Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7820, in the name of Alex Neil, on the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill. I call on Alex Neil to speak to and move the motion. Time is very tight this afternoon. You have seven minutes, minister.
14:35
I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate on the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill, which henceforth I shall refer to as the bill.
Before turning to the Equal Opportunities Committee’s stage 1 report, I would like to spell out briefly the Government’s intentions in introducing the bill and the context in which it sits. The Scottish Government believes that all people in Scotland who are eligible to marry or to enter into a civil partnership have a right to do so freely and without coercion. The bill aims to help protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society through the legal process in a very proactive, flexible way. I was heartened by the committee’s comment in its report that, although the number of victims may be relatively low, the detrimental impact of forced marriage is extremely high and cannot be tolerated.
In addressing forced marriage, we cannot and should not separate it from the Government’s wider work to address other forms of violence against women. Yes, we know that men are affected by this terrible problem but, predominantly, it is women who are the victims, and the work to tackle it sits in that context. There are clear links with domestic abuse and rape.
I thank the Equal Opportunities Committee for its scrutiny of the bill. It has listened to evidence from our key stakeholders and has clearly taken on board their concerns in drafting its stage 1 report. I am pleased that there is so much common ground in the report and that the committee supports the general principles of the bill.
The Government will respond to the committee’s report, including its recommendations for amendments to the bill, in writing, but I will comment on some of the main points that were raised in the report, many of which related to the bill’s implementation rather than its content.
A recurring theme of the evidence sessions that is reflected in the stage 1 report is the need for a clear and effective implementation strategy for the bill that includes guidance, training, awareness raising and education. We know that it is also essential that links are made with existing child and adult protection mechanisms for supporting people who are at risk. We continue to work with stakeholders to shape the implementation of the bill, on the proviso that it successfully makes its way through the parliamentary stages. The forced marriage network is vital to that work, and I thank its members who have been instrumental in driving forward the agenda as well as in shaping the bill.
As a first step in that process, the Government will consult widely on the draft statutory guidance that will accompany the legislation, to give public sector bodies an opportunity to shape and inform its contents to ensure that it is an essential tool in their development of informed and effective responses to victims of forced marriage whom their staff may have to support. In addition, the consultation will begin the awareness-raising process among practitioners who may never have come across the issue in their professional life.
We appreciate the concerns that the committee raised in its report about the importance of close monitoring of cases to ensure that a victim’s safety is maintained once an order has been obtained, so that it continues to remain valid and in force. Such issues will be explored over the next few months, including during the consultation on the guidance, to ensure that when the bill comes into force, those who deal with cases know what their responsibilities are to ensure that victims and people who are in fear of forced marriage are kept safe.
A big part of that process is ensuring that people know about the bill and the issues surrounding forced marriage. We share the committee’s view that significant work is required to raise awareness and understanding of forced marriage in Scotland. We are committed to undertake that work and have established a group of forced marriage network members to develop and take it forward as a matter of priority.
The Government will work with the Scottish Court Service, police and other public sector bodies, as well as third sector organisations that are providing direct support to victims of forced marriage, to improve the statistical information that is available about cases of forced marriage. That commitment is reflected in the bill’s equality impact assessment. We know that we need to find out more, especially about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, male victims and those with physical and learning disabilities who are affected by forced marriage.
We hear what stakeholders and the committee said during the evidence gathering about concerns that victims could be trapped in a religious marriage once the civil marriage has been ended. We are committed to continuing to engage with relevant religious authorities on the issue of the nullification of forced marriages and to raise awareness of the bill among all religious organisations and communities. The first of the forums will be with groups that represent the Muslim community in Scotland. We will also look at the links between forced marriage and trafficking.
I turn to some of the stage 1 report’s recommendations regarding the content of the bill. I was pleased to see the committee’s comment that the introduction of forced marriage protection orders would provide a simpler procedure, which is in contrast to the current complicated legal recourse of an order or an interdict. I was also pleased to see that committee members welcomed the introduction of FMPOs and felt that they would be an effective, preventive and protective measure in the fight against forced marriage.
One of the key elements of the bill enables the Lord Advocate, or local authorities acting as relevant third parties, to make an application for a forced marriage protection order on behalf of a victim. That recognises that, in many cases of forced marriage, victims feel unwilling or unable to take action against perpetrators who might be members of their family. Again, I take on board the committee’s and stakeholders’ concerns about the monitoring of cases following the issue of an FMPO.
It is vital that local authorities are supported to establish internal mechanisms that allow practitioners to know who will deal with cases and to ensure that those staff are trained and have access to guidance. We will work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, as well as with individual local authorities, to ensure that their views are heard, that guidance is as effective as possible, and that local authorities are equipped to fulfil their role as relevant third parties.
The Government recognises that the bill is only the start of a journey towards eradicating forced marriage from Scotland forever.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Forced Marriage etc. (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill.
14:42
The Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill is important legislation. The Equal Opportunities Committee having been designated as the lead committee on the bill, committee members were pleased to have the opportunity to consider it. My comments today are made as the committee’s convener.
During the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, a number of written submissions were received and members heard oral evidence from a range of witnesses, including representatives of Scottish women’s aid organisations that deal directly with the victims. I thank all those who gave evidence and made a valuable contribution to the committee’s consideration of the bill. My thanks also go to committee members and to the EOC clerks for their work in compiling the stage 1 report.
Similar legislation has been in place in other parts of the United Kingdom since 2007. That means that Scotland is lagging behind and, having heard the harrowing evidence that was provided by those who work with the victims, the committee was in no doubt that the legislation is necessary to protect the victims of forced marriage and to help rid Scotland of an abhorrent practice that has no place in a civilised society.
As the minister mentioned, there is a lack of data available on forced marriages in Scotland. Although the evidence that the committee received suggests that the number of such marriages is quite low, it was nonetheless clear that the adverse impact on the victim or victims is huge, which confirms the need for the legislation.
The bill introduces forced marriage protection orders. Witnesses welcomed the provision for making an order that they regarded as more straightforward than the complicated civil remedies that are currently in place. Scotland will become the only part of the UK in which the breach of an order will be a criminal offence that can result in up to two years in prison. Members consider that that approach strikes the correct balance, providing a strong deterrent to the perpetrators of forced marriage while helping the victims, who are frequently subjected to emotional blackmail from relatives, to overcome their concerns about criminalising family members.
The committee calls on the Government to provide greater clarity on the reporting and notification procedure for acting on the breach of a protection order and on who will have the authority to report a breach. The committee supported the view put forward by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and others that, to be consistent with other legislation, the bill should place the power of arrest for the breach of an order in the bill itself, and it recommends that the Government considers lodging an amendment to that effect.
On the jurisdiction, members agree that protection orders should relate to conduct outwith Scotland, given that many forced marriages have an international dimension. The committee recognises, however, that the orders will have no jurisdiction abroad and for the orders to be successfully implemented there will need to be either an extradition treaty or good working relationships between the countries.
Members recommend that the Government considers tightening the provisions that relate to moving a protected person to another part of Scotland or outwith Scotland, and the committee invites the minister to respond to the recommendation. The committee also recommends that the Government considers an amendment to permit, in certain circumstances, the naming of the person who poses the risk to a protected person.
The bill reinforces a victim-centred approach that allows third parties to make protection order applications on behalf of victims. That is good, but members consider that greater clarity is required about the role that local authorities will play as third parties. The committee invites the Government to provide further information on the on-going responsibilities of third parties to monitor and implement aftercare services. Some specialist support agencies expressed a desire to be listed as relevant third parties, and the committee therefore welcomes the provision in the bill that allows the Scottish ministers to add to the list if required.
Scottish Women’s Aid, ACPOS and other witnesses called for the definition of “forced” in the bill to be more explicit to include the physical aspect of coercion and abuse. The committee agrees that including that aspect in the bill would reinforce the message that physical violence will not be tolerated. Furthermore, the definition of “forced marriage” as used by the Scottish Government states that “duress is involved” in forced marriage. Duress may often be involved, but it is not necessarily always involved. The committee therefore invites the Government to reconsider its use of that definition.
Concern was expressed that a decree of divorce or a declaratory of nullity granted by a Scottish civil court cannot end a marriage according to the provisions of certain religious practices. The committee believes that it is important that the Scottish Government continues to engage with the religious authorities on the issue of nullification of forced marriage and to raise awareness of the bill among all religious communities. The minister’s reassurance on that point this afternoon is welcome.
Guidance on implementing and using the legislation will be critical to ensuring that the legislation works effectively. Members therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to lodge an amendment to confirm that it will, rather than may, issue guidance.
In conclusion, the committee welcomes the bill and recommends that its general principles be agreed to.
14:48
I am pleased to take part in today’s debate on the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill. I have read the Equal Opportunities Committee report, and I congratulate it on addressing the important issues in the bill while keeping the report clear and concise so that even a Johnny-come-lately such as myself can understand it.
For most people, discussions on marriage are generally happy and positive, but for a small number of people who face the threat or reality of forced marriage the issue is full of fear. Although the bill may apply to only a small number of people, it is important that we proceed with it.
I will concentrate on three aspects of the bill, starting with the central plank that is the forced marriage protection order. Like the committee, I welcome the introduction of that measure. The order is easily understood by both the victim and the perpetrator, and I believe that it is a better way of addressing the problem than the civil remedies that we have at present. I especially welcome the fact that the measure will be both preventive and protective.
Section 1(6)(b) sets out a definition of “to force” that includes to
“coerce by threats or other psychological means”
and to
“knowingly take advantage of a person’s incapacity to consent to marriage or to understand the nature of the marriage”.
I agree that the definition is fine as far as it goes but, like Margaret Mitchell and the committee, I have some sympathy with witnesses such as Louise Johnson of Scottish Women’s Aid and Iain Livingstone of ACPOS who suggested that the physical aspect of force should be included. This is one of those debates that we frequently get into when discussing legislation: whether to imply that something is sufficient, as the minister suggests, or whether the bill needs to be more explicit. In this instance, I agree with the committee and those witnesses that the physical aspect of force should be included in the bill. I hope that the minister will look at that sympathetically.
Section 9 will make it a criminal offence to breach a forced marriage protection order and sets out the penalties that may be imposed. I recognise that that makes the Scottish bill different from the UK Forced Marriage Act 2007, but on this occasion I think that we are right. I add one note of discord in observing that we are only just catching up with the UK act; nevertheless, I welcome the fact that we are now there.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the criminalisation of a relative, for example. However, I remind members that we had that debate when we discussed the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders. Both of the orders are about changing behaviour. In this case, as long as the family member does not force the victim into a marriage—an act that we all find abhorrent—they will not be criminalised. I say that not to be glib, but to point out that the course of action is simple and clear. I support the committee’s plea for more clarity around the issue of how reporting and notification of a breach will be enacted, which is, I am sure, something to which it will return at stage 2.
I hope that I will avoid being chided by Sandra White for being negative today, as I am very supportive of the bill. I also hope that the minister will be able to respond positively to the committee’s report. In those terms, he will have the full support of the Labour group.
14:53
The committee’s report, for which I thank the convener, is fairly comprehensive. It is unable to evidence a substantial number of cases; however, although the cases that it finds may be few in number, they are undoubtedly large in impact. Clearly, the Government must act in respect of something that is completely disgraceful in modern times. The system that we have at present is more than unwieldy; frankly, it is a toothless tiger and totally ineffectual in dealing with the issue. We cannot leave ourselves open to having no legislation in place in Scotland when such legislation exists south of the border. That would put victims north of the border in a position of extreme disadvantage.
Over the past 30 to 40 years, this country—with the exception of the idiotic minority—has shown a praiseworthy degree of tolerance as many people from different parts of the world have settled here. Indeed, I often reflect on the fact that the degree of tolerance that is shown here to people from overseas is sometimes not reciprocated abroad.
We have a clear duty to do something here and I think that the FMPOs are the way forward, as they are simple and straightforward. There is, however, a major difficulty, which is reflected in the committee’s report, when the offence is technically committed furth of these shores. There is quite clear evidence that many instances of forced marriages have an international dimension. There will have to be a degree of co-operation on the part of the Scottish and United Kingdom authorities to ensure that the appropriate extradition agreements are made.
I flag up a problem over the issue of definition. I tend to agree that the issue of force should be included in the bill. I guide the minister along the route that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice took in relation to the Justice Committee’s report on the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, and suggest that, in terms of sexual assault, we deal with the definition, which involves not only the question of physical assault but the way in which coercion can be applied. In many instances, we are dealing with physical violence but, in other cases, the coercion is much more subtle, and involves family loyalties or sometimes even tribal loyalties. That must be considered. There must be a protection for someone who might feel, because of those loyalties, misguided though they might be, that they should go down the route of a forced marriage. I commend that approach to the minister.
On balance, I believe that the name of the perpetrator should be included in the order that is applied for, although I recognise the Government’s inhibitions in that respect.
I welcome the fact that the bill contains a provision for third-party applications, because a victim could be in a position of some difficulty if they had to make the application themselves. That is particularly evident if we consider the youth and comparative immaturity of many of the victims.
On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I say that this is a welcome piece of legislation. A bit of work remains to be done on it but I am sure that, at the end of the day, common sense will prevail, and we will produce a worthwhile piece of legislation.
14:57
The Scottish Liberal Democrats are happy to support the bill at stage 1. However, wearing two hats, as I am also a member of the Justice Committee, I support my convener’s comments about the recommendations in the committee’s report, and look forward to engaging in some of the issues that have been raised.
Over the years since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, there have been many opportunities to legislate, but some of the most significant ones have been ignored. In my view, this piece of legislation adds to the small but growing toolkit that we have to address fundamental human rights issues. The existence of that toolkit is a credit to the country.
I do not remember whether the current Administration made a manifesto commitment to legislate on this issue, but I remember that I raised it with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in 2007. I will, therefore, do the usual politician thing and take some credit for putting the issue on the agenda, if not necessarily, thus far, on the statute book.
The issue that we are discussing is important. Previous speakers, members of the committee, committee witnesses and myself—as someone who has worked with the ethnic communities over a number of years—have been keen to point out that this legislation is clearly and distinctly about force. Other members have spoken about how we define that, and that is a matter for future debate between the Government and the committee. However, I and others have been keen to ensure that we do not intrude on cultural traditions around arranged marriage. That tradition disappeared in the UK and Scotland many years ago, although I remember my great-grandmother being a wedding arranger in Ireland, but we must bear in mind that there is a distinction between arranged marriage and forced marriage. That must be part of the education programme around the legislation that we are discussing today, when it finally makes it into statute.
Does the member agree that we must be very clear that forced marriage is not cultural, but is firmly viewed as abuse?
I have no argument with that at all. I recognise fully that forced marriage in any form, whether it involves physical, psychological or other duress—or indeed cultural duress—is not an acceptable way for anyone to proceed.
Where both parties enter into an open agreement and arrangement of their own and their families’ will, that is an entirely different situation, and we need to ensure that the statutory guidelines are clear on how we should proceed in that regard.
I am pleased that the minister has said that he will address the issue of potential difficulties in relation to religious annulment and the statutory civil annulment. I look forward to being part of the committee and discussing those issues with the minister. We will have a very good piece of legislation in Scotland that will, in its final form, be significant in its own way.
15:01
It is incumbent on us all when we talk about forced marriage to keep making the point that it bears absolutely no relation to arranged marriage. We in the chamber may not need to hear that over and over again, but there are people out there who believe that those practices are one and the same thing. That is a problem because it shows a lack of understanding of the perfectly legitimate practice of arranged marriages, but more important is that it undermines the seriousness of forced marriage.
We need to get the point across that forced marriage is completely against the will of at least one of the marriage partners, and that it is recognised in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a contemporary form of slavery, trafficking and sexual exploitation. It is serious stuff: as Elaine Smith said, it is not cultural, but a form of abuse, and the bill helps to make it stand out as such.
I was surprised to learn that there is at present no law in Scotland that expressly prohibits forced marriage, and that it is not a specific criminal offence. In March 2007, as Mary Mulligan said, the UK Government decided to support a private members’ bill on forced marriage. The bill will introduce to Scotland broadly similar provisions.
Of crucial importance is the provision in the bill for local authorities and the Lord Advocate to be able to apply on behalf of a victim for a forced marriage protection order. That is important in cases in which the victim is unable or unwilling to take action themselves. Given that families of victims are often involved in organising a forced marriage, it must be a terrifying prospect for an individual to decide to ask for help, knowing that they will lose their families altogether.
Not everyone is as brave as my constituent, who I will call Nina. Nina is 20 years old and, considering her frightening childhood, given the fact that she no longer has any family support and taking into account that she is on her own many miles from everyone she has ever known, she does remarkably well. At the age of 15, she ran away to avoid being taken overseas to marry a man in his 50s. When her parents found her, they locked her in her bedroom and starved her for a week to teach her a lesson. She managed to get away again, but it is likely that the fear of them finding her and the loneliness of being completely isolated from her entire family and all her friends will never leave her.
I was interested to read the submissions to the Equal Opportunities Committee’s investigation into the bill. Many groups, including Shakti Women’s Aid, Hemat Gryffe Women’s Aid and Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland, called for work to be done to bring about a shift in social attitudes.
We must not forget that simply telling people that we do not approve is not the most effective deterrent in the long term. The most effective deterrent is to demonstrate the terrible harm that the practice does to individuals and their families. We must keep in mind that a shift in attitude is needed, but that will not happen overnight, nor will it happen simply as a result of the bill.
BEMIS expressed concerns that tackling the issue could
“foster culture stereotyping and antagonism against some groups.”
That is a valid concern, and a reminder that the issue will be used by some people to further their racist views.
When we talk about the issue, and when we legislate, we must be careful about how we articulate our arguments. We should acknowledge that forced marriage happens in all communities, and that it is not simply about religion or race. Indeed, we are hearing about more cases in which someone is forced into marriage to care for a physically or mentally disabled spouse.
We should be clear that it is very rare, in whichever community it happens. There will be cases of which we are unaware, but in 2009 we were aware of 40 incidents of forced marriage in Scotland. It is relatively rare, but each of those 40 people deserves our protection, if that is what they want. For those 40 in 2009, for the many in the years before and for all those who are too frightened or too resigned to their fate to tell someone, the bill says that it is not all right, and that we recognise their right to consent to marriage or not, if it is not what they want to do.
I commend the bill at stage 1.
15:05
I am pleased to support the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill. I believe that it has successfully addressed the problems that were highlighted when legislation on the issue was last considered in Scotland. In 2005, in conjunction with the Westminster Government, I launched the joint consultation “Forced Marriage—A Wrong Not a Right”, to examine whether legislation to create a specific criminal offence would help to combat forced marriage. At that time, the majority of respondents felt that making forced marriage a criminal offence could be counterproductive because it might deter victims from seeking help for fear of the legal repercussions for their families. Consequently, the proposals in the consultation were dropped for the time being.
I am pleased to say that the forced marriage bill that has come before the Equal Opportunities Committee achieves the right balance between categorically setting out Scotland’s opposition to this breach of an individual’s human rights and providing realistic and sensitive access to protection for its victims. The forced marriage protection order creates a simple and understandable legal recourse that will enable a court to both prevent and require certain actions on the part of the perpetrator, thereby ensuring that an appropriate response is tailored to the individual circumstances of each case.
Unlike south of the border, where breach of a protection order is classed only as contempt of court, in Scotland, breach will constitute a criminal offence, with penalties of up to two years in prison for the most serious offences and/or a fine. Together, the provisions will create a strong deterrent to potential perpetrators and send out a clear signal that forced marriage will not be tolerated in Scotland. That message came through strongly in the evidence that was presented to the committee.
However, witnesses were also clear that the bill will live up to its potential only if it is accompanied by a strong public awareness and education campaign. As Assistant Chief Constable lain Livingstone of ACPOS told the committee:
“The bill’s ... value lies in its public message. We need to bring the matter into the open and to secure an absolute consensus that forced marriage will not be tolerated”.—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 23 November 2010; c 2175.]
The committee strongly supports that view and agrees that legislation needs to be supplemented by a strong public awareness raising campaign.
Another strength of the bill is the provision that allows forced marriage protection orders to be sought by third parties including a local authority, the Lord Advocate, or a person specified by Scottish ministers. That will ensure that we have a victim-centred approach by reducing the burden of responsibility on the victim and—at least in theory—by ensuring that the victim receives continuing support through monitoring and aftercare.
However, the committee seeks clarification on a number of points, including which roles or sectors within a local authority will be able to make third-party requests, whether specialist support agencies will also be granted third-party status and, if so, what criteria will be used to decide which organisations qualify, and whether further information will be provided about the continuing responsibilities of third parties to monitor and implement aftercare services. That detail is vital because, as the joint submission from Scottish Women’s Aid, Shakti Women’s Aid and Hemat Gryffe Women’s Aid states,
“it is absolutely crucial that those directly involved in applying for Orders do not simply have this responsibility ‘bolted on’ to their other duties and that care and attention will be taken to ensure that this work is regarded as a specialised support area.”
I am pleased that the Scottish Government has committed to providing statutory guidance to support the legislation and I look forward to consultation on the guidance in the near future. I hope that it will provide essential information for third parties, the police, the judiciary and so on about the practical implementation of the bill, and that it will provide strategies for wider public education campaigns for, for example, health and education providers and local communities.
I wanted to say something about the interrelation with immigration issues, but I see that time is running out, so I will merely conclude by saying that, although the scale of forced marriage in Scotland might be relatively small, the impact is extremely big and it cannot and must not be tolerated. The bill and its accompanying guidance will provide some much-needed relief for those who have nowhere else to turn.
15:09
I thank Mary Mulligan for her positive response. It has been noted. I also pay tribute to my colleague Bashir Ahmad, who felt strongly about the issue—I think that we all know that—and who led a Government debate on the subject in this very Parliament in 2008. He was clear in his speech in that debate and in the many conversations that I had with him about the issue that arranged marriage with the consent of all is not to be confused with forced marriage. That message has come across well in today’s debate.
I congratulate the Equal Opportunities Committee, of which I was a member for a number of years, on its work on the bill. As other members have pointed out, the issue is very emotive. It is not always easy to put emotions to one side when considering legislation, but the Equal Opportunities Committee has managed to do so very successfully.
One thing that we must remember is that although, as the minister has said, the problem predominantly affects women, it can also affect men. Indeed, I was reminded of that fact by a number of young men who spoke to me after a debate on the subject in which I participated in Glasgow city chambers.
Abuse in forced marriages can take many forms: rape, domestic violence, beatings, forced slavery and the victim’s inevitable feeling of helplessness. Perhaps the worst aspect is that the helpless people who are subjected to that continual violence and abuse are also cut off from the outside world and from help; basically, they have been abandoned by the vast majority of the community. I simply do not know how they manage to cope with having to live in such a terrible atmosphere. Anne McLaughlin was very articulate in highlighting the situation that was faced by one of her constituents, but there are many more such people out there.
We need to get what is a very forward-looking bill right for the victims. I sincerely hope that it gives people the courage to come forward to get the help and guidance that will be provided. I note and welcome the minister’s comments in that respect.
The UK forced marriage unit has stated that in 2009 it dealt with 375 actual forced marriage cases. Up until 2009, approximately 10 per cent per year—or, under the 2009 figure, 40 cases—involved people from Scotland. As Malcolm Chisholm and others have pointed out, that might not seem like a huge number, but given the population differences between England and Scotland, that 10 per cent is quite a large number for a country the size of Scotland. As a result, I ask the minister whether during the bill’s passage and when it comes to fruition, the number of cases, which I hope will not rise, will be monitored.
Finally, with regard to section 2(3)(g), the Law Society of Scotland has said that,
“given that forced marriage legislation is already in place in England and Wales it would suggest substituting ‘United Kingdom’ with ‘Scotland’.”
Is the minister seeking to amend the bill to follow that recommendation or will it be up to members to do so?
I think that we all agree that we need to do something about forced marriages, and I welcome the contributions that have been made by members of all political parties. I look forward to the bill going through Parliament and coming to fruition to give justice to the people in this country who are suffering in forced marriages.
15:13
I am pleased that the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill has at last come before Parliament, thereby allowing us to catch up with legislation in the rest of the UK, and that it will make a breach of an FMPO a criminal offence. I understand the reservations that some witnesses have expressed about that move, but the most important thing is to send a strong signal that Scottish society does not condone forced marriage.
Such marriages have been described as low incidence but high impact, so the issue will not be easy to deal with, but we need to protect all our citizens, whatever their circumstances. Moreover, it must be recognised that human rights cannot be seen to be diluted by culture.
Forced marriage is recognised as a specific manifestation of domestic abuse that can affect both men and women, although in most cases it will be young women and girls who are likely to be forced into marriage. Given that evidence can come to light only after the victim complains of domestic abuse—and when, after further inquiry, it appears that there has, in fact, been a forced marriage—I welcome the fact that the legislation will help victims of forced marriages in the past.
As we have heard, there is broad agreement on the bill’s principles; that consensus will allow us to have a real discussion about the details. Although amendments will be lodged at stage 2, they will be largely technical and will cover, for example, the bill’s definition of relevant third parties applying for a protection order and, as we have heard, its definition of force.
The committee report goes into a lot of detail, but I want to concentrate on one or two issues. The definition of forced marriage that the Scottish Government uses is taken from the UK forced marriage unit’s definition, which says:
“A forced marriage is a marriage in which one or both spouses do not (or, in the case of some adults with learning or physical disabilities cannot) consent to the marriage and duress is involved.”
The report asks the minister to reconsider the use of that definition. Committee members heard evidence of women being forced into marriage to act as carers for physically or mentally disabled spouses or to produce an heir. The distress that is caused by such situations is hard to imagine. There is no informed consent from either partner in those situations. One may have been duped or coerced into the marriage, and the other may not have been capable of giving consent. However, there need not necessarily be duress in the case of a person with learning difficulties, for example. Such a person may not be able to give consent, so the marriage is forced. The definition is not included in the bill, but it still needs to be reconsidered.
That scenario also makes me question the Law Society of Scotland’s suggestion that forced marriage protection orders should have a maximum time limit of five years, unless perhaps a review procedure is to be included. Again, I am concerned about people with permanent learning disabilities. If such people are unable to give consent, the passage of time will not change that fact. A permanent FMPO would therefore be more appropriate in the circumstances.
I welcome the minister’s commitment to all the work that he outlined, and I look forward to hearing his response and to the further passage of this important bill.
We move to the winding-up speeches. Hugh O’Donnell has a tight four minutes.
15:16
It seems almost no time since I stood up for my opening speech. Unfortunately, this is a very limited debate. I would have welcomed having much more time for it, because it is clear from the speeches that we have heard that people have an interest in the subject, as is only right.
Several members have made the valid point—perhaps I did not make it as clearly as they did—that the difference between an arranged marriage and a forced marriage must be recognised, and that must be followed through in how we engage with communities. We must ensure that they understand such things and that people know what the law is. Sandra White referred to Bashir Ahmad, who spoke eloquently and frequently about that issue, including to me. His contribution in that regard as a person from one of Scotland’s ethnic minority communities was valid, important and significant.
I am not sure where we will get the resources to ensure that, alongside the bill in its final form, the necessary educational framework will be provided. There is concern, which others have voiced, that if we use the legislation as a bolt-on to the responsibilities of women’s aid groups, we will further stretch their resources to do the work that we expect them to do. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the minister will clarify how things may work, where the targeting will be and how the targeting will be achieved to ensure that people in public agencies, the voluntary sector and community groups are given the information that they need—whether in English or other languages—to make sure that the wider community understands what is going on. A little bit of resource will be needed. I am interested to hear from the minister how resources will be allocated and used, what guidance will be given, what suggestions will be made, and what consultation will take place. Any legislation can be put on to the statute book, but if people do not know that it is there for their protection, they will not use it. It is important that we have a framework or strategy to address those issues as we progress matters.
Marlyn Glen raised the issue of duress. Definitional challenges have been posed, and I agree that there must be some way of overcoming them, but duress takes place in many ways, shapes and forms, of course. I support her view on the issue of what we might call a sunset clause for protection orders. For people who have a learning disability, it might not be appropriate to have a time limit. We might need a case-by-case approach so that each individual case is reviewed over a given period. I would welcome the minister’s response on that, either during his summation or during further discussions with the committee.
I get the sense that we all support the bill at stage 1. Certainly, the Liberal Democrats will support the bill at decision time.
15:20
As members have said, we are clear that there is a key and fundamental distinction between forced marriages, in which one or both people are forced to marry against their free will and which often involve abduction or abuse, and arranged marriages, to which both parties give their free consent. Although the evidence suggests that the incidence of forced marriage in Scotland is low—we support moves to improve the collection of data on that—it is an extremely high-impact occurrence, so it is right that the Parliament should take strong action against it. It is also right that we bring Scotland into line with legislation elsewhere in the UK to prevent forced marriage and protect victims.
In paragraph 16 on page 5 of the Equal Opportunities Committee’s stage 1 report, I read about the distressing case that was outlined by Laura McCrum of Saheliya in which a young girl of 15, the bride, and a young disabled British national with learning difficulties were turned into tragic victims through no wish of their own and to their considerable detriment through a forced marriage. That is the sort of thing that we hope the bill will prevent. The bill sets out Scotland’s position on forced marriage—namely, that we will not condone it.
There is widespread general support for the bill from many organisations, including Shakti Women’s Aid, Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland, the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and ACPOS, to name but a few. I was struck by the comments of Assistant Chief Constable Iain Livingstone of ACPOS, who told the committee:
“The bill’s ... value lies in its public message. We need to bring the matter into the open and to secure an absolute consensus that forced marriage will not be tolerated.”—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 23 November 2010; c 2175.]
We support the committee’s calls for the Scottish Government to continue to engage with all relevant religious authorities on the issue of nullification of forced marriages, to raise awareness of the bill among all religious organisations and communities and to ask for their points of view.
When the Parliament debated the issue in December 2008, as the then communities spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives I said that we were ready to work with the Scottish Government to ensure that the legislation
“is as effective as possible, in the interests of all victims and potential victims of forced marriage.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2008; c 13143.]
That remains our approach. We look forward to the subsequent stages of the bill and to achieving a positive outcome for all in what is a sensitive area.
Louise Johnson told the committee:
“The beauty of having a forced marriage protection order is that it does what it says on the tin”.—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 23 November 2010; c 2180.]
She beautifully summed up what the bill should do.
15:23
Consensus seems to have broken out in the chamber this afternoon in what has been a regrettably short debate on an important subject. I agree with my colleague Mary Mulligan that it would have been better to have had the bill sooner but, that said, because of the wait we now have a better bill.
In closing for the Labour Party, I speak in support of the general principles of the bill, which will bring us into line with other parts of the UK. As has been said, the Equal Opportunities Committee expects the Scottish Government to lodge amendments at stage 2 on various matters, many of which were outlined by the committee convener, Margaret Mitchell, in her opening remarks. We on the Labour benches are clear that the bill is needed to try to stop the horrendous practice of forcing anyone into marriage, whether male or female, but as Marlyn Glen made clear, we recognise that it is mostly young women and girls who are likely to be in that situation. According to Karma Nirvana, 14 per cent of callers to the forced marriage unit are under 16. The committee heard in evidence that the youngest victim that the FMU has dealt with was aged only nine.
Forced marriage is clearly part of the continuum of violence against women and is completely unacceptable. It must, therefore, be exposed and challenged.
The harm to women and girls is becoming clearer as more find the help, support and—importantly—the courage to speak out and to try to leave their situation. Victims seek support from various places, including women’s aid organisations, rape crisis centres and mental health support services. In many cases, only when they seek such help—perhaps for domestic abuse or other issues—does it become apparent that they are in forced marriages.
Harrowing examples were provided to the committee. Some are outlined in the report, and we heard about real-life cases from Anne McLaughlin and, latterly, Jamie McGrigor. I will quote from Jasvinder Sanghera, the author of “Shame”, who founded Karma Nirvana in 1994. The charity, whose name means “peace and enlightenment”, helps the victims of so-called honour crimes and operates a phone line to help the victims of forced marriages. In an article in The Guardian, Jasvinder said:
“I come from a family of seven sisters, and I watched each of them disappear. They’d be taken out of school, sent abroad, and brought back as wives...I saw my sister suffer horrific domestic violence.”
She said:
“When I was 14 my mother showed me a photo of the man I’d been promised to since I was eight years old. I refused to marry him, and for that I was abused, physically and mentally”.
Later, Jasvinder discovered that one of her sisters, Robina, had committed suicide aged 24. She described it:
“She’d doused herself in paraffin and set herself on fire. She knew that because of izzat, or shame, that suicide was the only way out of her marriage.”
There are many such stories of women being beaten, raped, locked up in bedrooms for months on end and murdered. The list of atrocities is huge, and they are being suffered by young women in Scotland as we speak. That is why legislation is important to raise awareness about forced marriage and, ultimately, to stop it happening. Malcolm Chisholm spoke about raising awareness and reiterated why it is so important.
There must be no confusion among official organisations or anyone else about the fact that forced marriage is not cultural but abuse. Sandra White emphasised that in her speech.
Although the bill is a positive step in offering protection to victims of forced marriage and sends a strong message that the practice will not be tolerated in Scotland, it needs amendment. For example, the definition of forced marriage that the Government uses states, “duress is involved”. However, as Marlyn Glen outlined, it could also involve a lack of understanding, so the Government needs to revisit that definition. Perhaps we will hear something about that in the minister’s closing speech.
Section 1(6) is drafted to assume that major force is included. However, having reflected on the evidence, the committee would like an amendment to strengthen that provision and to make it explicit in the bill, as Bill Aitken outlined. I suggest that the Labour Party would support that, too.
I am pleased that the minister has committed to considering amendments. He has heard various suggestions in the debate.
Hugh O’Donnell raised the matter of religious practices. The committee was keen for the Government to liaise further with religious bodies on nullification of forced marriages. I am pleased to have heard a commitment to that in the minister’s opening speech.
It is difficult to imagine the suffering that those in forced marriages endure, but the bill may give hope to many and provide them with a means of escape to live their lives in peace away from the all-encompassing shadow of fear.
I conclude with more of Jasvinder’s words. Talking about the research for her second book, “Daughters of Shame”, she said:
“I listen to those stories—told by women who have been drugged, beaten, imprisoned, raped and terrorised within the walls of the homes they grew up in. I listen and I am humbled by their resilience.”
Labour will support the general principles of the bill at decision time, but we look forward to seeing the amendments that will address our concerns.
15:28
Although this has been a short debate, it has been a high-quality one and there is a great deal of consensus around the chamber.
As Sandra White did, I pay tribute to the work of the late Bashir Ahmad, who was keen that we pass such legislation.
I also make it absolutely clear that we will respond positively to the committee’s recommendations. If we are unable to accept a recommendation, we will give a detailed explanation as to why and, if appropriate, offer alternatives. We are all singing from the same hymn sheet on forced marriage and we all want to ensure that the bill fits the bill for what we are trying to do.
I will give some indication of our current thinking on some of the points that have been raised by all parties, although in the short time that is available I will not be able to cover all the points that were raised.
Everybody mentioned the definition of force. I confirm that we will consider the committee’s recommendation on section 1(6). The committee made a fair point and we will give empathetic consideration to it.
On the power of arrest, we do not think it necessary to include an express general power of arrest, because such a power already exists. However, we will consider, with the committee, whether the bill ought to include a specific power for a constable to arrest without warrant a person who is reasonably believed to be breaching, or to have breached, an order.
We will give genuine consideration to the other points that members made. Sandra White mentioned the letter from the Law Society of Scotland. This relates to a minor amendment, but I am happy to consider the Law Society’s suggestion that section 2(3)(g) be amended to substitute “Scotland” for “United Kingdom”—not for any narrow, nationalist reason but because it is a reasonable suggestion, which will no doubt carry unanimous support in the Parliament.
I very much take on board Hugh O’Donnell’s points about resources and the points that Malcolm Chisholm, Sandra White and other members made about implementation and, in particular, the need for education, awareness and training. We will consider our approach to that.
We will consider data collection, which a number of members mentioned. I do not want to underestimate the challenge of data collection. However, we think that we can improve data collection, through partnership working and learning from successful work such as the roll-out in the health sector of routine inquiry about gender-based violence. That is an example of an area in which we can improve data collection.
We will also take positive steps in relation to the police’s approach to identifying cases of honour-based violence. An objective of the work of the national group to address violence against women and the forced marriage network is to improve statistics, not just on forced marriage but on the agenda across the board. We have written to the chief statistician to seek his support in achieving that objective.
Will victims automatically appear on the vulnerable persons database, which the police manage, and will that be flagged up through partnership agencies that have access to the VPDB?
I imagine that that will normally be the case, but there are situations in which the police have discretion to decide what appears on the database. I do not want to interfere in that operational discretion, because part of the issue is protection and we must ensure that we do not do something that has indirect consequences, to which we have not given proper thought. However, the member has made a fair point.
Bill Aitken talked about marriages that take place abroad. I dealt with the issue in detail when I appeared before the committee. By passing the bill we will send a clear message to other countries and to people in other countries that forced marriage is not acceptable, and we will join countries that want to end the practice, not just in their countries but worldwide.
We will co-operate with Interpol, international organisations and the UK Government as appropriate, to ensure that an individual who attempts to bypass the legislation on forced marriage is brought to justice in Scotland or in another jurisdiction—in some cases, people who have broken the law in Scotland will be brought to justice in other jurisdictions. We will work with other jurisdictions to ensure that that happens.
We will seriously consider the suggestions for amendment and improvement to the bill. I am happy to talk to all concerned parties, including the committee, because the Government is keen that we maintain consensus—indeed, unanimity—on the subject. The greater the unanimity, the louder the message that goes out from the Parliament that the days of forced marriage in Scotland are over.