Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2772, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill be passed.
The bill will provide better legal protection against female genital mutilation. Such mutilation has been a specific offence for the past 20 years, under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, but we were concerned that people could evade the law by taking a girl overseas to mutilate her. We introduced the bill to stop anyone so evading the law. We do not want any girl in Scotland to be mutilated in such ways.
The bill will help to make Scotland a safer place. It will also extend protection so that it is unlawful for any person here in Scotland, or any United Kingdom national, or any permanent United Kingdom resident who is overseas, to aid and abet the mutilation of any girl in whatever country she is, regardless of her nationality or status.
The extraterritorial powers in the bill that we introduced were very wide-ranging. However, the Equal Opportunities Committee and others called on us to extend that protection further and we listened to those calls. The powers in the bill are a huge step forward—we have gone further than the rest of the UK. Our laws will now give stronger protection not just to the daughters of UK citizens and residents, but to the daughters of asylum seekers, foreign students and people under humanitarian protection who are living in Scotland. I am proud that we have been able to take this important and significant step.
The bill will also introduce new safeguards here in Scotland for the girls who are most at risk of FGM. Section 6 adds the offences in this bill to schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which will make it easier to mobilise our child protection measures. Courts will be able to refer any victim of FGM who is under 17 to the reporter to the children's panel, who can then refer her to a children's hearing. It is not just the victims who can be protected in this way. Any other child who lives in the same household as the victim or the perpetrator, or who does so in the future, can also be referred to a children's hearing. Adding FGM to schedule 1 of the 1995 act also provides additional powers of arrest without warrant and should raise awareness of FGM among social workers and other professionals.
The bill makes all forms of FGM unlawful. The amendments that we have discussed today will ensure that our legal protection remains as strong in the future. Order-making powers will allow us to take account of developments in elective genital procedures and to take account of any new World Health Organisation definition of FGM. Parliament will be able to scrutinise any future proposals for amendment of the act.
The bill also changes the words that we use to describe these horrific procedures. In line with international practice, the bill uses "female genital mutilation" rather than "female circumcision". It is important to use the right terminology because the words that we use can affect the way people think. It is misleading to pretend that there is some analogy with male circumcision, because there is not.
Other provisions in the bill reflect the seriousness of female genital mutilation. The bill will increase the maximum penalty for the offences from five years' imprisonment to 14 years' imprisonment, which is the maximum sentence that our courts can impose short of life imprisonment. That should make it clear that FGM is not acceptable and it will help to deter anyone who is considering FGM for their daughter.
One of the challenges that we have faced is that it is very difficult to find out the extent to which FGM is taking place in Scotland today. FGM is a very private practice that is rarely spoken about in public. I thank the Somali women's action group and Khadija Coll of the African-Caribbean women's network, who have helped us to understand more about FGM and the problems with which it presents them. I believe that some of those women may have come to watch today's debate and I thank them for their courage in speaking out. [Applause.]
I also thank the Equal Opportunities Committee for its hard work on the bill and especially for gathering such detailed evidence at stage 1. This was the first time the committee was lead committee in a bill's consideration and I know that the experience was harrowing and sometimes traumatic for everyone concerned. I thank Kathleen Marshall, who is Scotland's commissioner for children and young people, for her work on how child protection measures will work in the context of FGM.
Female genital mutilation is horrific. Along with other members of Parliament, I have been shocked to find out what can happen and I am determined that no girl in Scotland should suffer such mutilation. I and the Executive believe that the bill will make Scotland a safer place to live for girls who are at risk of having FGM carried out and that, with the extended extraterritorial powers that it contains, it sends out the clearest signal of our determination to do what we can to eradicate the practice.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I thank the clerks to the Equal Opportunities Committee, who have worked hard and are a dedicated team. I also thank the many witnesses who gave evidence and who in some cases—as the minister said—had suffered harrowing experiences. I also thank the many experts who gave evidence, whose knowledge of the terrible consequences of FGM was invaluable.
FGM has short-term and long-term consequences for the women who are subjected to it, their families and future generations. Sometimes, older women realise that they do not want the procedure to be carried out on their daughters, but have to have it done because of cultural and community pressures. Some such women were brave enough to speak to the committee's reporter Elaine Smith, and to the committee itself, so it is incumbent on us to thank them. The minister says that they might be here today. I thank them very much and welcome them to Scotland. When the bill is passed, it will offer them the full protection of the Scottish courts.
I use the term "female" deliberately because, as we all know, even babies can be the victims of FGM. It would not be right to describe young children, some of whom are as young as two years old, as women. We must ensure that everyone knows that FGM can be carried out on such young children. Unfortunately, that happens in certain areas of the world, but once the bill is passed it will not happen on Scottish soil or, if the person who tries to commit the offence is resident in Scotland, outwith Scotland.
I thank the minister for his continued dialogue with the committee. We had some good arguments with him about amendments to the bill that we wanted to make. I am very pleased that we will pass a bill that is not merely an equivalent of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, but is separate Scottish legislation. I accept what the minister said about reinfibulation—which I raised at stage 1 and stage 2—and the information that he has provided in his letter to the Subordinate Legislation Committee, and I welcome the amendments that deal with that.
I am glad, too, that specific reference has been made to the Somali women's action group and health professionals, who I assume will write the guidance. It is important that we reiterate to professionals such as social workers that FGM is against the law. When the minister sums up, I would like him to mention the intended timescale for production of the guidance. Dr Hepburn has significant experience of dealing with women who have suffered the terrible experience of being subjected to FGM and I hope that she will work with the Somali women's action group, Comfort Momoh and others to produce the guidance. I look forward to hearing when it will be published.
I will touch on some of the amendments that have been outlined so far. Executive amendment 1, which amends section 1, alleviates many of my concerns and those of other committee members—no doubt they will raise them. Those concerns led to committee amendment 13 at stage 2, which was an important amendment, but one that led to difficulty for the minister and the committee. We got over those difficulties and I am pleased that the minister lodged amendment 8, which means that, if the bill needs to be changed in the future, an order will come before Parliament. It is fantastic that the minister took the issue on board. As I have said previously, the World Health Organisation may reconsider its definition of FGM, so it is important that we can come back to Parliament if that happens.
I am also particularly pleased at the extension of section 1, which relates directly to FGM being arranged outwith Scotland. As the minister said in his speech, it is a big step forward—indeed, it is groundbreaking legislation. People who come into our country as asylum seekers will now be fully protected from FGM. If anything happens to them, they will know that they have the full weight and protection of the law behind them. If a person is fleeing persecution and knows that FGM might be planned for them, I am sure that it will give them some comfort to know that Scotland will protect them.
I will conclude because many members want to speak in the debate. I am sure that every single person agrees that FGM in all its forms—not just in its most extreme form—is a vile, cruel and inhuman act. Through the bill, we must ensure that we reach out not only to the women who are affected by FGM but to the men in their communities. We have to make it clear to men and women in those communities that FGM will not be tolerated in our society.
I said that the bill is groundbreaking legislation, which it is, but I have heard folk outwith the chamber say that other matters are more important than FGM. If, by passing the bill, we save even one female from going through the terrible trauma of female genital mutilation, we will have done something good. I am very proud to have been involved.
I look forward to the day when we do not have to speak about female genital mutilation and when the suffering of many thousands—maybe millions—of females throughout the world is ended. Scotland is leading the way. As I said, I am proud of the committee. I thank the minister and everyone else who was involved in the bill. This is legislation of which Parliament should be proud. It is an issue on which we can reach out to the world and on which we can say that we have done something that is slightly different from what Westminster has done. With the bill, we are saying to the rest of the world that female genital mutilation will not be tolerated, not just in Scotland but throughout the world. I welcome the bill and fully support the Executive amendments today.
I am pleased that this important bill, which has attracted cross-party support throughout its parliamentary progress, has now reached the stage when it will soon become law. Although the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005 will not affect many people in this country, it will give to a small number of very vulnerable women and girls protection from an horrific practice that is endemic in some ethnic communities.
The procedures that constitute FGM were first outlawed by the Conservative Government in the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. Essentially, part 1 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill restates the provisions of the 1985 act but—as we have heard—replaces the euphemistic term "circumcision" with "mutilation", which describes much more accurately the barbaric practices that the bill will outlaw.
The creation of extraterritorial offences, which will make it unlawful to send someone abroad to have FGM carried out or for a United Kingdom national to perform FGM outside the UK, and the increased penalties for committing those offences should—coupled with the education of the communities concerned—lead eventually to eradication of the mutilating practices that are endured by girls and young women within those communities.
At stage 1, when I was still a member of the committee, the Equal Opportunities Committee expressed the concern, which I share, that a restriction in section 2(2)(a) of the bill made it an offence to aid and abet FGM overseas only if the victim was a
"United Kingdom national or permanent United Kingdom resident".
Our concern was that many of the girls in this country who are most at risk of FGM would not be protected against being taken abroad to have the practice done because they do not have indefinite permission to remain in the UK and would therefore not be covered by the definition of being a permanent UK resident. Such people obviously include the daughters of asylum seekers and students who are studying in this country. I am pleased that the minister managed to overcome the legal complexities that are involved in taking extraterritorial jurisdiction and agreed to remove the restriction in section 2(2)(a) so that those vulnerable people will be protected by law. That amendment to the bill is hugely significant, and is a great step towards protecting all girls from being taken abroad to be mutilated.
FGM is a deep-seated cultural practice in several African countries, the middle east and Asia. Its increasing appearance in the western world is usually among immigrant and refugee populations. As a rite of passage to womanhood and a requirement for marriageability, the horrendous practice of FGM is frequently performed at the hands of older women in the community who have themselves undergone FGM. To them, it is a necessary ritual that is perpetrated as an act of love to ensure the best future for their daughters and granddaughters. It will probably take generations to eradicate FGM, and it will require education that is reinforced by law to overcome such an entrenched custom.
There is broad consensus that FGM is a form of violence against women and children that should be eradicated internationally. Its health consequences are well documented, and the women who are affected suffer from many long-term health problems, as well as the immediate trauma that is experienced when FGM is performed. We all heard the minister at stage 1 quote the experiences of a victim who was put through the ritual by her loving mother. I have rarely been so moved or appalled by anything I have heard. The chamber was stunned into absolute silence that afternoon by the portrayal of such an horrific act of violence.
The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 that was approved by the UK Government gave protection against FGM to people who are resident elsewhere in the UK. The policy intention of our bill is to ensure that equal legal protection is afforded in Scotland. Thanks to the stage 2 amendments that were accepted by the minister, the bill will go further than the UK act to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society, which is due in no small measure to the perseverance of the Equal Opportunities Committee in seeking to protect people who seek asylum within our shores.
I am happy, on behalf of the Conservative party, to give my full support to the bill, which will assist in the eventual eradication of a brutal act of violence that has for many generations blighted the lives of girls and women in communities that have accepted it as part of their culture and heritage.
I begin by adding my thanks to all the witnesses whose evidence helped us to refine and improve the bill, and by thanking the minister, his officials and our committee clerks. The topic has not been easy to deal with, but none of us doubts its importance.
In Scotland, the number of women and children who are at risk might be small, but the procedures that we seek to protect them from are hideous. We all hope that no one will ever be prosecuted under the legislation, but that it will alert relevant professionals and act as an effective deterrent.
There is no point in all members of the Equal Opportunities Committee going over the same ground, so I endorse all the points that have been and will be made by my colleagues. I want to talk about two matters. My first comments are on the consultation that the Executive carried out on the draft bill, which I am afraid fell short of the standards that we set for ourselves and expect.
There is some justification for that, in that originally the bill replicated Westminster legislation that would have been extended to Scotland through a Sewel motion had we not been going through our election at the time. When the committee started work on the bill, we quickly agreed that the Scottish bill should be adapted in the light of the information that we collected and the experience that had accrued since the Westminster act was passed, rather than rubber-stamp identical legislation, so this has not been a mechanical exercise.
The consultation period on the draft bill ran from 20 July until 31 August 2004, despite the Scottish Executive consultation good practice guidance, which was published earlier in 2004, stating on page 5:
"In order to meet existing SE consultation commitments you must … allow consultees at least 12 weeks to respond, except in very exceptional circumstances".
The fact that the truncated consultation period spanned the summer holiday period made the situation even worse. The officer who gave evidence on behalf of Glasgow City Council highlighted the difficulties that were caused for the council in contacting people whom it would have wanted to consult and because there was no time —as the council was in recess—for a report to be prepared and go through the committee structures. Despite those difficulties, Glasgow City Council gave us some useful evidence and was able to put us in touch with the Somali women's action group, whose assistance to the committee was absolutely invaluable.
The committee was informed that consultation papers were sent out to national health service boards, local authorities and representatives of ethnic minority groups and domestic abuse groups. All the material that was sent out was in English, and it was not clear whether translation into other languages had been offered, although it was stated that no requests for translations were received.
Given that part of the reason for a shorter than usual consultation period was said to be that the bill applied to a limited number and range of people, I would have expected more thought and attention to have been given to how best to reach those people. That could have included publishing material in appropriate languages and considering whether alternative formats to written material might be necessary. We did not get an impression that a great deal of effort had been put into targeting those communities that originate from or have connections to those countries where FGM is thought to be carried out, and which could be considered to be most at risk.
Effective and inclusive consultation is not an easy process. It might seem a bit negative to go on at length about the perceived shortfalls of the consultation on the bill, but my criticism is intended to be constructive. We must learn lessons as we go along and improve how we involve and consult people. That is not easy, and it takes an awful lot of effort, but that effort is well worth making.
Moving from one end of the passage of the bill to the other, I want to highlight what will happen from now on, specifically to ensure that information about FGM and appropriate training are made available to all the professionals who may encounter women who have been subjected to FGM, and to women and girls who might be at risk. That will not necessarily be an easy or cheap task to accomplish, given that—thankfully—the number of people involved is very small, but failure to know about FGM and ignorance of how to cope with the after-effects of it, on women who are having babies for example, can lead to devastating consequences for everyone involved. The committee heard of one woman's delivery being carried out by Caesarean section simply because the health professionals who were attending her did not know how to deal with her in any other way. That is not acceptable.
I commend the series of recommendations on guidance, education and training that the Equal Opportunities Committee made in its stage 1 report. There is good material available and there are examples of good practice to draw on. In particular, the committee learned from Comfort Momoh, and we were all impressed by the expertise that she brought to us and by her work in the field. I am sure that I speak for all my fellow committee members when I urge the Executive to act on the report's recommendations and to make a determined effort to utilise everything that is available to it to ensure that a small but vulnerable group of females are properly served by this country.
As other members have said, the bill is a short piece of legislation, but it is an important one, which breaks new ground. I commend the bill to the Parliament.
As convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I am pleased to speak in the debate. The bill represents a landmark for the committee, as it was the first time that we had been designated as a lead committee on primary legislation. The bill's sensitive subject matter and the vulnerability of the people at risk from FGM, as well as the devastating and irreversible impact that FGM can have on the lives of those whom it affects, presented us with a real challenge. I am pleased to say that the committee and its clerking team rose to that challenge. As a result of our detailed scrutiny, I am confident that we have made improvements that strengthen the bill's provisions.
During stage 1, we heard a considerable volume of evidence from a range of people who are involved in the issues that the bill covers, and we became convinced of the need to make specific changes both to enhance the clarity of the provisions and to increase the protection that they aim to provide.
Initially, concerns were raised that certain changes to the bill could not be made because they might lead to legislative inconsistencies with provisions in the rest of the UK. However, from the evidence that we received at stage 1, certain issues emerged that we felt had to be explored further, even if that did result in inconsistencies with similar legislation passed at Westminster.
Through continued dialogue with the Executive, we managed to achieve several improvements to the bill. I pay tribute to the Deputy Minister for Justice and his officials for listening to the committee and working with us to improve the bill. The exercise is a positive example of how committees and the Executive can work together to improve legislation.
I will describe how a few of the committee's key concerns were resolved. FGM is most often performed on young girls. In evidence, concern was expressed that child protection services might not be able to act to protect a child if FGM was suspected, so I welcome the Executive's stage 2 amendment to give potential FGM cases priority in the child protection system.
Evidence to the committee made it clear that protecting asylum seeker children is an issue. We were happy to see a stage 2 amendment to prevent UK nationals from performing FGM on non-UK nationals outside the UK. That change is significant. As we have heard, it goes far beyond the existing UK legislation. That sends the important message that, whenever possible, we in the Scottish Parliament will seek to enhance legislation from an equalities perspective.
The definition of FGM in the bill caused us concern. At stage 1, we heard evidence that the definition should mirror the World Health Organisation definition. We were pleased that the Executive lodged amendments at stages 2 and 3 to reflect more accurately the FGM procedures that are set out in the WHO definition. I also welcome the Executive's acceptance of the committee's stage 2 amendment on the definition of FGM.
The committee was firmly of the view that the provisions should outlaw the practice of reinfibulation following childbirth. Doubt had been expressed about whether the bill covered that procedure, so I welcome the minister's assurance in a letter to the committee that the bill will outlaw reinfibulation. I also welcome the commitment of the minister and the Executive to work with health professionals to produce guidance and ensure that no confusion is felt in the medical profession about the legality of some medical procedures.
The Equal Opportunities Committee worked on the bill diligently and with commitment. I thank our first-class clerking team and my committee colleagues for all their hard work and dedication to the issue. In particular, I thank Elaine Smith, who, in her role as gender reporter, met the Somali women's action group twice, which ensured that the group's valuable and extremely relevant views were taken into account. I compliment committee members on their responsible and consensual approach to considering this important equalities issue.
It is fair to say that the committee's scrutiny of the bill greatly improved it. The bill as introduced closely mirrored a private member's bill that was passed at Westminster. The work that the committee and the Scottish Executive did greatly clarified the bill and will provide those who work on issues that relate to FGM with a clear set of guidelines to follow. The bill will enhance the protection for all women and children in Scotland who are at risk of FGM. Our Westminster colleagues may wish to examine the bill, which we hope to pass, and amend their legislation accordingly.
The bill will not only continue protection of women who are at risk of FGM, but ensure that children also have the protection to which they are entitled. I am proud and pleased to support the bill.
I look forward to the bill's passing on two grounds. First, it is hoped that the legislation will go a long way towards outlawing the unacceptable practice and will give the communities concerned the confidence to resist the pressures that are put on their women to undergo such unnecessary, long-term damaging and sometimes life-threatening processes. Secondly, the bill has given the Parliament the opportunity to show the value in having our own Government and the ability to scrutinise and amend legislation and to improve on legislation that was passed in Westminster.
Equal Opportunities Committee members discussed and analysed truly consensually the evidence with which we were presented. Party-political allegiances were never allowed to detract from the work in hand. We were united in trying to ensure that the best possible piece of proposed legislation was presented to the Parliament. To the Executive's credit, it has moved considerably from its position of not wanting to differ from the Westminster legislation. Initially, the Executive did not want to countenance any inconsistency between the bill and that legislation, but the bill that we now have is not only a vast improvement on the Westminster legislation, but also, by definition, much more effective.
By accepting the order-making power that the committee proposed in an amendment at stage 2—to which I spoke—the Executive will now have flexibility to amend the definitions, should the need arise. The Executive has accepted that the law on the matter is developing and now it has a mechanism to update the bill, if necessary. I hope that the Executive has learned from the exercise that, though we may be a young Parliament, we must have confidence in our ability to scrutinise and acknowledge weaknesses and must be prepared to move ahead to construct more robust legislation. The committee wanted the best legislation for Scotland; the onus is now on other countries to amend their legislation to bring it up to the high standard that we have set for Scotland.
I pay tribute to our convener, Cathy Peattie, for the sensitive way in which she handled what was sometimes a harrowing inquiry. She exemplified the best of the role of convener as she gently guided us through the intricacies of the bill process. My thanks and admiration also go to the team of clerks behind Cathy Peattie, all of whom played their invaluable part. I give a special mention to Zoé Tough, who did a lot of work on the subject and who ably enlightened me on procedural issues. The bill does great credit to the Scottish Parliament.
I thank the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, the clerking team, the Scottish Executive's team and the many organisations such as UNIFEM—the United Nations Development Fund for Women—that have diligently pursued the eradication of FGM and lobbied for legislation for many years. I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, particularly those from the Somali women's action group, whom I met on several occasions, as members have heard. The committee found the subject harrowing, but that pales into insignificance when compared with the trauma that those women must have felt when they recalled their personal experiences of the horrendous practice.
FGM is clearly violence against women. It is a damaging, agonising and, at times, fatal act of injury that is perpetrated against women and girls. However, the pseudo legitimacy and prevalence of the practice in many communities, particularly in Africa, has led many women to consider it to be a normal and necessary part of womanhood. Last year, the BBC reported the testimony of Amina Ahmed, a woman who had undergone FGM. She said:
"One day, I was wearing a beautiful coloured dress and my mum called me. I was held by a strong woman who sat on my chest and hands, leaving me breathless and motionless. There was an old woman there who held dirty old scissors and a sharp knife. This woman was the circumciser. She had no medical training or experience and even her eyesight wasn't very good … She cut me up and removed my clitoris, put it in a bag and threw it away. I cried, I was screaming but I couldn't escape. The scars and pain from all the health problems I have suffered are still with me today."
Amina was told that the operation was her secret and that she should not say anything about it. That is particularly relevant, because the shroud of silence that helps to perpetuate such appalling abuse must be swept away, so that girls and women know that FGM is an abnormal and unacceptable act of violence and mutilation.
During the stage 1 debate, the minister told us of Waris Dirie's experience and we have just heard about Amina Ahmed. There are hundreds of thousands of girls who have survived and could tell us similar stories. The unheard victims, such as Waris Dirie's sister, are those who died because of FGM. We should take the time to remember that we are talking about real people and real experiences.
Originally, we heard that the bill was to be similar to its counterpart at Westminster and that we could have progressed through a Sewel motion. It is fair to say that there was a wee bit of cynicism about whether the Executive would accept the changes that the committee proposed, but it did, and I am pleased to commend the Executive for taking on board most of the committee's suggestions, and for giving reasonable explanations when it was unable to accede to others.
One of the most important changes was at stage 2 and removed the restriction that stated that aiding and abetting FGM overseas was an offence only if the victim was a United Kingdom national or permanent resident. We heard reference to that earlier. When the Somali women's action group commented on that in its written submission on the bill, it said:
"Now we see that it will not protect many of our members who are most at risk—asylum seeker women and children. We cannot believe that what you deem a criminal offence against a ‘UK national or a permanent UK resident' is not a criminal offence if committed against asylum seeker women and children. We are distraught."
I hope that the group is pleased with the change that has been made.
Throughout the evidence taking on the bill, most respondents thought that protection should be extended if possible to all women and girls. There were difficulties in international law regarding further extension of the extraterritorial provision in the bill, which was needed to protect all girls. The Executive agreed to explore how the provisions of the bill might be extended to provide further protection for asylum seeker children from FGM. I commend the Scottish Executive for investigating those legal complexities and resolving concerns. That allowed me successfully to lodge an amendment at stage 2, which means that all girls and women are protected from FGM, regardless of their nationality and status.
I make a plea for assistance to groups such as the Somali women's action group that cannot carry out their work without resources. Attitudes towards FGM are deeply ingrained among many people, and while the legislation is welcome, much more is needed to change views. Marilyn Livingstone will expand on that. The progress of the bill was a conciliatory process, helped by the genuine commitment of the Scottish Executive to eradicate the practice. I hope that that will mean funding and direction from the Executive to raise awareness of the legislation, to raise awareness about the harm of FGM and to help community groups in their work to eradicate FGM. I hope that the bill is passed unanimously at decision time. I am happy to support it.
We should welcome the bill—it is a good bill, which I hope will make a difference to the lives of ordinary women. The bill will add to a growing worldwide understanding that FGM means abuse and torture, and that it is gender-specific. The bill will help to change attitudes around the world. For me, though, the acid test of the bill is whether it protects women such as those from whom we took evidence, their daughters and their daughters' daughters. We can see how that plays once the bill is passed today.
There is one specific case—a test case. Let us call the woman Julie. She is a 33-year-old African woman who is in Scotland with her two daughters, aged three and five. She comes from a country where FGM is obligatory; everybody accepts it. However, her mum stood up for her belief that FGM is abuse and torture and did not visit that torture on her daughter—a fact that had to be kept secret in a culture where FGM is the norm. When Julie was 28, she gave birth to her first child. Immediately after giving birth she was genitally mutilated, with all the horrors that that brings. It was almost unbearable to listen to some of the evidence given to the Equal Opportunities Committee. Julie had terrible health problems and fled with her daughters to our country, with its justice and humanity, where she claimed asylum for herself and her daughters. She went through the intrusive medical examination, and it was accepted that she had been through the trauma of FGM, but she lost her case. Attaching electrodes to men's genitals is considered torture by Amnesty International and organisations throughout the United Nations. We need to reach a situation in which mutilation of the female genital area is considered torture. We need to send a message that FGM is criminal and that anyone who carries it out will be prosecuted. We need to send a message that we will protect those who are fleeing that torture, and their children.
I welcome the bill, which is good, and the Scottish Socialist Party will vote for it, but the question is: if the Home Office sends those children back, is it criminal? If they are not allowed to claim asylum on the basis of the torture of FGM, is the Home Office in the dock? I hope that the bill will protect Julie. She is still in limbo; she is supposed to go back to the country that she came from with her daughters. Will the bill protect women who flee to Scotland? If it does not, it is not worth the paper that it is written on.
I sincerely hope and want to believe that the Parliament will change the situation and that the bill will protect women and children who grow up in Scotland. It is about humanity. We should pass the bill, but we must ensure that we protect the most vulnerable women and young female children in our society.
As we have heard, the bill proposes to extend protection by giving the offences that it outlaws extraterritorial effect to protect women and children who are sent abroad to have FGM carried out on them. My colleagues on the Equal Opportunities Committee and the minister have outlined the specific provisions in the bill and the statutory protection that it will offer women and children. I add my thanks to the Executive, Cathy Peattie and my other colleagues on the committee, the clerks and all the witnesses for the support that they have given us in scrutinising the bill. I also thank the Executive for the amendments that it moved this afternoon, which will strengthen protection.
We heard in evidence that, on its own, the law will not put an end to FGM and that we need to use other strategies. The minister is aware that a major part of our evidence pointed out that legislation, however powerful it is, needs to be supported by awareness raising, education and training for the communities that are involved and by the resources to support those strategies.
We received much valuable evidence from many witnesses, but I make special mention of the evidence that was given by Comfort Momoh, who is an FGM-specialist midwife at St Thomas' hospital in London. We in Scotland can learn much from the work that is carried out there. Comfort Momoh and Dr Pamela Buck from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists gave us evidence on the totally unacceptable physical and psychological symptoms that women face following FGM. The brochure that Comfort Momoh developed for health professionals recommends raising awareness and changing attitudes through training and empowerment and that such training should include FGM and cultural issues. Comfort Momoh also said that child protection legislation should apply in cases in which FGM is likely to occur or has already occurred. I would particularly like the Executive to take on board her recommendation that written and verbal information about FGM should be given to women, but we need to ensure that such information is given in a format that is accessible to all. The community must be involved in all levels of that awareness raising.
We can learn much from best practice and the work that people whom I have mentioned have carried out. I ask the Executive to consider the evidence to determine what best practice can be used to help to protect and support women and children in Scotland.
I finish by reading on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Committee a poem by Dahabo Ali Muse. Shiona Baird read it to the committee at stage 2, but it is so poignant that we can all benefit from hearing its strong message. It is called "Feminine Pain":
"And if I may speak of my wedding night:
I had expected caresses. Sweet kisses. Hugging and love.
No. Never!
Awaiting me was pain. Suffering and sadness.
I lay in my wedding bed, groaning like a wounded animal,
a victim of feminine pain.
At dawn, ridicule awaited me. My mother announced:
Yes, she is a virgin.
When fear gets hold of me.
When anger seizes my body.
When hate becomes my companion, then I get feminine advice,
because it is only feminine pain. And I am told feminine pain
perishes like all feminine things.
The journey continues. Or the struggle continues.
As modern historians say, as the good tie of marriage matures.
As I submit and sorrow subsides, my belly becomes like a balloon.
A glimpse of happiness shows, a hope. A new baby. A new life!
But a new life endangers my life.
A baby's birth is death and destruction for me!
It is what my grandmother called the three feminine sorrows.
She said the day of circumcision, the wedding night
and the birth of a baby are the triple feminine sorrows.
As the birth bursts, I cry for help, when the battered flesh tears.
No mercy. Push! they say. It is only feminine pain!
And now I appeal:
I appeal for love lost, for dreams broken,
for the right to live as a whole human being.
I appeal to all peace loving people to protect, to support and
give a hand to innocent little girls who do no harm.
Obedient to their parents and elders, all they know is only smiles.
Initiate them to the world of love, not the world of feminine sorrows."
I urge the Parliament to support the bill.
I rise to speak in the debate to give strong support to the bill.
So far, almost every speaker has been a woman; I speak not as a man but as a member of the human race. The practice is barbaric and is an appalling cruelty to women, so everything possible should be done to stop it as soon as possible. The fact that many millions of girls have suffered from the practice in some 28 African countries, the middle east, Asia and other parts of the world is no excuse for not doing everything that we can to bring it to an end. It reminds me of the appalling practice of suttee in India, whereby widows were expected to be burnt on the funeral pyres of their husbands, which I am glad to say our countrymen and women played a part in ending.
Against such a terrible injustice, the bill will operate as a signal to other parts of the world that we wish to strike a blow for the dignity of man and womankind.
We now move to wind-up speeches.
My role today is that of the Conservative member of the Equal Opportunities Committee. I did not participate in the committee's stage 1 investigations because I did not become a member of the committee until the bill was being considered at stage 2. However, I heard the stage 1 debate, which illuminated in the minds of many of us the full horrors of the problem that the bill seeks to solve.
I compliment my Equal Opportunities Committee colleagues on their work on the bill, but I save my greatest admiration for Hugh Henry, who seems to have taken the bill through in a listening, caring and positive way. I compliment him on that.
I am not a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, but I am impressed by the way in which the committee carried out its inquiry. From what I have read and from what my colleague Sandra White has told me, I am also impressed by the way in which the minister and the committee came together to work out the issues. We have ended up with a very good piece of legislation.
Listening to the evidence, which is harrowing even to read, must have been difficult for the committee but, as Elaine Smith said, such difficulties bear no comparison with those faced by the courageous people who came forward to give that evidence. They have my utmost respect for standing up for and speaking out on behalf of those who suffer.
I noted Nora Radcliffe's constructive remarks on the consultation on the bill, and I expect that the Executive will take those on board. I am glad to hear that asylum seeker children in Scotland will have protection. Of course female genital mutilation should be recognised as a ground for asylum. I know that many members will keep pushing for that recognition under the current settlement.
I am glad that the bill is to be passed, but creating legislation will not of itself solve the problem. I note the Equal Opportunities Committee's comments on the need for the bill to be backed up by education and awareness raising, not only within the communities in which FGM is practised but among the professionals who deal with those communities. Legal and cultural training is needed—for men as well as for women, as Sandra White noted. As Elaine Smith said, the Somali women's action group may be able to play a role in disseminating that training, which should be adequately funded.
Monitoring the legislation and the on-going development of guidance are very important. I note from the minister's letter that he hopes that Dr Hepburn will be instrumental in developing guidance. I look forward to hearing from the members of the Equal Opportunities Committee about how they believe the legislation is progressing.
This has been a good debate. It has also been a difficult and emotive one. Many speakers this afternoon and during the passage of the bill quoted the powerful words of women who have personal experience of horrific female genital mutilation. Those profound and emotive words can hardly begin to describe the pain, agony and suffering that those women have experienced. Anything that can be done to help even one woman is something that is to be commended to this Parliament.
I hope that what we have delivered today will help to make a contribution to providing greater safety for women and girls in Scotland. I also hope that the significant steps that we have taken will be examined by people beyond our borders and applied by them to their legislation. I hope that we have given encouragement to others to go as far as we have gone.
It is right to put on record our thanks to a number of people. The Equal Opportunities Committee did a thorough and exacting piece of work on behalf of the Parliament and, through its efforts, significantly improved and added to the bill. I therefore want to thank the committee and all its members.
I thank those who made kind remarks about my role in the process. However, in truth, those words should be directed at the officials who supported me in a difficult process. They made it much easier for me to exercise my responsibility to move things forward and I thank them for making this piece of legislation possible.
Sandra White asked about the timescale for the production of guidance. We listened to what the committee had to say in that regard. Our officials are contacting community groups and organisations that work with them for advice about what would be most effective. We will learn from some of the good practice that is being developed in England and will use it. Professional bodies are already issuing guidance to their members and female genital mutilation is already included in guidance on the domestic abuse and sexual health strategy.
Does the minister agree that the woman in the case that Frances Curran outlined in her speech should be eligible for asylum because, if she is sent back, her children will almost certainly be mutilated? Could the minister comment on that?
No, I could not. As Rosie Kane knows, the matter that she is referring to relates to a reserved power. Today, I am concentrating on the positive contribution that this Parliament is making and will make to giving protection to females in Scotland, regardless of where they come from. I do not want this debate to stray into an argument about reserved matters that will lead to political point scoring. A good mood has built up as we have heard the arguments today and I will not stray into a discussion of immigration law and deportation because that is not within my area of responsibility.
The point that I was going on to make was about guidance to health professionals. We will issue such guidance by circular letter by the autumn and development work with communities will be an on-going process.
Nora Radcliffe mentioned a number of points of concern that were raised by members of the committee. I addressed many of those points in my evidence to the committee and I have explained the communications and the consultation. As I said, we can always do more to reach out to people to give them information, and we will learn from this experience about how we can do more to reach out to the communities that are affected by FGM.
I put on record again my comments about the consultation process. I believe that it was justified to shorten the consultation process in order to ensure that we achieved the parliamentary time slot for the bill. It would not have been right to require a long, extended consultation period and then to have missed the opportunity to introduce legislation. Under the circumstances, it was appropriate to take the action that we took.
Thanks are due to the people whom I mentioned for making the bill possible and for making the process so smooth. I join other speakers in thanking yet again those members of the affected communities who gave evidence and advice and whose personal experience shocked us into producing what I hope will be more effective legislation.
I genuinely hope that we never have to prosecute anyone using the legislation because I shudder to think that any young girl or woman in Scotland might suffer to make a prosecution possible. However, I hope that the passing of the bill will give a warning and a message to those who think that female genital mutilation is appropriate: it will not be tolerated in Scotland.