The White Paper published by the Home Office in February has been sharply, and rightly, criticised for its proposals on asylum procedures. What has received less comment is the commitment it makes to important changes in immigration policy with regard to marriage and cohabitation. At least two aspects of these proposals are likely to have a significant impact on settled communities, and it is worth giving them some consideration.

The White Paper argues that there is a problem with current arrangements for considering applications for leave to remain on the basis of marriage. It claims that "there is a growing body of evidence that a greater proportion than was previously appreciated of people in the country seeking leave to remain in the country on the basis of marriage are not, in fact, genuine relationships." It states that nearly 700 marriages were reported by marriage registrars as being 'suspicious' during the first year of operation of provisions in the 1998 Act which required such notification. Nothing is said about the results of follow-up inquiries about these marriage, and whether these suspicions turned out to have any basis; but nonetheless this 'evidence' has been deemed sufficient to support proposals for significant changes to the system.

In the typical style of the 'managed migration' project, the proposals involved a quid pro quo. Some people will be better off as a consequence of the changes, namely the 'genuine' applicants for whom there is 'clear evidence of a established, permanent relationship. People in this category will be able to show evidence of marriage, or a cohabiting relationship akin to marriage, which has subsisted for five or more years. In these circumstances entry clearance officers will issue entry clearance for immediate settlement on arrival in the UK. It will no longer be necessary for partners in these long-established relations to service a probationary period before getting indefinite leave to remain.

This arrangement will not apply to applications made from within the UK, even when there is clear and indisputable evidence of five years cohabitation and genuineness of the relationship. This is the downside of the proposal. Henceforth the immigration rules will preclude the possibility of 'switching' from one category requiring leave to remain (student, visitor, work permit holder, etc) to marriage. People marrying whilst in the UK will, in all but exceptional cases, be expected to leave the UK to apply for entry clearance from abroad.

Applicants granted leave to enter as spouses or cohabitees, but who do not qualify on the basis of a relationship subsisting for five or more years, will still be admitted, but for a probationary period lasting for two years, instead of the current 12 months. The reasons for the extension of the probationary period are given in the White Paper as providing "a longer period to test the genuineness of the marriage and increase the change of exposing sham marriages."

With this proposal the Home Office has signaled its intention to ignore the concerns of groups working with women in immigrant communities, who have argued that probationary periods of any length increase pressure within newly established marriages and contribute to anxiety, if not outright domestic violence. Based on direct experience of these problems, long-established groups like Southall Black Sisters have called for the abolition of the existing 12 month probationary period on the grounds that immigration pressures need to be taken off marriages in order that the people involved can concentrate on considerations relating to safety and welfare. The Home Office appears to be willing to ignore advice coming directly from community organisations to pursue an agenda based on the factually dubious suspicions of marriage registrars.

Other points are made in the White Paper on family issues which should be welcomed. The current requirement for cohabiting couples to demonstrate an impediment to marriage (i.e. being not able to marry for legal reasons) will be abolished, allowing those with a preference for not marrying to benefit from the rules. The fees for family visitor appeals will also be scrapped, though there are worrying hints that the Home Office will seek to revive its early proposal, which provoked huge negative reaction, for a financial bond to be lodged against the return of such visitors.

It is likely that some form of public consultation will take place before some of the measures on family immigration policy proceed. In anticipation of the difficulties that will be created for many people - particularly with regard to the 'no-switching' and two-year probation periods, we should make sure that our views are heard loud and clear.

Don Flynn, Policy Coordinator, JCWI