My honourable friend in another place was pointing to the efforts that the Government are making to compensate for the absence of a scheme that, had it not been discriminatory, might still exist. Great efforts are being made to ensure that the hinge position now occupied by registrars will be effective. That is why the links between UKBA and registrars’ offices are being increased and intensified, why guidance is being issued to the clergy and why registrars’ offices are being given training to ensure that they can recognise an application for a suspicious marriage if it comes their way.
We have to intensify all those methods. It is difficult to know at this stage whether that will be effective. The Government will do our very best, because it is important and in the public interest that this should not be a route for covert immigration, which it has been becoming—people have been engaged in what we can only call organised crime to get people into this country via that route. We have conducted two publicity campaigns, as my honourable friend in another place mentioned, designed to alert both those who enforce and those who may try to abuse the system that measures are being taken against that.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Martin, that in Scotland all register offices are designated, so the issue of having to travel does not arise. Only the application has to be made through approved offices. For people who marry abroad, other immigration rules still apply, including an English-language test, so not all the barriers against abuse fall away as a result of the absence of the certificate scheme. The answer to the noble Lord’s question—is a failed asylum-seeker subject to continuing immigration control?—is definitely yes. Anyone without status that enables them to stay will certainly be subject to immigration controls.
No other route will arise from the absence of the certificate scheme that will make it easier for people to abuse the system. We are doing our very best to ensure that the absence of the certificate scheme does not render either the sham marriage route—the suspect marriage route—or any other route to abusing the immigration system any easier to operate. As a general proposition, I think that the House would agree that there is increasing effort both to publicise the fact that the Government intend to act against abuse of the system and to put in place effective measures to ensure that, having said that we will do that, that is the outcome.
Although there is some anxiety in the House, which I share, about our ability to control the situation, we will be monitoring it carefully and making our best efforts to ensure that that route is not used. I hope that the House will feel it necessary to abolish the scheme and, on the basis of the Government putting in place the best methods that we can to control this, approve the order.
Motion agreed.
Draft Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (Remedial) Order 2010
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Neville-Jones
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 April 2011.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Draft Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (Remedial) Order 2010.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c1610-2 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:56:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734258
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734258
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734258