TSA321
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2013
- Runs
- 1,192
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/26/forced-marriage-victims-pay-home-uk-charity
The Foreign Office has come under fire for ordering victims of forced marriage to repay the government the costs of their repatriation.
In a letter seen by the Guardian, a Muslim women’s charity has written to the Foreign Office on behalf of a British woman who arrived at the UK embassy in Islamabad in 2014, aged 17, seeking help to escape a forced marriage.
She was required to sign a loan agreement and surrender her passport before she was flown back to the UK. She was then issued a bill for £814, the cost of her repatriation from Pakistan, and will not have her passport returned until she repays the money.
During her time as home secretary, the prime minister, Theresa May, pushed through legislation to criminalise forced marriage. However, a system whereby victims have to cover the costs of their repatriation or borrow money from the Foreign Office remains in place.
The woman, who cannot to be named for her safety, was taken to Pakistan in 2013 and forced into a violent marriage at the age of 16. Seeking an escape route, she found an excuse to visit the embassy in Islamabad in 2014. Her husband accompanied her and waited outside with a gun.
Aged 17, the woman would have been too young to get a bank loan in the UK, but she was required to sign the loan agreement with the Foreign Office as she could not cover the costs of her repatriation herself or ask for family help. She has since struggled to find work or pursue her studies without a passport.
Writing to the Foreign Office on the woman’s behalf after she contacted the Muslim Women’s Network UK helpline, Shaista Gohir, the charity’s chair, said that demanding payment from forced marriage victims was morally wrong and counterproductive.
She wrote: “Your policy is likely to put off victims from asking for help, and it is unacceptable that a victim should have no option but to remain in a forced marriage because he or she cannot afford to pay for their escape.”
She added: “The last thing a forced marriage victim needs when having already become estranged from family, with no support or security and with very limited financial resources [I understand she is in receipt of benefits] is to then have demands being made for repayments that they cannot afford, and were accrued through no fault of their own.”
Responding to a letter from the woman’s MP, the Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood said: “The FCO understand the risk that forced marriage victims face, and the difficulties that they may encounter upon their return to the UK. The forced marriage unit works closely with services in the UK to support victims following their repatriation.
“We are not, however, funded to provide financial assistance to British nationals overseas, and cannot therefore pay for repatriations. We keep our assistance provision under constant review.”
He added: “I would also ask that you reassure [the woman] that the FCO will not pursue this through the courts.”
Ellwood wrote that the system of loan agreements was used because forced marriage victims often could not turn to their parents for financial assistance. “Parents may not be in favour of repatriation in forced marriage cases, instead wishing the child to remain and continue with the marriage,” he wrote.
“We believe they would therefore not consent to sign a loan agreement for return to the UK. Moreover, in a number of forced marriage cases the parents do not know about the repatriation. Alerting the parents to the repatriation by asking them to pay for it could put the victim at further risk.”
The Bradford West MP, Naz Shah, who was herself forced into marriage, described the Foreign Office’s policy as “morally and ethically wrong”. “These are vulnerable victims of domestic violence – because domestic violence isn’t just about physical violence – so you are doubly punishing somebody.”
She said the policy threw into doubt May’s commitment to helping victims of forced marriage. “Every cutback that this government has made, it’s women that bear the brunt of it,” Shah added.
An FCO spokeswoman said: “The UK is a world-leader in the fight to stamp out the brutal practice of forced marriage, with our dedicated forced marriage unit leading efforts to combat it both at home and abroad.”
In 2015, the Foreign Office’s forced marriage unit gave advice or support related to a possible forced marriage in 1,220 cases. The Crown Prosecution Service’s most recent report on violence against women and girls shows that there were 90 forced marriage referrals from the police in 2015-16, up from 82 in 2014-15, the highest ever recorded.
A record 57 (63.3%) of those referrals were charged, up from 58.5% in 2014-15. The volume of prosecutions completed in 2015-16 rose to 53 from 46 in 2014-15. About 60% of prosecutions were successful, a fall from 63.0% in 2014-15.
Forcing someone into marriage in England and Wales carries a maximum seven-year jail sentence under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The Foreign Office has come under fire for ordering victims of forced marriage to repay the government the costs of their repatriation.
In a letter seen by the Guardian, a Muslim women’s charity has written to the Foreign Office on behalf of a British woman who arrived at the UK embassy in Islamabad in 2014, aged 17, seeking help to escape a forced marriage.
She was required to sign a loan agreement and surrender her passport before she was flown back to the UK. She was then issued a bill for £814, the cost of her repatriation from Pakistan, and will not have her passport returned until she repays the money.
During her time as home secretary, the prime minister, Theresa May, pushed through legislation to criminalise forced marriage. However, a system whereby victims have to cover the costs of their repatriation or borrow money from the Foreign Office remains in place.
The woman, who cannot to be named for her safety, was taken to Pakistan in 2013 and forced into a violent marriage at the age of 16. Seeking an escape route, she found an excuse to visit the embassy in Islamabad in 2014. Her husband accompanied her and waited outside with a gun.
Aged 17, the woman would have been too young to get a bank loan in the UK, but she was required to sign the loan agreement with the Foreign Office as she could not cover the costs of her repatriation herself or ask for family help. She has since struggled to find work or pursue her studies without a passport.
Writing to the Foreign Office on the woman’s behalf after she contacted the Muslim Women’s Network UK helpline, Shaista Gohir, the charity’s chair, said that demanding payment from forced marriage victims was morally wrong and counterproductive.
She wrote: “Your policy is likely to put off victims from asking for help, and it is unacceptable that a victim should have no option but to remain in a forced marriage because he or she cannot afford to pay for their escape.”
She added: “The last thing a forced marriage victim needs when having already become estranged from family, with no support or security and with very limited financial resources [I understand she is in receipt of benefits] is to then have demands being made for repayments that they cannot afford, and were accrued through no fault of their own.”
Responding to a letter from the woman’s MP, the Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood said: “The FCO understand the risk that forced marriage victims face, and the difficulties that they may encounter upon their return to the UK. The forced marriage unit works closely with services in the UK to support victims following their repatriation.
“We are not, however, funded to provide financial assistance to British nationals overseas, and cannot therefore pay for repatriations. We keep our assistance provision under constant review.”
He added: “I would also ask that you reassure [the woman] that the FCO will not pursue this through the courts.”
Ellwood wrote that the system of loan agreements was used because forced marriage victims often could not turn to their parents for financial assistance. “Parents may not be in favour of repatriation in forced marriage cases, instead wishing the child to remain and continue with the marriage,” he wrote.
“We believe they would therefore not consent to sign a loan agreement for return to the UK. Moreover, in a number of forced marriage cases the parents do not know about the repatriation. Alerting the parents to the repatriation by asking them to pay for it could put the victim at further risk.”
The Bradford West MP, Naz Shah, who was herself forced into marriage, described the Foreign Office’s policy as “morally and ethically wrong”. “These are vulnerable victims of domestic violence – because domestic violence isn’t just about physical violence – so you are doubly punishing somebody.”
She said the policy threw into doubt May’s commitment to helping victims of forced marriage. “Every cutback that this government has made, it’s women that bear the brunt of it,” Shah added.
An FCO spokeswoman said: “The UK is a world-leader in the fight to stamp out the brutal practice of forced marriage, with our dedicated forced marriage unit leading efforts to combat it both at home and abroad.”
In 2015, the Foreign Office’s forced marriage unit gave advice or support related to a possible forced marriage in 1,220 cases. The Crown Prosecution Service’s most recent report on violence against women and girls shows that there were 90 forced marriage referrals from the police in 2015-16, up from 82 in 2014-15, the highest ever recorded.
A record 57 (63.3%) of those referrals were charged, up from 58.5% in 2014-15. The volume of prosecutions completed in 2015-16 rose to 53 from 46 in 2014-15. About 60% of prosecutions were successful, a fall from 63.0% in 2014-15.
Forcing someone into marriage in England and Wales carries a maximum seven-year jail sentence under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
