The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-12241, in the name of Alex Neil, on working in partnership to end the practice of female genital mutilation.
15:04
On behalf of the Scottish Government, I am pleased to open this debate on the important issue of working in partnership to end the practice of female genital mutilation.
The Scottish Government considers female genital mutilation to be an unacceptable practice and, of course, it is illegal. It is a form of child abuse and violence against women and a violation of the human rights of women and girls. It is a specific form of violence under the guise of culture and religion, and it has no place in the Scotland that we all want to create. It is gender based and, as members know, often closely linked to other forms of violence against women and girls, such as forced marriage, which became a criminal offence at the end of September last year. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors.
The World Health Organization estimates that between 120 million and 140 million women from 29 countries worldwide have been affected by FGM and that, every year, another 3 million girls become at risk of the procedure, which partially or wholly removes or injures their genitalia for non-medical reasons.
What about Scotland? The Scottish Refugee Council’s report, “Tackling Female Genital Mutilation in Scotland: A Scottish model of intervention”, which was launched last December and funded by the Scottish Government to the tune of more than £20,000, goes some considerable way to achieving an understanding of the scale of the issue in Scotland and to identifying how, by working collaboratively, we can prevent and, I hope, eradicate it. The report has adopted a well-rounded approach to the gathering of data to identify populations that are potentially affected by female genital mutilation in Scotland, with figures indicating that, between 2001 and 2012, just under 3,000 girls were born in Scotland to mothers from countries that practice FGM.
The debate is timely, as it comes the day before the international day of zero tolerance for female genital mutilation—a day when the world will take a stand against child torture, the heinous physical abuse of women and a practice that has no place in society but, unfortunately, still affects far too many women across the globe today.
Last week, I was able to hear at first hand about the important work of London-based FGM organisations such as Equality Now in tackling FGM throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, I am delighted to show Scotland’s commitment to tackling FGM by announcing that the Women’s Support Project will tomorrow launch Scottish Government-funded awareness-raising materials. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Welfare will attend the launch.
In our discussions, the Scottish Government and Equality Now agreed to share good practice across the UK because we are doing some things in the field that it is not doing but would now like to consider and vice versa.
The Scottish Government has provided almost £50,000 funding to the Women’s Support Project to develop a range of materials. They include, first, a Scottish DVD that outlines the law, child protection and prevention work in communities, and services for women and girls who have experienced FGM; secondly, information leaflets for practitioners that highlight key points, good practice, resources and services, and a standardised training package and risk-assessment tool; and, thirdly, an FGM statement that sets out the law in relation to FGM in Scotland, which individuals can show to family friends and/or relatives when travelling abroad to remind them that FGM is a serious offence in Scotland and the UK and that there are severe penalties for practising it.
Raising awareness and promoting understanding are vital in addressing the complex issues of FGM, and I welcome the launch and the focus that it brings on this important issue.
The debate provides the opportunity to highlight the excellent work that is being done across Scotland with our partners and to set out to members our proposals for tackling FGM in the coming year within the communities that are potentially affected by the practice.
I pay tribute to the wide range of third sector organisations that continue to campaign against FGM and to provide specialist support services. Those organisations include DARF—Dignity Alert and Research Forum—which I visited this morning and which is doing excellent work with minimal resources; Roshni; the Scottish Refugee Council; Saheliya; and, of course, the Women’s Support Project. Their campaigning over many years has helped to raise awareness of, and influence and shape our understanding of, the practice of FGM.
I want to take a moment to reflect on what has been accomplished over the past year. Between 2012 and 2015, £34.5 million has been allocated to tackling violence against women, including FGM, and in the past year the Scottish Government has allocated more than £140,000 directly to work to tackle FGM. That compares very favourably with the £370,000 that the UK Government has committed to a community engagement initiative and community projects across England to help end FGM and honour-based violence, including forced marriage.
Working with partners and education authority staff, colleagues in Education Scotland have produced a learning resource that authorities and headteachers can use to raise awareness of FGM in schools and early years settings. Last May, we published updated national guidance for child protection, which is used by all children’s services in Scotland. It provides advice on how to respond if there are concerns that a child may have been subjected to, or may be at risk from, FGM. Police colleagues have produced “Honour Based Violence (HBV), Forced Marriage and Female Genital Mutilation Standard Operating Procedures” to provide all officers with the necessary understanding and skills to deal appropriately and consistently with HBV incidents.
It is equally important that we work with communities in all areas of intervention. A point that was driven home to me when I visited DARF this morning is that we should not tackle the issue by treating it as purely a criminal justice issue but work with communities and give them the facilities and the support to be able to change attitudes and culture from within. That is preferable to assistance being handed down from people in authority such as us.
I turn to our next steps. Following on from the Scottish Refugee Council’s report, we will be exploring how we can take forward interventions under the five Ps: policy, prevention, protection, provision and participation. By having a baseline of Scotland-specific data, we can ensure that what we are doing in Scotland to tackle FGM is right for our communities here.
Our work in relation to those interventions will be facilitated by the multi-agency FGM short-life working group, on which the Scottish Refugee Council, among other key stakeholders from the statutory and third sectors, is represented. The group, which will report later this year, will make recommendations on the best way forward to prevent and eradicate FGM, which will be aligned with the Scottish Government’s policy of preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls as set out in “Equally Safe”, which was published in June last year. It will ensure that what we do nationally is informed by expert opinion in relation to the overarching themes of the SRC report.
If we are to banish FGM to history, we need to understand why practising communities sustain traditions that are so unacceptable, so how we discuss FGM is important. The practice must not be tolerated but, equally, we must be conscious of how we engage with minority communities on such sensitive issues. Standing up to FGM in Scotland is about much more than what is on the statute book. We have to build capacity to engage with communities that could be affected and to raise awareness among those who work with, but who may not belong to, those communities.
We need to work with organisations such as DARF to support engagement with affected communities to educate people about the realities of FGM and the law in Scotland, and to tackle the pressures that many women in practising communities face. I was delighted to meet DARF this morning. Those pressures often come from the most immediate family members, which makes it much more difficult to resist them.
In raising awareness, we are supporting what the motion calls the girl summit in July this year. I think that the invitations for the summit have gone out just today from Glasgow City Council and UNICEF. The summit will be held on 9 March 2015 in Glasgow, and the theme will be ending violence against women. Both Lord McConnell, the former First Minister, and Nicola Sturgeon, the current First Minister, will speak at the summit, along with the Lord Provost, and the will give their support to the campaign and these policies. Child and early forced marriage and FGM will be addressed by that event in March.
The Government will vote for Ken Macintosh’s amendment. I think that it is important that we try to speak with one voice on the issue in the Parliament. In doing so—and in recognising that the amendment says that we are disappointed that there have been so few prosecutions—I inform the chamber that, since 1 April 2013, when Police Scotland became operational, there have been 23 referrals or child welfare concerns made to the police by partner agencies about FGM, which have initiated an interagency referral discussion for 25 girls. In all 23 cases, the referrals related to concerns that the girls were at risk of having FGM performed on them. Those concerns have been fully investigated and no criminality has been found. Cutting had not taken place in any of the referred cases, and all referrals have now been fully investigated. In supporting the amendment, I do not want to give the impression that we are being critical of the police. The work that Police Scotland is doing in the area is very helpful and almost revolutionary in the context of what happened before and what happens in other jurisdictions.
All that I have outlined is intended to strengthen our response to FGM and to complement measures that are already in place. Those measures include working closely with police, health professionals, social work and education to share good practice and promote awareness of the prevention of FGM; continuing our support to voluntary organisations that provide support to victims of FGM; and, most important, engaging with people from potentially affected communities. Without that genuine and effective commitment to the participation of affected communities in work on the issue, we would fail to understand the true levels of potential risk faced by women and girls in Scotland today. If we do not work with the communities, we will run the risk of further marginalising the community voices that are the most effective advocates for change.
The desire, drive and determination to rid our society of this intolerable act of violence against women and girls has united and still unites the Parliament. Together with the stakeholders, we are making a difference. Only by working together will we be able to achieve our goal of eradicating the scourge of FGM in our communities.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that 6 February 2015 is International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM); condemns female genital mutilation as an unacceptable and illegal practice, a form of child abuse, violence against women and a violation of the human rights of women and girls; supports the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackling and eradicating this intolerable behaviour from Scottish society through working together with partners across the public and third sectors; welcomes the launch by the Women’s Support Project of the FGM training and public education resources on 6 February 2015; further welcomes the publication of the Scottish Refugee Council’s report on FGM in Scotland, Tackling Female Genital Mutilation in Scotland: A Scottish Model of Intervention, in December 2014; acknowledges the positive developments made through partnership across Police Scotland, NHS Scotland, education, social services, voluntary and third sector organisations with the establishment of the Female Genital Mutilation Short-Life Working Group; commends the valuable contribution that voluntary and third sector organisations, such as Dignity Alert Research Forum, the Women’s Support Project and Scottish Refugee Council, make to the shaping of Scotland’s approach to FGM; notes the Scottish Government’s commitment to fund a programme of work to tackle FGM in Scotland and protect those women and girls at risk of harm from this human rights abuse, and supports Lord McConnell’s proposed Girl Summit to be held in Glasgow on 9 March 2015 to mark International Women’s Day on 8 March 2015.
15:18
I thank the cabinet secretary for lodging the motion and giving the Parliament this opportunity to mark the international day of zero tolerance of female genital mutilation.
It is right that all of us in the chamber—indeed, all Scots—speak up against that brutal and barbaric form of child abuse to ensure that we tackle FGM as we would all forms of violence against women and girls. We must try to change behaviour while sending out a clear and strong message that it is a criminal act that will merit severe punishment.
Just this week, we discovered that one in three people in the United Kingdom does not fully understand the term “female genital mutilation”, with one in five young people admitting that they had never heard of it. Whether it is called cutting or, as previously, female circumcision, FGM can lead to infection, abscesses, infertility, physical and emotional trauma and even death. Our levels of ignorance may be worryingly high, but it has been estimated that up to 125 million women and girls, mainly in pockets of the middle east and Africa, are affected by this painful and violent abuse of their bodies and rights.
We are perhaps less clear about how many women and children living in Scotland are affected or at risk. It is thought that the figure could be as high as 3,000. At the very least, we need to give that vulnerable group the voice that they desperately need. I am pleased that members on all sides of the chamber can stand united in condemnation and in offering what we can on prevention and protection.
We should welcome the multi-agency approach and the difference that I am sure we all hope it will make in raising awareness. Of course, one difficulty is that so few women are willing to talk about the issue, let alone report it. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has shared with us some of the information that has emerged from its helpline and support services. Many of the young girls who contacted ChildLine, for example, said that they were exposed to FGM when they were abroad and that they felt deceived by their parents, who made the arrangements. They said that, if they had known why they were being sent on the trip, they would have tried to prevent such a painful and distressing procedure. However, they also said that they felt powerless to stop it in the face of their families’ cultural beliefs.
In most cases, those young girls then lived with the pain and upset and did not even go to the doctor, for fear of getting their parents into trouble. We are talking about girls of school age, who more often than not are refugees in Scotland and therefore potentially socially isolated and not in a position to challenge the brutality of this abuse. They cope by themselves with unimaginable and horrific injuries. Their communities tell them that the procedures are not only religiously, culturally and socially acceptable but necessary and will make them more marriageable by discouraging promiscuity.
We support the Scottish Government’s commitment to removing this behaviour from our society and ensuring that FGM is treated as the criminal act that it is. We recognise, as I am sure the cabinet secretary does, that despite the Government’s best efforts there have so far been very few prosecutions. Last year, there were 14 possible cases. The cabinet secretary updated us on the figures and said that there have been 23 referrals and 25 girls have been identified as being potentially at risk. However, there have been no prosecutions.
We know that health professionals, teachers and the police face a tough challenge in gaining the appropriate evidence to prove that girls and women are at risk. In June last year, representatives of Police Scotland gave evidence to the Equal Opportunities Committee. When asked if they felt that they had enough resources to tackle female genital mutilation in Scotland, they said:
“We do not understand the problem and the extent of FGM in Scotland ... and until we increase the level of reporting and fully understand the prevalence of female genital mutilation in our society in Scotland, it will be difficult to say whether we have sufficient resources.”—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 19 June 2014; c 2013.]
That is why Labour’s addendum to the motion calls on the Scottish Government to review its investment to ensure that it is effective. I assure the cabinet secretary that that is certainly not intended to be critical of the police—far from it, as it is aimed at working towards supporting long-term and sustainable community development in at-risk communities.
I just have a point of information, as a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee. The member missed out the point that was made when we took that evidence that, at present, the funds are sufficient. Of course, if we needed to do a lot more, more money would be needed but, at present, the funds are sufficient.
Absolutely.
That leads me on nicely to my next point, which is that work has been done even since then. We need to build on the excellent work of the Scottish Refugee Council and others in assessing the extent of FGM in Scotland and identifying the at-risk communities. The SRC estimated that, in 2011, just under 24,000 men, women and children living in Scotland were born in one of the 29 countries that have been identified by UNICEF as FGM-practising or FGM-affected countries. The largest community in Scotland that is potentially affected by FGM is the Nigerian one, with around 9,500 Nigerians living here.
If we are truly to eradicate FGM from Scotland, we need to work with community leaders, educators, young men as well as women, and religious and cultural leaders throughout the country, and we need to strengthen all forms of engagement with at-risk communities. Although one-off engagement events and consultations are important in informing communities about health services and so on, the key to long-term change is to support and resource proper community development, building up sustainable relationships that are based on trust.
There is strong support for the SRC’s finding that the work sits in the equally safe framework, which addresses gender-based violence against women and girls. As with other forms of violence against women, such as forced marriage and honour-based violence, which the cabinet secretary mentioned, our criminal justice system needs to recognise the approach and ensure that investigations are focused on the victims.
As the cabinet secretary said, there has been good work in the rest of the UK, from which we could learn. For example, there are efforts to support women-only health clinics, to provide a supportive environment in which women who are affected or at risk can come forward to seek help.
The SRC made a number of recommendations, to which I hope that the cabinet secretary will respond. For example, it called for clear national direction on the role of front-line professionals in the prevention of FGM. The SRC said:
“relevant professional bodies and agencies should develop training on FGM for frontline staff”,
including general practitioners and staff in maternity services and schools. The cabinet secretary also referred to the issue. The SRC went on to say:
“Statutory and voluntary agencies developing training and guidance for professionals should use and value the expertise of specialist NGOs”.
My Labour colleagues and I were unsure about the conclusion that a girl born to a mother who has suffered FGM should be the subject of a child intervention order. I ask the minister whether it might be better to regard the issue as a child protection issue and to proceed in the way that happens when there has been domestic violence, supporting the mother, who is also a victim, as well as protecting the child.
FGM affects communities in nearly every part of Scotland and is most concentrated in our cities of Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee. Every year, more than 350 girls are born into at-risk communities in Scotland—that is, they are born to mothers from an FGM-practising or FGM-affected country. The problem will be with us for many years to come.
Despite the efforts of campaigning groups and members of this Parliament, and notwithstanding the passing in this Parliament of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005, public awareness of female genital mutilation remains low in Scotland. All members have a responsibility to increase awareness and do much more to put a stop to this brutality in Scotland.
The Scottish Government must show national leadership by ensuring that all forms of FGM are recognised as abuse and violence against the human rights of women and children. We must engage constructively with at-risk communities in challenging the cultural and moral attitudes that are associated with the practice of FGM. In eradicating the practice, we must eradicate the perception that FGM is a rite of passage for young women.
Today the Parliament has the opportunity to show international solidarity by condemning female genital mutilation and ensuring that we will do what we can do in Scotland to protect all women and girls from FGM.
I move amendment S4M-12241, to insert at end:
“; is disappointed that, despite these efforts, there have been so few prosecutions, and calls on the Scottish Government to review its investment to ensure that it is effective and supports long-term sustainable community development in at-risk communities”.
15:27
I welcome the debate and thank the cabinet secretary for bringing the subject to Parliament, and for his commitment to working in partnership with a number of agencies in Scotland to tackle the shocking and abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation. Scottish Conservatives completely agree that partnership working is the key to fighting the practice. I welcome the comments and announcements that the cabinet secretary made in his opening speech.
I acknowledge that Jenny Marra and Hanzala Malik have been steadfast in giving the issue attention. The Scottish Government gives the matter high priority, and a change in our approach to tackling FGM is an advance for which those members can claim a measure of deserved credit.
Scottish Conservatives and members of other parties in this Parliament are united in our commitment to ending FGM in the United Kingdom and to ensuring that all girls have the right to live free from violence, coercion and the lifelong physical and psychological effects of FGM.
It is clear that it will take increased partnership between the police, education services, health services and children’s agencies if we are decisively to put an end to the shaming headlines of recent years about Scotland being thought to be something of a soft touch. The BBC investigation in 2013 revealed concerns that young girls were being brought to Scotland to undergo FGM because Scotland was viewed as a country that did not take the issue as seriously as I believe that it now does.
As Ken Macintosh and the cabinet secretary said, there are yet to be any prosecutions for FGM in Scotland, even though Police Scotland has investigated a number of cases. That is not due to any failing on the police’s part—it simply underlines the particular challenges of secrecy within the communities that commit this crime. I note, too, what the cabinet secretary had to say a few moments ago regarding the number of cases that are referred and investigated. I accept the argument that prevention of FGM must be the priority, but I believe that it is equally essential that, where appropriate, prosecutions are seen to take place, in order that they act as an effective deterrent to those who would mutilate girls, and to those girls’ families.
That view is supported by the Scottish Refugee Council, as has been said—I suspect that speeches this afternoon will prove to be somewhat repetitive—which has called on the Scottish Government to ensure that the criminal justice system’s response is perceived as being effective, and that anyone who is found to have subjected a child living in Scotland to FGM will face robust criminal sanctions. A prosecution in Scotland might help to ensure that these brutal criminals have nowhere to hide. However, it is arguable that that will happen only when attitudes and the community culture start to change, in conjunction with the community education initiatives to which the cabinet secretary referred.
Figures from police forces across the UK reveal that dozens of suspected FGM offences have been reported over the past few years, but only a handful of arrests have been made, with the first FGM prosecution in the UK ending yesterday in the acquittal of the accused doctor. We must learn lessons from that UK trial, which the acquitted doctor has labelled a show trial, and in which it emerged that the alleged victim never supported the case. What is clear is that the doctor was not adequately prepared for the circumstances that faced him, and that the hospital had failed to pick up on the woman’s medical history. The case simply illustrates how difficult it is to pursue the issue, even though we are all committed to pursuing cases, where appropriate.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement today that there will be a girls summit in Glasgow in March 2015. Last year, alongside the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister held a girls summit at which he set out his and his Government’s commitment to ending FGM and childhood forced marriage. He said that both should be stopped worldwide within this generation.
At the summit, David Cameron also announced a number of new policies and funding to protect the millions of girls who are at threat from FGM at home and abroad, including new police guidance, new legislation that will mean that parents can be prosecuted if they fail to prevent their daughter being cut, a consultation on proposals to introduce new civil orders that are designed to protect girls who are identified as being at risk of FGM, new legislation to grant victims of FGM lifelong anonymity, and a new specialist FGM service that will include social services to proactively identify and respond to issues. At the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement, a Scottish Government spokesman said that the Government would consider the policies closely to see which could be applied in Scotland; I would appreciate a discursive response from the cabinet secretary on how that review is progressing.
The cabinet secretary has already outlined in his speech the welcome launch by the Women’s Support Project of FGM training and public education resources. Our education services have a vital role to play in the fight against FGM, so I draw attention to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has argued that fundamental to the issue is detailed child protection training for teachers in schools in areas where girls are identified as being at risk of FGM. I ask the cabinet secretary to implement that as a matter of urgency in Scotland.
In conclusion, I emphasise Scottish Conservatives’ support for ending FGM in Scotland, and our commitment to bringing that about. Although we believe that the Labour amendment is possibly unnecessary, we will support it, and we offer our support for the Government’s motion this afternoon, which promotes work in partnership across Scotland. In so doing, we repeat our call that the necessary action be taken to support Police Scotland in securing prosecutions where appropriate and in stopping anyone in the future carrying out FGM in Scotland.
We move to the open debate. We are tight for time today, so I confine members to six minutes.
15:34
I thank the cabinet secretary for instigating this debate, and I welcome the amendment—the addendum, as Ken Macintosh called it—from the Labour benches.
I know that it has been said before, but I must reiterate it by stating at the beginning of my contribution that female genital mutilation, or FGM, is child abuse. We need to realise that. There are no medical reasons for carrying out that horrendous practice. It does not make childbirth safer or enhance fertility; rather, is used to control female sexuality and it causes severe and long-lasting damage to the victim, both physically and emotionally. As members have already said, it must be eradicated. I hope that we can eradicate this heinous crime.
I want to thank the many agencies that are working with communities that could be affected by FGM. To put the issue in context, as the cabinet secretary and Ken Macintosh have already mentioned, the number of children born in Scotland to mothers who have come from FGM-practising countries has increased significantly. The cabinet secretary gave us the numbers. That is why it is so important that we continue to work on a partnership basis with all concerned in those communities.
I am a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee now, and was a member six or seven years ago when the committee inquired into FGM and visited agencies in the Glasgow region to speak to families there. We also had the families come in, in private, to speak to us at the Equal Opportunities Committee. Listening to the evidence from those women was quite horrendous, and our hope was that we would be able to eradicate the practice. However, as has been said, it is not a short-term issue—it will take time, unfortunately, not only to eradicate the practice but to educate people from those communities in order to stop them committing what I see as being horrendous crimes. As was said all those years ago, and as has been said again, people in those communities may see FGM as a custom or rite of passage, or there may be a religious aspect to the practice. We have to continue to mention to people that it is nothing but child abuse and that it has to stop.
The Scottish Refugee Council report, “Tackling Female Genital Mutilation in Scotland: A Scottish model of intervention”, is a good example of the work that is being done by agencies with the Scottish Government and others. The five key themes are participation, policy, prevention, protection and provision of services. As Jackson Carlaw said, we need to build up trust not only within the communities but with agencies, so that they can work together, in particular in education, where the getting it right for every child policy may have a role to play, and in the medical profession, so that all the agencies that work together on the ground can ensure that we build with those communities a positive relationship that is based on trust. Otherwise, they will not deliver the key aims of getting into those communities to stop those heinous crimes and to prevent participation in that criminal act.
I mentioned education. It was brought to our attention that teachers may notice that children have been missing for a time because they have gone abroad. If the children in question are from one of the communities in which FGM is practised, that should be picked up. In the medical profession, there may be cases in which women do not want to be medically examined. We must ensure that they have interpreters when they go into hospital for any reason, and especially when they give birth. There must be a way of finding out when they give birth whether the mutilation has taken place previously, so that the child can be protected.
I know that it is a difficult subject to speak about and deal with, but that is why it is so important that we do deal with it and do talk about it. I know that one of my colleagues, Margaret McCulloch, is going to explain more of the medical aspects, so I will not go into that, but some of the terminology and the descriptions of what happens to young girls are absolutely horrendous. FGM is child abuse and violence against women.
The lack of prosecutions has been mentioned, and we have heard about the case that was dropped south of the border. FGM cases are difficult to prosecute. There might be a jury, but is the evidence sufficient? It is difficult for the child herself. It is very difficult for a person to come forward and say that it has happened to them. It is something that happens within the family, and for someone to turn on their family—or for their family to turn on them—is very difficult for anyone, no matter what age. It is very difficult for a child.
I thank the cabinet secretary very much for bringing forward the debate. I hope that we can push things forward to eradicate this heinous crime.
15:40
Since we last debated the international day of zero tolerance for FGM, the Equal Opportunities Committee has continued to scope the potential for an inquiry. As convener of that committee, I held a number of confidential meetings with those who work directly with victims. Today I want to take a step back and explain FGM: what it is and why it happens. I also want to share some of my own thoughts.
UNICEF estimates that more than 120 million women and girls worldwide live with the consequences of FGM, mainly in 29 African countries, where the practising population is high, and in areas such as Kurdistan, Iraq and Egypt. Mass migration and cross-border travel bring opportunities, but they mean that policy makers here must confront unfamiliar challenges such as FGM. The people I met are keen to stress that there are different forms of FGM, and the World Health Organization has defined four distinct categories, which I will explain to the chamber.
Type 1 mainly involves the partial or total removal of the clitoris. Type 2—excision—involves partial or total removal of the clitoris and partial or total removal of the labia. Type 3—infibulation—involves the narrowing of the orifice and creating a seal by cutting and repositioning the labia, with or without cutting the clitoris. Type 4 covers all other procedures, including pricking and burning and some of the most extreme and disturbing forms of FGM.
Needless to say, there are no health benefits from any of the procedures; they serve only to injure and harm. FGM causes physical pain, bleeding, shock, infection and, in the longer term, abscesses, cysts, adhesions and neuromas. Type 3 FGM can cause further complications such as reproductive tract infections and incontinence. Many women who are cut experience chronic pain and recurring infections for the rest of their life. They can also experience depression, terrifying flashbacks, vivid nightmares and post-traumatic stress. According to the WHO, death rates among babies during and immediately after childbirth were higher for those born to mothers who had undergone some kind of FGM.
FGM primarily occurs up to the age of 15, mainly in girls aged between 5 and 8. Adult cases often involve restoring type 3 after childbirth or a husband forcing his wife to be cut as a condition of marriage. FGM is most often carried out by someone who has no formal medical training. In those cases, there will be no anaesthetic and it will typically be done with a knife, scissors, razor blades or even bits of glass. It is estimated that 3 million girls are cut every year and often they are forcibly restrained.
FGM has no basis in religion; it is a cultural practice rooted in patriarchy and gender inequality. It can be seen as a prerequisite of marriage in societies where marriage is a woman’s only means of achieving status and economic security. There is a widely held belief in practising communities that FGM can preserve a girl’s chastity before marriage and her faithfulness afterwards. Without being cut, a girl can become an outcast. Pressure on young girls to undergo FGM can come from those closest to home.
The most extreme case of FGM brought to my attention by organisations working here in the UK concerned a girl who resisted being cut. After years of avoiding the procedure, she was taken by force, held down and subjected to one of the most extreme forms of type 4 FGM, in which she was cut and mutilated. That individual’s story is so distressing that I cannot share all the details with the chamber today. I have heard similar stories of girls being subjected to the most distressing and disturbing violence by the people they know.
The challenge before us is to eliminate this cruelty against women and children. We must play our part internationally, but we must also recognise that in Scotland there are victims needing support and there are women and girls at risk. We need to build the capacity to reach women and children in affected communities to ensure that they can be protected. We have to develop best practice, training the health, social work and education professionals to recognise the signs and work sensitively with those affected.
We also need to work with affected communities to tackle the reality of FGM and the effects that it has on women and girls. This is abuse and all abuse is unacceptable. Let us also be clear that a strategy of persuasion and prevention must not conflict with a principle of zero tolerance; it must not preclude prosecutions.
FGM is an abuse of women, of girls, of their bodies and of their human rights. It is a crime. It is a violation. It is abhorrent and it must be stopped.
15:46
I thank the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government for bringing this important issue before the chamber today on the day before the international day of zero tolerance for female genital mutilation.
This is an issue that I have long been concerned about. Indeed, I first lodged a motion in this Parliament condemning the practice some 14 years ago. FGM is an abhorrent, primitive and almost unspeakable form of violence towards girls and women, as we heard so eloquently from Margaret McCulloch just a few moments ago. It is also an especially pernicious form of child abuse, as many members have commented.
UNICEF estimates that half of all girls subjected to FGM are under the age of 5, while most of the remainder are under the age of 14. I know that members across the chamber are united in condemning an antediluvian practice that does so much harm to both the physical and psychological health of millions of girls and women around the world.
However, some members might be surprised to hear how prevalent the practice is in some communities that are relatively close to home. Members might expect to hear about instances of FGM being inflicted on girls in pockets of the middle east and sub-Saharan Africa. What about Birmingham? In 2013, the Sunday Times magazine reported that Birmingham Heartlands hospital had handled some 700 cases of FGM over the course of the preceding 27 months. In 2012, the Royal College of Midwives stated that up to 66,000 women in the UK may have endured the agony of FGM.
If FGM is being carried out in such numbers so close to home, that is absolutely shocking and I know that members will share my disbelief. The Birmingham figures are deeply disturbing. If FGM is being inflicted upon so many girls in these islands, how prevalent is it here in Scotland in the communities that we are elected to represent and serve?
“Tackling Female Genital Mutilation in Scotland: A Scottish Model of Intervention”, the Scottish Refugee Council report produced in conjunction with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, provides useful policy recommendations, but it does not shed any light on how prevalent the practice might be in Scotland, nor does it claim to. In fact, the report explicitly states:
“At the time of writing there were no published studies looking at the scope of FGM in Scotland.”
I recognise, as other members have today, the sensitivity of this issue and the challenges in gathering this kind of data. Nevertheless, I hope that research will be carried out in the near future. It will not be possible for our society to gauge the extent of this problem and comprehensively address it if we cannot define its scope.
The Scottish Refugee Council report indicates that 24,000 women in Scotland were born in FGM-practising countries. Those women live in every local authority area, yet we are not able to reasonably deduce how prevalent a practice it is. All that we can infer is the number of girls and women who might be at risk, which, in reality could be very different from the number who are actually subjected to FGM.
For its part, I welcome the actions of the Scottish Government in addressing the issue, some of which the cabinet secretary outlined today. I hope that ministers will continue to prioritise the issue as more research is conducted and evidence comes to light.
In the meantime, the Scottish Refugee Council’s report offers useful insights into policies that have been implemented in several other European countries to combat FGM. Perhaps there is some scope for replicating in a Scottish context what has worked elsewhere.
When François Mitterrand was elected president of the French Republic in 1981, he created a new ministry of women’s rights. That move is credited with ensuring that FGM stayed relatively high up the policy agenda following a number of FGM-related deaths in France in the early 1980s. The Scottish Refugee Council report noted that there has been relative success in France after public information campaigns raised awareness of the criminality of FGM. That may partly explain why France has a relatively high number of convictions for FGM-related offences.
The Scottish Government already has ministers with responsibilities for issues of particular importance to women. Those responsibilities are spread across several portfolios. I have every confidence that the cabinet secretary, among others, will continue to ensure that the issue is prioritised.
I recognise the importance of appropriate engagement with communities with the largest number of potentially affected girls and the need for sensitivity in dealing with the problem if we want to make progress in addressing it. However, the desire to show sensitivity should never do anything to reduce the vigour with which we pursue the issue. Quite simply, FGM can have no place in modern Scotland.
During the Commonwealth games in Glasgow last summer, Scotland sent a bold and unequivocal message to the rest of the world, particularly to areas in which the persecution of and violence against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation are still commonplace. The pride flag that flew in front of St Andrew’s house throughout the games was a positive gesture towards valuing equality.
Before we can have any credibility in speaking out against FGM in other parts of the world where that despicable practice is prevalent, we must ensure that we are doing all that we reasonably can to eradicate it at home. As a global citizen, part of Scotland’s contribution to the world is through the positive example that it sets for other nations and societies.
FGM is not just a women’s issue, of course. Speaking as a son, father and brother, I do not want a society in which FGM is permitted or ignored, and I certainly do not want a society in which some women from some of the minority communities feel that they do not have the protection of our society. Let us strive to lead the fight against FGM by our own example in Scotland.
15:51
It is a crying shame that, in 2015, girls around the world are subjected to such brutal abuse. It is all the more shaming that it is happening to girls who were born in our country.
It is hard to bear and to hear that young girls are in pain, isolated and frightened, and that women are living with the daily consequences of FGM, including difficulties with menstruation, pelvic and urinary tract infections, and painful intercourse. For some, there is infertility, and for others, there are difficulties with childbirth and an increased risk of stillbirth or haemorrhage, not to mention the psychological consequences of such a trauma.
It is hard to hear that teenagers fear for their younger sisters, but despair of their parents changing long-held views. However, we must hear such things because, hard though that is, it is nothing compared with the burden that those girls and women carry. We all have to face up to that and demand an end to it. We must speak up for those girls and women around the world until they are confident enough to break the cycle and assert that they will not allow their daughters, sisters, nieces or grandchildren to be cut.
The World Health Organization estimates that 140 million women and girls in the world have been subjected to FGM, but until recently it has been considered a minority issue. Now at last there is a tidal wave of change to end that damaging practice within a generation.
We know that there is a lack of data, but the Scottish Refugee Council tells us that it thinks that, in 2012, 363 girls were born in Scotland to mothers who had been born in an FGM-practising country. It advises that there are potentially affected communities in every local authority area and that the largest groupings are in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee.
Other people have talked about the lack of prosecutions. I understand the difficulties in bringing prosecutions, but we must understand the powerful message that successful prosecutions could send. We must robustly pursue criminal convictions but, as the Scottish Refugee Council says, that strong criminal justice message must be accompanied by investment in behaviour change interventions with affected communities—in particular with key community leaders, young people and men. It has never been more important to seek the active involvement and participation of the at-risk communities.
I press for a focus on three issues. First, there should be a focus on what can be done in communities to empower young girls and women to challenge, to refuse, to be strong enough to seek help and to feel safe when asking for help. We know that the issue is complex and emotional and we should not underestimate the tensions between family tradition and the wish to change. That struggle is faced by many FGM survivors, who know the harm that they have suffered but are unwilling to break with the culture that condoned it. Peer education is therefore central. One woman recently explained:
“Deciding not to get my daughters cut was a tough decision to make. Going against tradition can be difficult. First you need to convince yourself that the decision that you are making is the best one. You need to know the facts in order to do that. Once you have been trained in FGM and the consequences, you can make the courageous decision to go against tradition.”
Secondly, what support is there for victims who have already been mutilated and are living with the mental and physical scars? England has specialist clinics in major cities. Does the Government have plans to develop centres of excellence in Scotland?
Thirdly, there is a pressing need for training and guidance for professionals—particularly general practitioners, maternity services and school staff. The Scottish Government and local authority leads should provide national direction and, from that, local direction on clear child intervention responses when an FGM survivor gives birth to a girl. However, the Scottish Refugee Council does not think that that should result in an automatic child protection referral. Local authorities and health boards across Scotland should develop a network of named professionals who have expertise in FGM. They must ensure that clear referral pathways are in place. Some concern has been expressed about the automatic child protection referral, so we need clear guidance on that.
I congratulate the Government on the developments that the cabinet secretary outlined and on the vigour with which it is pursuing the issue. I associate myself with the praise that Alex Neil gave to the wide range of third sector partners. Like other members, I think that the Labour amendment is unnecessary, but we will support it.
At the end of the day, we are talking about a girl’s ability to make decisions about her own life and body. We must do all that we can to ensure that every girl in Scotland has that autonomy.
15:56
The very idea of FGM appals most people. We shudder at and reject the 5,000-year-old traditional, brutal and often unclean surgery that is carried out on young girls. It is intolerable and obscene and it is undoubtedly child abuse. In some places, that abuse takes place with the active consent of some mothers. Alison McInnes talked about educating and working with mothers; that is very important, because going against a tradition is tough.
Sitting in critical judgment of the practice will get us nowhere and achieve no liberation for those who are suffering at the end of a scalpel. Condemning it from a white, westernised, liberal, modern social democracy fails because it does not take the wider context into account. The Scottish Refugee Council’s report, of which we have heard a lot this afternoon, provides an excellent understanding of the background from which we need to carefully and sensitively seek to bring about change.
I pay tribute to the refugee women’s group, which has done amazing work on the issue in a number of areas during the past few years. I have had the privilege of working with the group on some of that.
The authors of the Scottish Refugee Council’s report point out that FGM is an emotive and complex issue and, as such, it cannot be tackled by simply slapping our answers on the back of another culture’s issue. The council estimates that many thousands of men, women and children who were born in one of the 29 countries that UNICEF identified in 2013 as FGM-practising countries are now living in Scotland.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s awareness of the commitments and recommendations in, and his commitment to, the five Ps approach. That has been worked on for a number of years to bring it to the stage that it is at. I am sure that the Scottish Refugee Council and the women’s group will have been pleased to hear that.
The council tells us that one of the largest communities that could be affected is that of people from Nigeria, with 9,458 people resident in Scotland. The national FGM prevalence rate in Nigeria is relatively low at 27 per cent, compared with 98 per cent in Somalia.
Throughout Scotland, such communities are having children of their own. We have no data currently to give us an overall picture of how many mothers have undergone FGM, and nor can we measure the likelihood of the 363 girls born here over the past year, whom we have spoken about in the debate, finding themselves victims of FGM.
However, we clearly have a responsibility to build on compassion and healthcare, and to work with and not against communities where FGM is practised. Policy makers and service providers need to ensure that everything that we do is shaped and driven by the experiences, needs and views of the communities affected. That means that interventions need to carry the support of the communities involved, not their resentment. We need to work to build change from within, because only by doing that will we shift the mindsets that have remained unchanged during 5,000 years of tradition.
We need to have in place a strong criminal justice message, but it needs to be accompanied by investment in behaviour-changing interventions in the affected communities. We need to look towards particular segments in the communities—key community leaders, young people and men. Without a genuine and effective commitment to the participation of affected communities in work on the issue, we will not only fail to understand the true levels of the potential risks faced by women and girls in Scotland today but run the risk of further marginalising the community voices that are the most effective advocates for change.
We have a duty to ensure that NHS Scotland is providing the right healthcare provision to survivors of FGM so that we remove any danger of insensitive or judgmental responses and have instead a culturally competent reaction. We need to be careful, too, not to stigmatise the victims.
Taking that all together, what we need in order to drive forward is a meaningful, well structured, multidisciplinary hub service in Scotland, as Alison McInnes indicated, that has clear links to named professionals. Front-line staff should be carefully and sensitively trained to carry out inquiries about FGM, and pregnant women in the risk groups will need to be identified and supported. Criminal justice and child protection procedures must be enacted effectively and fairly, but for that to work, professionals from all sectors need to have a clear and accessible risk assessment with reporting guidelines.
As we know, tomorrow is the international day of zero tolerance for female genital mutilation. It is a timely reminder that Scotland is home to many women and girls who are survivors or at risk of that brutal and intimate violence. However abhorrent and violent the practice is, we must look at ways of changing behaviour, attitudes and traditions, as we are doing across wider domestic violence and abuse issues. However, I emphasise to the cabinet secretary that we must bring the affected communities along with us in making any change. We cannot force it on them but must work with them, and I ask the cabinet secretary to do that.
Before I call Patricia Ferguson, who will be followed by John Mason, I inform members that we have gained a little bit of time, so there is an opportunity for members to make, shall we say, supported interventions.
16:02
As colleagues have said, it is entirely fitting that we debate the issue of FGM on the eve of the international day of zero tolerance of FGM. I, too, thank all the organisations and individuals who have raised their voices about FGM and worked hard to support those who have been victims of it or who think that they might be in the future.
FGM is of course an abhorrent practice that is both physically and psychologically damaging, and it must not be tolerated. However, it is a practice that is clouded in secrecy. Within communities and within families it remains a secret, not to be spoken of. Sometimes the victims are embarrassed to seek help, sometimes they want to protect a family member and often they are simply too afraid to make the secret known, so they live with the fear and the shame, with the discomfort and the pain, and often with the knowledge that their own family members were complicit in inflicting a terrible ordeal on them.
In some cases, girls are taken on holiday to meet family members only to find that the real reason for their visit is for the family to inflict FGM on them. Many women and girls report that their female family members actively participated in the process, often holding them down while they were cut, so they live, too, with the betrayal of the people who should be most concerned with their care and welfare.
That secrecy and that fear make it hard for agencies to identify and support the victims of FGM and to prosecute the people who encourage or inflict it, but we must recognise that we have to do more to get over those difficulties.
Campaigners have suggested that, following the girls summit that the UK Government organised last year, the number of women and girls contacting them to ask for help quadrupled. I hope that tomorrow’s event and the girls summit that the lord provost of Glasgow, Sadie Doherty, has organised will have a similar effect in shining a light on the practice and that, as a result, women and girls will find the courage to raise their voices and speak out about it.
However, we have to ask ourselves critically whether we are prepared for a possible quadrupling of people identifying themselves as victims or possible victims. Are all the systems in place to support them? Do the organisations that are best placed to help have the resources that they need to provide that help and support? Do the practising communities have the support that they need to make a difference and make a vital change? As the Labour addendum amendment tries to suggest, co-ordination of all that is vital. The hidden nature of the crime demands not only that resources be provided but that they be carefully targeted. We, too, must continue to try to do whatever we can to persuade the practising communities that FGM cannot carry on.
I notice that, at the girls summit, the UK Government launched a declaration against FGM that it asked faith leaders to sign. I understand that, to date, 350 faith leaders have signed that declaration, which asserts that no religion condones the practice. I wonder whether the Scottish Government might also consider organising such a declaration, as we clearly need the support of community leaders in the fight to eradicate FGM. We need those people to lead the way in their communities and, crucially, as Christina McKelvie mentioned, we need the men in those communities to support the mothers and the women who make the decision not to allow the practice to continue into the next generation.
We do not know the scale of the problem in Scotland, but we know that a prevalence study that was published by Equality Now—an organisation that the cabinet secretary mentioned—and City University London identified that approximately 60,000 girls aged from birth to 14 have been born in England and Wales to mothers who have themselves undergone FGM. That is a shocking figure, but we must presume that the figure in Scotland will be roughly proportional. However, we need more research to allow us to understand fully the scale of the problem here, so I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to a baseline study.
Those of us who live and work in areas where there is a high concentration of asylum seekers know that there are young women and girls who are affected by the practice living in our communities—there must be. The possibility of FGM being carried out on a young woman or girl should be part of the monitoring and assessment process that is undertaken when asylum claims are processed, because policies have to be consistent on the issue if they are to be effective.
As the Labour amendment says, it is a disappointment that there have been so few prosecutions to date, although it is perhaps understandable. Perhaps more needs to be done to co-ordinate the response of the agencies to cases of abuse, so I warmly welcome the partnership approach that the Scottish Government is taking. However, we must always be vigilant and constantly look to see what else will make a difference.
As the cabinet secretary will be aware, the UK Government has recently consulted on mandatory reporting of FGM. It is interesting that the British Medical Association briefing that we were all sent on the issue makes it clear that the BMA does not support that. I was initially surprised by that stance and asked the BMA for more information, which it provided. However, I must confess that I am not convinced by its argument, which seems to suggest that doctors should make a decision based on the circumstances of the individual case. Doctors would not hesitate to report other forms of abuse, so why should FGM be treated any differently? It is also interesting that the BMA’s stance seems to run counter to the approach of the midwives’ organisations, which think that all cases should be reported. I mention that because I would be genuinely interested to know whether the Scottish Government has had any discussion about, or given any consideration to, mandatory reporting as a policy option.
In this debate, we have heard FGM described as child abuse—it is—but I would go further and say that it is akin to torture. We must make it clear that we will support anyone who is a victim of FGM or fears that they might be. We must offer them our understanding, our compassion and our support, but our determination to help those women and girls must be matched by our determination to act against the perpetrators. We must be united in saying that FGM is not tolerated in this country.
16:10
I must start by saying that I do not find female genital mutilation the easiest topic to speak on. We have already had a number of very moving speeches on the subject. Perhaps the fact that it is not easy to talk about is one of the problems, so I am pleased that we are having the debate and I felt that I should attempt to speak about it.
I am grateful for the different briefings that we have received for today’s debate, and I am especially grateful for the report by the Scottish Refugee Council, which a number of members have mentioned.
When the Equal Opportunities Committee started to look at the issue of FGM, I was struck by the lack of information about the situation in Scotland. That continues to be the case. We have had some information given to us on a confidential basis, but a lot of that seems to be second hand, informal and uncertain.
One of the aims of the SRC report or scoping study was to find out what we could learn from our European neighbours. Immediately, it becomes apparent that the French and the Dutch adopt slightly different approaches. From what I can understand, the French model involves compulsory medicals for all girls. That has the advantage of even-handedness, but it might not fit well with how we do things here, which involves respecting ethnic minorities and allowing them to operate a bit differently. I think that Christina McKelvie referred to that. France has had some high-profile criminal cases, and that seems to have had more impact than merely stating that FGM is illegal. I think that the Netherlands emphasises prevention, with the relevant professionals being highly trained in spotting danger signs.
It has been made clear to the committee—although we are only beginning to look at the subject—that one of the high-risk times is when young girls travel abroad, as has been mentioned. I understand that the Dutch and the Catalans try to tackle that by issuing Government certificates that say that the parents will be in trouble if FGM is carried out while the girl is away. The hope is that extended family members in the home country will take that seriously, not least because the transfer of money from Europe could be halted.
I understand that that idea has been used on a smaller scale in Scotland. It involves the parents signing a certificate that says that they will not allow FGM to be carried out. My gut feeling is that I am more comfortable with that approach than I am with what some might see as the more heavy-handed and intrusive French approach. However, I note the argument that, if we had to choose between regular physical checks on young girls and the potential for FGM to be carried out, most of us would be pretty clear about which is worse.
Something that has interested me and which I would like to know more about is how some African and middle eastern countries have reduced the prevalence of the practice in their countries. I do not think that the SRC study concentrated on that, but it strikes me that, if we want a sustainable long-term solution, the answer must lie in the home countries. Just as controlling immigration is best done by allowing people to have a decent life in their own country rather than by putting up a fence around the UK or Europe, if the prevalence of FGM is reduced in Africa or the middle east, that will almost inevitably have a knock-on effect here.
First, we can learn from countries that are tackling FGM seriously. Secondly, perhaps we can consider helping them if finance or improving literacy would be beneficial. I had a quick look at a report on the situation in Kenya, which is one of the countries in which some improvements have been made, where
“The estimated prevalence of FGM in girls and women (15-49 years) is 27.1%”,
which is a reduction from 37.6 per cent in 1998 and 32.2 per cent in 2003. That strikes me as being quite a significant reduction.
As I say, I looked only briefly at the report, but it is interesting to look at the history of FGM in Kenya. The report talks about attempts being made
“to persuade communities to abandon FGM, first, by Christian missionaries and colonial authorities in the early 20th century and later by Western feminists in the 1960s and 1970s. These attempts were largely considered to be western imperialism and something imposed on communities by outsiders.”
It says that Kenya’s first president, Kenyatta, was
“a strong proponent of the practice”
but that
“During the UN Decade for Women in 1976-1985, the Kenyan government participated in a series of conferences”
and the
“movement to eradicate FGM continued”
since then.
We are told that a
“National Action Plan for Accelerating the Abandonment of FGM”
was taken forward between 2008 and 2012, and the report lists some of the interventions that have been made in Kenya that seem to have had an impact. Some of them have been mentioned already. They include a
“Health risk/harmful traditional practice approach ... Addressing the health complications of FGM ... Educating traditional FGM ... practitioners ... Alternative rites of passage”
and so on.
At one of our committee meetings, the point was raised that there is probably greater prevalence of FGM in Glasgow than in Edinburgh, although Edinburgh has perhaps moved further ahead in the support and help that is being given. I wrote to the director of social work in Glasgow about that. As has been mentioned, there will be an event tomorrow and a DVD will be launched in line with the Women’s Support Project.
Because we are looking at the subject both in this debate and in the Equal Opportunities Committee, some members—including me—have received emails suggesting that male circumcision should also be restricted. However, I think that that is a completely different issue, as male circumcision has been practised safely for thousands of years. I suspect that some of the motivation behind people raising that issue is criticism of Jews and, potentially, Muslims and other groups. We need to stay focused on what we are looking at today, which is FGM, as it is of a completely different order of concern.
I hope that we can all agree on the importance of tackling FGM. We need to continue to seek facts on the situation in Scotland and must continue to use all means to reduce the prevalence of FGM. If that includes some high-profile prosecutions, that is all well and good, but if the prevalence of FGM can be reduced without prosecutions, I would welcome that.
16:17
I welcome the debate. I have had serious concerns about the subject for a number of years and I have attempted to look at it in as much detail as possible.
Scotland made FGM illegal in 2005 but we have had no prosecutions. That is hardly surprising, as FGM is rarely discussed in the communities, let alone reported. It is a very difficult and complex practice that has existed for thousands of years. In an interview, a community activist stated that the nature of the subject is so private that many girls from practising countries are not even aware that FGM exists and that many are at risk when they visit practising countries. I commend the Scottish Government for its efforts to tackle such a serious and complex issue. I feel that the scoping work by the Scottish Refugee Council and the improved multi-agency co-ordinators are a good foundation on which to build.
I have a lot of experience of working with the minority communities in Scotland. One of the major issues is that, in order to achieve real change, the communities themselves have to decide to change. The practice of FGM is rooted in some communities, but I have had the honour of meeting both men and women from those communities who are actively and passionately working against FGM.
The organisations that are commended in the motion for their valuable contribution in tackling FGM in Scotland have all stated that the key to long-term change is in reassuring communities and supporting them to address the issue. That means having a much longer-term strategy for investment in community development.
Many public bodies, including the Scottish Government, hold one-off engagement events or consultations. Although those are important in informing communities about health services and so on, they have a limited impact. Let us imagine that I am a Somali woman living in Glasgow—I know that that is a little difficult—and I get a flyer inviting me to a talk on FGM. I probably will not go, because I do not call it FGM in the first place. Even if I knew what it was, why would I want to attend? It does not sound very exciting to me, or to anybody else for that matter. However, if I attend a group where the people who I am comfortable with happen to talk about the issue, I will be more willing to listen, discuss and perhaps even share my experiences.
I am the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on the middle east and south Asia, which has held round-table discussion groups on FGM, which were followed by a report. I will give an example of progress on FGM by the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq. The figures that are emerging from the Kurdistan region give rise to cautious optimism on FGM, as some local communities have reduced the rate from 73 to 60 per cent, which is a huge difference in that part of the world. The Kurdistan Regional Government has passed a law making FGM illegal. It should be congratulated on that, because it was a difficult decision for it to make. I would commend any Government that makes that decision.
The problem is complex. Some refugees have sought asylum in the UK because they have been persecuted for campaigning against FGM in their countries. It is important that the debate is sending out a clear zero tolerance message against FGM. More important, it is absolutely critical that the Scottish Government engages with the communities. If we just leave the Scottish Refugee Council and various statutory organisations to do the job, it will not happen. Sometimes, we are perhaps guilty of underestimating the power of the communities. I believe that funding community groups and assisting them in the process would be more advantageous and would provide the real results that we are looking for.
We should always bear in mind that it is the communities, not us, that will do the work. However, unless we support them in that, they will not succeed. It is absolutely critical that we support those communities in undertaking those duties. I, along with the Parliament, wish them the very best in that.
16:23
Yesterday morning, I had a visit by a group of students. They were young women who wanted to understand better how the Parliament works. I am pleased that, last night, they tweeted two words about their visit: “happy” and “progressive”. It is always good if we can say that the Parliament is a happy one. However, although the speeches in the debate have certainly demonstrated how progressive this modern Parliament is, we cannot be in a happy place when debating female genital mutilation.
As a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I find it difficult to call this unacceptable and illegal practice by its abbreviation, FGM. Ken Macintosh told us that many people in Scotland do not understand what FGM is. Maybe one reason for that is that we use the abbreviation. I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on that. We might want to call it what it is, if we want people more easily to understand what we are talking about so that we can tackle the problem. I encourage everyone to use the full term: female genital mutilation.
The Equal Opportunities Committee did a lot of work on the issue and members talked about the issue a lot, in public and in private. We all looked forward to the publication of the Scottish Refugee Council’s report, “Tackling Female Genital Mutilation in Scotland: A Scottish model of intervention”, which will help our committee.
I thank the Scottish Refugee Council and everyone who participated in making the report relevant in the context of the situation across the world as well as the situation in Scotland. I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights for bringing the debate to the chamber.
Partnership is key—it is the best word to use in the debate. Partnership working is the best way to tackle female genital mutilation in Scotland, as the Scottish Government and the SRC recognise. Partnership must include, right from the beginning, the communities that are affected by the terrible practice of female genital mutilation, if there is to be long-term behaviour change. The SRC report acknowledges that communities must be involved at strategic level, in prevention, in data gathering and in protecting women and girls from female genital mutilation.
When I say, “communities”, I point out, as all other members have done, that the role of men must not be overlooked. Men should not be excluded; they should be regarded as part of the solution that will end this unacceptable and illegal practice. However, victims should always be at the centre of the debate—not on the front pages of newspapers but fronting approaches to tackling female genital mutilation.
We heard today, as members of the Equal Opportunities Committee had already heard, that different countries have different approaches. John Mason talked a lot about France, and Jackson Carlaw talked about what is happening in England and Wales. I have no problem with that, but although we can learn a lot from what is happening abroad, I strongly believe in a Scottish solution for a Scottish problem. Let us not forget that we are talking about our own, Scottish communities. Wherever people come from and whether they are the first, second or third generation to be here, they are part of our community. We have to reflect that when we are legislating to eradicate the problem.
I want to apologise to the media. During our evidence taking and discussions in the Equal Opportunities Committee, we thought that the media might not talk appropriately about such a sensitive issue. I had to change my mind. The Scottish media, in particular, is well equipped to tackle the issue. In the context of the historical cases of sexual abuse of children over the years, the media has made a good contribution in explaining the issues to people and lifting the veil of secrecy on what has been happening out there.
Western nations have to understand that other countries can regard what happens here as being just as bad as the practices that we condemn. Christina McKelvie talked about that. Let us remember that we needed a New Zealand High Court judge to come and lead the inquiry into historical child sex abuse in England and Wales. That should give us a bit of perspective.
I encourage the media to talk about the issue without targeting particular communities. The issue is what is important. We live in one world, with many communities. It can be important to challenge people who are isolated from their communities—in this globalised world, people will become more and more isolated. We need to understand that better.
On the Labour amendment, I welcome the cabinet secretary’s clarification. I am not disappointed that there have been so few prosecutions. I trust Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to investigate first and then bring cases to court. Some people think that legislation on such an unacceptable practice as female genital mutilation means that people will automatically be brought to court to be prosecuted. I disagree. Good legislation must be used first as a preventative measure and as a deterrent. As I say, I trust Police Scotland in that regard. The example in England demonstrates exactly that cases cannot be forced into court by political pressure.
I am more concerned about prevention in the communities that are affected by female genital mutilation and care for the victim. That is why I thank the Scottish Refugee Council for its report and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners' Rights for bringing this debate to the chamber.
Tomorrow is the international day of zero tolerance of female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is a human rights violation that affects an estimated five girls each minute worldwide. The United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said:
“Health systems and health professionals are essential to the wellbeing of societies. They provide credible, scientific and unbiased information that can help people protect themselves from violations of their rights.”
I believe that this progressive Parliament and this Government will bring this nation to a better and happy place.
16:30
I am a fan of international days. They bring about a worldwide focus on issues, and what issue could be more important than the one that we are discussing? I warm to the word that Kenneth Macintosh used: “solidarity”, which is entirely appropriate in this instance.
I welcome the references in the motion to the Women’s Support Project and the short-term working group, and I welcome the funding. I thank all the organisations that were actively involved in that sensitive work and I especially thank those that gave us briefings.
The Scottish Refugee Council’s report says:
“Because of the limitations of global and Scottish data, we do not seek to definitively quantify the nature and extent of FGM in Scotland, referring throughout our report to ‘communities potentially affected by FGM in Scotland’.”
There have been many references to that dearth of hard facts. Of course, the condemnation that is implicit in the motion is not conditional on numbers. Indeed, the Equal Opportunities Committee heard last year from one survivor who said that the issue
“is not a matter of numbers but a matter of need”—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 30 January 2014; c 1803.]
I think that we would all agree that one case is one case too many.
I commend the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, who has grasped the issue and has been diligently meeting groups and showing the support of the Scottish Parliament. I very much enjoyed her speech.
I do not intend to mention nationality, countries or religions, because I think that this is an issue for us all to address if we want to understand the challenges. One of the reports uses the term, “informant”, which indicates the level of secrecy and sensitivity around the issue.
Effective interventions are terribly important. One of the private briefings that we got said that women presenting are unlikely to identify themselves as survivors. They are likely only to understand community-specific terminology, which frequently means, for example, “purification” or “cutting”, and they are unlikely to be willing to talk about “female genital mutilation”. They are unlikely to understand that their health issues are a direct result of female genital mutilation, due to the normalisation in affected communities, which is to say that all the women whom they know have the same problems. Furthermore, mothers and carers rarely know that female genital mutilation is illegal or harmful, and may say that they are opposed to it, even though they are not. That shows the scale of one of the challenges that we face.
Clearly, prevention is the key, and education is the key to prevention. As we have heard from others, there are challenges in respect of terminology, but discomfort about discussing the issue, for whatever reason, is not going to help prevention. We must talk about the issue, because we need disclosure from individuals, communities and professions.
Protection is also vital, not only for those who are at imminent risk, but for survivors and their loved ones. An often-missed aspect is the psychological damage that has been visited on individuals and their families. There is a need to protect and support familial and community relationships, which are, we must acknowledge, inevitably going to be strained by the involvement of third parties, however well-meaning they may be.
We also need to protect the communities from backlash from groups or individuals who misunderstand the issue. We must understand what is needed to provide protection: I suggest that it is not always money and that provision of services and ways of ensuring participation are important, too. As ever, I make a plea in relation to the unique nature of issues around access to such services in rural areas. The NHS will have procedures in place, but studies have shown that issues around geographic isolation are often compounded for visible ethnic minority groups in rural areas. I am sure that that will be borne in mind by the supporting groups.
We were asked what is required and who can tell us, and one of the answers in the report is:
“Policy makers and service providers should ensure that policy and practice development across all areas of work is shaped and driven by the experiences, needs and views of communities affected by FGM”.
None of us would take issue with that. It is important that it is done by and for the communities that are affected by female genital mutilation, rather than being done to them.
There is a key role for the police. As a former police officer, I know that practices have changed drastically in relation to such things as domestic violence and sexual crimes. Likewise, it is important that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and social work services can run joint investigations that are child centred, with outcomes for victims being at the forefront of everyone’s deliberations. Having said that, I do not want to suggest anything other than that I whole-heartedly believe that FGM is a violent act against women and must be stopped. It is a further expression of deeply entrenched gender inequalities, like forced marriage and honour-based violence.
I support the need for a national action plan. Many of the papers talk about behavioural change, but that takes time. I mentioned domestic violence and sexual crimes in our own communities and the different approach that is now being taken to that, so it is entirely possible to tackle FGM too. I noted the earlier comment about women’s support groups and the need to update materials that contain references to English laws and procedures, so I am happy to be reassured by the cabinet secretary that materials and videos will reflect that need. Although I note what Christian Allard said about Scottish solutions, I think that collaboration is hugely important. I know that that was not his suggestion.
The key with young folk is the application of getting it right for every child. We have heard about the brutality and the great pressure that women are placed under. We have heard about the secrecy, so it is important that we do not drive the problem underground. Women who spoke to us privately were adamant that they wanted action to be taken.
This has been a helpful debate and I hope that it will allow us to make progress.
We move to the wind-up speeches. I call Nanette Milne.
16:36
Unsurprisingly, it has been a consensual debate that indicates Parliament’s commitment to working towards eradication of female genital mutilation, and its support for the Scottish Government’s partnership approach to tackling the problem.
I first heard about the abhorrent practice of FGM when I was a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, which took evidence during stage 1 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005. That legislation came 20 years after the practice that was euphemistically known at the time as female circumcision was outlawed by the Westminster Government. I have to say that I was quite shocked to learn, on this very date last year, when I was preparing for Jenny Marra’s debate to mark the international day of zero tolerance for FGM, that there had not been a single police report, prosecution or conviction within the UK for such brutal assaults on young women and girls from certain ethnic communities.
It small comfort that there have now been a number of investigations by Police Scotland into potential cases of FGM, as well as the recent trial in England that was referred to by Jackson Carlaw, but as yet there have been no prosecutions here. However, FGM is almost certainly still going unpunished and many young lives are at risk of being indelibly blighted by a barbaric practice that, unfortunately, is still deeply embedded in the culture of those communities that sanction and perform it as a rite of passage to womanhood and marriage.
There is clearly no disagreement in the chamber, nor should there be, that FGM is quite unacceptable in a modern civilised society, and that it must be tackled and got rid of. Indeed, we have heard some moving speeches from members about their concerns for the victims of FGM in some of Scotland’s migrant communities.
Detection and eradication of FGM is more easily said than done because, as we know, the practice is difficult to run to ground, because it is kept private within the communities where it is practiced. Because it often involves family members including parents and grandparents, statistics are hard to come by. Because of that, and because of a lack of information on the influence of migration on the practice of FGM, the welcome and recently published report by the SCR, supported by the London school of hygiene and tropical medicine, which has been frequently quoted today, does not definitively quantify the nature and extent of FGM in Scotland. Rather, it refers to communities in Scotland that are “potentially affected by FGM”.
It is estimated that there are such potentially affected communities living in every local authority area in Scotland, with the largest, as we have heard, being in the cities of Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee. The number of children born into such communities in Scotland has increased over the past 10 years.
However, without further qualitative research and better data gathering, particularly across statutory services and among potentially affected communities, the actual problem in Scotland will be difficult to quantify, given the complexity and emotive nature of FGM.
It is interesting that the Scottish Refugee Council’s research also looked at what is happening across the European Union and found that, despite having similar statistical challenges to Scotland, EU nations appear to have been successful in tackling FGM and in supporting women and girls within their borders to resist and recover from it. That gives us the opportunity to draw on best practice across Europe and in the UK—as Alex Neil mentioned in his opening speech—in developing and taking forward a Scotland-specific approach to intervention. There is clearly the will to build on all the valuable work that we have heard about this afternoon, by bringing together the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, the NHS, education, social and child protection services and voluntary and third sector organisations that work with children and young people and their families.
In his opening speech, Jackson Carlaw listed some of the policies that the Prime Minister announced and indicated funding for at the girls summit, which he and the Home Secretary hosted lasted summer, aimed at protecting the many girls at home and abroad who are at risk of FGM and childhood forced marriage. Of course, we welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to fund a programme of work to try to achieve protection for women and girls who are thought to be at risk in Scotland, and we look forward to the proposed girls summit that is to be hosted in Glasgow next month and attended by Lord McConnell and the First Minister. We hope to hear some policy-specific announcements come from that event, along the lines of those that were proposed last year by David Cameron.
There is no doubt that we are all committed to the eradication of FGM in Scotland, but to achieve that we must find a way to overcome the centuries of culture that influence the communities that practice FGM, which is bound to take time. It will involve working together with those communities across Scotland, as the cabinet secretary said, in a sensitive and culturally acceptable way, involving all the many statutory and third sector organisations involved in protecting the very vulnerable girls and women who may be at risk of violation by those of their compatriots who are willing to carry out FGM.
Action must not stop at protecting those who are at risk, as a number of members have said. The message must also go out to the perpetrators of the crime of FGM that their practice is illegal and will be punished. Those people need to be found and dealt with by the courts, and to achieve that Police Scotland must be supported to bring forward prosecutions as a deterrent to those who persist in carrying out such barbaric procedures in violation of their victims’ human rights.
I commend the Government’s motion and the amendment in the name of Ken Macintosh, both of which we will support at decision time.
16:42
The debate is timely and welcome, as it comes the day before the UN day of zero tolerance for female genital mutilation. The whole chamber has united around condemning this barbaric act. The debate has been sometimes very difficult and sometimes very moving, and many members have agreed that we need to continue the on-going good work and ensure that we outlaw this barbaric act.
Our amendment seeks to be helpful rather than critical, and many of our members have pointed that out. Some members suggested that the amendment is not important, but I believe that it is. Let me explain why we felt the need to lodge it and what it means.
We welcome the Scottish Government’s funding of information initiatives and the like, but our amendment asks it to review how that funding is used and to review its impact. Would it be more effective to use the funding to equip and build community groups, some of which are already in place, which could then be used as vehicles to engage with and inform the communities involved?
Such groups can build trust and put across and enforce messages in a way that one-off events cannot. Hanzala Malik made the point that FGM is a taboo subject and, often, a one-off meeting to discuss it is unlikely to attract the target group of people whom we want to influence. However, if information is delivered through a trusted grass-roots community group, it is much more likely to gain traction. Such vehicles can be used to deliver information on other issues, as well.
That is not to say that good work is not already going on. The women’s support project, the Scottish Refugee Council and the like, which have been mentioned, are doing excellent work, but we need to create and sustain grass-roots organisations for women in the vulnerable communities involved.
John Finnie said that interventions need to be by the community rather than done to it by outside groups. If we build that community resilience and use it to change and influence cultural norms, that can also mean that more children at risk will be reported and protected.
Patricia Ferguson made the really good point that it is critical to build support in communities. If we are to succeed—we all hope that we will—in changing the cultural norm, there needs to be trusted support in the community to provide the medical and emotional interventions that people will need. All that our amendment asks the cabinet secretary to do is review how we put messages out and look at adopting best practice. Rather than being critical, we are being helpful.
The only point that has been ever so slightly contentious is about child protection. I truly believe that every girl born in Scotland to a woman who has undergone FGM should be considered a child at risk. FGM is violence against women and girls and it must be tackled as such. A child at risk has to be protected.
When a mother has been abused in this way and gives birth to a girl, we must see that as a sign that protection is required. It must be recognised that the mother has faced abuse and her daughter is now at risk. Support and protection must be given in a way that recognises the trauma of the mother—a number of speakers made that point—and the pressure that she will be under from within her community to have the same procedure carried out for her daughter. The mother may require medical intervention—in physical and mental terms—possibly before the birth, and that has to be delivered in a way that is sensitive to her needs.
Christina McKelvie made the point that intervention has to be non-stigmatising, non-judgmental and supportive. However, if someone has suffered abuse, that is not a defence for perpetrating that abuse against their child. While we support the mother, we have to protect the child.
Patricia Ferguson talked about the BMA’s concerns about mandatory reporting. If a child arrived at a GP’s surgery covered in bruises, the GP would have no thought of not reporting that. We must take the same zero-tolerance approach to FGM to protect children in the future.
A number of members spoke about the health implications for women. I do not think that anyone could help being moved by the stark speech that Margaret McCulloch made, when she talked through all the forms of FGM and the impact that they have on people afterwards, such as the problems that women face giving birth, which can lead to complications for them and their child, with many children dying because of those complications. For many such women, natural childbirth is absolutely impossible. We need to look at how we address in our mature population the implications of and problems caused by FGM that has already been carried out.
A number of members talked about the legislation that has been in place for many years. Until very recently, there had not been a single prosecution in the UK and, as we all heard, the most recent one has failed. That is probably because of the nature of FGM and because it is so hidden.
We are not criticising the police, because they need information from other agencies and the public to allow them to intervene. If we consider that, in 2012, 363 children were born at risk of FGM, yet there were only 25 police investigations, we know that we are not catching an awful lot of people. It could be that child protection is in place and is working, but I do not think that we can demonstrate that in any way. We need to know what is happening, because the practice is secret and is not reported. That is where our disappointment lies; it is not with the police and the authorities that should be prosecuting cases.
John Mason talked about approaches in other countries and the need to target the countries where the practice is culturally acceptable. If views there change, we can make a change to the people who move to our country, if they believe that the practice is unacceptable at home. This is not just an issue for us; it requires community change on a much greater scale.
A number of members talked about cultural differences and the services that are available to women. Some of those services for women should be staffed by women, in recognition of cultural concerns.
More training is needed. The case that fell yesterday did so because of a lack of training for medics. As a number of members have said, all front-line staff should be trained in how to deal with the matter, to ensure that women who appear at health services are given the proper support that they require. The same applies to publicity.
FGM is not a religious practice; it is about controlling women’s sexuality. Although women practise it, the pressure is often exercised by men and wider society. Men expect purified brides. The practice makes sexual contact painful and difficult and therefore ensures chastity. It is violence against women and girls. It is a controlling and barbaric practice.
16:50
The debate has been very good, and every speech has been very good. In particular, I pay tribute to the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, Margaret McCulloch, for her speech and for her commitment to the subject as the convener of that committee. I know that that entire committee agrees on giving the issue priority, which it obviously deserves.
I welcome the four ladies in the public gallery who have listened to the entire debate. They are all from third sector organisations that deal with the issue. I hope that they feel that there has been a clear message from across the chamber that we are all determined to tackle the issue head-on.
I think that there is cross-party consensus at the core of the debate that the way to tackle the issue is to work with the communities, not to tell them, as John Finnie put it. Hanzala Malik also said that it is about working with the communities, enabling them and empowering them to deal with the issue.
John Mason made a point about the tremendous progress that has been made, particularly in Kenya, where the levels and incidence of FGM have been substantially reduced not just in recent years but over a sustained period of decades. Kenya has managed to make that progress by following that very strategy. The demand for change was generated from within the communities in Kenya; change was not imposed on them. Indeed, as John Mason said, when white settlers, as it were, went out and tried to impose a solution, it was counterproductive. We can learn a lot from what has happened in Kenya over the years about what we should do in Scotland and what is at the core of a successful strategy.
Although the short-life working group did not get a lot of mentions after I mentioned it in my speech, it has a big role to play in taking forward the agenda and advising the whole Parliament how to take forward the SRC report and recommendations and how we can take forward other issues that have been raised in the debate. For example, Patricia Ferguson raised the issue of mandatory reporting. Currently, if anyone is aware of FGM having taken place, they are legally obliged to report it. The question of why FGM is not being reported is one of the issues that the short-life working group should legitimately be able to address, as well as the questions of why there have been no prosecutions in all the time that FGM has been illegal in Scotland and what we can do to rectify that.
I want to say something more about the short-life working group’s remit and objectives. Essentially, there are four parts to its remit, the first of which is to review work that is currently under way across different sectors in Scotland to tackle FGM. That will include—although not exclusively—health, education, justice, social work, local authorities, communities and the third sector. The second part of the remit is to identify and agree what more needs to be done to take into account the recommendations of the intercollegiate report “Tackling FGM in the UK” and the recommendations from the SRC research project. Thirdly, we need to agree actions on how progress and success can be measured, and fourthly we need to facilitate the work required including the implementation of any new legislation to protect those who are at risk of FGM.
I expect the short-life working group to report during 2015. Once we have that report, before the Government makes any final decisions on what to do about its recommendations, I am keen to come back to Parliament to have another full-scale debate on the subject of the report and its recommendations. If we can move forward together on its recommendations and conclusions on a cross-party, consensual basis, it will send a loud and clear message about the determination of the Scottish Parliament to take the issue seriously, to do something about it, and to adopt any ambitious proposals that are made.
We are co-operating with the UK Government because there is a loophole in the UK legislation. As everybody in here knows, and many have remarked, FGM became unlawful in Scotland in 1985 and it is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. My officials have co-operated with Westminster to close a loophole in the law in relation to the success of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005. The change will come into effect later this year and will extend the reach of the extraterritorial offences in the act to ensure that a person who is not a permanent UK resident can still be tried in the Scottish courts. I am not suggesting that that will suddenly lead to a massive increase in the number of prosecutions, but I think that all members will agree that the right thing for us to do is to co-operate with our friends at Westminster to close that loophole.
Let me say a word or two about prosecutions and the legality. Only last week, a doctor in Egypt was convicted for practising FGM. As we know, yesterday there was a case south of the border in which the accused was found not guilty. Other than that, there have been no prosecutions across the UK. Although there have been no prosecutions in Scotland, I make it absolutely clear and beyond any doubt that anyone who is aware of FGM taking place has a legal as well as a moral duty to report it. There is never an excuse for this kind of abuse. Those who are at risk will be protected, and those who choose to perpetrate such crimes will rightly face the full force of the law for their actions.
As has already been mentioned during the debate, Police Scotland now has a proactive agenda for seeking out where FGM is taking place and working with the communities on the issue. The police have also made it absolutely clear that they will investigate all reported incidents and that strong legislation is in place to prosecute cases of FGM. Anyone aiding or carrying out FGM, either here or abroad, faces the prospect of up to 14 years’ imprisonment. Perhaps we need to make it more generally known in the relevant communities that anyone who is found guilty of those offences could face that length of prison sentence. I hope that knowing that would be a deterrent to those who are still practising FGM in Scotland.
We do not underestimate how difficult it is for someone from a practising community to come forward. If it was easy, people would be more likely to come forward and there would probably have been prosecutions already. The fact that there have been no prosecutions tells us that it is difficult, which makes our work in raising awareness and bringing about attitudinal change by working with those communities all the more important. If we can persuade people that FGM is wrong in principle, the issue of prosecutions would not arise in the first place. Certainly, one of the key lessons that I learned from my discussion this morning with DARF is the need to work in particular with the young women and young men in the communities concerned in order to change attitudes and get the cultural change that we need.
I make it absolutely clear, as the First Minister has already done, that we do and will take this issue very seriously and that we will take forward the agenda when the short-life working group reports this year. We will come back to Parliament and seek joint agreement across the Parliament for any additional action that is recommended, because we are determined as a Parliament and a Government to eliminate FGM from the face of Scottish society.