10. Memorandum submitted by
Mrs Ann Cryer MP
1. INTRODUCTION
A submission from the office of a Member of
Parliament may not be the norm but, in many ways, it is the offices
of those MPs with large migrant communities that are uniquely
placed to see the strengths and problems associated with the current
entry clearance system. Whilst the IAS, CAB, immigration advisers
and solicitors may assist individuals in preparing, submitting
and supporting visa applications—and may well (often just
in passing) come across the social, economic and practical problems
that are associated—it is to the office of the MP that most
people attend when there is a real problem both in the short and
the long term.
The aim of this submission is not to question the
need or positive aspects of migration—both are accepted—but,
rather, to highlight the fact that if we are to continue to operate
a visa and entry clearance as we currently do then there is a
price to pay both in terms of financial cost and repercussions
to society.
The experience of any MPs office is limited to that
of its constituency. Keighley, according to the (inaccurate) census
has a Pakistani and Bangladeshi population of about 8%. Some suggest
that a more accurate figure is double that. In terms of constituency
work, approximately 45% involves the Asian community and 90% of
that work involves immigration.
The case studies and examples included in this submission
refer to cases arising from constituency work and inevitably,
therefore, refer to either the Pakistani or Bangladeshi communities
in Keighley. The problems and issues highlighted in this report
do not necessarily refer solely to those communities.
That said, it is important to stress that the experience
of many northern towns and cities relates to a significant proportion
of migration from one particular area—Mir Pur in Pakistan
and, to a lesser extent, Sylhet in Bangladesh. Both are extremely
poor areas.
2. TYPES OF
CASES SEEN
BY MPS
1. Letters of support—although,
technically speaking, they contribute little to the majority of
visa applications (as any applicant/sponsor needs to demonstrate
that there would be no recourse to public funds through presentation
of wage slips, bank statements etc), the support of the local
MP is often seen as adding weight/gravitas to an application.
In those cases that fall outside of the normal parameters of an
application (especially in compassionate cases), the role of the
MP might carry more weight—setting out the facts of a particular
case and drawing together expert evidence (especially from doctors
etc) in support of the application.
2. British citizens who do not want to travel
abroad—normally young British women who have been told
to travel to Pakistan or Bangladesh to marry. The girls are usually
aged between 16 and 21, although we have been involved in cases
with girls as young as 14 and 15. The initial approach is based
on a "fact finding" mission to assess their rights (do
they really have to go? What should they do if their parents have
taken their passports? Can we prevent them from travelling without
their parents knowing that they have sought advice from anyone?
What will happen when they are married?)
3. British citizens who fear they will be
forced to travel aboard— normally young British women
(although there has been an increase in the number of men/boys)
who believe that their parents are planning to arrange a marriage
for them on the Sub-Continent (usually to a first cousin). Families
may arrange such marriages overtly (against the will of their
child) or covertly (ie on the back of a family event—eg
a funeral, party, another wedding etc). There are many stories
of young British girls travelling to Pakistan or Bangladesh believing
that they are visiting a relative or going on holiday only to
find their wedding has been arranged on arrival (see section 5
paragraph i below).
4. British citizens who have been married
outside the UK and want to prevent their spouse from arriving—
again, the majority of cases refer to young British women (although
we have seen a small number of cases affecting British men). Following
marriage in Pakistan or Bangladesh, after meeting the demands
of the family, and their return to the UK (in some cases only
when she is pregnant), some women seek to impede their husband's
application to enter the UK as a spouse. The MP is asked to liaise
with the British High Commission to stop the husband's visa application
by letting the Consular staff that she is a "reluctant sponsor"
but without letting her husband, or their family, know of her
reluctance (see section 2 below).
5. British citizens who wish to deport their
spouse from the UK prior to the application for Indefinite Leave
to Remain—sometimes, realising that a marriage is incompatible
or, in some cases abusive, a woman seeks the help of her MP to
deport her husband during the two year "probationary"
period (see section 2 below).
6. British citizens seeking to deport their
spouse after the granting of Indefinite Leave to Remain—
we have seen a number of cases where spouses have left the matrimonial
home immediately after receiving ILR. Realising that the marriage
was used as a vehicle to overcome immigration rules, MPs are asked
to notify the Home Office in the hope of expediting deportation
(see section 2 below).
7. British citizens who are seeking to prevent
second wives from entering the country— as polygamy
is an accepted custom in other nations, visit visa applications
for second wives are not uncommon. The wife in the UK seeks to
block the entry of the second wife into the country.
8. British citizens who are seeking to use
entry clearance to "control" their spouse—quite
often a husband or wife seeks to extend the probationary two year
entry clearance period as a way of forcing their spouse to acquiesce
in their relationship—ie: if the migrant spouse does not
behave in a way that meets the demands of the sponsoring spouse
then they refuse to sign the application for ILR.
9. Non British citizens who have been abandoned
by their British spouse in the UK—we have seen a number
of cases where Pakistani women have arrived in the UK and are
pregnant or have children but, after their British husband has
left them, are not entitled to any benefits (either because they
are within the two year probationary period or have never applied
for indefinite leave to remain and are, therefore, illegal immigrants)
and are unable to return to Pakistan because of the loss of honour
and the family's perception that a failed marriage would bring
shame on them.
10. Non British women seeking exceptional
leave to remain under the domestic violence concession—
I have dealt with an increasing number of such cases. The worst
involved two sisters—aged 15 and 16—who married two
brothers (first cousins) who locked their wives in a cellar, only
releasing them to carry out domestic chores.
3. PROBLEMS OF
THE CURRENT
SYSTEM
1. Fraud
(a) Consular staff in Islamabad have been reported
as saying that a significant proportion of applications for leave
to enter the UK are made fraudulently—usually with manufactured
supporting documentation provided by both the applicant and the
sponsor in the UK. Fake wage slips, letters of support, employment
details etc. The sheer volume of applications inevitably means
that the limited resources of an Embassy or High Commission is
unable to test the validity or otherwise of supporting documentation.
In Keighley we have frequently seen wage slips—evidencing
the income of a sponsor—from a company that does not exist.
(b) It is not unusual to see sponsors evidencing
employment over a three or four month period—prior to which
they were recipients of benefits—only to leave work (and
return to benefits) upon completion of a successful visa application.
(c) Ownership of houses can transfer from one
family member to another in the UK to support an individual application
for leave to enter. For example, ownership of the family home
may transfer from parent to a child (as sponsor to a husband or
wife) for the course of the visa application. Whilst the sponsor
may receive benefits, they base the application on the ownership
of a fixed asset and sufficient equity in the home to satisfy
immigration needs.
(d) Forging the signature of a reluctant sponsor
on applications for leave to enter or ILR by family members or
the applicant is not uncommon.
(e) As part of any application to enter, the
ECO needs to be sure that there is adequate accommodation available
for the visitor or spouse. A survey of the accommodation is therefore
required. However, no guidance is given as to who is qualified
to issue such a report. In Keighley, one man issues such reports—as
a second job—whilst his first job is as a shelf stacker
in Sainsburys. I have asked the Home Office for clarification
on this but have not received any satisfactory reply.
(f) Although visas are granted on the basis of
"without recourse to public funds", no checks or balances
are in place to ensure that visitors, or those on probationary
two year visas, do not have access to the NHS. There is no pre-requisite
for medical insurance prior to travelling to the UK.
(g) As far as I am aware, the Home Office is
not given any data as far as the number or identity of people
who are given visitor's visas. Nor is any check made as to whether
or not visitors leave the UK timely within the constraints of
their visas. Unlike many other countries the UK does not operate
a system of surrendering exit cards at the point of leaving the
country after a visit. Over-stayers are only identified when they
seek to alter their immigration status in the UK (from visitor
to spouse, for example. Whilst, in theory, the applicant should
seek to return to their country of origin and make a fresh application
in reality, if the applicant—for example—is pregnant
or has a child or if they have been in the country illegally for
a number of years, their visa application will be considered whilst
they are in the UK. The simple act of submitting an application
to the Home Office (for ELR, ILR or FLR) for consideration—however
late—legitimises the applicant's stay in the UK.
2. Lack of enforcement
(a) In those cases where a reluctant sponsor
has informed the Home Office of their unwillingness to act as
sponsor, they become a third party to the application and are
not told of developments. In many cases—particularly for
women—it takes a great deal of courage to defy the will
of their family and opens the possibility of being criticised
for damaging "izzat" (or "honour"). Given
the level of commitment and bravery that is required to get over
this considerable hurdle, it is often soul destroying to be told
that you can receive no further information regarding your husband's
application. To be left in the dark can, quite often, be as painful
as being in a relationship that is not working—especially
if the sponsor's declaration of reluctance leads to isolation
or physical danger.
(b) I have reported cases to the Home Office
where the sponsor (normally a wife) will categorically state that
her signature has been forged by her husband on the application
forms. As soon as the woman makes the statement she is considered
as a third party and is not, therefore, told as to what action
is taken. However, I have never heard of a case whereby someone
has been prosecuted or deported for having fraudulently submitted
an application. Rather, I know of cases where husbands have been
granted ILR despite the protestations of their sponsor.
(c) Similarly, when a marriage breaks down irreparably
during the two year probationary period, I receive a number of
requests to assist in arranging for the deportation of the migrant
spouse. However, given that a two year visa has been granted (I
have never seen a case where it has been revoked on the grounds
that the primary motive for coming to the UK no longer exists),
no action is taken (on the basis that the applicant would be unable
to claim ILR after the two year period). Yet more frustrating
is the fact that the third party rule would apply again and the
reluctant sponsor will not be informed as to the immigration status
of her estranged husband. Indeed, I have one particular case where
the estranged husband—despite not having ILR, forcing his
wife out of her home because of threats to her life and criminal
prosecutions—remains in the UK with an appeal under
the Human Rights Act pending with no information being given to
his wife (a British citizen).
(d) This lack of enforcement takes away any incentive
to report cases to the Home Office. Why should a woman run the
risk of physical harm, being ostracised or isolated as a result
of providing information that is never acted upon?
4. ECONOMIC MIGRATION(a) Often
reluctant sponsors simply go through the motions of marriage and
visa application solely to satisfy the demands of the family.
The prime motive for marriage, in such cases, is not marriage
per se but, rather, to satisfy an agreement within a family (or
biraderi)—the children of one family member being
betrothed to the children of a brother or sister often from an
early age. Some of those British women who reluctantly agreed
to sponsor their husbands and then seek deportation confess that
they only agreed to sponsor the application after being told by
their parents that they could divorce their husband as soon as
ILR is granted.
(b) Once ILR is granted there is nothing to prevent
the recipient from divorcing and then re-starting the immigration
process by seeking to re-marry another (usually a relative) from
the sub-continent.
(c) For many migrants to the northern towns and
cities, wealth and status in society is defined more by assets
in Mir Pur rather than those in the UK. One of the primary purposes
for migration is to increase wealth in the UK for it to return
to the sub-continent. Entry clearance for spouses allows current
immigration law to be used as a vehicle to meet this need.
(d) I am sure that I am not the only MP who has
been asked to take up the case of a constituent who suffers from
either a severe mental or physical impairment (and in receipt
of state benefits) to support a settlement visa application on
compassionate grounds. Of course, impairment is not and must never
be an impediment to marriage but—in those cases where the
sponsor is clearly unable to decide for themselves any attempt
to arrange a marriage raises a number of ethical issues. Families
often allude to the fact that, in such cases, a migrant spouse
could care for the sponsor. With a welfare state, this should
be unnecessary. One has to question the motives of the family
to arrange such a marriage.
5. SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
OF MIGRATION(a) There
can be no doubt that British society and culture is enriched by
migration.
(b) There is a huge economic gain from the contribution
and enterprise of the migrant population and it is clear that
our economy would not be able to function without the contribution
of migrant workers. However, there has to be a question mark regarding
immigration on the back of a marriage of convenience.
(c) But there is also a cost. One of the most
striking—particularly in northern towns and cities—is
"ghettoisation" or segregation of communities. Many
spouses who arrive in a town like Keighley from rural Pakistan
or Bangladesh have little idea of where they are. Their arrival
in the UK is assisted by the fact that they move quickly into
a community with a shared language and culture and, in many ways,
does not differ from their life at home. There are strong ties
between Mir Pur and many northern towns. Whilst this is comforting
to the migrant, it has repercussions in society. The "comfort
zone" provided by the migrant community gives little incentive
for integration and the creation of all-Asian wards in many areas
is becoming common place.
(d) Integration is, of course, a two way thing
and the host community has an equal part to play. Man is naturally
gregarious and will usually gravitate to its own "comfort
zone" and responsibility, therefore, for segregation rests
with the host community as much as the migrant community. Attempts
to breakdown barriers also needs to be equitable. If the basis
of migration is for economic benefit outside the UK it acts as
a major impediment for integration.
(e) Satellite TV means that there is less need
to learn English. Just as the British ex-pat community in Spain
has little need to learn or speak Spanish, migrants arriving in
the UK do not need to learn English to get by on a daily basis.
This is having an impact in the home. Bi- or multi-lingual children
are a real asset that could have an incredibly positive impact
in the development of a child and their future employment prospects
in later life. However, a reliance on a language at the expense
of English when in the UK can be very damaging. In Keighley, one
primary school has a yearly intake where as much as 95% of the
new children cannot speak English (two other primary schools are
approaching this level). It is hardly surprising that the school
is in special measures—the dedicated staff constantly attempting
to "catch up" following a poor linguistic start. This
slow start, for some children, contributes to lower than average
GCSE results and, in turn, opportunities in the labour market.
These are British children who are under-achieving and are not
being given the same start in life as others.
(f) Twenty or 30 years ago it was a commonly
held view that difficulties arising from migration would be ironed
out once we reached the second or third generation. Whilst in
theory this makes logical sense, in reality we have a very different
situation. Certainly in northern towns and cities there is a reliance
on marriages arranged intercontinentally. Normally between first
cousins, marriage takes place between a British born and bred
sponsor and a bride or groom from the sub-continent. In the Bradford
District the statistics that are available (from the Department
of Health—following TB screening) suggest that 1,043 people
migrated from the sub-continent a figure that fell to 706 in 2004
and 578 in 2005. However, these figures are not accurate. It would
be interesting to check these figures with data held by High Commissions
in terms of the postcodes of sponsors in the UK. A recent report
suggests that just 3% of women in Mir Pur are literate. Given
the numbers and the lack of education in the sub-continent it
is not surprising that those problems that were believed would
be resolved with the passing of time are still with us today.
The emphasis on marriage between a British sponsor and a bride
or groom from the sub-continent effectively means that the creation
of the second generation is impeded—possibly indefinitely.
(g) In 2002, 42% of all births in the Bradford
District were from Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin. The trend
towards intercontinental marriage is growing and the demographic
patterns suggest that we could see a further sharp and continuous
increase.
(h) Reliance on first cousin marriage (consanguinity)
brings with it other issues. Some of these were raised in a recent
Newsnight programme. In the Bradford District alone there
have been 138 identified autosomnal disorders. Indeed, Bradford
Royal Infirmary has become a centre of excellence in paediatric
genetic illness not through choice but simply as a result of the
number and broad range of cases that are seen. First cousin marriage
has a cost to society in exactly the same way as does smoking,
drinking or unprotected sex. There are risks associated with all
four. Whilst we may have public health campaigns on safe sex,
smoke cessation or alcohol—based on the principle that prevention
is better than cure—little work has been done on the risk
of genetic illness as a result of consanguinity. The cost to society
manifests itself in terms of medical care, benefits, social services,
educational support etc. These tragic problems are facilitated
by intercontinental marriages which, in turn, are facilitated
by weak immigration control and spouse entry.
(i) I am delighted that, since I first raised
the issue in the House of Commons in February 1999, there has
been considerable progress on the issue of forced marriage. The
Forced Marriage Unit—within the Home and Foreign Offices—does
sterling work and I have seen for myself the dedication of Consular
staff in Islamabad to help young British women who are being forced
by their parents to do something they do not want to do. However,
despite the greater awareness of the subject (when I first raised
the issue many in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities categorically
denied that it even existed), they continue. A copy of a typical
letter I receive can be found in the appendix below. There are
a number of reasons why they still occur:
1. Demography. Whilst the population as a whole
is ageing, with a low birth rate, that of the Asian community
is younger and increasing. There is, therefore, an increase in
the number of people who are eligible for marriage and the number
of forced marriages has increased proportionally.
2. Increased awareness. The knowledge that an
individual woman being forced into marriage is not alone has encouraged
many to come forward and seek help where they might have passively
accepted the situation in the past.
3. The greater number of inter-continental marriages—coupled
with the influence of economic migration—has in many ways
entrenched the traditional views of the rural communities of the
sub-continent.
(j) The Pakistani community, in particular, has
proven itself to be very effective in advocating and protecting
its rights. Much of this emanates from the communities very strong
familial ties, spirit of togetherness often in the face of racism
on the part of the indigenous community and honour. An effective
community voice has contributed in part to the growth of the Far
Right in many northern towns and cities. In Keighley, for example,
the boundaries of deprivation of the SRB coincided with those
of racially divided neighbourhoods. Deprived white areas of predominantly
local authority or Housing Trust accommodation—outside of
the SRB—bordered predominantly Asian neighbourhoods of private
housing. The investment in those areas included in the SRB caused
considerable anger on the opposite side of the road. Some of those
people proved susceptible to the exploitative and vile politics
of division spread by the likes of the BNP.
6. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS(a) If
the entry clearance system that we currently have is to remain
then we need to be able to discuss the consequences. There is
a price to pay in many ways. It may well be that it is decided
that the price to pay is worth it but I would hope that this decision
would only be made when we have had the opportunity to discuss
the matter openly and frankly. There can be no taboos in the debate
and it must be understood that, by raising a critical eye on immigration,
is not racist. At the end of the day, if our entry clearance system
is affecting detrimentally the lives of vulnerable people or are
manipulated by individuals for their own needs with no consideration
for human rights then it would be racist not to raise those issues.
Open debate is a priority.
(b) I was particularly concerned to see a recent
paper from the Minister of State at the Home Office with responsibility
for immigration on the issue of ministers of religion. On the
19 December notice was given to water down rules: ". .
. the Government will introduce a new immigration category that
allows religious workers in non-pastoral roles to come to the
UK . . . they will not have to speak English". Imams
are in a very influential position. If they are not conversant
with 21st century western society, aware of child protection procedures
or able to speak English then we must question their value in
society today. There are Muslim scholars—educated in the
UK—who would play a far more constructive role in society.
I appreciate that a UK educated Muslim scholar is more expensive
than one who comes from the sub-continent. However, we cannot
allow cost to direct how our communities are being taught. The
Church of England has had to adapt to meet the cost of the clergy—for
example through the appointment of non-stipendiary ministers who
are often retired professional people.
(c) The Home and Foreign Office has already increased
the age limit for both sponsor and applicant for leave to enter
as a spouse to 18. Added maturity and education assists in empowering
individuals to make decisions for themselves rather than simply
satisfying the demands of family or community members. The Danish
Government has gone further and has introduced a lower age limit
of 24. Whilst I think that this is too much, I would advocate
lifting the lower age limit to 21.
(d) We cannot allow entry clearance to be used
as a vehicle for economic migration. The granting of ILR should
not permit sponsorship. Only British Citizens—applications
for citizenship can be made just one year after the granting of
ILR—should be entitled to act as a sponsor. This would have
a number of positive effects. First, it would discourage those
migrants who plan to divorce their sponsor immediately upon receipt
of ILR and then act as a sponsor themselves. Second, any application
for citizenship increases the sense of "belonging" to
this society.
(e) Migration to The Netherlands carries with
it a responsibility to speak Dutch. All applicants must satisfy
a language test to be eligible for leave to remain. This is to
the benefit of the country as a whole (in terms of integration
and increasing the skills of the migrant workforce) and to the
applicant (increases their chances in the labour market, assists
in knowing rights etc). Whilst the UK has introduced a language
test, there is no practical state encouragement to learn English
to combat frequent family discouragement as far as young migrant
wives are concerned. No English, no knowledge of their rights.
7. CONCLUSION
We must continue to welcome, cherish and have
respect for other traditions and cultures in our communities.
However, when cultures and traditions impinge on the human rights
of the most vulnerable in our community then it is our responsibility
to stop those abuses. This could be achieved through tighter immigration
controls.
15 February 2006
| 
