| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on securing this debate, and I thank him for taking this opportunity to highlight an issue that I consider important, as he knows, and that has recently been the subject of some public concern.
As my hon. Friend pointed out—I shall go into more detail later—this issue has also recently been the subject of a significant and appropriate response from the Government. This is a particularly timely debate, as we have only recently announced a number of steps that we are taking to protect the integrity of our marriage ceremonies. I am grateful for the chance to expand on the recent announcements of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, to which my hon. Friend alluded.
We already have arrangements in place to help to identify potential abuse of the marriage laws, and to prevent them from being used for the purposes of illegal immigration. Under section 24 of the Immigration and
13 May 2004 : Column 567
Asylum Act 1999, registrars have a statutory duty to report suspicious marriages to the immigration and nationality directorate. Indeed, we in the Home Office are grateful to registrars such as those in Ealing, who have been prepared to report such marriages to us.
In 2003, the Ealing register office sent 48 reports of suspicious marriages to the Home Office under section 24 of the 1999 Act. Some 27 of those reports were sent to enforcement officers for action, and the remaining 21 were unsuitable for being sent on for one reason or another. If a report is lacking some detail or information, for example, officers are asked to contact the registrars before proceeding. I understand that that information may not have been communicated to the Ealing register office, and I shall ensure, among other things, that communication between the immigration offices and register offices is improved. In the short time that I have been in this job, I have met representatives of the registrars to discuss our response to this particular problem. I intend to meet them again, and my officials have been meeting them regularly since that initial meeting.
For the purposes of clarity, I should point out that a registrar already has the power to stop a ceremony where there is evidence of coercion or threats. It is also my understanding of the law that registrars have limited powers in relation to ceremonies where proper notice has been given and parties are authorised to be married. However, registrars should not allow a marriage notice to be given if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person who wants to give the notice is lying in any of the statements or declarations. It will become apparent that the inadequacy of that power lies behind the changes that we are about to introduce. However, we must be careful, because registrars to whom I have spoken want me to ensure that we do not ask them to become immigration officers. I am sure that the appropriate balance will be struck in the steps that the Government are about to take.
I have already referred to the duty on registrars under section 24 of the 1999 Act, which has helped the immigration service to build up its intelligence base and to target enforcement efforts on suspected organised attempts to abuse the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North gave a colourful example in which the groom was arrested and taken away, and a number of successful operations have been conducted. In 2003, for example, 110 people were arrested at suspected organised sham weddings and 37 people were charged.
We have also changed the immigration rules with effect from April 2003 to increase the probationary period for marriages. That period occurs after a marriage, and the change stops the practice of switching from short-term leave to stay in the United Kingdom to leave to stay on the grounds of marriage to a UK national. That practice was being used to avoid the more rigorous examination of marriage applications from posts abroad.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the Marriage with Foreigners Act 1906 to my attention earlier today, because I had an opportunity to examine it, and it appears that it only applies to marriages between British subjects and foreign nationals that take place outside the United Kingdom. He refers to the proposal in the Civil Partnership Bill to provide a
13 May 2004 : Column 568
certificate of no impediment from this country for a civil partnership between a British subject and a foreign national, and such certificates would also be required were such ceremonies to take place abroad. I will re-examine the 1906 Act, but I doubt whether it is an appropriate vehicle to address the issue.
It has recently become clear, through the information received from registrars and other intelligence channels, that activity by those seeking to abuse UK marriage laws and enter into sham marriages as a means of circumventing immigration control is on the increase, but it is not easy for the Government to intervene. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, we do want to lay down rules that would make it harder for genuine couples to enter into marriage. Marriage law in this country has evolved over a considerable period of time, and, by and large, the formalities of marriage are currently set out in the law in the way in which people of this country want them to be set out. Any Government that sought to intervene in that area would do so with trepidation, and they would certainly not do it without the widest possible consultation.
I share my hon. Friend's intention to protect genuine couples, and that intention led us to abolish the primary purpose rule on 5 June 1997. That pernicious rule penalised genuine marriages, divided families and unnecessarily increased the administrative burden on the immigration system. It was imposed in 1980 by the previous Administration, and it forced applicants over one hurdle after another, both at the point of entry clearance and at appeal. It was inherently ineffective and unfair, and did not work to filter out those who sought to cheat the system, but simply punished those who did not. It was abolished not because, as the Conservative Home Affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), suggested in a statement, it failed to deal with sham marriages, but because of its inequitable treatment of genuine marriages. We will rue the day that we bring it back. We will reflect on the lessons from the primary purpose rule before taking any steps to deal with sham marriages.
It is clear, though, that where there is abuse we must move to stamp it out. We must ensure that our immigration system is robust in preventing those engaging in sham marriages from bending the rules. There are a number of ways in which we can tighten up the procedures to achieve that without impacting on genuine cases. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his statement to the House on 22 April, we will shortly bring forward legislation to restrict the capacity to authorise marriage involving non-EEA nationals to designated register offices. I repeat that we are talking about the capacity to authorise marriages—the Government do not intend to stop marriages being performed in register offices that couples choose, but to direct them to designated offices for authority. That will enable us to focus our enforcement efforts on a more concentrated area, and will allow intelligence and expertise on marriage abuse to be built up in those dedicated centres. We also believe—this is its primary purpose—that it will have a deterrent effect, because the chances of couples coming into contact with immigration officials will be much higher. That will not be welcome to those who are not genuine, and it will make them much less likely to try.
13 May 2004 : Column 569
We are also looking urgently at what more can be done specifically to address the apparent loophole of third country nationals who marry EEA nationals from other member states, then claim to be exercising treaty rights. We shall make a further announcement on that shortly.
We are exploring other possibilities, such as the proposal that registrars should have the power to refuse to conduct a marriage that they suspect is being carried out for the purposes of illegal immigration, or where they believe that false documents are being used, until the marriage has been properly investigated by the immigration authorities. However, that would require a fundamental change to marriage law and—for the reasons that I gave, with which I know that my hon. Friend agrees—merits wider consultation.
We have in hand enhanced enforcement action to target sham marriages, with a view to having a direct impact on the organised criminals who arrange them and seeking prosecutions where appropriate. We are strengthening arrangements for joint working between caseworkers and immigration officers to ensure a better focus on the intelligence that is gathered from registrars and elsewhere. Importantly, we have set up a new joint working group with the Home Office and registrars to share intelligence and ideas and to ensure that our efforts are as focused and effective as possible.
The Government recognise that, as my hon. Friend was at pains to point out, a marriage is an important event in the lives of the people who are effecting that union in their relationship. It is very important, as he said, that places where that is done should be immune from the sorts of scenes that have unfortunately had to be played out in some register offices in response to
13 May 2004 : Column 570
information about sham marriages taking place. It is important, too, that we recognise that the informality that has grown up over many decades around the formalities of marriage has generated an opportunity for organised criminals to take advantage of not only that set of circumstances but other people, in order to get round the immigration laws. As my hon. Friend says, significant amounts of money can change hands in relation to the facilitating of such events. That is an indication of the level of organised criminality that is involved.
The Government are absolutely determined to bring that practice to an end. We intend to make it as difficult as possible, to deter it, and, where it happens, to investigate it and prosecute appropriately. However, we are going to do that in a balanced way that does not interfere with the reasonable expectations of law-abiding people that, subject to checking the appropriateness of their marriage status, they will be able to have their celebratory event as easily and informally as they want to, without interference from the Government.
The Government will therefore continue to pursue a policy of managed migration to the UK, with procedures in place that will allow us to facilitate that for genuine applicants from whom our society derives real benefits. That includes those who wish to enter into genuine marriages with a UK or EEA national, settle here and contribute. We are absolutely determined that we will also protect the system from abuses in this and other areas. I am confident that the measures outlined will help to protect the institution of marriage within the UK, and help us to maintain appropriate and secure immigration control.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |