring her husband in. I must check this out, as I do not have the back-up information. The helper at the law centre advised her not to write to the Islamabad high commission—I know that this does not involve the Department of my hon. Friend the Minister and that I will have to take it up with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—because the officials there would show her husband the letter when interviewing him and the cat would be out of the bag. He and her parents would know that she was opposing his entry.
She had been taken to Pakistan by her parents earlier this summer. Her brother was marrying a cousin in Mirpur and she was going as a guest. When she arrived it was the old, old story: she discovered that the wedding was not just for her brother, but for her. She was to marry a cousin and really did not want to. She argued with her parents, but they insisted. There are always threats of removing passports. Anyhow she was forced into it, and now she is back in Keighley. She is extremely reluctant to apply for his entry.
An application has been made. Her uncle filled in and signed the forms on her behalf. Her family have also obtained information about her work record from a friend who is an employer and he has provided them with bogus pay chits to demonstrate that she is in full-time employment. She is not. I am pleased that she is in full-time education and doing A-levels. I do not want to blow the whole thing by raising it too high, and I will not mention names. If she does not want to have him here, we will do what we can to stop his entry. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, things become difficult when a couple have gone through with the marriage.
The working group report does not support the creation of a new criminal offence for forced marriage. However, it suggests that there have been prosecutions in connection with enforcement to marry, for threatening behaviour, assault, kidnap and murder. What, I wonder, about rape or conspiracy to rape by the family? Such a rape is usually carried out at the time of the forced marriage, and is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of our courts. Action cannot be taken, even when those implicated return to the United Kingdom. French courts, however, now have the remedy of prosecution of parents who procure genital mutilation or female circumcision for their daughters outside of 113WH France. That practice happens frequently in former colonies such as Senegal—it is illegal, but continues. I wonder whether something similar can be done about forced marriages.
The Home Office and Foreign Office have created a joint action plan called "Forced marriage—the overseas dimension", which is full of suggestions to deal with the questions raised by "A Choice by Right". The Foreign and Commonwealth Office consular division is developing the community liaison unit. I have spoken at length to some of the people working in that unit; they are enthusiastic and have a lot of good ideas that will help young people faced with the trauma of forced marriage. Our Government are clearly committed to finding ways of ending the practice of forced marriage, but is that commitment shared by ethnic minority communities? Are their leaders part of the problem or will they become part of the solution? The jury—our young people—are still out, but I look forward to a positive response. I hope that our communities will take up the challenge and work with Government Departments and local authorities to give to all young people the most fundamental of human rights—a say in whom they should marry. That should be a choice by right.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) for raising this important issue in an Adjournment debate. She brought the problem of forced marriage to the House's attention in the debate on the human rights of women held on 10 February last year. That debate was followed by a seminar at the Institute of Public Policy Research which led me to set up the working party chaired by my noble Friends Baroness Uddin and Lord Ahmed last July.
The working party's report, "A choice by right", was published on 29 June. It reflected consultation with a wide range of women's groups and took account of the victims of forced marriage. The report highlighted the problems faced by those victims and the difficulties experienced by women's groups in trying to offer help and advice to them. It recommended ways in which the Government, service providers and the affected communities could work together to tackle the problem. Its recommendations included raising awareness of rights and responsibilities and the protection available by law, and developing a shared understanding of the problems faced daily by those at grass-roots level.
The working group did an excellent job by breaking the taboo on the subject once and for all—a taboo that existed in many ethnic minority communities. They knew that it happened, even if on a relatively small scale, but there was no open discussion about it. Such discussion is now taking place widely. As I said in response to our previous debate on the subject, multicultural sensitivity is no excuse for moral blindness on such issues.
I am pleased that, in response to the work undertaken by the working group, community and religious leaders have strongly condemned the practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley is right to say that community leaders must become part of the solution. I was pleased 114WH by the response of many community leaders to the comments and recommendations in the working party report, although I would have liked more of them to speak up much more forcefully on the issues. I thank community leaders who have taken a strong stand and call on those who have so far maintained silence to speak out. It will, of course, take time to see the impact in communities. Indeed, paradoxically we may see an increase in the number of cases coming to light in the short term—that will be a sign that victims are more ready to report their plight and seek help.
I reassure communities that we do not wish to challenge the tradition of arranged marriage—the point emphasised by my hon. Friend—which has operated successfully within many religious and ethnic communities for a long time, and continues to do so. It is essential to distinguish between forced and arranged marriages: unlike forced marriage, an arranged marriage relies on consent. The distinction is clear. As Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers said when launching our joint action plan on 4 August,
We wish to make it clear that this action plan is about assisting young people whose fundamental rights are at risk; we will not be using this to create more restrictive immigration rules and most certainly will not re-introduce the unfair and discredited Primary Purpose Rule.That refers to an anti-family policy which we condemn.Our action plan sets out a comprehensive strategy on the overseas dimension of forced marriage. It launched a major programme of co-operation and training between key police forces in the UK and their counterparts overseas and set in train a review of how our consular staff overseas handle the victims of forced marriage: people in the UK being forced into a marriage against their will or people coming to the UK to enter a marriage that is not genuine—although they may sometimes know that it is not genuine. In such circumstances, consular officials must be alive to the relevant concerns and ensure that they address them appropriately and sensitively.
We therefore want a joined-up approach, in which the Government, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office dealing with entry clearance, the Home Office dealing with law and order issues, voluntary groups and communities work together to ensure that we protect the victims. We envisage a partnership between the Government, women's groups, the police and others. We have said that we will shortly report on our progress. I have made plans to meet officials at the end of next week to review progress and I hope soon afterwards to state when we will issue a report.
I am pleased that good progress, on a widespread basis, has already been made on the joint action plan. For example, in October the Foreign and Commonwealth Office set up a dedicated community relations desk to deal with forced marriage, combining both casework and policy. Work has started on producing credit-card-sized information cards which young women can carry discreetly when they go abroad. We aim to provide a number on those cards so that women who think that they are just going on a holiday will be able to contact that number quickly if anything adverse happens. I hope that we shall receive the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies in the relevant country and that consular staff will do what 115WH they can to address these people's needs. All too often, it is young, vulnerable people—sometimes men, but more typically women—who are forced into these difficult circumstances.
Consular staff are being consulted about a draft memorandum of understanding for co-operation with other countries on tackling forced marriage problems. We are engaging with Governments of other countries and receiving, at least at senior level, a positive response and a willingness to address the issues. The co-operation that we receive from Governments and senior police and other enforcement agencies should also be delivered at a local level. We well know that the Governments of some countries may be helpful to British citizens who are caught in these difficult circumstances, but the police chief at the local level may be less helpful.
We are publishing revised guidance on dual nationality and a strategy is also in place for treating cases with a human rights dimension where forced marriage is in dispute. We want to ensure that it can be tested. We are actively engaged in pursuing these difficult, complex and important issues with other Governments and we want to develop a careful analysis on how best to deal with them within our law.
A conference has been arranged for January in Bradford to help UK police forces to establish closer links with police forces abroad in order to tackle forced marriages and other problems. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has made it clear that victims of forced marriage and domestic violence will be covered by the proposed extension of the priority unintentionally homeless groups for rehousing. Twenty of the 75 projects funded by the new Home Office connecting communities fund are women's support groups who offer counselling and helpline services to victims of domestic violence, including forced marriage. We must be careful about those to whom we refer forced marriage problems.
An important debate is taking place among women's groups, particularly those representing women from ethnic minority communities. Some are cautious about engaging with voluntary groups that seek to assist them; others are much more open. We must approach these issues with sensitivity and care. I am well aware of how that debate is developing.
I am pleased to say that at its meeting on 20 November the interdepartmental group on violence against women agreed to monitor action across all Government Departments, as recommended by the working group. All Departments must now be aware of issues relating to forced marriage. Where the emphasis may previously have been on the need for multicultural sensitivity, the message for all Departments now is that there is no excuse for moral blindness. That is right. That was recommended by the working group and we are delivering it. The IDG will review progress at its next meeting early in the new year to ensure that the appropriate mechanisms to review action are in place.
116WH I am also pleased to report that the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence, has agreed that the group will regard forced marriage as an issue within its remit and work programme. The debate will not rise and die away. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley is determined to ensure that the issue remains at the forefront of concern. It will be the remit of an all-party parliamentary group and the Government will remain aware of, and alive to, the issue in the years to come.
I welcome the way in which the all-party group took those decisions and the monitoring arrangements that it will put in place. All that shows that the Government and Parliament are serious about tackling the problem. As I said, however, we cannot solve it alone. As the working party said in its report, it is for communities, and especially parents, to take the lead in eradicating forced marriage. There is a need for dialogue and education among parents, children and opinion formers in affected communities in order to change attitudes and prevent the sad ramifications of forced marriage. Leadership has been shown, and I want more to be shown in some communities.
The joint chairs of the working group have had meetings with community groups not only to collect information for the report, but to report back to those communities on the recommendations that they have made to the Government and our response. We are trying to encourage support in communities for tackling the problem by explaining the report's contents and ensuring that the issues are addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley referred to particular cases. If a spouse is brought to this country and is isolated by an inability to speak the language and lack of contact with others, domestic violence may result. The Government introduced a domestic violence concession on 16 June 1999, which is intended to benefit those who suffer domestic violence during the probationary year and make an application to the Home Office while they still have extant leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
A person who informs the Home Office that his or her marriage has broken down because of domestic violence and who makes an application for settlement during the validity of his or her leave to enter or remain could benefit under the concession. Applications made after the expiry of an applicant's limited leave that meet all the other requirements of the concession will be considered sympathetically and account will be taken of the reasons for the delay in making the application. Long-term overstayers may still make an application for leave to remain exceptionally outside the immigration rules.
Each case is decided on its merits, taking into account any compassionate factors relating to an individual's circumstances. Spouses are entitled to take employment during the probationary year and continue to work while an application under the concession is considered.
I shall deal with a couple of the points raised by my hon. Friend. She referred to genital mutilation. I do not know whether you saw Channel 4 yesterday evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was shocked by its horrific report on genital mutilation in the UK and people being subjected to that practice abroad. I am very concerned 117WH about what I have heard and I shall discuss with ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health how we ensure that the issue is addressed and that prosecutions result where appropriate.
My hon. Friend also raised a concern about how entry clearance problems are addressed and mentioned a case in her constituency. A man may go to entry clearance officers in order to enter the UK for a marriage that I assume he or at least his intended spouse knows is not genuine, because it is not being entered into voluntarily. The difficulty at entry clearance is that the application must be decided in an open and straightforward way. Any evidence used in a decision must be the subject of an appeal. My hon. Friend is 118WH concerned that that information may prejudice the circumstances of the young lady in the UK. We are working through complex legal issues. We know that there is a problem and we want to address it.
Forced marriage is wrong. The Government are determined—as many hon. Members are—to ensure that we prevent it from happening in this country in so far as we can do that. We seek the support of communities in doing that. We have received a lot of support so far, but we want more. The issue is a moral one and we are determined to continue addressing it.
§ It being one minute to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.