APPENDIX 77
Letter from Meg Munn MP, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
I appeared before the Committee on 25
March, with Rob Macaire and Mark Sedwill, as part of the Committee's
inquiry into domestic violence and forced marriage. I committed
to write on a number of points raised in session.
HANDLING OF
THE SURJIT
ATHWAL CASE
You asked for an account of how we handled
the case of Surjit Athwal.
On 22 December 1998 we learned of Surjit's
disappearance. We immediately informed our High Commission in
New Delhi and asked them to make enquiries. They did so with the
help of the local police, immigration authorities and relatives.
While the Consular Section continued to make enquires, in early
February a detailed account of the incident was received from
Mohinderpal Singh Dhillon (Surjit's father). The Consular Section
of the High Commission subsequently wrote to the Indian Ministry
of External Affairs about the case.
Throughout 1999 we liaised closely with
the Indian authorities and the Metropolitan Police. This included
passing to the Indian authorities a UK police report as a formal
request for them to investigate, pressing the Indian Ministry
of External Affairs for progress reports, and direct liaison between
the Indian and Metropolitan Police.
In 2000 we worked with both Interpols
India and UK to speed up co-operation and to facilitate the Metropolitan
Police's involvement in the case. We continued to press the Indian
Ministry of External Affairs and registered with them our extreme
concern over Surjit's disappearance.
In the following years we maintained
pressure on the Indian authorities, including in 2003 supporting
a request from Surjit's family that the case be transferred to
the Central Bureau of Investigation. As well as direct lobbying
by the High Commission, the Foreign Secretary wrote to his Indian
counterpart to support this request. In 2004 UK Ministers raised
the case with the Indian Deputy Prime Minister.
We continued to work with the Indian
authorities, the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution
Service until the case was resolved in July 2007.
We are very aware that Surjit's brother,
Jagdeesh Singh, feels strongly that the service provided was inadequate.
Rob Macaire, Director of Consular Services, has written to Mr
Singh to offer a meeting to discuss his sister's case, should
he feel this would be useful. We are constantly reviewing the
consular services that we deliver and learning from past cases
is an important part of this process.
CASE EXAMPLES
AND FIGURES
ON FORCED
MARRIAGE OVERSEAS
In 2007, the Forced Marriage Unit handled
168 assistance cases overseas. Of these cases 68% were in Pakistan
and 21% in Bangladesh. However, cases were also raised in India,
Yemen, Ireland, UAE, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Spain, Sudan and Georgia.
Of these overseas assistance cases 37%
involved victims under the age of 18. Fourty-nine per cent involved
victims between the ages of 18 and 24 and 14% involved victims
over the age of 24.
Not all cases overseas involve our staff
conducting a "rescue". In some instances the forced
marriage victim makes his or her own way to the Embassy or High
Commission, for others assistance and support is provided over
the phone. However, if the individual is not able to speak or
move freely our staff will visit them, and if they wish, accompany
them to our offices. In the majority of cases this will result
in us subsequently making arrangements for the person to return
to the UK, including liaising with social services and refuge
providers. We also put the person in touch with NGOs who provide
support to survivors of forced marriage.
The Committee may find the following
case studies of interest:
Case Study 1—Sadia
The Forced Marriage Unit were contacted
by a social worker who was very concerned about 14 year old Sadia,
who had been admitted into hospital in the UK with a dangerous
infection of the uterus—possibly caused by an abortion.
Sadia had not been to school since she was 11 and had previously
been on the child protection register as there were fears that
she would be forced into marriage.
Sadia's family said that she had had
a miscarriage after being knocked down by a rickshaw on a family
holiday visiting relatives in Afghanistan. Sadia refused to talk
about what had happened to her and appeared very traumatised.
The British Embassy worked with local
partners to try and establish exactly what had happened. They
found no medical records to support the story and no witnesses.
Eventually the truth was uncovered, Sadia
had been six months pregnant when her parents had taken her to
Afghanistan and forced her to have an illegal abortion. She had
also been forced into marriage with her cousin who had raped and
beaten her.
Sadia is now in the care of social services.
Case Study 2—Nazia
The Forced Marriage Unit received a call
from West Yorkshire Police. They had been contacted by Chris,
who was worried about his 23 year old girlfriend, Nazia.
Fearing the shame of their daughter's
relationship with Chris, a white friend of Nazia's from university,
Nazia's parents tricked her into travelling to Pakistan to marry
a man she had never met. When she arrived, Nazia was repeatedly
raped by her husband-to-be. Nazia had also recently been diagnosed
as having schizophrenia and with no access to medicine, her condition
deteriorated.
The Forced Marriage Unit worked with
the British High Commission in Islamabad to locate Nazia and rescue
her. After medical and psychiatric treatment at a women's refuge
in Islamabad, Nazia flew back to the UK.
Nazia was met off the plane by a team
of social workers, based at Heathrow Airport. She was interviewed,
and transport was arranged for her to travel to a local women's
refuge. The Forced Marriage Unit then ensured that Nazia was referred
to a mental health specialist and worked with the housing department
in her local area to find long-term accommodation.
Nazia now has a full-time job and has
married Chris. She has had no contact with her family since she
left and believes that her parents have told her little brother
that she is dead.
Case Study 3—Sarah
"Sarah Khan" (17 years old)
came to the consular section of the High Commission in Islamabad
requesting assistance to escape a Forced Marriage. We booked tickets
for her return to the UK and arranged her emergency passport and
accommodation for her in a safe British refuge.
When departing at the airport in Islamabad
she was confronted by her uncle disguised as a police officer.
He attempted to "arrest" her. Consular staff dealt with
the situation and ensured her safe boarding of the aircraft. We
arranged for her to be met in the UK by the police, for her own
security, and she was taken to a refuge. Her repatriation was
achieved in just three days.
MARRIAGE VISAS,
ISSUES, REFUSALS
AND APPEALS
In 2007, in Pakistan, 11,022 spouse settlement
applications were issued and 3,216 were refused. There will undoubtedly
be cases of forced marriages concealed in the first figure.
Reasons, with which UK visas refuse applications
are set out in the Immigration Rules. These include:
— the need to prove that the
applicant is married (or in a civil partnership) and has met their
sponsor;
— that they are travelling with
or joining their spouse;
— that they are 18 or over;
— that they have sufficient
knowledge of English language;
— that they intend to live permanently
together; and
— that they have adequate accommodation
and can maintain themselves.
In 2007, 407 cases were referred to the
Consular Immigration Link (CIL) team in Pakistan. However, not
all of these were forced marriages and some relate to other forms
of family abuse. Additionally 45 pre-existing (old) cases were
dealt with by the CIL in 2007: The cases are broken down into:
|
| Forced marriage | 193
|
| Withdrawal of sponsorship not forced marriage
| 66 |
| Vulnerable adult | 86
|
| Abandoned | 32
|
| Others | 30
|
| Old cases | 45
|
| Total | 452
|
|
As with all family abuse work, there is inevitable
crossover between categories. The definitions used are:
Forced Marriage—This category will include all those
who state that the marriage was forced, that they were blackmailed
or pressured into marrying.
Withdrawal of sponsorship—There was no suggestion when
the application was made that this was a forced marriage. Once
the visa was issued the sponsor withdraws their support. In the
majority of cases the applicant moved out of the marital home
immediately, or within a few months of arriving in the UK.
Vulnerable—The UK citizen (sponsor) suffers from either
a severe mental or physical disability.
Abandoned—Where a Foreign National, has married a British
Citizen, and subsequently been brought back to their country of
origin and abandoned.
Other—Cases including for example issues of domestic
violence that have occurred after the marriage or a child that
has applied under settlement and issues of parentage are not defined.
Old Cases—The 45 old cases have been recorded in a previous
year so to avoid double counting are not split again. However
they remain live so are included in the overall figure.
RELUCTANT SPONSOR
CASES AT
APPEAL
In 2007, of the 407 new cases that were referred to
the CIL, and had an application refused: 128 appeals have been
lodged; 28 have been dismissed, by the independent Asylum and
Immigration Tribunal (AIT); six have been allowed and 94 have
not yet had a substantive appeal hearing outcome and remain outstanding.
In 2006, of the 424 cases that were referred to the CIL and had
an application refused, 116 appeals were lodged. Of those, 56
were dismissed by the AIT, four were withdrawn, 37 were allowed
and 19 remain outstanding.
In each case where an appeal is allowed, the CIL contact
the sponsor to again attempt to persuade the them to make a public
statement on which to base a further appeal. Of the 37, one sponsor
has agreed, but has not yet made a public statement, and upon
further inquiry the circumstance of another sponsor had changed
and so the application was refused post appeal.
As a matter of course when the follow up contact is
made, the CIL team remind the sponsor that there is a two year
period before the applicant can apply for Indefinite Leave to
Remain (ILR), and that the sponsor can decide not to support the
ILR application. The sponsor is given contact details for the
Forced Marriage Unit in the UK for further advice and support.
A referral is also made to the Managed Migration Intelligence
Unit so that they are aware of the case history if and when an
ILR application is made.
In 2003-06, "Withdrawal of Sponsorship"
and "Forced Marriage" categories were recorded together
under "Reluctant".
CONSULAR IMMIGRATION
LINK CASELOAD
|
| 2006 | 424 Cases in total
| |
| | |
| Reluctant | 269
|
| Vulnerable Adult | 70
|
| Abandoned | 39
|
| Other | 46
|
|
| 2005 | 387 Cases in total
| |
| | |
| Reluctant | 244
|
| Vulnerable Adult | 61
|
| Abandoned | 45
|
| Other | 37
|
|
| 2004 | 197 Cases in total
| |
| | |
| Reluctant | 164
|
| Vulnerable Adult | 2
|
| Abandoned | 14
|
| Other | 17
|
|
| 2005 | 182 Cases in total
| |
| | |
| Reluctant | 182
|
|
INDEFINITE LEAVE
TO REMAIN
The Borders and Immigration Agency takes all allegations
that they receive in connection with applications for settlement
and leave to remain very seriously. However there is currently
no system in place to reoutinely alert the Forced Marriage Unit
to third party information relating to reluctant sponsors of ILR
applications. We recognise this is as a shortfall.
The Forced Marriage Unit is working with the Borders
and Immiagration Agency to consider the development of an information
sharing protocol to ensure that all relevant cases and representations
that make reference to forced marriage are referred to the Forced
Marriage Unit. The Forced Marriage Unit is also exploring ways
to ensure those considering ILR applications are properly aware
of forced marriage issues.
I hope this extra detail is useful to the Committee.
I should like to take this opportunity to tank you for undertaking
this valuable inquiry. It has already paid dividends in further
raising awareness of forced marriage issues. I look forward to
your findings with interest.
3 April 2008
| 
