Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2350, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill.
I apologise to members in advance because—as I think you have been made aware, Presiding Officer—I have to leave the chamber at some point during the afternoon to videolink to a conference. I made that commitment before I knew this debate was scheduled.
I will start by putting on record the words of a young woman who was describing her experience when she suffered female genital mutilation at the age of 5. The description is graphic and I hope that members will listen carefully to it.
"Mama positioned me on the rock. She sat behind me and pulled my head against her chest, her legs straddling my body. I circled my arms around her thighs. …Mama leaned over and whispered, ‘Try to be a good girl, baby. Be brave for Mama, and it'll go fast.'
The gypsy… fished out a broken razor blade. I saw dried blood on the jagged edge.
The next thing I felt was my flesh being cut away. I heard the blade sawing back and forth through my skin. The feeling was indescribable. …I prayed, Please, God, let it be over quickly. Soon it was, because I passed out.
When I woke up … my legs were completely numb, but the pain between them was so intense that I wished I would die. … My legs had been tied together with strips of cloth binding me from my ankles to my hips so I couldn't move. I turned my head toward the rock; it was drenched with blood as if an animal had been slaughtered there. Pieces of my flesh lay on top, drying in the sun … After the gypsy sewed me up, the only opening left for urine—and later for menstrual blood—was a minuscule hole the diameter of a matchstick.
I could do nothing but wonder, why? What was it all for? All I knew was that I had been butchered with my mother's permission.
I suffered as a result of my circumcision, but I was lucky. Many girls die from bleeding to death, shock, infection or tetanus. Considering the conditions in which the procedure is performed, it's surprising that any of us survive."
Those are the words of Waris Dirie, a Somalian nomad who later became a supermodel and who now uses her fame to tell the world about the horrors of female genital mutilation as the United Nations's special ambassador on the issue. She suffered infibulation, the most severe type of FGM, but the story is not confined to Africa. It is the type of female genital mutilation that Somalian women now living in Glasgow have experienced. It is the female genital mutilation that still causes them severe pain and health problems today. It is a practice that we have to condemn roundly.
I put on the record my thanks to those women, to the Somali women's action group, the African Caribbean women's network and, in particular, Khadija Coll for helping me and the rest of us in Parliament to understand more about female genital mutilation and for telling us about the problems that they face. It cannot have been easy and I am very grateful to them.
I turn to what the bill will do. We want to ensure that no woman or child in Scotland suffers the horrific experiences that those women have had to live with. The bill will do three things. First, it will make it unlawful to take or send a United Kingdom national or permanent UK resident abroad for female genital mutilation. Those words might sound fairly cold and clinical, but we should think back to the words of the young woman who suffered. It will also make it unlawful for a UK national or permanent UK resident to perform female genital mutilation abroad. Those acts will be unlawful regardless of whether they are permitted in the country where they take place. Female genital mutilation has been unlawful in the United Kingdom since 1985; indeed, before then it could have been prosecuted under common law assault in some cases. However, there was a suspicion that some people were evading the law by taking their daughters to other countries to have female genital mutilation performed. So-called holidays resulted in girls suffering for the rest of their lives. The bill will make such actions unlawful.
Secondly, the bill will increase the maximum penalty for female genital mutilation from five years to 14 years, which is the maximum penalty that our courts can impose short of a life sentence. One estimate is that more than a quarter of women who suffer FGM die as a result. Therefore, we think that it is absolutely right that FGM should be seen as an extremely serious offence against vulnerable women and children. The penalty makes it clear that female genital mutilation is simply not acceptable in Scotland and sends out a strong signal to those who are considering putting their daughters through such an ordeal.
Finally, the bill will change the terminology from that which was used in the previous statute. The bill uses the phrase "female genital mutilation" rather than "female circumcision". Circumcision implies an analogy with male circumcision, which is simply not a true analogy. The male equivalent of clitoridectomy, or type 1 female genital mutilation, would be amputation of most of the penis. Mutilation is the right word to use.
The Equal Opportunities Committee has carefully gathered a great deal of important evidence on this harrowing subject. I congratulate that committee on its report, which is before members, and would like to deal with some issues that the committee has raised about the bill. The committee recommends more specific definitions of what constitutes female genital mutilation and of which procedures are lawful. I make it clear that we are not changing the procedures that are outlawed; our approach has been to continue with a broad definition of what is understood by female genital mutilation and to be clear that any procedure that falls within that definition is unlawful.
We have done so for a number of reasons. First, the more specific a definition is, the harder it can be to prove in court that a particular act falls within that definition. I understand that the committee is uncomfortable with what it might see as a lack of precision, but with our traditions of common law, our courts are well used to dealing with such broad definitions in practice. I am confident that the offence in section 1 of the bill is sufficiently precise to allow a court to consider from the facts and circumstances of a case whether a particular procedure is unlawful.
We are concerned that specific exclusions could be exploited by those who wish to carry out female genital mutilation, particularly in relation to cosmetic surgery, because some such procedures may be similar to some forms of female genital mutilation. Protection of children who are at risk of female genital mutilation must remain our priority. The definition of the offence of female genital mutilation is the same as that of the current offence and we should not weaken the legislative protection.
We do not intend to catch procedures such as piercing or tattooing—in our view, the bill does not catch those activities. Our using the same definition as the rest of the UK also means that we can be certain that we are not creating a loophole whereby a girl could be sent here to suffer a procedure that is illegal in England. That would be unacceptable. However, we are carefully considering the evidence that the Equal Opportunities Committee has gathered to find out whether we can clarify the definition without weakening the protection that is offered to girls.
The committee rightly focused much of its attention on the position of those who are most at risk of female genital mutilation. In particular, it focused on asylum-seeker communities and the extent to which we can provide them with protection. There should be no doubt that everyone in Scotland—regardless of their status—will be protected from female genital mutilation, but I recognise that there are difficult issues in relation to women and children who are not UK nationals or permanent residents and who have the procedure performed on them outside the UK. Our absolute priority is to protect as many girls as we can but, of course, we must work within the framework of international law. We have already taken extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is extremely wide in respect of international law. In doing so, we are greatly strengthening the protection that the law provides, but we must recognise that there are practical and legal limits to the jurisdiction of our courts. We are continuing to examine the complex issues relating to international law and how far our jurisdiction can extend, and we are doing so with the aim of ensuring that we provide the maximum possible protection, which I mentioned.
The committee's report also makes recommendations on the need for guidance, education and training. We recognise that much must be done to educate communities and to provide women with the support that they need to openly oppose this barbaric practice. Many of those communities are relatively new to Scotland and have been established here for perhaps only four years or so. We plan to learn from the expertise and good practice that has been developed in more established communities in London and other parts of the UK. Of course, we are also always open to learning from international examples of good practice.
For the record, let me state clearly that we will not tolerate female genital mutilation in Scotland. That is why the bill provides a framework for other measures against FGM. We hope that it will raise awareness, both in communities that might practise FGM and among the professionals who work with them, that FGM is not acceptable. We also hope that the bill will help parents to resist pressure from their families and communities because we recognise how strong that pressure might be. Above all, the bill is intended to improve the legal protection that we offer girls and women in Scotland from this horrific and dangerous practice.
I hope that this afternoon's debate will be useful. I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill.
I thank the minister for picking up on and answering some of the questions that I had.
I thank fellow members and the clerks of the Equal Opportunities Committee for their tireless work in scrutinising the bill and in producing the recommendations in our stage 1 report. The report notes that, as the minister said, the bill's intention is to ensure continuity throughout the UK in respect of legislation on female genital mutilation. It also notes the determination of everyone involved to highlight and publicise that distressing practice.
Despite the minister's comments, I believe that the committee's recommendations would strengthen the bill rather than weaken it. Perhaps Westminster and the rest of the UK could look to change the existing legislation to make it as strong as the bill would be under those recommendations. We should not simply step aside from the committee's recommendations.
When we took evidence from the Minister for Communities at stage 1, we put it to him that the committee had worked hard on the issue in a non-party political fashion. I believe that our recommendations, which were agreed by all committee members, are in the best interests of women who have come to this country from other parts of the UK and from throughout the world. That is why I ask the minister to take the recommendations on board. The SNP will support the bill at stage 1, but we reserve the right to amend the bill at stage 2 if amendments are not forthcoming from the Executive.
Female genital mutilation is just as it sounds. It is not, as it was previously widely known, female circumcision. FGM is the deliberate mutilation of the external female genitalia, comprising all procedures that involve the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia.
The health consequences of FGM can be life threatening, both immediately and in the long term. For example, the immediate effects include severe pain, shock and bleeding, fatal haemorrhaging, prolonged bleeding that can lead to anaemia and septicaemia which can result from use—which the minister cited—of unsterilised cutting equipment. The long-term health consequences include cysts, abscesses, urinary tract infections, chronic pelvic infections that can lead to infertility, painful sexual intercourse and complications during pregnancy and childbirth. For a woman, all those effects can have psychological consequences, including anxiety, depression, negative feelings, low self-esteem, poor self-identity and suppressed feelings of anger and betrayal. All those conditions have been, and are, experienced by women who have undergone female genital mutilation.
I ask that any press coverage of the issue refers to the practice as "female genital mutilation". At one committee meeting, we were told not by the committee clerks but by a television company that we could not talk about female genital mutilation because it did not like the term. I am sorry, but that is what it is and that is what we shall call it.
Although we should use the term female genital mutilation, we must be careful with the other language that we use on this matter and we must realise that, in certain cultures, the parents believe that they are acting in their daughters' best interests. However abhorrent the practice appears to be—it is absolutely abhorrent—we must use the proposed legislation not only to stamp it out but to educate the people of those communities and protect the girls who might be subjected to the practice in all its forms. We do not want to drive the practice underground. The matter must be out in the open, which is why many of the committee's recommendations on education and other issues are so necessary. I know that my fellow committee members will cover specific aspects of the bill, but I shall do my best to provide an overview.
Because of FGM's immediate and long-term effects, it is extremely important to include in the bill the World Health Organisation's entire classification system, which divides FGM into four classes, as a reference point to specify procedures that will be unlawful under the proposed legislation. We must also ensure that communities are adequately informed about any guidance, education and training. In that respect, the minister mentioned the Somali women's action group in Glasgow. I know that Elaine Smith will speak of her experiences with that group.
We must ensure that communities and individuals are aware of the various agencies and organisations that have the expertise to advise and help without stigmatising the people in question. Although I welcome the minister's assurance that the Executive will look at other publications and materials that are available in the UK and abroad, I ask that she take on board the point that was made by the Somali women's action group and other organisations that it is not always possible to put the spoken word into a leaflet; the information must be available in other forms. For example, visual material could be made available or someone in the community could speak to women on the matter. Moreover, suitable resources must be made available to the communities. The Executive has not yet said whether it will make those resources available, but it must do so if it plans to push the legislation out.
We must also remember that men are sometimes the heads of the communities and that we must educate them as well as the women by reminding them that FGM is not an essential cultural element that must be preserved. Our society and Parliament must bring the matter to the fore.
One issue that emerged from our evidence taking was that health professionals must be aware of FGM. Comfort Momoh, who is an FGM-specialist midwife, has based an excellent booklet on research that she conducted into the subject in London. Some of her findings are very disturbing: for example, some health professionals said that FGM was not a big problem in their area and some midwives and doctors made comments such as "I've been working in this hospital for the past 20 years and I've only seen two cases of FGM".
That evidence is backed up by personal experience of members of the Somali women's action group. For example, one of its members in Glasgow was fortunate to survive the birth of her baby in very difficult and dangerous conditions. She needed two operations. The first, which was meant to undo the FGM, failed and she had to undergo a caesarean section to give birth. Furthermore, two pregnant women were automatically given caesareans because the doctors were totally unfamiliar with FGM procedures and practices. We must ensure that health professionals are educated on the matter. As those women go through horrific and traumatic experiences, education, awareness raising and on-going support must be provided to all professionals who come into contact with women who have suffered FGM.
The minister touched on asylum seekers, who were mentioned both by committee members and by groups that gave evidence. Although I accept the minister's comment that the proposed legislation will create extraterritorial offences that will prevent UK nationals in permanent UK residence from being taken abroad to have FGM performed on them, it will do nothing for the kids of asylum seekers. For example, Councillor Irene Graham of Glasgow City Council has done a lot of work on this matter. She says:
"We cannot assume that children will never be taken out of the country by any other family or community member. We are concerned that the bill should contain additional protection."
The minister has described the steps that she will take, but they do not go far enough. Something should be done to extend the provisions of the bill to provide further protection for the children of asylum seekers, should they be taken from Scotland. I hear what the minister is saying and the assurances that she has given, but we have to consider that particular aspect as well.
I cannot see the clock but I think that I have time to wind up.
Just about. You are two minutes over.
I am sorry.
I fully support the bill, but with the recommendations that have been made by the Equal Opportunities Committee. I will be adding further recommendations. We must eradicate this terrible practice and protect vulnerable young women, not only in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom but throughout the world. The bill will contribute to that, although, with the recommendations, it would be a much stronger bill. Thank you for your indulgence, Presiding Officer.
I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to speak in the debate, having left the Equal Opportunities Committee just as it finished taking evidence on the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill. I acknowledge the valuable work that has been done by that committee in the interests of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The procedures that come under female genital mutilation were outlawed in this country by the most recent Conservative Government in 1985, and my party is fully in support of the measures that are proposed in the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill, which will reinforce and extend the scope of the earlier legislation. The Conservatives share the concerns that have been expressed by the committee in its stage 1 report, but overall we welcome the bill and will support its progress through Parliament.
Initially, I was disappointed that because of the pre-election dissolution of Parliament, the legislation was not enacted at the same time as the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, as we have heard, our pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed legislation has led to a few recommendations from the committee which, if they are accepted, will in my opinion lead to an improved version of the 2003 act. What is important, however, is that the legal protection that is offered south of the border becomes available in Scotland with the minimum delay.
Although section 1 of the bill is, in effect, a restatement of the provisions of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, in that it states that anyone who carries out FGM in Scotland commits an offence, the replacement of the euphemistic term "circumcision" with "female genital mutilation"—which much more accurately describes the barbaric procedures that are being outlawed—is to be welcomed. The creation of extraterritorial offences that will make it unlawful to send someone abroad to have FGM carried out, or for a UK national to perform FGM outside the United Kingdom, together with increased penalties for committing those offences will—we hope—help in the long term to eradicate the mutilating practices carried out on girls and young women that are expected within some ethnic communities.
The practice of FGM has been established for very many years in several African countries, as well as in the middle east and Asia, and it is increasingly found in the western world, usually among immigrant and refugee populations. It is deeply embedded in the cultures of practising communities not because of religion—it is not a requirement of any religion—but it is a rite of passage to womanhood and a requirement for acceptability as a wife. The custom is frequently perpetuated by the older women in a community, who have undergone FGM themselves and see it as a necessary—indeed, a loving—ritual that will secure the best future for their daughters and granddaughters. Such deep-seated cultural practice can be eradicated only by education and reinforced by law, probably over generations.
The practice is kept very private within communities, and because relatives are often involved, statistics are hard to come by. Since 1985, there have been no prosecutions in the UK. It is unlikely that the new law will lead to many prosecutions, but it should raise awareness in the communities that are affected. Coupled with education in those communities and among health, education and social work professionals, FGM may be recognised more widely than it is at present and the perpetrators dealt with accordingly.
FGM can be described only as an act of violence against women and children. As we have heard movingly and graphically from the minister, it is often performed without anaesthetic and with dirty, makeshift and shared implements. It can lead to immediate and long-term health consequences. The severe shock, pain and bleeding can be fatal and urine retention and localised infection are common. Long-term obstetric and gynaecological problems, urinary tract infections and incontinence also cause suffering and the psychological consequences ruin the lives of many victims.
As we have heard, the bill covers three types of FGM, ranging from excision of the prepuce or clitoris, with or without excision of the labia minora, right through to infibulation, which means excision of part or all of the external genitalia and narrowing of the vaginal orifice. It excludes type IV in the World Health Organisation's classification, which is
"pricking, piercing or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia"
and other acts of cutting, cautery or corrosion around the vaginal orifice. I agree with the committee's recommendation that the entire WHO classification is used to specify procedures that are unlawful under the legislation.
There could be some doubt about whether certain cosmetic procedures, which are increasingly common in this country, constitute FGM. In the interest of clarity, it is appropriate for the bill to specify which procedures remain outwith the scope of the legislation, such as decorative piercing and tattooing. It is clear that certain procedures that are recommended for medical reasons should also be exempt from the legislation. However, the committee thinks—again, I agree—that it is appropriate to require the consent of two medical practitioners to such procedures, as is the case in abortion law, rather than just one, as is proposed in the bill.
The issues that I have touched on will be debated further at stages 2 and 3 of the parliamentary process, but there is no disagreement in this part of the chamber about the general principles of the bill. I hope that the bill will be enacted speedily so that the small number of vulnerable people in some of Scotland's ethnic communities who are at risk of FGM receive the protection that they deserve under the law of our land.
Female genital mutilation is not a comfortable issue to deal with but it must be confronted. Cathy Jamieson was quite right to open her speech as she did. The previously accepted description of the practices that we are legislating to help to prevent as "female circumcision" is totally inadequate. "Female genital mutilation" is a much more accurate description.
I will use my time to comment on the consultation and, in particular, on one of the recommendations in the Equal Opportunities Committee's report. The time that was allowed for the consultation was shorter than the time that is specified in the Executive's guidelines. That is especially regrettable given that the consultation was conducted during the summer holiday period, when it is more difficult for organisations to undertake wider consultation among their membership. Not much thought or effort seems to have been put into making the consultation inclusive by providing material in different languages or in formats that are suitable for people who cannot read, or who cannot read English, or by targeting it at communities in which female genital mutilation is most likely to be an issue.
The bill is intended to bring the law in Scotland into line with legislation that has been enacted in England and Wales. It could be seen as a formality, but there are two reasons why such an attitude is unacceptable. First, on a general point, it would be contrary to the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament. Secondly and more specifically, the bill will not become successful legislation if people are prosecuted under its terms, but rather if it deters anyone and everyone in Scotland from carrying out the practices that are outlined in it or from sending children or women abroad to have those practices carried out. The legislation will have that deterrent effect only if people know about it. A full and wide consultation process would not only have helped us to get the letter of the law right but would have publicised the legislation to the people whom it is designed to protect, to front-line health and community workers and to the people whom we seek to deter. For the same reasons, I welcome the minister's comments on the guidance that the Scottish Executive intends to put in place following enactment of the bill.
As with any legislation, attention must be paid to the danger of unintended consequences—in this case, to the fact that individuals may require surgical procedures that could fall within a definition of female genital mutilation but for which there is a reasonable case for performing them. Some such procedures are elective and the committee felt that they should be fairly strictly defined, although that approach has pros and cons, as the minister said. Whether procedures that are required for the physical or mental welfare of the person concerned should be exempt from the bill is a matter of clinical judgment.
For reasons that the committee's report outlines, concern has been widespread that the exemption on mental health grounds could provide a loophole. The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh suggested that requiring a second medical opinion to allow any procedure to proceed would be a realistic and effective way to close the loophole. That safeguard would be reasonable and has a precedent in respect of other procedures, such as termination of pregnancies.
In subsequent discussions of the matter with representatives of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, I was warned of the possibility of another layer of unintended consequences for people who wish to undergo gender reassignment, which would depend on how the requirement for a second medical opinion was framed. Such consequences could be avoided if the potential problem was known about. In the committee, I pressed the minister hard on the suggestion that two medically qualified practitioners should be required to agree that a procedure for an individual was acceptable on mental health grounds and it was agreed that he would reconsider the matter. I hope that he will be persuaded to amend the bill to include that.
The committee has made several recommendations to focus the bill and make it more effective. I hope that the Scottish Executive will accept those recommendations.
I will speak to the Equal Opportunities Committee's report, but I start by thanking the minister for her moving speech and her commitment to getting rid of FGM in Scotland. I also thank my fellow committee members, the committee clerks and the witnesses who gave evidence during our stage 1 scrutiny of this important bill.
Female genital mutilation is a difficult and upsetting subject and can have tragic consequences for those who undergo the procedures involved. If they manage to survive the procedures' immediate impact, they often face lifelong health complications as a result of the mutilation that has been inflicted on them. However, the subject's sensitivity should not prevent us from discussing it openly or from carefully scrutinising all aspects of the bill.
I welcome the bill's aim of increasing protection against FGM in Scotland to the level that applies in the rest of the UK. The bill should send out the crucial messages that FGM is unacceptable, that taking people out of the country to have the procedure performed elsewhere is unacceptable and that offences under the bill merit severe penalties.
In its stage 1 consideration, the Equal Opportunities Committee took evidence from a range of people over five meetings and supplemented that formal evidence with two meetings between the committee's gender reporter, Elaine Smith, and the Glasgow Somali women's action group. We took evidence from the international perspectives of such organisations as the World Health Organisation, Amnesty International, Save the Children and the Scottish Refugee Council. We also took evidence from specialist midwives, gynaecologists and other medical personnel who have direct experience of the procedures in question. We heard from Glasgow City Council—the local authority that is most likely to deal with people who have been victims of FGM—and we received written evidence from several organisations, which included a poem that I hope Shiona Baird will read to us later.
The committee was keen to understand not only the bill's stated intentions, but its likely impact. The committee welcomes the bill, but it has identified concerns while scrutinising it. One main concern is the short timescale that was allowed for consultation; Nora Radcliffe touched on that. The committee was not convinced that sufficient effort had been made to reach affected groups, to consult them in suitable formats and in languages that they would understand and in a reasonable timescale.
The committee found a lack of clarity in the bill with regard to the procedures that are to be made unlawful, such as the increasingly common elective cosmetic surgical procedures. Those procedures are not the target of the legislation, and it is bad legislation that creates unintended offences in that way. The committee's view is that we are accountable to the people who will work within the confines of the legislation to ensure that that legislation is clear and sufficient to meet the complexities of today's world. Medical practitioners will have to live with the reality of the FGM legislation and we must be clear about what we declare to be unlawful.
The most important issue is the definition of FGM. Section 1 gives a definition of the procedures that will constitute an offence under the bill. However, the World Health Organisation has produced an internationally recognised definition of FGM that is much wider in scope and which we recommend should be used as a reference point for the bill. The inclusion of a suitable definition in the bill, together with specific exceptions, would provide far greater clarity and would ensure that other procedures were not included unintentionally. I welcome the minister's assurance that that issue will be considered.
The committee was not convinced by the Deputy Minister for Justice's argument that the legislation must be consistent with that which covers the rest of the UK. We should not aim for consistency at the expense of clarity and effectiveness. On a further point regarding clarity, section 1(2)(a) makes provision for exceptions on the basis of physical and mental health. However, concerns were raised with the committee that the mental health exception could be open to abuse. The committee will therefore welcome a strengthening of that provision to make it robust enough to ensure that such abuse does not happen. The committee supports the suggestion that a second specialist medical opinion would reduce the potential for abuse of the provision.
There was a clear understanding in the evidence, which was supported by the deputy minister, that if the legislation is to be effective in the long run, the bill needs to be part of an integrated approach that includes provision of guidance, training and information for the relevant professionals as well as awareness-raising activities in target communities.
It is crucial that affected communities understand not only the risks to the victims, but the nature of the offences that are committed in relation to the practice of FGM. It is also crucial that our services are sufficient to meet the needs of people who are faced with the damaging impact of female genital mutilation. It is worrying that, although FGM has been unlawful in the UK since 1985, and although guidance and information are available, evidence shows that there is still a lack of understanding and expertise among the professionals who are confronted with FGM and its consequences. The committee therefore urges the Scottish Executive to review and update guidance, education and training materials and to use effective partnerships to work at local level to ensure that affected communities are reached and assisted. That will have a cost impact and we look forward to hearing clarification on funding from the Executive.
The committee warmly welcomes the bill and we support its general principles. I hope that the deputy minister will address some of our key concerns when he winds up. We look forward to appropriate amendments being lodged at stage 2.
I, too, add my thanks, particularly to the committee clerks for their sterling work in guiding and assisting members through the scrutiny of the bill. The dedication of the team has been quite remarkable.
The committee's work has been difficult and, at times, harrowing. However, I am glad that the bill was brought to the committee. It has raised awareness of an issue that few people knew about and emphasised the commitment and support that we must offer to women who seek safety and security in our country.
Our support for the bill will help the many workers in this field, here and abroad, who want to see an end to the barbaric practice that has a devastating impact on the lives of many girls and young women.
It is very important that we ensure that the bill encompasses the concerns that witnesses highlighted and which committee members included in our report.
I beg the indulgence of the chamber to allow me to read a poem that illustrates graphically why the bill is important in going some way to help remove this unacceptable practice from the countries in which it is still practised. The poem is called "Feminine Pain" and it is by Dahabo Ali Muse from Somalia:
"And if I may speak of my wedding night:
I had expected caresses. Sweet kisses. Hugging and love.
No. Never!
Awaiting me was pain. Suffering and sadness.
I lay in my wedding bed, groaning like a wounded animal,
a victim of feminine pain.
At dawn, ridicule awaited me. My mother announced:
Yes, she is a virgin.
When fear gets hold of me.
When anger seizes my body.
When hate becomes my companion, then I get feminine advice,
because it is only feminine pain. And I am told feminine pain perishes like all feminine things.
The journey continues. Or the struggle continues.
As modern historians say, as the good tie of marriage matures.
As I submit and sorrow subsides, my belly becomes like a balloon.
A glimpse of happiness shows, a hope. A new baby. A new life!
But a new life endangers my life.
A baby's birth is death and destruction for me!
It is what my grandmother called the three feminine sorrows.
She said that the day of circumcision, the wedding night
and the birth of a baby are the triple feminine sorrows.
As the birth bursts, I cry for help, when the battered flesh tears.
No mercy. Push! they say. It is only feminine pain!
And now I appeal:
I appeal for love lost, for dreams broken,
for the right to live as a whole human being.
I appeal to all peace loving people to protect, to support and give a hand to innocent little girls who do no harm.
Obedient to their parents and elders, all they know is only smiles.
Initiate them to the world of love, not the world of feminine sorrows."
I cannot overstate the impact that that poem had on us when it was first presented to the committee. It brought home the reality of what women in our communities are suffering on a daily basis.
I add my thanks to the committee clerks, who helped us through the sometimes difficult process of evidence taking, my fellow committee members and the witnesses whose invaluable evidence allowed us to reach our recommendations in the stage 1 report on the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill.
Some of my colleagues have made specific reference to groups such as the Somali women's action group and I thank those women very much. If we think that the committee's work has been harrowing, we can only imagine how it has been for them.
Female genital mutilation has been a specific criminal offence in the UK since the passage of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. The policy intention of our bill is to ensure that the legal protection that is afforded in Scotland is equal to that in the rest of the UK since the passage of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. I am pleased that the legislation now uses the World Health Organisation's definition and clearly describes the practice for what it is.
The Executive has made it abundantly clear that no one in Scotland should live in fear of violence, abuse or prejudice and that we must all work together towards the elimination of violence against women, whatever form it takes—we must never forget that—and aspire to a Scotland that promotes equality, tolerance and understanding of the different cultures, religions and races that make up our multicultural society. However, we must have a wider aim: to create safer communities and a socially just and inclusive society. The bill represents an integral part of those objectives.
In the short time that is available to me, I will highlight the issues of age and consent and then concentrate on guidance, education and training. My colleagues on the committee have addressed and will address other relevant issues.
The Equal Opportunities Committee recommended that there should be no age limit in the bill. All the evidence that we heard suggested that the inclusion of any age limit would be detrimental and would allow societal pressure, especially on the most vulnerable women, thereby undermining the message that the bill intends to send. In the light of the evidence that we heard, I am convinced that we must close any loopholes that would allow an appalling practice, which is condemned by medical practitioners, to take place. FGM is extremely dangerous and harmful, as the minister said and as the poem that Shiona Baird read made clear. The practice cannot be justified and I hope that members will unanimously support the committee's recommendation.
In tandem with the legislation, there must be effective guidance, education and training. We must raise awareness across the board. The committee's stage 1 report urged the Scottish Executive to carry out
"an immediate review of the guidance, education and training currently available for the full range of professionals who are likely to have to deal with instances of FGM and its consequences, assess its effectiveness and develop a plan to ensure the availability and effective implementation of suitable, updated and appropriate material."
Like Cathy Peattie, I was impressed by the evidence that the committee received from Glasgow City Council, Dr Buck from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and Comfort Momoh from the Royal College of Midwives, who was mentioned by Sandra White. Comfort Momoh stressed the importance of breaking down communication barriers in the community and of spreading information on the illegality of FGM. However, as members said, such information must be put across in a way that will be understood by the communities that we are trying to reach. Comfort Momoh said:
"the law on its own will not put an end to FGM … the community must be involved."—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 18 January 2005; c 794.]
It is crucial that affected communities understand not only the risks to the victims who undergo FGM, but the nature of the offences that are committed in relation to the practice. It is also crucial that our services are sufficient to meet the needs of people who are faced with the damaging impact of female genital mutilation.
As Cathy Peattie said, it is worrying that although FGM has been unlawful in the UK since 1985 and although information is available, the evidence is that there remains a lack of understanding and expertise among the professionals. Dr Buck agreed that the law would be effective only if it was combined with education. The committee's report therefore acknowledged that
"awareness raising and confidence building in communities"—
which is equally important—
"will entail a range of different actions by various organisations and agencies as well as the effective deployment of suitable resources."
The implementation of the law will require improvements to awareness and training for a variety of professionals, as members have explained.
We have a responsibility to protect the physical and mental health of women and children in Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament has the opportunity to learn from other countries. I was pleased to hear the minister say that she would consider best practice. I recommend to the ministerial team a leaflet that Comfort Momoh circulated to committee members, which is an exemplar of best practice.
In the light of the information that the committee gathered, I urge members to support the bill and I stress the importance of the committee's recommendations, particularly on the age limit and the need to improve training, awareness and education and to treat with care and compassion women who have suffered as a result of undergoing FGM. The Executive must commit itself to increasing community awareness and it must encourage community leaders to continue to speak out against an unlawful practice. Concern and compassion will continue to be of the utmost importance. The Scottish Parliament will and must maintain its commitment to protect fundamental human rights and the bill and the committee's recommendations represent an integral part of that commitment. I urge members to support the general principles of the bill.
I am pleased to speak in support of the Equal Opportunities Committee's recommendation that Parliament agrees the general principles of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill. Like other committee members, I thank the clerks.
The bill extends the provisions of the existing legislation, which makes it an offence to carry out FGM in Scotland. It increases the maximum penalty and changes the terminology that is employed from "circumcision" to "mutilation". The latter change is particularly important to ensure that the horrors of the procedure are not hidden by softer terms. The Somali women's action group was clear that circumcision was the wrong definition for what is performed.
The minister has indicated that were it not for the coincidence with the Scottish Parliament elections, the bill would have been dealt with via the Sewel route when the similar legislation was progressing through the UK Parliament in 2003. Although that might have been an acceptable route, it has been useful to undertake our own legislative process. That has allowed us to make some recommendations that differ from the Westminster bill, which I hope will be accepted by the Executive as improvements.
Aside from the reasonable changes that are proposed, undertaking our own legislative process has permitted us to have a better understanding of the matter. It has allowed for awareness raising and for the identification of potential gaps in service provision, education and training. During stage 1, it became clear to the committee that despite legislation having been in place since 1985, there is a worrying lack of understanding of FGM among health professionals and others and that little, if any, support is available. That has led to alarming situations, such as the one that was described to me during evidence taking, in which a Somali women last year underwent a caesarean section, against what she would have wanted, due to a lack of knowledge about FGM among staff.
FGM is not widely known about in Scotland and it is unlikely to be particularly widespread. It is most commonly practised in African countries, as well as in the middle east and Asia. However, its prevalence has been increasing in western Europe, Australia, Canada, the USA and New Zealand. It is estimated that around the world more than 100 million girls and women have undergone FGM and that every year a further 2 million girls are estimated to be at risk. Scottish legislation will not eradicate the practice worldwide, but it will send a strong signal that FGM is unacceptable. By addressing cultural attitudes among the affected communities in this country, it will undoubtedly have some effect on attitudes elsewhere.
I believe that FGM should be a legitimate reason for granting asylum. However, during evidence taking I found that women might not volunteer FGM as a reason for seeking asylum due to its personal and sensitive nature, which might result in a refusal decision. I know that that is not part of the report, but it is important to take the opportunity to urge immigration officials to take the lead and sensitively ask questions to elicit a response. The Somali women also explained to me the pressure from family to have FGM carried out on their children and to return them to Somalia to have it done.
As we have heard, the process of FGM can involve different types of mutilation. According to the World Health Organisation, the most common is type II. The most extreme form is infibulation, which involves cutting out the genitalia and stitching up of most of the vaginal opening. To put that in context—it goes further than what the minister described—the male equivalent would be the removal of the penis. The process tends to be carried out on girls between the ages of four and 13. Short and long-term health consequences include death from haemorrhaging or septicaemia and, in later years, sexual dysfunction and childbirth complications. There can also be psychological consequences, such as anxiety and depression.
We must be clear that FGM is part of the spectrum of male violence against women and children. Although women physically do the cutting, the process is based on a culture of patriarchy, which ensures chastity and virginity before marriage and fidelity thereafter. Type III is a hellish form of flesh chastity belt. Ultimately, it dictates the matrimonial potential of women. In many cultures in which FGM is prevalent, a girl who remains unmutilated will not be a suitable candidate for marriage. Therefore, parents view the process as a necessary "act of love" to gain a secure future for their daughters.
In my first meeting with the Somali women, they made it clear that
"There is intensive pressure within the Somali community to carry out this procedure on girls. One of the group explained that in the minds of every female there is the thought that they are required to arrange this procedure for their daughter."
They also
"indicated that men instructed their wives to ensure that this procedure was carried out on their daughters."
Changing such in-built cultural influences is no easy task. It involves education and awareness raising for all in the community of the dangers of the practice. I think that that is particularly true for the males—because when men start demanding unmutilated brides, FGM will come to an end.
I have a previous interest in this subject; I questioned the Minister for Health and Community Care during a ministerial statement in 2003. However, my recent knowledge has come primarily from contact with the Somali women's action group. I want to take this opportunity to thank those women for their full and frank discussions with me and for appearing at the Equal Opportunities Committee, albeit anonymously. It was brave of them to speak about such a personal and distressing issue to a stranger, and giving oral evidence to the committee must have been even more daunting.
All the evidence that we took was extremely helpful. However, the most compelling evidence came from the Somali women who had direct experience and who were determined to protect their daughters from such mutilation. Their courage and resolve were admirable and inspiring. Reports of my meetings with them are available within the stage 1 report. It is worrying that those women became involved in the process by sheer luck. The Executive seemed to be unaware of their existence. I hope that ministers will reflect on that point when considering consultation processes in the future.
Ministers might also consider the barriers—such as language barriers—that people face when they respond to consultations. When we were taking oral evidence from representatives of the Somali women's action group, we had some problems with interpretation. As a result, there was some dubiety over whether the witnesses considered it appropriate that the bill should include a cut-off age. That prompted the committee to ask me to meet the group a second time. At that meeting, the group was quite clear that FGM was wrong and should not be legally permitted whatever the age of the woman. That opinion coincided with all the other evidence that the committee had heard.
Very little service provision exists with regard to FGM. Legislation is welcome, but it must be accompanied by support services, which should be centrally driven and resourced by the Executive. It should include assistance for groups such as the Somali women, to allow them to educate their communities. The women particularly asked me about resources to help them to do positive work to raise awareness about FGM. They are asylum seekers and have little funding of their own.
The women asked whether a mother could be prosecuted for having FGM carried out on a daughter if she was not aware that it was illegal. When they were told that that would probably not be an acceptable defence, they pointed out the importance of education for their community, because of the impact that the law would have on their lives.
I congratulate the Executive on this piece of legislation, and I congratulate the minister on her moving speech, which made the horrors real for us here in the chamber. I commend the Equal Opportunities Committee's recommendations to the Parliament, and I hope that the legislation, alongside appropriately resourced service provision, will help to eradicate the horrendous practice of mutilating girls and women.
We come to the closing speeches. We are approximately 32 minutes ahead of the clock.
My comments will be fairly brief. Liberal Democrats fully support this bill. Although the bill is intended to bring the law in Scotland in line with that in England and Wales, it presents us with the opportunity to improve and strengthen that law. I firmly believe that that opportunity should be taken.
The Equal Opportunities Committee has made a number of recommendations that we feel will improve the bill and make it better focused and more effective. I endorse all that colleagues have said during the debate to illustrate and emphasise why the legislation is important, and I endorse all that has been said in support of the recommendations in the stage 1 report. I hope that the Executive will take those recommendations on board, on the basis of the evidence that we have taken.
I would like to add my thanks to all those who gave evidence—written, oral and through meetings with the committee's gender reporter, Elaine Smith.
As a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I look forward to working through the stage 2 amendments with the Executive, to deliver the best legislation that we can to discourage, and contribute to eliminating, female genital mutilation.
On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I too am pleased to support the bill. As Nanette Milne has said, the bill updates and extends the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, which was one of the many excellent pieces of legislation that were passed by the Conservative Government.
The contents of the bill have been outlined very well by all speakers today, with the broad consensus that female genital mutilation is a form of violence against women and children that should be eradicated internationally. I will highlight just one of the many short and long-term health problems that are a consequence of the procedure—chronic pelvic infection. That can lead to infertility, which is tragic in itself. In many of the cultures in which FGM occurs, infertility in women is not always viewed sympathetically. In that regard, I endorse everything that has been said about the need to improve communication, awareness and training.
It is a matter of concern that in 20 years there have been no prosecutions under the 1985 act, although the General Medical Council has struck off two doctors, one of whom performed FGM and one who offered to carry out the procedure. There have been several prosecutions relating to FGM in France where, although there is no background law on the matter, there is a penal code that punishes those who perpetrate physical harm. The lack of prosecutions in this country raises concerns not only about the effectiveness of the legislation but about awareness of the prohibition of FGM.
In that context, the Equal Opportunities Committee's stage 1 report is right to recommend that the Executive take steps to develop methods of collecting data and to review the guidance, education and training that are available for the full range of professionals who are likely to have to deal with the consequences of FGM. I note that the committee also recommends that the relevant penalties should be given prominence in information and guidance material that is circulated to communities that are likely to be affected. Elaine Smith raised that point.
Mary Scanlon mentioned the lack of prosecutions under the existing legislation. I asked the Somali women why they believed that there had been no prosecutions in Scotland and they said that that was because of the fear of prosecution. They were quite clear that there could be cases of children being sent abroad to have FGM carried out. Does she agree that the passing of the bill may have a deterrent effect? That said, it is important that we consider education, training and so on.
That is an excellent point to make.
It is essential that the relevant penalties are highlighted if both the current and the new legislation are to be effective.
As a relatively new Parliament, we can learn from the problems that can occur during dissolution. Although the 1985 act was repealed in 2003, that did not extend to Scotland. In other words, the matter was not Sewelled, as the Scottish Parliament had been dissolved ahead of the 2003 elections. I hope that in future the Parliament will examine the legislation that passes through Westminster during dissolution and, if appropriate, have it brought before the Parliament without delay. That said, having listened to Nanette Milne and Elaine Smith, I realise that we have had the opportunity not only to carry out further scrutiny but to strengthen the legislation. In this case, the fact that the Parliament had been dissolved may have been an advantage.
I hope that the bill will be effective in meeting the aims that it sets out to meet. That can be done only if there is greater communication with the communities that carry out the practice. My concern is that FGM will continue and I hope that women who need help—medical or otherwise—following the procedure will not be frightened to come forward to receive it for fear of being seen to be disloyal to their own community. That would be most regrettable.
As has been mentioned, for many women the reporting of FGM would result in a prosecution being brought against a member of their family or their community. The young woman whose experience the minister described in her opening speech said:
"I had been butchered with my mother's permission."
The Scottish Conservatives share the concerns that the Equal Opportunities Committee has raised and will support the progress of the bill through Parliament.
Some years ago, I read an Alice Walker novel about female genital mutilation. It was a story about a girl in Africa who was mutilated in that way; at that time, the procedure was not given the name of FGM. Although I remember being horrified when I read it, at the back of my mind was the thought that that sort of practice does not happen; I thought that it was just one of those things that is put into a story. However, when I was elected to the Parliament, I started to learn more about FGM.
I was pleased when I heard that the Equal Opportunities Committee was to scrutinise the bill. As much as anything, the scrutiny has been an awareness-raising exercise for people in Scotland, with Elaine Smith as reporter meeting the Somali women's action group and reports coming out from the committee. We should all know about a practice that is likely to become more prevalent in our society, as the world moves and immigrants and asylum seekers come to Scotland, many from the countries where FGM is still carried out.
I have followed with interest what happened at the committee and Sandra White has also kept me informed. I was therefore interested to read the committee's report and will take a personal look at some of its recommendations.
The first recommendation about which I feel strongly is recommendation 12, which says that the World Health Organisation classification system should be adopted in the bill. Type IV FGM, as defined by the WHO, is mutilation. It might not involve someone taking a knife and cutting to the same extent as under other definitions, but
"the introduction of corrosive substances … into the vagina to cause bleeding or for the purpose of tightening or narrowing it"
is surely mutilation—there are no two ways about it. I ask the Executive to reconsider the definitions that it is using in the bill.
I agree with the committee recommendation that the Executive should specifically exclude reduction labioplasty, which is a practice that is happening across western society.
Recommendation 14 says that the Executive
"should specify in the Bill the particular procedures which it wishes to remain outwith the scope of the Bill".
Although I agree with what Sandra White said earlier on the subject, as the debate has moved on, I also have sympathy for the minister's view that that might cause problems. I am open-minded on the subject. If an amendment is lodged to address the recommendation, the debate can only be healthy and all of us will learn more from it.
I agree whole-heartedly that there should be no age limit in the bill. I also agree that reinfibulation should be defined. I note that, in evidence to the committee, the minister said that he felt that the definition was implicit in the bill. I am not sure that that is enough; the definition should be stated explicitly in the bill.
I turn to the crucial question of information dissemination both to the professionals who require it and to the communities that are affected. The people we are dealing with in those communities are coming to Scotland from countries where 98 to 99 per cent of the women are mutilated in this way. There is a strength of culture in those communities about FGM, that transcends religion and country boundaries. We are talking not about mothers who want to be cruel to their children but about mothers and other women in a society—and even men—who believe that FGM is in the interest of the young girl. That is a very hard cultural barrier to get over and it is crucial that we get information into communities that the practice is wrong.
We also need to tell young women and girls how they can get help if they suspect that FGM is going to be done to them. A 12, 13 or 14-year-old has to know where to go if her parents tell her suddenly that she is to go to Somalia for a two-week holiday. If the girl fears that the reason for the visit is to have FGM done to her, she should know where to go to get the visit stopped.
With the honourable exception of the minister, it is interesting to note that no men have taken part in the debate. Also, with very few exceptions, no men have been in the chamber to listen to the debate. I do not want to have a go at the guys, cross party, but issues that affect women or involve violence towards women are often seen as women's issues. However, FGM is not a women's issue; it is a human rights issue that is about people in our society who are forcibly mutilated.
Does the member agree with Elaine Smith's point that FGM is not a women's issue, but a men's issue, because it is men's expectations and what they see as a desirable bride that drive the practice?
I agree with the thrust of what Elaine Smith said, but the issues should transcend gender. All issues are women's issues and men's issues, especially when they involve abuse of human rights.
In educating communities that carry out the practice, which they see as the cultural norm, we must involve men. Given that such communities are often patriarchal, no matter how many educated women say that the practice is not right and that people should not put up with it, the prominent men in those societies need to say that, too, before it is taken seriously. Education must first be disseminated to the males; they must be taught that the practice is completely unacceptable, which will then pass through families to the women, after which we can start to move on. Nora Radcliffe mentioned Elaine Smith's comments about men. One crucial point that Elaine made was that we will make progress only when men stop demanding mutilated brides. We must push for education for men.
As Sandra White said, the Executive might be worried that cross-border issues may arise if we use different definitions from those used at Westminster and expand the scope of our bill beyond that of the legislation at Westminster. I agree with Sandra that we should get the bill right. If Westminster wants to amend its legislation to bring it up to the same standard as ours and if that is better for the people who are affected, that is fine. We should care not about the ease of legislating but about what is best for the communities that are involved.
One crucial issue is information for medical staff. A few members have mentioned the booklet by the specialist midwife Comfort Momoh, who came to the committee. Like Marilyn Livingstone, I urge the Executive to take on board the issues that are raised in the booklet, which is well written and informative. I would like to hear from the minister what resources will be put in place to ensure that health professionals know exactly how to deal with people who come forward after suffering such abuse.
Like the committee, I am worried that the fact that only one doctor will be able to decide whether a procedure is valid as an exception under the mental health provision could be abused. The Executive should take on board the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh's point that two doctors should give an opinion on such matters. The committee's report states that the Deputy Minister for Justice
"did not think that there was a loophole and that the requirement for two medical practitioners to agree on a procedure would … ‘introduce unnecessary complications, and … unnecessary delays.'"
However, complications are not unnecessary if we are making absolutely sure on a matter as crucial as mutilating someone's genitalia. Further, it would not involve a particularly long delay to get a second opinion from a doctor. I urge the Executive to rethink its view on that issue.
Like Elaine Smith, I would like asylum seekers in our country to be afforded the same protection as everyone else and think that they should not be discriminated against in any way.
I give absolute support to what we are trying to do, which is to firm up and make clearer the law that was made in 1985. I am sure that all members will work positively towards getting the bill through the Parliament as quickly as possible.
Towards the end of her speech, Linda Fabiani raised a pertinent issue, which echoed points that other members made: female genital mutilation is not an issue for women alone; it is also an issue for men in a number of respects. It is a shame that, when the bill has been considered at committee meetings and in the Parliament, it has been left mainly to women to talk about the issue. Until men are confronted with the implications and consequences for women of the way in which our society and other societies are structured, we will continue to have problems.
Female genital mutilation is an extreme example of the problem that is caused by a lack of equality and fairness, and I do not think that any member—or, I hope, anyone in Scotland—could object in any way to the passing of the bill. Although there might be some differences of emphasis or interpretation at stage 2, from what I have heard today, it seems that any argument will not be party political but will be about what each of us thinks is the most effective and appropriate way of creating appropriate legislation.
There is no doubt that we should protect our girls and women from the horrendous procedure of female genital mutilation. I am encouraged by the comments that members of all parties have made and I will emphasise the reasons why we have introduced the bill and explain its effect.
The bill will extend the legal protection that we can offer against female genital mutilation by taking extraterritorial jurisdiction in respect of female genital mutilation carried out overseas in certain cases. That is to ensure that the current law cannot be evaded by taking a girl out of the United Kingdom to have female genital mutilation performed. Under the bill, it will be unlawful for a UK national or permanent UK resident to carry out female genital mutilation outside the UK, or to aid and abet female genital mutilation of a UK national or permanent UK resident.
The bill extends the maximum penalty for offences relating to female genital mutilation from five years to 14 years. There are three reasons for that: to send a strong message that female genital mutilation is unacceptable; to deter those who might be likely to practise female genital mutilation; and to signal to professionals the importance of protecting girls who may be at risk of female genital mutilation. The bill also changes the terminology used from circumcision to, more appropriately, female genital mutilation.
A number of points were raised in the debate. I accept that there is a need for education. Education was not required during the consultation stage and it is not required as the bill progresses; it is what is needed in the aftermath of an act coming into force. We need to consider how we get the message across and ensure that no one in this country or associated with this country is engaged in the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation. I hope that anything that we can do in this country to educate people might influence what happens in the societies from which people in this country came and with which they still have links. What we do here might well produce some benefit in societies elsewhere in the world.
I note the comments that were made about the consultation process. I accept that the process was not as long as it would normally have been, but we were anxious to ensure that we took advantage of the opportunity to get a slot in the legislative programme. I argue strongly that getting that slot was the right thing to do although, unfortunately, a number of things happened as a result. The consultation period was not the time to consider deterrent effects but the time to ensure that we got the process moving. Considering the deterrent effects and ensuring that people understand what the act is about will come thereafter. In the consultation period we could not have told people what the act would do, because at that stage we did not know what its final shape would be.
Comments have been made about the WHO guidelines and whether we should include them in the bill. My advice is that the WHO is considering redefining its guidelines and that it could create problems if we put in the bill guidelines that could be changed.
I understand that the Executive wants legislation that is watertight and which it does not have to go back and change. Surely our saying that we support the WHO definition would be enough, because if it changed, the world perception of female genital mutilation would change too, so it would not be necessary to revisit the bill.
I understand Cathy Peattie's point, but there could be problems in making the definition in the bill the definition in the WHO guidelines, breach of which will be a criminal act, when we do not know what the guidelines might be in the future. I do not think that causing further problems in legislation by being loose in our definitions is the best way forward. I will re-examine whether we can incorporate in the bill something more specific, something wider or something that embraces the spirit of what the WHO is attempting to do. If more information from the WHO comes to us in time, we will certainly consider it.
Issues have been raised and comments have been made about asylum seekers. In the bill we have gone further than many might have expected, because we are attempting, where we can, to protect asylum seekers in this country. If we tried to legislate for what might happen elsewhere in the world, that would raise issues of legislative competence that might affect our ability to enact the legislation. We will do what we can within our legislative competence, but protecting asylum seekers might not always be entirely possible.
The minister said earlier that female genital mutilation was not a matter for women but a matter for all of us. Does he agree that it is a human rights issue and therefore a matter for all of us and that nothing should stand in the way of protecting the human rights of people in this country who might be sent back to other countries for genital mutilation?
Nothing that Rosie Kane says contradicts what I have said. We will protect asylum seekers within the law in our country, but there are issues to do with how we can enforce our law in other countries for people who currently have no legal definition or rights in this country. A complicated issue is involved, but we will seek to do what we can within our legislative competence.
I understand the issue relating to a requirement for two medical practitioners, which we will consider, but the proposals cannot be directly compared with what the Abortion Act 1967 says in that respect. There is also the possibility that if two medical practitioners are required and there is no potential to resort to a court challenge on a medical practitioner's decision, practitioners who are in favour of female genital mutilation might use the law to make a determination and deny an opportunity in court to challenge that determination. We will consider that matter, but we do not want to introduce complexities that could work to the disadvantage of women who are faced with this horrendous practice. However, I will reflect on the points that have been made.
I understand the point that has been made about cosmetic procedures, but there are two concerns about what the committee has said. First, making another exception in the bill could create a loophole. Some cosmetic procedures are similar—if not identical to—various types of female mutilation. We want to ensure that there is no weakening of the protection that the law offers against female genital mutilation by permitting a procedure that cannot be easily distinguished from female genital mutilation. Secondly, we must ensure that we do not discriminate by permitting surgery that is requested for western cultural reasons while making procedures that are requested for African cultural reasons unlawful. We must dwell on that matter.
We agree that there should be no age limit and we did not propose one in the bill—that point has been well made.
I have been advised that the Somali women's action group, which responded to the consultation, was set up only in July, so we were unable to contact it before then.
On how the bill compares with UK legislation, we have already sought improvement. For example, we have made our bill gender neutral, so we are not simply proposing what was passed at Westminster. We have no problem with improving on what has been passed at Westminster, but we do not want to create loopholes or problems by having acts that are so different that they could be exploited in either direction. The issue is not only about consistency—it is about seeking to protect those who are most vulnerable.
The debate has been good, well informed and emotional. It has reflected well on the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee, which carried out its task on behalf of the Parliament.
Any reason that we need to explain to people why we want to pass the bill and to justify why we are spending time considering it will be provided by the graphic description that the minister read out earlier, which justifies what we are attempting to do.
As more members are present in the chamber now than were earlier, it might be useful for all members to have the opportunity to hear what the Minister for Justice said about why the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill is being debated in the Scottish Parliament. She cited the experience of someone who underwent the procedure when she was five years old:
"Mama positioned me on the rock. She sat behind me and pulled my head against her chest, her legs straddling my body. I circled my arms around her thighs. … Mama leaned over and whispered, ‘Try to be a good girl, baby. Be brave for Mama, and it'll go fast.'
The gypsy… fished out a broken razor blade. I saw dried blood on the jagged edge.
The next thing I felt was my flesh being cut away. I heard the blade sawing back and forth through my skin. The feeling was indescribable. …I prayed, Please, God, let it be over quickly. Soon it was, because I passed out.
When I woke up … my legs were completely numb, but the pain between them was so intense that I wished I would die. … My legs had been tied together with strips of cloth binding me from my ankles to my hips so I couldn't move. I turned my head toward the rock; it was drenched with blood as if an animal had been slaughtered there. Pieces of my flesh lay on top, drying in the sun. … After the gypsy sewed me up, the only opening left for urine—and later for menstrual blood—was a minuscule hole the diameter of a matchstick.
I could do nothing but wonder, why? What was it all for? All I knew was that I had been butchered with my mother's permission.
I suffered as a result of my circumcision, but I was lucky. Many girls die from bleeding to death, shock, infection or tetanus. Considering the conditions in which the procedure is performed, it's surprising that any of us survive."