Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [HL]

On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, when I went to Derby to visit Karma Nirvana, I was convinced that the guidance needed to be statutory. In particular, I learnt that some schools were not willing to put up information about a helpline or anything else because the local education authority in a particular area felt that it would be undesirable to do so. Although this is a sensitive matter, it is obviously important that guidance is given and had regard to—without the cumbersome business of litigation if you do not have regard, although I am not suggesting anything of that kind—to ensure that public authorities like education bodies provide such basic information. I turn to the other point about immigration raised by the noble Lord, Lord Plant—and I am glad that I am not the Minister having to deal with it. The issue is complicated. Certainly my wife, who is an immigration and asylum judge, has told me about the difficult problems she has in cases where it may be that there is some evidence of coercion for immigration purposes, or even for asylum, and having to try to establish the truth from the victim who is party to the proceedings. The Home Office also does its best, but this is a difficult matter. One way in which the Government have responded to this—I am not sure that I altogether agree with it because it may suffer from the very vice of broad generalisation referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin—is to raise the age at which someone may come into the country to marry to 21. I do not know whether that is necessarily the correct approach. The immigration implications are not dealt with either by my Bill or by the government amendments, but they will need to be addressed as a matter of immigration policy.