We are back. I put on record that we are all cold. I do not know who is in charge of the heating in here. I ask members to bring in portable radiators next week, just to make a symbolic gesture. We are all cold; so cold that even people who are sitting in the public gallery have had to take coffee to warm themselves up—now, there is a first. However, they were not allowed near the muffins—although perhaps they got them while my back was turned.
Yes.
I also welcome Lily Greenan of Scottish Women’s Aid and Catriona Dalrymple, who is head of policy at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I apologise to Ms Dalrymple’s colleague, Anne Marie Hicks, who waited such a long time but had to leave for important reasons.
I wonder whether we could look at the Istanbul convention. The Scottish Women’s Aid submission suggests that the current civil law approach, whereby only a breach of a forced marriage protection order is criminalised, is compliant with the article in the Istanbul convention, whereas Police Scotland and perhaps the cabinet secretary suggest that it is not. Could we consider that?
I thank Ms Mitchell for that question. The Istanbul convention requires that state parties that wish to ratify the convention ensure that forced marriage is criminalised in their state. Our argument is that forced marriage is already criminalised in Scotland through a number of provisions, in common law and in statute, and that there is no need to create a specific offence of forced marriage.
You are nodding, Ms Wadhwa.
I agree. I do not think that we need specific legislation to criminalise forced marriage. A lot of the behaviour that we see around forced marriage and in situations in which forced marriage arises is already criminalised, so we do not need a specific law against it.
Just for the record, how is it criminalised?
The behaviour that we see in the forced marriage cases that we have dealt with includes abduction, illegal confinement and physical assault. All of those factors are already criminalised. Criminalising forced marriage is problematic for us at Shakti Women’s Aid because we do not see forced marriage as an event. We see it as a process. It is not a wedding. It is a process that starts for many people when they are children and can end when they are in their 30s or 40s. What exactly are you going to criminalise in that process? There is a lot of behaviour as part of that process that is already criminalised. We do not really need specific legislation around that. That is one of the arguments.
Ms Imery.
Thank you, convener.
I should call you detective chief superintendent, as that is your title.
Not at all.
Not at all? All right. It is shorter to call you Ms Imery.
I think that we all agree that forced marriage is unacceptable and fundamentally wrong, so there is no dissent in our view on that matter.
Thank you for your submission, in which you make it clear that seven forced marriage protection orders have been granted in Scotland, six of which related to children. What age were those children?
They ranged from as young as 11 to 16; in fact, only one of the children is 16. There were a couple of 13-year-olds and a 15-year-old.
I take it that those proceedings are not live and that we can discuss them.
They are live. These are interim forced marriage protection orders and because of the small numbers involved I am unable to be very specific. If I were, I would be in danger of identifying the individuals involved.
Absolutely. That is fine.
Scotland’s prosecution service will work within whatever criminal law the Parliament sees fit—
So we would hope. We would not want you to work outwith it.
I just wanted to stress that this is a matter for the Parliament. As prosecutors, we acknowledge that forced marriage is a very complicated issue and, given the need to recognise that a prosecutorial response might not always be the most effective, we will continue to work with the support agencies and the police to ensure that the most effective response is taken in the best interests of the people involved.
A different system was adopted in Scotland because of the fear that criminalising forced marriage outright would stop victims coming forward. We thought that forced marriage protection orders would be a good halfway house and would encourage people facing threats, violence and all the pressures that Ms Dalrymple has mentioned to come forward.
To give the committee some statistics, 14 cases of forced marriage came to Shakti last year but not all of the people involved were willing to consider even the forced marriage protection order when they contacted us. Indeed, we have to work at getting them to use even that. That figure does not include women who have already been forced into marriage but, in our experience, those who have been forced into marriage and who come forward are looking for safety for themselves rather than some sort of justice. They are not looking to prosecute their families. They just want the marriage in which they find themselves to end.
That is very helpful; thank you.
I think that I will bring in Sandra White here because she was on the Equal Opportunities Committee and was involved in the passing of the legislation. John Finnie, were you involved in that?
No.
I am interested to hear what informed that committee and took it to the original civil remedy that, if breached, is followed by a criminal offence. Someone asked me whether forced marriage is not illegal anyway. We should make it plain that it is illegal, but it is not a criminal offence unless the forced marriage protection order is breached. I just want to make it plain on the record that we are not saying that forced marriage is not illegal.
I was on the Equal Opportunities Committee that considered the original legislation and we took evidence from all the groups. We heard evidence that is similar to what Mridul Wadhwa said—the issue is not as clear-cut as it seems. There are a lot of cultural and historical issues to consider.
I think that you are giving evidence, Sandra. We will get to a question.
Oh, sorry. When we looked at that, it seemed to the Equal Opportunities Committee that criminalisation was not the proper way to go.
Yes. We have obviously spoken to our staff and also to a number of those who have been affected by forced marriage. One person in particular stands out: a woman who is very estranged from her family, although she has some relationship with them. Her forced marriage took place about 15 or 18 years ago and it is only now that she has bravely come forward to talk about forced marriage. She asked for safety when she was still a teenager and did not get the most effective response—something that still happens for a number of victims of forced marriage today—and even she is not convinced that criminalisation will assist victims when forced marriage is happening. Maybe retrospectively, 10 or 15 years later, when a person has moved away from the situation, they may think that they should have gone after a prosecution, but only a minority of those affected by forced marriage say that they would have wanted their parents, uncle, aunt or husband to go to prison. That was not an in-depth consultation, but I spoke to a number of women and, of course, our colleagues as well.
I want to address the question about how long a consultation would be, which is a bit academic. The concern in our submission is that the step that the Scottish Government took was taken without any discussion with the forced marriage network and without any consultation with the organisations with which it had consulted quite extensively in the run-up to the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011, as Sandra White will know from her work on the Equal Opportunities Committee. That consultation was a good process that took account of the views of different communities around Scotland and looked at what was going to work.
Can I just say something for the record? The Government has not yet taken a step. What it has put forward has come to the committee. We have to report by mid-December and in the Parliament’s first week back after recess there will be a debate. This committee is very influential, so if we take a view on what has been suggested maybe we can turn the tide a bit.
I thank you for that, convener, but in response I say that although the issue is now at this committee, it started as an email to the forced marriage network that announced that there was going to be a criminalisation of forced marriage.
When this committee saw that, we decided to have you here—we jumped in.
That is great. I am very happy that you did that. It is good to know that the matter is not done and dusted.
Goodness! I remember it coming into force.
Over that three decades-plus, we have seen an enormous shift in public perceptions about domestic abuse. In recognition of the impact that it has, the education and awareness raising that has gone on has massively supported men and women to come forward and acknowledge that they are victims of domestic abuse. Whereas in 1976 the Dobashes were able to review for their violence against wives report 2,000 cases, I think, in which there had been an assault against a wife by a husband, last year more than 60,000 incidents were reported to police in Scotland.
Does anybody else wish to comment? Police Scotland has a different view. We seem to be hearing that the approach would be counterproductive to protecting the very people whom we want to protect. Lily Greenan seems to be saying that the approach could be incremental and that, somewhere down the road, it might be possible to move on to there being a criminal offence, but not in this way, now.
I accept that the issue is hugely complex and am very aware of the strong views about what has, until today, been felt to be a lack of consultation. That view was expressed at a meeting at the end of October in which Police Scotland brought together stakeholders—from service providers and the third sector in particular. Scottish Women’s Aid and Shakti Women’s Aid were both represented. The discussion was about wider issues including female genital mutilation and so-called honour-based violence, and was not just about forced marriage.
We are taking that message out anyway through the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011. After that legislation was passed, there was a significant public campaign around forced marriage and its unacceptability. I do not know whether any research has been done on its effectiveness, but from our perspective, it has certainly been easier to have conversations with many people that we did not have before that, including local authorities, for example. Until that legislation, they were not even willing to talk about forced marriage or to recognise it as an issue for them.
I will let somebody else in now, if that is all right. I call John Finnie, to be followed by Alison McInnes, Roderick Campbell and Margaret Mitchell.
Good afternoon, panel. My question is for the detective chief superintendent. It is clear that a lot of collaborative work goes on between you, the prosecution service and the women’s aid groups. Did you discuss the submission that Police Scotland was going to put in with the women’s aid groups before you provided it?
No.
That is not indicative of collaborative working, is it?
We had a meeting on 30 October at which, as I said, everybody was represented. I chaired that meeting and I gave a platform to one of Lily Greenan’s colleagues, Louise Johnson, for her to explain the issues to everybody who was present. There is no question that I was unaware of the issue. I was aware of the Government’s position and I gave an opportunity for the issue to be aired within that partnership context. You asked me specifically whether I discussed the content. I did not, but we knew one another’s positions.
To be fair, there has not been an awful lot of time for anybody to do much.
There is no personal attack here, but—
I know, but in fairness I should say that the process has all been accelerated.
I am trying to understand the process. There is a clear and compelling message in the information that was emailed last night, which states that, if we do not take advice from the people and communities that the bill is intended to affect, we ignore the message from them at our peril.
I would not be so bold as to say that a change to the law—
Might it help to change attitudes and practice in communities?
There are precedents. Parliament has done that in relation to football offences, for example, by giving people a strong message about sectarianism. If we are drawing parallels, there was—and is—existing legislation to deal with sectarianism, but it was felt that there was a societal moral issue in Scotland and we wanted to articulate strongly that sectarianism is not acceptable. In that vein, I argue that there is merit in being specific and clear that forced marriage is a crime in Scotland.
Indeed. I understand that there was a quick turnaround. I wonder whether—
I add that the submission from Malcolm Graham, the assistant chief constable, of 22 November mentions the caveats that the existing legislation has not been around very long and that forced marriage is hugely underreported. Again, Police Scotland is not at fault, given the break-neck speed of this. I appreciate that it is in a difficult position.
I have a question for Ms Dalrymple. I absolutely appreciate that the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service work with the legislation that they are given, but is it your view that the civil remedies, combined with the existing common law, have been insufficient to deal with the issue?
That is the difficulty. We have not had experience in relation to the civil remedies. There is evidence that there have been a number of FMPOs. We have had one breach of order reported to us, but it was decided in consultation with the police that we would not progress a prosecution because there were difficulties with the way in which the order was drafted and, actually, prosecution was not the response that was demanded at the time.
To clarify, you said that a prosecution is not being progressed.
There was one report—
The submission from Malcolm Graham says:
My understanding is that a decision has been taken that there will not be live criminal proceedings as a result of the issues that I mentioned.
That is right.
Thank you. I just wanted clarity on that.
I am also new to the issue and am just going on what I have seen in the papers that we have received in the past few days. However, does what you have said suggest that the existing arrangements are working satisfactorily?
The point that I made was that it could be difficult to shoehorn some of the behaviours within a forced marriage into the existing offences. However, I do not have examples that I can provide the committee with simply because they have not been reported to us.
I hesitate to say that the current arrangements are sufficient, because I think that seven FMPOs is a woefully low number. We have heard that 14 cases have come to Shakti this year, not including cases involving women who are already in that position, so clearly the information is not coming to the police. I understand what inhibitors there might be, but somewhere, collectively, we are failing a lot of women and children.
You are, though, being told by the people who are directly involved that involving criminal law will act as a further inhibitor to people coming forward. Nonetheless, you commend that course of action.
So, we know about hardly any at the moment and we will know about none.
I would not say that the women are being failed because they have not gone to the police; they have made contact with someone. The messages about intolerance of forced marriage have reached them and they are asking for assistance. At that moment, involving the police is not the sort of assistance that they wish for. Sometimes, what they want is just a discussion of their options, although we might at some point have to involve the police.
Who do men report to if they have been forced into marriage? Sandra White referred to that. Do men have a network of support?
There are a number of places to which men can go. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s forced marriage unit is a good destination, as is the police. I have been involved in supporting an agency that was dealing with a man who was in a forced marriage. That agency does not normally deal with forced marriage, but we were able to connect it with the services that were needed in that situation.
Part of the benefit of this committee taking evidence on the subject is that people who are in a forced marriage but had never thought of reporting it might be able to read what you say. Dealing with the LCM in this way might in itself publicise the issue. That is why I wanted to ask about men, who might have different feelings about coming forward. I wanted to give you the opportunity to say what could be done for them.
We work with young boys and men up to the age of 18 anyway. If they fall into that age group, Shakti would be working with them.
Thank you. That is helpful.
I want to build on what Lily Greenan said about the evolution of domestic abuse.
We take that as a general point, but it is not the case that one size fits all.
I accept that.
Let us move on.
My question follows on from Ms Dalrymple’s point. The Scottish Government argues that it feels the need for consistent legislation on forced marriage throughout the UK, which is why it has brought forward the LCM. I set aside the fact that that is a rather odd statement from a nationalist Government.
You were doing so well.
Would there be unintended consequences of our not agreeing the LCM? Now that we are where we are, is there a danger that it would be perceived as being less of an issue in Scotland if we did not agree the LCM?
Scotland does not have a specific offence of marital rape, although England does. It is an offence for someone to rape the woman to whom they are married or with whom they are in an intimate relationship and now, under the most recent Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, it is an offence for someone to rape a man to whom they are married or with whom they are in a civil partnership. There has to be statute in England because that is how English law works, although it is not how our law works.
That is only one part of an answer, but it is a fair point.
It was just the first thing that occurred to me.
Does anybody else want to comment? What about cross-border enforcement?
We already have difficulty with cross-border enforcement around things such as interdicts. In Scotland, our civil remedies are different from those that are available in England, although there might be parallels and ways of equalising them. Until relatively recently in Scotland—I am not even sure whether this has gone all the way through yet—a person could not register to vote anonymously, as a survivor of domestic abuse, using their interdict as evidence for the electoral registration clerk as to why they need to vote anonymously. People in England and Wales have that right. If someone from England, Wales or Northern Ireland came to Scotland, they could pitch up before an electoral registration officer and say, “Here’s my injunction. You’ve got paperwork that tells you that you recognise that,” and they could register to vote anonymously in Scotland, although a woman from Scotland could not. We already have cross-border issues and we find ways round them. Such work is a large part of what organisations such as mine do. I do not see that as being an issue, in itself.
To go back to the question, I think that forced marriage being a crime in England and Wales but not in Scotland would risk feeding a perception that Scotland in some way offers less protection. I accept that that might not be the reality, but that might be the perception.
That was an interesting question, Alison—not that your questions are not always interesting. I did not mean to sound surprised.
I will follow up what Alison McInnes has been talking about in a slightly different way. The UK Government is a signatory to the Istanbul convention and, under the current constitutional position, it speaks for Scotland although Scotland has a different criminal justice system. The key question in my mind is whether the existing legislation in Scotland meets the requirements of article 37 of the convention.
When I sought clarity from Government officials following the spirited discussion that I referred to earlier, the response was that whether you agree or do not agree is a moot point. It is a fact that we do not comply with article 37, and forced marriage is not a crime in Scotland. That was the response on the lack of consultation; there is no requirement for consultation because that is a fact.
I thought that I had read somewhere that we are compliant with article 37.
Yes, that is the usual view.
It is about interpretation. Article 37 requires that
I agree to a certain extent. That is where the debate should be; the other points that we are considering seem to be slightly irrelevant to where we are. I will be interested to hear more from the Scottish Government on that point.
We are irrelevant with our other questions, but I do not mind.
That was my starting point too. There is some dubiety about whether we contravene article 37. We then get into arguments about deterrents and cultural change, but we have heard that people will not come forward if forced marriage is criminalised. Where is the public interest? Criminalisation will not be a deterrent because what victims want is some protection and to get out of the marriage, and they still harbour the hope that they can be reintegrated into their family. There is much less chance that that will happen if forced marriage is made a criminal offence.
I knew that you had been a convener at some point in time because of the way that you sweep me to one side at times.
We listened to all the arguments on a very complex issue and we were very proud of the legislation that we passed. We thought that we had excelled and done better than what was in place in England by coming up with a balance: a deterrent that would still encourage people to come forward while being protected. I feel that the Government jumped the gun in seeking an amendment on 15 October without scrutinising how the FMPOs work in practice.
You do not understand why I am laughing—
There is a majority Government and legislation can go through very quickly—this is a case in point.
That is not what I was laughing at, Margaret; I was laughing at you thanking everybody for their evidence, which is usually the convener’s role. I have given up.