Raising the minimum age from 18 to 21 at which foreign nationals can get a marriage visa was foreshadowed by the Minister in another place, Liam Byrne, in March and has had a fairly general welcome, although for reasons already partly adduced by my noble kinsman in moving the amendment, we have reservations on it. In the debate on Second Reading of the Forced Marriages Bill, which my noble friend Lord Lester so brilliantly piloted through your Lordships’ House, my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine drew attention to the UN Population Fund’s finding that in many countries, more than half the women were married by the age of 18. She observed that, where early marriage was a deeply ingrained cultural practice, "““it is inevitable that values held by British communities in those countries will reflect similar patterns of thinking””—[Official Report, 26/1/07; col. 1334.]"
She went on to say that in many of those communities the girl’s consent is not considered necessary and that, given the fact that marriages were often arranged by parents when the girl was very young, informed consent was not possible.
The tacit assumption behind the amendment is that, with the increase in age, young women will be better able to make up their minds freely on a proposed marriage and to resist coercion by their parents or the extended family. But in a patriarchal society, the pressure on a woman to accept the dictation on a personal matter such as marriage may not diminish with age. I am not aware of any evidence to show that the 3,000 women aged between 18 and 21 who come to Britain for the purpose of marriage every year will be saved from forced marriage by raising the age.
On the other hand, where two persons, one of whom is aged between 18 and 21, are denied the means of living together as spouses, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, Article 8(1), the right to family life, may be infringed, as well as Article 12, which allows spouses to live together as a married couple. It is not clear that the interference is either in pursuance of a legitimate aim or necessary and proportionate.
If the legitimate aim is to prevent forced marriage, there would have to be some evidence that it happens disproportionately to younger adults. I was surprised to learn that in Dakar, the majority of the marriage visa applications are dealt with on paper, with only 5 to 10 per cent being interviewed by the entry certificate officer. If there is reason to suppose that there are problems, they ought to interview 100 per cent of the applicants and ask them questions to ascertain whether they have indeed given informed consent. If, having done that over a period, there was evidence to show that 18 to 21-year olds were not happy about their proposed marriages, it could be argued that a blanket denial of visas to the whole group was at least in pursuance of a legitimate aim.
I hope that the Government will consult their own national forced marriage steering group, which includes representatives from the voluntary sector, statutory agencies and central government, to see whether they have any evidence to satisfy the legitimate aim test. They should reinforce the ECOs in Dakar and other relevant posts so that, while this matter is under consideration, they interview 100 per cent of applicants for marriage visas to ensure that they have given informed consent. Meanwhile, it would obviously be premature to raise the age limit without that information.
The idea that spouses should have a basic knowledge of English might be held to be in conflict with Article 8(1), and is, I would suggest, totally impractical. Many who come here for marriage would not be able to afford English lessons in the country of origin, even if they were available.
On 26 February your Lordships debated the funding cuts in English for speakers of other languages. In that debate, there were five Lib Dem speakers and one solitary Tory, who was detailed to speak from the Front Bench. If the Tories are so keen on everybody living here being able to speak English, where were they then?
UK Borders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Avebury
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 July 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on UK Borders Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
694 c174-6GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:46:31 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414046
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414046
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414046