![]() House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [Lords] |
Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John
Benger, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 17 July 2007[Mr. Jim Hood in the Chair]Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [Lords]10.30
am
The
Chairman:
Good morning. Let me first mention some
housekeeping stuff. I remind hon. Members that, as a general rule,
adequate notice of amendments should be given. I do not intend to call
starred amendments. Hon. Members may remove their jackets if they
wish.
Resolved,
That
(1)
the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on
Tuesday 17th July)
meet
(a) at
4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 17th
July;
(b) at 9.00 a.m.
and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 19th
July;
(2) the
proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 and
2;
Schedule 1; Clause
3; Schedule 2; Clause 4; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining
proceedings on the
Bill;
(3) the
proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a
conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 19th
July.
[Bridget
Prentice.]
Resolved,
That,
subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence
received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for
publication.[Bridget
Prentice.]
<++++>
Clause 1Protection
against forced marriage: England and
Wales
Mr.
Humfrey Malins (Woking) (Con): I beg to move amendment No.
8, in
clause 1, page 1, line 17, leave
out from appropriate to end of line
18.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 12, in
clause 1, page 1, line 18, at
end insert
(3A) In
determining the persons wishes and feelings in pursuance of
subsection (2), the court may direct that the examination of a witness
must take place in the presence of a person approved by the court for
the purposes of this section (an
intermediary).
(3B) In
this section intermediary has the meaning set out in
section 29 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c.
23)..
No.
25, in
clause 1, page 3, line 2, leave
out from protected to end of line
6.
No. 1, in
clause 1, page 3, line 35, at
end insert
(9) In any
proceedings the court may make such orders or directions in regard to
the giving of evidence by vulnerable witnesses as it thinks
appropriate..
Mr.
Malins:
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Hood. I should like the Minister to be aware that the
amendments to which I shall speak today are purely probing amendments.
I shall speak briefly, and there is no question of my forcing any
Opposition amendment to a Division, no matter how much I am
provokedI am in that sort of relaxed mood. I seek only to find
out more about the relevant clauses.
Amendment No. 1 seems to me to
be more important than the lead amendment. It deals with the giving of
evidence by witnesses, particularly by vulnerable witnesses. We are all
aware that, in recent years, the present Government in particular have
introduced measures to assist vulnerable witnesses in court cases. When
sitting in the Crown court and the stipendiary court, I have on many
occasions heard applications by the defence that a witness should be
given extra protection. Witnesses have quite often given evidence from
behind a screen or in some other way that allowed them not to have to
face the other party. That is especially important in certain cases,
such as domestic violence cases.
I am sure that the Minister
will agree that some very vulnerable people will give evidence about
sensitive issues during applications for forced marriage protection
orders, which I imagine will be take place in the county court or the
High Court. There might be an element of fear, and I hope that she will
agree that each of the protections that are currently available in the
criminal courts should be available in the civil courts, too. That is
all I have to say about this little group of amendments. I look forward
to the Ministers
reply.
Jo
Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): May I, too, say how
delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr.
Hood? I suspect that amendment No. 12 was tabled with a similar intent
to that underlying the other amendments in the group. The issue dealt
with by the amendment is one that I raised on Second Reading, so I hope
that the Minister has since had time to consider
it.
Amendment
No. 12 would ensure that, in deciding whether to make an order against
forced marriage, courts had regard to the wishes and feelings of the
person to be protected. It would insert two new subsections. Proposed
new subsection (3A) would allow the court to direct that the
examination of a person to be protected should take place in the
presence of an intermediary. As many hon. Members are aware,
intermediaries ensure that the wishes and feelings of vulnerable people
are given sufficient consideration throughout the process of giving
evidence in court, even if traditional court proceedings would make it
very difficult for such peoples wishes to be heard.
Proposed new subsection (3B)
would merely reiterate the definition of an intermediary as set down
in section 29 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act
1999.
The job of an
intermediary will be to help communicate questions to the witness and
then communicate answers given by that witness back to the person who
asked the questions. They should also provide any necessary explanation
of the questions or answers to aid understanding.
Forced marriages often involve
children or people with learning disabilities. Those people can be
forced into marriage through a whole host of sources, such as trickery,
assault, kidnapping or blackmail. The motives for that, as set out on
Second Reading, can include efforts by the family to find a full-time
carer for an individual with learning disabilities or to obtain a visa.
I shall give an
example. Rani is a young woman with mental health needs and mild
learning disabilities. She was living at home with her mother and
sister. Her mother was put under pressure by the local community for
Rani to marry a young man from India who needed to marry a British
citizen to remain in this country. Ranis mother believed that
that would be a good match, because she felt that nobody else would
marry Rani due to her
disability.
After Rani
had been married for a year, it became clear that her husband had been
taking all of her social security benefits and sending the money to his
family in India. Rani had been assaulted regularly and had suffered a
miscarriage, which made her husband even more aggressive towards her.
Although she had asked for help, her mother said that she had to stay
with her husband for the sake of the familys honour. That is
just one telling example of the problem that we are trying to
solve.
It is
essential for us to ensure that people with learning disabilities, or
children who are vulnerable to the prospect of forced marriage, can
give evidence adequately. Intermediaries are one way to help that to
happen. It is true that they are often used in criminal cases.
Technically, judges have the power to order the use of an intermediary
within a civil case to help witnesses in giving evidence. However,
evidence suggests that that power has been underused and judges seem
reluctant to suggest the process. Perhaps they view intermediaries for
use solely in criminal justice cases and see them as not appropriate
within a civil setting. Whether or not the amendment is accepted, it is
important that guidance is issued alongside the legislation to
encourage and explicitly say to judges that the use of special
measures, such as intermediaries, would help to ensure that justice is
available for everybody at risk of forced marriage.
In addition to the support that
the amendment has received from the anti-abuse and learning disability
charities, Respond, the Ann Craft Trust and Voice UK, the Disability
Rights Commission has also indicated its support, as it has concerns
about the issue. I welcome any reassurance that the Minister can give
about how people in such vulnerable situations will be well served by
the Bill.
Mr.
Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I welcome you to the
Chair, Mr. Hood, and I hope that, although the Committee
will proceed quickly, it will nevertheless consider one or two rather
important issues.
Amendment No. 12, tabled by the
hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, is sensible. I have tabled a new
clause, but I do not see it identified on the selection list. I was
conscious when I tabled it that it might pose certain procedural
problems in relation to the scope of the Bill. However, I hope that I
may be allowed to allude to it, as it touches on a similar point, and
now may be a good time to raise the matter.
The key issue is the protection
of the vulnerable, particularly those who might not be able to express
their wishes and feelings with the facility that others may have.
During the debate on Second Reading and during the proceedings in the
other place, there was a general assumption that we were dealing with
forced marriages in the context of people who were of reasonable
intellect and sound mind. However, a lot of evidence suggests that
forced marriages occur in circumstances where that is not the
case.
In my
constituency, or just on the edge of it, there is a special school that
I visit from time to time. It is in fact just over the border in the
constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham
(Mrs. Gillan), but we both take an interest and have visited
it because it is linked to the local settlement in my constituency. It
is an outstanding school for girls with a high number of Asian pupils.
On my visit, the head teacher told me something that I was shocked to
learn. She said that it is absolutely standard for girls, on reaching
the age of 16, to be taken out of the school and sent to the Indian
subcontinent to be married. Most of the girls have moderate learning
disabilities, and it is questionable whether the concept of marriage or
the issues surrounding it are within their knowledge. That is a matter
of particular concern on which we must
focus.
From
the information that I was given on that visit, it struck me that
forced marriage is not just an occasional occurrence, but that there is
something fairly systematic about it. That was of considerable concern
to the head teacher, but there was nothing much that she could do about
it. One of the issues raised by the hon. Lady in amendment No. 12 is
that it would provide a mechanism for ensuring that a person in that
position could better give evidence or make representations to the
courts. I am wholly in favour of that. If I have a question mark, it is
that such an amendment is unnecessary, because the rules of court might
already enable such representations to happen, but the Minister will
doubtless be able to help us on that.
In new clause 1, I suggest that
one possible avenue might be a system not of registering foreign
marriages after they have taken place, as the Minister thought that I
argued on Second Reading, but of requiring British nationals resident
in Britain who intend to contract a marriage abroad to register the
names and addresses of the parties before that marriage takes place.
The merit of such a system would be that, if a marriage was to be
contracted between a person with learning disabilities who was resident
in this country and a person abroad, when the resident turned up to
carry out the registration, it would be apparent to the registrar that
a forced marriage might be taking place.
The failure
or the refusal to register such a marriage would mean that the marriage
could not be regarded as valid in this country, which might provide a
powerful inhibition to those who seek to use the system for whatever
convenience it might provide, whether in respect of immigration, family
relationships or whatever. Registration would make forced marriage
harder and would deter people from seeking to carry it out. It is the
difference between unravelling something after it has happened and
preventing it from taking
place.
I
am conscious that I am straying a little, and I apologise. I may get
another opportunity to come back
to this at a later stage, but I fear that I may not,
because my new clause does not feature on the selection list, for
reasons that I understand in the context of the Bill. I hope that the
Minister will take the suggestion on board, because it will be
regrettable if we lose the opportunity of looking at a device that in
my view would be simple and go a long way towards preventing forced
marriages from happening in the first place. One of the things that
might happen as a result of such a measure is that, if the registrar
feared that a forced marriage was taking place, he could make a precise
reference to the court. Amendment No. 12, tabled by the hon. Lady,
would then enable a careful examination of the matter.
At the moment, I simply wish to
tease out the issue, but it seems that this is probably the only
substantive debate that we are likely to have on the Bill. It is a key
issue, and we need to look at whether we can improve the Bill. As I
think the Minister knows, most of my other amendments are of a probing
nature, so that we can come to understand what the Government have put
in the Bill. As far as I can see, the Bill has been extremely well
drafted, or re-drafted, in the other place.
10.45
am
Mrs.
Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr. Hood. I
wonder whether I could mention a few facts that may help the Committee
to understand what is going on. Owing to the practice of
consanguinitythe marriage of first cousinsthere is a
large population of Mirpuri people among my disabled constituents.
Those in the Mirpuri community with disabilities are over-represented
within Keighley as a result of the transmission of genetic disorders. I
am sorry; I am not explaining things too well. I did not realise that
we would be talking about such
matters.
Over the
years, I have been involved in some very upsetting interviews with
families putting pressure on me to allow their son or daughter to bring
in a spouse from the subcontinent. They said that they wanted the
spouse to take care of their son or daughter. I can understand their
problems, but to meet the young boy or girl who clearly did not know
what was going on was upsetting, so I should welcome anything that can
help young people in such
situations.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Bridget
Prentice):
I, too, welcome you to the Chair,
Mr. Hood. I hope that you will already have seen the
Committee as one in which co-operation and cross-party agreement are
much to the fore.
In a
way, the set of amendments result in a clause stand part debate as they
go to the heart of the Bill, which is about the protection of
individuals forced into a marriage that they have no wish to enter and
who sometimes have no full understanding of what is happening. It is
absolutely essential that the court has regard to the victims
wishes and feelings. That is the aim of the Bill. In so far as it is
possible, it is also essential that the victim has the ability to
retain some control over her circumstances. I shall use
her throughout my contributions to the debate, although
such matters also apply to men as it is reckoned that
about 15 per cent. of forced marriages involve boys
or young men. However, for simplicity, I shall use female
terminology.
One
of the results of forced marriages is that they take away the
victims power of control over their own lives. Everyone
believes that the Bill is necessary and everyone supports it. It is
important that we do not further disempower people, but engage them in
the process. A forced marriage is one that victims are entered into
without their free and full consent, so it is essential for the court
to be able to determine the wishes and feelings of those who are to be
protected.
When
the victim herself applies for a protection order, obviously the court
will hear her wishes and feelings, and determine what is best to give
her protection and to avoid the complete breakdown of her relationship
with her family. On Second Reading, several hon. Members were concerned
that we ensure that that does not happen. It is particularly important
that the court can understand and protect the wishes and feelings of a
vulnerable person. In the case of young victims who have not reached
the age of majority, there are several ways in which their wishes and
feelings can be known. For example, a function of the Children and
Family Court Advisory and Support Service is to safeguard and to
support the welfare of children. It can give advice to the court about
an application made within family proceedings. It can also make
provision for the child to be represented and provide support when
necessary.
In the
cases of adults who might not have litigation capacity or the capacity
to marry, the Official Solicitor can be appointed as a next friend or
guardian ad litem to investigate the issue of capacity. In that
context, he would be able to help the court to ascertain the wishes and
feelings of the
adults.
Steps can also
be taken to ascertain the wishes and feelings of a vulnerable adult who
is out of the jurisdiction. That point was raised by the Liberal
Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire. In the
case of SK in 2005, the High Court used its inherent jurisdiction to
direct that an adult victim who was thought to be at risk of being
forced into marriage was seen by an official at the high commission
Dhaka in Bangladesh for the purposes of establishing her true wishes.
Again, such powers could be used under the
Bill.
There is already
law allowing for measures akin to the special measures available in
criminal proceedings under the Youth Justice and Criminal
Evidence Act 1999 to be used in family matters. Forced
marriage protection orders will fall under family law, so those
measures are available under the inherent power of the court to control
the evidence before it. Intermediaries have been used in family
proceedings when that power has been activated, so it is not unusual
for intermediaries to be brought before the court to act as protection
and support for the vulnerable
victim.
Jo
Swinson:
The Ministers information may be more up
to date than mine, but Voice UK, which is a charity campaigning on the
issue, said that it was only aware of two instances of intermediaries
being used in family courts. Although I appreciate that there are
provisions available allowing intermediaries to be used, the concern is
that they are not necessarily being used in appropriate circumstances.
What steps does she intend to take to ensure that their use is
encouraged?
Bridget
Prentice:
I do not have the exact figures on how many
intermediaries have been used, but I want to mention what else we can
do to encourage the courts to use intermediaries, the officials lists,
or other appropriate people. I will come to that in a
moment.
The
court can use other measures. They include screening victims, video
links and giving evidence in private. It can ensure that a young or
vulnerable victim has proper breaks during the proceedings and is
helped and protected in that way. Of course, family proceedings are
generally held in private, which is quite controversial among some of
our colleagues. However, the court has important discretion to allow,
or not to allow, other people in. Those special measures are used in
many of the 30,000 or so domestic violence injunctions that are
processed every
year.
In addition, we
will consider, with the Courts Service, the provision of interpreters
for women and men in forced marriage cases. In any application made by
a third party, it is vital to ensure that the wishes and feelings of
the victim are taken into account to ensure that well-meaning people do
not make unwanted applications. Enabling third parties to apply for
orders is an essential provision that offers protection to those who
are not able to make applications themselves owing, as the hon. Member
for Beaconsfield said, to fear or intimidation. Alternatively, the
victim may have been imprisoned against their
will.
Allowing
a third party to make the application removes the burden from the
victim, who not surprisingly may feel inhibited and may not feel
confident enough to ask the court for help themselves. An important
element of that is that it removes a victims sense of blame
about raising such an issue when applying for an order that may affect
other members of their own family. There are many ways in which that
can be done so that the court is able to satisfy itself that it is
hearing properly what the wishes and feelings of the victim are. For
example, the victim can write a supporting statement or letter, and
various other things can be done.
The hon. Lady
is right that it is important that we encourage the courts to use the
powers that are available. The forced marriage unit is drafting
guidelines for social workers dealing with vulnerable adults, in
consultation with professionals and the professional bodies, and
guidelines for social workers dealing with children and young people
are being developed. I will certainly discuss with the president of the
family division, Sir Mark Potterwho will, I know, be very
supportive of what we are doingwhether it would be appropriate
for him to issue a practice direction promoting the use of
intermediaries for vulnerable people in appropriate cases. I hope that
that goes some way towards reassuring the hon. Lady and the
organisations that have raised that important
issue.
Finally, on
registration, one of my fears is that we could be in danger of being
disproportionate. Many marriages abroad of British nationals are
perfectly legitimate and are entered into willingly. We would not want
to over-burden people who are in that situation. We also have to be
careful that we do not send out a message that only English registrars
are capable of deciding whether a marriage is entered into
willingly.
Mr.
Grieve:
I take the Ministers point. That is why I
approach these matters with some diffidence. It would
not be very onerous to have such a pre-registration
system, but that might not be possible within this Bill. If a person
intends to marry somebody abroad, whoever it might be, and goes to the
register office, registers the intention and gives the names of the
parties and the date on which the marriage is expected to take place,
then it is done; there is no more to it than that. It simply means that
there is a mechanism by which the registrar in this country is alerted
if there are any circumstances in which a marriage abroad might be a
marriage made without consent. It seems to me to be a simple device,
but I appreciate that, because of the way in which the Bill is worded,
it might be difficult to put it in. However, I would ask the Minister
to bear it in mind; I really do not think that it is
discriminatory.
Mr.
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab): On that
point, would it be advisable to issue instructions for entry clearance
officers to use when assessing applications from people who are known
to have a learning disability of some nature? If that is the case,
whether or not there has been third-party engagement with the social
services or representation by a community organisation, they could have
discussions with the family and the applicant on that
basis.
Bridget
Prentice:
My hon. Friend is ahead of me. I hope that what
he says and what I am about to say will give some reassurance to the
hon. Member for Beaconsfield. The Home Office is working on a
consultation paper about immigration policy on marriage to partners
overseas. That will be centred on immigration routes to the United
Kingdom for which being married is the only basis. One aspect of that
consultation will concern those who are pressured into sponsoring a
marriage visa, and what steps can be taken. As the hon. Gentleman said,
this Bill might not be the appropriate legislation to deal with the
point that he raised. However, that consultation might be the avenue
down which we should go to tackle the problem. I understand that it is
to be published before the end of July for responses in the autumn, so
that part of the debate will continue for some time.
I hope that I have given hon.
Members sufficient reassurance that the courts have the powers to give
protection to the victim through intermediaries or others in the form
of the Official Solicitor. I hope that they will, therefore, not press
the
amendments.
Mr.
Malins:
We have had a useful debate and we are most
grateful to the Minister for her explanation. On that basis, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
11
am
Mr.
Grieve:
I beg to move amendment No. 22, in
clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave
out or
requirements.
This
is a simple, probing amendment about the contents of proposed new
section 63B, which states:
A
forced marriage protection order may contain...prohibitions,
restrictions or
requirements.
It would
be helpful if the Minister could outline how the proposal will
work.
Lorely
Burt (Solihull) (LD): I, too, welcome you to the Chair,
Mr. Hood. We appreciate that this is a probing amendment,
but we do not support it as it would prevent forced marriage protection
orders from requiring action from those subject to them. The amendment
would therefore weaken the measure and is therefore unnecessary.
However, we look forward to the Ministers further elaboration
of its effect on the
clause.
Bridget
Prentice:
The amendment would remove the courts
powers to require a person to do somethingthe most obvious
example being to require them to produce their passport. Recent orders
in the High Court in forced marriage cases have adopted that approach
and the Bills intention is to put on a statutory footing the
power to make orders to protect victims of forced marriages under the
inherent wardship jurisdictions of the High Court, and to extend that
power to the county court.
The reasoning behind this part
of the clause is that in many cases of forced marriages victims are
taken abroad on the pretext of going on holiday. The option of
requiring the person to do something such as producing their passport
can be a useful tool in preventing the forced marriage from taking
place. The clause is in the Bill as a preventative measure and I hope
that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that that is a good reason to
withdraw his amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 9, in
clause 1, page 2, line 24, leave
out paragraph (c).
No.
10, in
clause 1, page 2, line 24, after
become, insert
knowingly.
Mr.
Grieve:
Again, I reassure the hon. Member for Solihull
that these are probing amendments. I have no intention of pressing them
to a Division, unless the Minister says something extraordinary in
response to my
questions.
I would
like some clarification of new section 63B(2)(b), which is slightly
convolutedI had to read it through two or three times to
understand it. It states
that
respondents who
are, or may become, involved in other respects as well as (or instead
of) respondents who force or attempt to force, or may force or attempt
to force, a person to enter into a
marriage.
It is a bit of
a mouthful and the phrase in bracketsor instead
ofslightly mystified me. I hope that the Minister can
make it clear why the paragraph was drafted in such a catch-all
way.
Mr.
Malins:
I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos.
9 and 10, which, essentially, are probing amendments. We are dealing
with the contents of a forced marriage order which, under proposed new
section 63B(2), could relate to
persons
who are, or may
become
knowingly
involved in other respects as
well
as...respondents
of
any kind. That is a wide phrasing, and I am seeking some explanation
from the Minister. I am most grateful for the letter that she sent to
me two days ago, which I read with some interest. To some extent, she
dealt with the issue, which I also raised on Second Reading. She
reminded me that the power was
introduced
at the
suggestion of the High Court judiciary
and went on to
say:
The
reality of forced marriage is that the people involved rarely work
alone and it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to provide
wide ranging orders addressed to the categories of person such as the
family of the perpetrator if the alleged victim is to benefit from
adequate
protection.
That is all
well and good, but a more careful look at the measure would reveal that
it suggests that a wider group might be affected by an order. I am not
being flippant when I say that there could be persons or respondents
affected by an order who are in no way culpable or morally to
blame.
It is right
that family members who are on the inside track, so to speak, and who
act deplorably, may be affected by an order. However, I wonder how far
the measure goes because so many other people might be loosely
connected to a marriage. It is not flippant to suggest that such people
might include members of the clergy or florists and the
like[
Interruption
.
] It is a serious
point, and I may press the matter to a Divisionthe Minister
takes the point seriously.
There are
people on the fringes who one might think are not in any way involved
in such coercion, and indeed might be horrified by it. That is why
amendment No. 10 would insert the word knowingly. It is
no more or less than a probing amendment to get a little more
explanation from the Minister and an assurance that it is not her
intention that the persons to whom I referredpeople who are
very remote from proceedingsare not involved in orders. If one
is in receipt of a civil injunction or order, it is an affront if one
is an entirely innocent party.
Lorely
Burt:
I wish to make a couple of comments. I accept the
spirit in which amendment No. 23 was tabledit is a probing
amendment. I would not agree, however, with amendment No. 9 because it
would remove the scope for orders to apply
to
other persons who
are, or may become, involved in other respects as well as respondents
of any kind.
On Report
in another place, Baroness Ashton
said:
It will
be for the court to decide in each individual case whether it is
necessary to extend an order to the third category of un-named persons.
That would be likely to be in circumstances where there was evidence
that members of the extended family or the wider community might be
involved in forcing a marriage, meaning that it was not possible to
identify all the possible respondents.[Official
Report, House of Lords, 13 June 2007; Vol. 692, c.
1755.]
Mr.
Malins:
I understand that the hon. Lady does not support
the amendmentI have no problem with thatbut does she
agree that there is no harm in tabling it simply to probe the Minister,
so that she repeats, in a sense, what was said in the other place, and
amplifies those remarks?
Lorely
Burt:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I would not
wish to give the impression that I am critical of the absolute right
and duty of all hon. Members to probe
legislation.
I should
add that there are powers of arrest, but they are subject to safeguards
that, once arrested, a person must come before a court within 24 hours,
and it is for the court decide on the evidence available whether a
person comes within the remit of the order. Although I take on board
the concern of the hon. Member for Woking about the possibility of
wrongful arrest, there are quite a lot of safeguards in
place.
This part of
the Bill is important because it allows the same discretion and
flexibility that are already enjoyed by the family courts and other
courts and that work well in the context of family law. The Government
have it right in that
respect.
Amendment No.
10 contradicts amendment No. 9, which suggests leaving out paragraph
(c). I look forward to the Ministers explanation, which I hope
will throw more light on the
Bill.
Mrs.
Cryer:
May I just mention that, when young people come to
me for help to put a halt to their family bringing in a person from the
subcontinent, they are clear who is involved and who has forced them
into that marriage? In the same way, in respect of the Bill, I am sure
that the woman concerned would know precisely who had forced her or who
was going to force her into a marriage. I do not think that she would
have any problems with that. Frequently, it is not even the mum and
dad, but the brother who does the
forcing.
Bridget
Prentice:
May I just pick up on the comments made by my
hon. Friend and take this opportunity to say how delighted I am that
she is on this Committee? She has been at the forefront of these issues
for a very long time, raising them long before others realised the
importance of the work that she was doing. She was spoken very highly
of during Second Reading. We all understood why she was not able to be
present then and we are delighted that she is able to participate in
Committee.
The
hon. Member for Solihull is right about the way that the family courts
work. That is why I resist the amendments. Proposed new section
63B(2)(b) provides for orders to be directed at named respondents in a
primary role forcing or attempting to force a person into marriage, or
at other named respondents in a secondary role who are aiding and
abetting. That provision is essential so that there is protection that
will relate both to those directly forcing the person into marriage and
to those who facilitate or assist in other
ways.
Mr.
Malins:
The Minister will understand that there is a
difference between a respondenta personwho becomes
involved and a person who becomes knowingly involved. I am trying to
tease out in this debate the difference between the innocent and the
guilty. At the moment, the Bill is widely
drawn.
Bridget
Prentice:
I understand the hon. Gentlemans point,
but the references to respondents in this part of the
Bill reflect normal procedural practice. It is necessary to specify who
the respondent will be in respect of any order or notice made against
that respondent.
In passing, I sympathise with
the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the wording of proposed new
section 63B(2)(c). One day, I hope that we will be able to draft Bills
in normal English that we can all understand on first reading without
going over them several times, but that may be some time off. Proposed
new section 63B(2)(c) was added, as he rightly says, because the High
Court judges suggested that it was necessary so that the order might be
addressed at any person, or indeed a category of persons such as a
family or even a wider community group that are, or may become
involved, in other respects in relation to the forced marriage. It must
be for the purposes of protection as specified in proposed new section
63A(1). Involvement in other respects includes actions such as aiding,
abetting, counselling, procuring or encouraging another person to force
or to attempt to force somebody into a marriage.
Allowing orders to be directed
only at named respondents would be too restrictive. The Bill provides
that third parties who are not named in an order but who undermine the
effect of an order by taking action to force a marriage on behalf of
others are subject to the power of
arrest.
However, senior members of the
judiciary have suggested that that might not be sufficiently clear
either to deter would-be perpetratorsthe Bill is about not just
protection but deterrenceor to ensure that police officers
always arrest them when necessary. The amendment could cause that part
of the Bill to be
ineffective.
11.15
am
There are
likely to be many cases in which an order will be made urgently, and it
might not be possible to name all the respondents. There are precedents
for that approach, particularly in relation to injunctions aimed at
animal rights
protestors.
On
amendment No. 10, proposed new section 63B(2)(c) provides that the
forced marriage protection order can also be directed at a third
category of unnamed persons who are, or may become, involved in other
respects. The provision will allow orders to be addressed to any person
or category of person, such as a member of a family or community group,
who might become
involved.
Mr.
Grieve:
The Minister is giving the answer that I rather
expected. I am slightly puzzled by the distinction between respondents
and other persons. Surely, if one gives an order against another
person, one turns him into a respondent. Is there a distinction that I
have not understood? My understanding of basic legal rules is that one
might be an innocent respondent. For example, if I serve an order on a
bank relating to a third partyan account that is held at that
bankthe bank becomes a respondent to the proceedings. That is
why I find sub-paragraphs (b) and (c ) a bit complicated. They seem to
be over-categorising. However, the Minister may be able to help me.
Perhaps I have missed something, and the drafters know exactly what
they are doing.
Bridget
Prentice:
Far be it from me to see into the minds of the
drafters of any piece of legislation. The hon. Gentleman is asking me
to go down a route that
will lead to a blank wall. He has, however, hit on an important point.
This part of the Bill does make the third party a kind of respondent.
In the ordinary language of the rest of us, that is what will happen.
However, it is worth highlighting the fact that the Bill does not amend
the existing law of contempt. If a person is committed for contempt,
the court must be satisfied that the person was aware of the terms of
the order. The respondent is a party to the proceedings. For the
purpose of protection, the order can be directed generally towards any
person, so the other third parties are not parties to the proceedings
in the same way as the named respondent.
Mr.
Grieve:
I think that the Minister has, by continuing,
answered my question. If I understand her correctly, therefore, the
respondents mentioned in proposed new section 63B(2)(b) are individuals
who would be maintained as parties to the proceedings throughout, so
the distinction is made to ensure that the category can be widened to
include, as well as the obvious respondents whom one might expect,
community groups, religious groups and any other group that might get
involved with the proceedings, and the Minister wants to keep a clear
differentiation between that and third party orders. Perhaps she will
reassure me on one matter: I assume that third party orders are still
covered by the contempt proceedings that might attach if they breach
the order. I see that the Ministers advisers are nodding, so I
suspect that she will be able to reply in short
order.
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Gentleman has encapsulated exactly what
the rather convoluted language used in the Bill is intended to mean.
The respondents in paragraph (2)(b) are party to proceedings if the
others are adjuncts to it. He is right: as far as contempt is
concerned, that is, and remains, exactly the case. On that basis, I
hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Grieve:
I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. At one
stage, I was going to ask the Minister if she wanted to think again
about whether the drafting could be improved before the debate on
Report, but now that she has explained it, it seems to be correct. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Grieve:
I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
clause 1, page 2, line 39, leave
out from order to end of line
40.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 11, in
clause 1, page 3, line 31, leave
out from means to end of line 33 and insert a
blood
relation.
No.
2, in
clause 1, page 4, line 38, leave
out from order) to end of line
39.
No. 6, in
clause 1, page 6, line 32, leave
out paragraph (c) and
insert
(c) any person
specified or falling within a description of persons specified by order
of the Lord Chancellor.
Mr.
Grieve:
The amendment provides an opportunity to ask the
Minister to explain in more detail than was possible on Second Reading
how the relevant third party will work in the context
of the Bill. It will be a very important mechanism, as the Bill
envisages not only the possibility of the person affected making the
application, but a wide range of relevant third parties also being able
to come forward and alert the court to what is going on. It thought it
would be helpful to discuss that proposal before the Bill goes on to
the statute book; I had no intention of removing the relevant third
party as a person who could make such an
application.
Jo
Swinson:
I welcome the hon. Gentlemans
clarification that his intention is not to remove the right of third
parties to make an application for a forced marriage order, as the
amendment proposes. I hope that all members of the Committee agree that
this is a crucial part of the Bill, which must remain, because victims,
or potential victims, are often unable to make the application
themselves. The right of third parties to do so is therefore vital.
However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be useful to
have more information about how the proposal will
work.
Mr.
Malins:
I shall refer briefly to amendments Nos.
11, 2 and 6, which are entirely probing amendments and on all fours
with what was said a moment ago. Of course, I do not want to remove the
relevant third party; I want merely to find out who a relevant third
party is. The Minister was kind enough to refer to that in her letter,
but I want to go a little further, as the Bill plainly
states:
An
application may be made by...a relevant third
party.
Although I
understand why it does so, it is a little disappointing that the Bill
defines a
relevant third
party only as
a
person specified...by order of the Lord
Chancellor.
Will
the Lord Chancellor issue details of who the relevant third parties can
be? Will it be an exhaustive list, or not? It is completely understood
that social services and the like should be able to be involved and to
make an appropriate application, but I wonder whether the proposal goes
wider than that. Is the Lord Chancellor likely to say that a blood
relation, for example, or a friend could make the application? I should
like some further information about that from the Minister.
Amendment No. 2 relates to the
group that can apply for discharge or variation, which in the Bill
includes any person affected by the order, and I should like the
Minister to say a bit more about that issue. If, at any stage, it will
be the case that a person who is not morally culpable is affected by
the order, or is a possible respondent to it, can I assume that such
people will have the right to apply to vary the order? It is an
important matter and one that I raised earlier, but it has not been
dealt with fully.
Likewise, amendment No. 6
relates to who can apply to a judge for the issue of an arrest warrant.
Unless I have misunderstood, proposed new section 63J states
plainly:
An
interested party may apply to the relevant judge for the issue of a
warrant for the arrest of a person if the interested party considers
that the person has failed to comply with the order.
What is an interested party? The answer is
anyonesubsection (4)(c) refers to any other
person. Should an individual not need to have a greater
connection with the matter under discussion than simply being any other
person? The current drafting of the Bill implies that anyone can make
an application, notwithstanding the fact that they have no link with
the case. These are probing amendments, and I look forward to hearing
what the Minister has to say.
Mrs.
Cryer:
Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm whether my
understanding of the matter is correct? Over the past two or three
years, various Departments have sent out guidelines on forced marriage
to police forces, social services departments, schools and, more
recently, health professionals. I therefore assume that someone from
any of those organisations in receipt of the forced marriage guidelines
could go to court on behalf of a young lady or man and apply for an
injunction. Let us suppose, for example, that a girl approaches a
teacher saying, My mum and dad are going to take me to Pakistan
next week, and they are going to force me to get married. Can you do
anything about it? Presumably, a teacher could now say
Yes, we can, and proceed
accordingly.
Bridget
Prentice:
In immediate response to my hon.
Friendyes, that is exactly the effect that the Bill will have.
Teachers will be able to do something about that situation.
In response to other hon.
Members concerns, I should like to take a short while to
explain the provisions in some detail. This is a very important part of
the Bill because, as we all know, if action were left purely to the
victims themselves, there would be many cases in which, through fear
and intimidation, they would be unable or unwilling to go to court. It
is therefore a crucial measure to ensure that our protection in forced
marriage cases works.
The provision will allow an
application to be made not just by the victim, but by a relevant third
party who will be a person, or category of persons, specified by the
Lord Chancellor. That category of persons is likely to include the
forced marriage unit run by the Home Office and the Foreign Office. It
is essential that, when a victim approaches a reputable organisation
such as the FMU, that organisation can provide the required help. Many
people who request help already feel intimidated and afraid and are
unable to make the application. The FMU, or a similar organisation,
must take that burden from them.
Third party applications are
appropriate, because the person needing protection may not be able to
make the applicationthey might have already been removed from
the country, or prevented from doing so in some other way. Third party
application might be the only option available to them.
Hon. Members may be aware that
currently, under the inherent jurisdiction and wardship jurisdictions,
those with a genuine connection or interest in the person to be
protected can already make an application on their behalf. The
provision in the Bill reflects that existing
practice.
Another benefit of third party
applications is that they might facilitate reconciliation between the
victim and the family, because the victim will not be directly involved
in the court process. That is important, because the consultation
indicated that one of the big issues for victims is not to break all
links with their families as a result of the
process.
Mr.
Grieve:
At the start of our proceedings, I dealt with
registration, and I want to go back to the point that I made in
connection with that. Head teachers might well make the application in
the cases that I cited and in the situations referred to by the hon.
Member for Keighley. I make that point because I think that it ties in
closely with the guidance that we shall have to look at
later.
11.30
am
Bridget
Prentice:
Yes, that might well be the case, and I shall
come to it in more detail later. It reflects the point made by the hon.
Member for Woking about whether individuals or organisations could make
an application in one case. The answer is that they would indeed have
to make the application to the Lord Chancellor, but he would be able to
validate the application in individual cases.
Let me remind hon. Members
that, even when the application is made by a third party, the court
must still consider the wishes and feelings of the victim. One harmful
result of forced marriage is that it takes away the victims
power of control over their own life, so it is important not to
undermine that any
further.
The
hon. Member for Woking asked whether the list is exhaustive. It is not.
I understand that the amendments have been tabled in a clever way, to
raise the issue and so that the intention behind the relevant
provisions can be put on record. The hon. Gentlemans amendment
suggests that the relevant third party should be a blood relative.
Sadly, however, and as we all know, it is very often a blood relative
who is complicit in a forced marriagesometimes the whole family
areso some applications almost certainly should not be made by
a blood relative. The involvement of an entirely independent
organisation, specified by the Lord Chancellor, will enable an
unconnected individual to step in and assist the victim if she feels
unable to make the application herself. If a victim wanted to rely on a
blood relative for assistance, they would of course be free to do so.
However, rather like a school, the relative would require leave from
the court to apply.
On amendment No. 2, proposed
new section 63G provides that orders and undertakings can be varied and
discharged on application by the victim, any party to the proceedings
or any party affected by the proceedings. The amendment would remove
the ability of those affected by the proceedings to apply. The proposed
new section provides for the widest range of circumstances. Every case
of forced marriage is different and the circumstances therefore vary in
each case. For that reason, we have been careful not to prescribe the
form that an order must take.
Provided that their purpose is
to protect the victim, orders will have the scope to be very
wide-ranging and to be made against a wide range of respondents, both
named and unnamed, as we discussed earlier. They will
be able to protect victims and, additionally, prevent the use of force
against other parties.
Given the breadth of the
possible circumstances, it is necessary to allow a broad range of
people to apply for variation or discharge. However, the provision does
not go too wide; it restricts applicants to those who are directly
concerned with, or who are affected by, the order. If an application is
made by someone who is not closely affected, it will be discarded by
the court.
Under
proposed new section 63J, if a person fails to comply with a forced
marriage protection order to which a power of arrest is not attached,
an interested party may apply for a warrant for their arrest. The
proposed new section provides that an interested party
is a
person being
protected by the order
or a third party who has applied for the
order on anothers behalf or, with leave of the court,
any other person. Amendment No. 6 would remove that
final category and replace it with a person or group specified by the
Lord Chancellor.
The
provision was included following consultation with High Court judges,
who hear such cases. They identified that a change in legislation was
necessary to extend the category of persons who may apply for an arrest
warrant, so that if a third party had applied for the order but was not
available to apply for an arrest warrant, the victim would not have to
make an application.
Mr.
Malins:
The Minister is being helpful, but does she accept
that the current wording means that anyone in the country could apply
for an arrest warrant in relation to any
case?
Bridget
Prentice:
The important thing is that, in some cases,
people close to the victimit could be a friend or
colleaguemight be in the best position to go to the court to
apply for a warrant. That is why the measure is widely defined. To give
the hon. Gentleman some reassurance on preventing nuisance
applications, the other party must seek leave of the court before it is
possible to make an application. Requiring the leave of the court means
that the court must be satisfied that a person has sufficient interest
in the case for their application to proceed. I hope that that will
prevent the whole world from feeling that they are able simply to turn
up at the court to make an application willy-nilly.
Finally, as I said,
the person who applied for the original order might not be available to
apply for a warrant, so the flexibility in proposed new section 63J
will allow someone else to make an application on their behalf. I hope
that that clarifies what proposed new section 63J is about and the
importance of a provision for third party applications. I used the
example of the forced marriage unit, but other bodies will become
involved through time.
Mrs.
Cryer:
Going back to what I said earlier, quite specific
guidelines have gone out in the past two years from Departments to
police forces, social services departments, schools and health
professionals. Members of those professions could help a girl to take a
case to
court, so will the guidelines that have already gone out be amended to
explain to those professionals their new capacity to help a girl in
such circumstances?
Bridget
Prentice:
I can certainly give my hon. Friend an assurance
on that. She rightly raises the fact that those professionals are in a
position to help a young victim and the guidelines will reflect that.
Training is going on at the moment; for example, the forced marriage
unit goes to around 70 or 80 events a year to explain its work and the
powers that are available. It will become more proactive as a result of
the legislation, and it will take the message to professional
organisations that they have the power to act on behalf of a victim. I
am pleased that my hon. Friend raised the matter, because it is
important that the Government make it clear that those such as the
police, schools or social workers will now have the power to act on
behalf of victims, and they ought to be encouraged to use
it.
Mr.
Grieve:
I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. I
have tabled probing amendments on guidance provisions later in the
Bill, precisely because I want to initiate a debate. It may be that, to
give her some anticipation, it is not just a question of what should be
done, but of providing some guidance on how it should be done. It is
likely that some groups of people will come into the firing line and be
in a position to help, but unless they know what they are supposed to
do, and to whom they are supposed to refer and how to go about it, they
will freeze and not know what they should do next, as often happens in
the legal system. As a result, in an emergency, things could happen by
default. I highlight that issue for the Minister because it may be
something to which we return. I am grateful to her for full response
and for the opportunity to understand more fully how the Bill will work
in practice, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Grieve:
I beg to move amendment No. 26, in
clause 1, page 3, line 44, leave
out or another
person.
This
is a probing amendment, but perhaps I ought to say a little more than
that to initiate the debate. Proposed new section 63D on ex parte
orders
states:
In
deciding whether to exercise its powers under subsection (1), the court
must have regard to all the circumstances including...any risk of
significant harm to the person to be protected or another person if the
order is not made
immediately.
The
Bills background might lead one to envisage that one of the
problems of forced marriage is that coercion might sometimes involve
threats against other members of the family and people other than the
person most directly
affected.
By moving
the amendment, I hope that the Committee might be able to discuss the
interplay between the provisions and the criminal law. I am aware that
it is made clear later in the Bill that nothing in it will oust the
normal criminal law, but the reality is that when we are dealing with
possible threats against another person, particularly someone other
than the victim, we are squarely within the field of criminal law. If
somebody is told that, unless they go immediately to
another country and marry somebody, or marry somebody in this country,
something terrible will happen to their younger brother, that is as
clear a case of blackmail as one can envisage; it may involve threats
to kill.
One of the
purposes behind the Bill and a reason why the jurisdiction has been
kept to civil jurisdiction is the view, which I think the Government
are right about, that we will not get cases into court if people feel
that, on issues of coercion and forced marriage, criminal sanctions
will be visited on relatives. I am completely comfortable with that,
because I did enough family work in the past to know that these are
grey areas and keeping within the civil law is very
useful.
However, the
move from possible criminal offences against a person who is being
coerced into marriage to threats of physical violence or wrong-doing
against third parties raises difficult issues about the point at which
the system that we are putting in place might interfere with the
operation of the criminal law. If a person is told that they must go
and marry somebody, otherwise their younger brother will be killed, I
would be anxious if there was no criminal prosecution in respect of
such a threat at the end of the process. It is a difficult issue, but
this is as good a place as any to raise it. I hope that the Minister
understands the distinction that I am trying to make.
In cases of moral or slight
physical coercion against a person who is being told, You will
go and marry somebody who you dont want to marry,
keeping matters within the civil structure does not cause me any
problem. However, when that coercion starts to involve threats against
third parties, I have an underlying anxiety about whether we are
creating a system in which there might be insufficient use of the
criminal law, although criminal sanctions are required. This is a
probing amendment to tease out from the Minister how the Government see
the measure operating in
practice.
11.45
am
Bridget
Prentice:
Clearly, the unfortunate reality is that
forced marriage is often accompanied by threats of violence against not
only the victim but others, such as close relatives and friends, as the
hon. Gentleman said. In some cases, the threat is from the perpetrator
saying, If you do not marry person X, I will harm
myself. It is important that the Bill responds effectively and
quickly to the particular and sometimes unique nature of forced
marriage cases. A court must be able to consider the threat of harm to
another person when considering whether to make an ex parte order. That
is an important aspect of our approach to tackling forced marriage. An
ex parte order is made when the respondent has been given no prior
notice of the proceedings. That is important.
Proposed new section 63D(1),
which is modelled on section 45 of the Family Law Act 1996, provides
that a court may make an ex parte order only if it
is
just and convenient
to do so.
Ex parte
orders will be used in cases of urgency in which a person must be
protected very quickly. All too often, cases of forced marriage involve
removing someone from the jurisdiction, and extreme violence is often
carried out if things are left unchecked. Giving
advance notice to the respondent would undermine that protection, and it
is important that we do not do
that.
We have been
trying, with everyones agreement, to keep this a civil matter,
because that is the right place for it, but the hon. Gentleman is right
to say that threats to inflict violence on the victim or others
transgress into the criminal side of things. It will be for the police
and the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate and prosecute such
cases. I emphasise that the criminal law will continue to function and
operate in this area. Forced marriage protection orders will be made
only to protect individuals in the same way as in domestic violence
proceedings. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue, but the
criminal law will not be undermined or set aside as a result of the
Bill. Indeed, criminal law should be followed by the police and CPS if
there is blackmail or there are threats of violence or to
kill.
Mrs.
Cryer:
I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentions those
matters, but, as far as I am aware, the CPS has not made a single case,
under criminal legislation, against a person who has used measures such
as false imprisonment, rape or assault to perpetrate a forced marriage.
I hope therefore that the Bill will not undermine the present criminal
position, because nothing is happening at the
moment.
Bridget
Prentice:
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have two
suspicions. First, the victim might not have wanted criminal
proceedings to go ahead and, secondly, there is no statutory provision.
By putting the Bill on the statute book, we shall send a clear message
to the police, as well as the CPS, that they should be following
through such
issues.
Mr.
Grieve:
The Minister is right. One of the consequences of
the Billif it worksis that facts will undoubtedly
emerge during the civil jurisdiction proceedings under discussion that
may clearly disclose the commission of serious criminal offences. I
raise such an issue because, if it becomes clear that the consequence
of such civil proceedings is in the number of cases that lead to
prosecution, it might start to prevent people from coming forward to
use the civil proceeding. I just wanted to explore the matter because,
although the proposal is highly well intentioned, there is potential
for it to lead to more criminal prosecutions, which might have the
unintended consequence of undermining the Governments
approach.
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid and important
point. We want to get the balance right. The thrust of the Bill rests
on the initial deterrent factor, which will make a big
difference.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Keighley will return to the fact that those who
have the power to do something, whether social workers or the police,
and those who have the power to influence, whether community groups or
churches, must get the message through that serious action will be
taken first in the civil courts and that criminal proceedings might act
as a deterrent. The hon. Gentlemans valid argument is that we
do not want to undermine the Bill by making
people frightened to come forward, because of criminal prosecutions that
could result down the
line.
I understand
that the CPS is training specialist prosecutors to handle both forced
marriage cases and honour crime cases, so I hope that the prosecutors
will gain a proper understanding of when it is appropriate to take up
such cases
effectively.
Mr.
Grieve:
I am grateful to the Minister for her response and
for the debate that has taken place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
and in any event within seven
days.
The
amendment would put a seven-day time limit for the return date on an ex
parte injunction. In my experience, return dates for ex parte
injunctions are almost invariably within seven days, but that is not
specified in the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten us.
It may just be that the words just and convenient
reflect the current rules. However, when drafting the amendment, my
hon. Friend the Member for Woking had in mind exploring what period was
thought to be just and convenient. As the Minister will appreciate, it
is clearly important in respect of ex parte orders that there should be
an opportunity of an inter partes hearing as quickly as
possible.
Jo
Swinson:
I certainly have some sympathy with the hon.
Gentleman about it being desirable to have such a hearing shortly after
the date when the initial order was made. However, we are trying to
keep the Bill in tune with the Family Law Act 1996, and such wording is
used there. I suspect that it would sensible to maintain its
consistency and clarity, rather than inserting time limits in one piece
of legislation and not another, but we should bear in mind the
importance of holding hearings as soon as possible or, in legal-speak,
as soon as just and
convenient.
Bridget
Prentice:
I understand the reasons behind this probing
amendment, but when ex parte orders are made in emergencies, it is
important to do so without notifying the respondent of proceedings. In
such cases, the court will take into account the risk of significant
harm to the victim or to a third party if the order is not made
straight away. We have to ensure that there is a balance between
protecting someone in need of immediate help and providing access to
justice for the respondent.
I appreciate that the hon.
Member for Beaconsfield is trying to protect access to justice by
prescribing that cases should be heard within seven days. As he rightly
says, the vast majority of cases will be heard within that time.
However, on one or two occasions, that will not be possible or
practical, perhaps because the parties cannot get together within seven
days, or even because the respondent needs longer than that to prepare
his or her case. To protect his or her access to justice, it is
important to provide that opportunity.
The provision will ensure that
the respondent is heard in a timely manner. It is based on section 45
of the Family Law Act 1996, which deals with domestic violence cases.
That has worked perfectly well in practice, and the Bill is worded as
it is on that basis.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman
will feel able to withdraw his
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Grieve:
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in
clause 1, page 4, line 31, leave
out specified period and insert maximum period
of 10
years.
The
question that is addressed by this amendment is whether an outer limit
on the duration of orders should be made. I am sure that the
Ministers reply will again be that this measure mirrors the
Family Law Act 1996. I am familiar with that piece of
legislation, and it is what the Family Law Act says. However, it raises
an issue. I was surprised to note that the Family Law Act does not
specify an outer limit for an order. On the whole, courts are reluctant
to make indeterminate or indefinite ordersin fact, it might be
that they never, or very rarely, do so. Has the Minister any
comment?
Lorely
Burt:
As the hon. Gentleman says, the drafting mirrors
part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 on non-molestation orders. Section
42(7) of the Family Law Act provides that
A non-molestation order may be
made for a specified period or until further
order,
and I understand
that that regime has worked well. Family courts are used to determining
an appropriate period for a non-molestation order based on the facts of
a case. Such orders are mostly granted for three to 12 months, as it is
hoped that the behaviour will stop. In the interests of clarity and
legal certainty, it is desirable that the Bill should be in keeping
with the Family Law Act, so we feel that orders should be made for the
appropriate time, based on the facts of each case. Therefore, although
we appreciate that this is a probing amendment, we do not support
it.
12
noon
Bridget
Prentice:
I was going to say that the proposal reflects
part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996, but everyone else has said that, so
I need not do so. As the hon. Member for Solihull rightly said, the
proposition has worked very well in that legislation, and it is
important that it is included in the Bill for
consistency.
I shall
explain why no time limit is specified. Sadly, in many cases, the
victim is only 11 or 12 years old, so an order lasting for 10 years
might not give them sufficient protection to ensure that they are not
later forced into a marriage. A longer period is therefore needed to
protect the victim adequately. This part of the Bill will also give the
court the flexibility to deal with the particular circumstances of each
case and it can vary or discharge the order if the circumstances
change. An application to change the order can always be made to the
court.
The Committee should remember
that, in many of these situations, the breach of honour that is
attached to a marriage that is forced upon someone remains for life, so
to limit the protection would not protect the individual for a
sufficient time. For those reasons, no time limit is specified,
although the court can vary or discharge the order, if appropriate,
after a period of time if it is satisfied that the victim needs no
further protection.
Mr.
Grieve:
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mr.
Grieve:
I beg to move amendment No. 5, in
clause 1, page 5, line 18, at
end insert , or may use
violence,.
My
hon. Friend the Member for Woking raised the matter of the conditions
in which the attachment of powers of arrest would apply. Again, I am
conscious that the provision follows the Family Law Act 1996 word for
word, but my hon. Friends concern was whether it should be
wider than the previous use of violence or the threat of
violencefor example, if an assessment before a court was that
the psychological condition of an individual was such that it could
reasonably infer that the use of violence was very likely, even if
there had not been a threat or, indeed, if there was no past record of
violence having been used. This probing amendment was tabled to inquire
whether the scope of the Family Law Act could be widened or whether it
had been found to be adequate.
Bridget
Prentice:
As we have said repeatedly, it is an unfortunate
and sad reality that forced marriages often involve an element of
violence. For that reason, the court would rightly be under a duty to
attach a power of arrest to an order where the respondent has used, or
has threatened, violence. That is part of the protective package that a
forced marriage protection order can give to the victim. In cases where
there is a risk of injury to a person, there should be swift
enforcement using the power of
arrest.
The
hon. Gentleman rightly said that the proposition is on all fours with
section 47(2) of the Family Law Act. In practice, under the test in
that Act, where there is evidence of threats or the use of violence,
the court can attach a power of arrest to the order. The order may
prohibit future threats of violence, and the power of arrest allows a
police constable to arrest the person who breaches the order.
Obviously,
this is a probing amendment, and it would not add any value if it were
accepted. When assessing whether a person might use violence, it is
important to have evidence that there has been at least a threat of
violence in the past, otherwise how can the court determine that? We
could all, potentially, threaten to use violence on someone. Given that
the test seems to work well with occupation orders, we see no reason to
depart from it.
The
provisions on arrest are broad, as they must be. Proposed new section
63I sets out exactly the circumstances in which a constable may arrest
someone. Subsection (2) states that a constable may arrest a person if
he or she has reasonable cause for
suspecting that they are in breach of a provision to which a
power of arrest has been attached, or if they are
otherwise in contempt...in
relation to the
order.
If someone
frustrates an order, a constable may arrest them and bring them back to
court within 24 hours. The court may then consider whether to exercise
its powers on contempt.
The Bill will not amend the law
on contempt, but it will give the court the opportunity to apply those
laws effectively. For example, if an uncle takes his niece to the
airport, when a court has ordered her parents not to remove her from
the jurisdiction, that could amount to contempt, and the court could
determine that. This part of the Bill is sufficiently wide to allow a
constable to make an arrest when an order has been attached, and it
will give the court the opportunity to determine whether there is
contempt if it feels that an individuals actions might be an
attempt to undermine an
order.
Mr.
Grieve:
I am grateful to the Minister for that response
and particularly for the fact that she covered proposed new section 63I
in her answer. I need not move amendment No. 15, because she has
precisely covered the points that I had hoped she would elucidate. I
therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Grieve:
I beg to move amendment No. 16, in
clause 1, page 6, line 35, leave
out from beginning to end of line 8 on page
7.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 18, in
clause 1, page 7, leave out lines 9 to
28.
No. 17, in
clause 1, page 7, leave out lines 30 to
43.
No. 13, in
clause 1, page 8, leave out lines 1 to
14.
No. 19, in
clause 1, page 8, leave out lines 15 to
19.
Mr.
Grieve:
When I tabled my amendments to the Bill, I was
concerned that the normal procedure for clause stand part debates would
become rather difficult, because clause 1 encompasses virtually the
entire Bill and we would be required to consider it all together. With
that in mind, I hoped that the Minister would talk us through the
relevant measures, to which I would not have otherwise tabled
amendments, and have the opportunity of drawing our attention to any
relevant issue. However, I am conscious that, because the Bill follows
existing legislation so closely, nothing of any great significance
might apply, but I did not want the Minister to be left having to do a
clause 1 stand-part debate that would be meaningless if she wanted to
bring something to the Committees
attention.
Bridget
Prentice:
You can see, Mr. Hood, just how
co-operative all parties have been on the Bill: we even have amendments
that allow me to say anything that I have not otherwise said, and I
shall attempt to do that now.
The provisions for forced
marriage protection orders take the form of a new part 4A to the Family
Law Act,
thus embedding them even more firmly in the family jurisdiction, as Lord
Lester particularly asked us to do. That sends out important signals
about the way in which the Bill should be approached. It places forced
marriages robustly in the wider context of violence against women. Many
of the problems facing those confronted with forced marriage are
similar to those facing the victims of domestic violence. The
Government and the voluntary sector want forced marriage to be
mainstreamed into domestic violence, not dealt with as a separate
issue. As a result, forced marriage will enjoyif that is the
right worda central role in the Governments national
domestic violence delivery
plan.
There is also a
clear practical advantage in that approach, given the links with other
legislation. In dealing with cases of forced marriage involving
children, the courts will be able to make use of powers under the
Children Act 1989. For example, if the court is concerned about the
welfare of a child, it can make an interim care order or interim
supervision order and instruct the local authority to investigate the
situation. Where there is domestic violence, the courts will be able to
take into account the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act, to
provide adequate protection for the
victim.
The provisions
that relate to remand under proposed new section 63K, too, are modelled
on the Family Law Act and will provide that an arrested person may be
remanded if the matter is not dealt with when he is initially brought
before the court. If no such remand provisions were available, the
court would have no power to ensure that an arrested person was brought
back before the court. Clearly, that would severely curtail the
effectiveness of forced marriage protection orders and could put
victims at risk.
A
person may be arrested either under a power of arrest, and brought to
the court within 24 hours, or by virtue of a warrant of arrest. When he
is before the court, the court may either deal with him straight away
or remand him using the power in proposed new section 63K. Schedule 5
to the 1996 Act provides that a person may either be remanded in
custody or remanded on bail. If on bail, a recognizance is
takenusually a suretyand at the end of the of the
remand period, the person may be further
remanded.
Schedule 5
of the 1996 Act provides that a person shall not be remanded for a
period of longer than eight days except if the court remands him on
bail and both parties consent to a longer period of remand and if the
court adjourns for a medical report. Rules of courtrule 3.10 of
the family proceedings rules 1991set out what information must
be included in such an application for bail. That works well in
domestic violence cases, and I hope that it will also work well in
relation to the
Bill.
The provisions
that relate to the time limits for remand and access to a medical
examination at proposed new section 63L are again modelled on the
Family Law Act 1996 and provide for a medical examination and report if
there is reason to consider that a medical report is required. There is
also a power in proposed new section 63N to extend jurisdiction to
magistrates courts family proceedings courts by
affirmative order. Family proceedings courts already have jurisdiction
to deal with domestic violence cases, although in practice most such
cases are dealt with by county courts. There is no reason why
magistrates cannot deal with more of those cases, particularly given
that they deal daily with criminal proceedings involving domestic
violence.
Mr.
Grieve:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way
because that was just one matter on which I had a query. What is the
Governments reasoning? Is it their intention that magistrates
courts will get that jurisdiction and it is a matter of allowing time
for training or other things before they do? Alternatively, have the
relevant provisions of the Bill been included merely on the basis that
they will be convenient in the event that the Government change their
mind about magistrates not currently having jurisdiction? It would be
helpful to understand the Governments
reasoning.
12.15
pm
Bridget
Prentice:
The Government certainly intend that magistrates
will be able to take on this work at a suitable time. As I said, the
vast majority of domestic violence cases are currently dealt with in
the county court, and I envisage that that will remain the position in
the immediate future for cases concerning forced marriage. That is
partly because there has been a build-up in the expertise of county
court judges in such issues, so that they are well placed to deal with
them speedily and effectively. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said,
magistrates will need further training and resources, which will be an
important consideration to take into account before an affirmative
order is made.
We
certainly intend that the High Court and the county courts deal with
the early cases. After that we will be in a much better position to
know how the legislation is working, and once one or two leading cases
have been decided we will be able to give much better guidance to the
lower courts. That too will need to be taken into account should an
affirmative order be made.
We intend to roll out the
legislation to the county courts and the High Court, where the
expertise is concentrated, and to allow case law to be developed by
those courts before extending the legislation further. That will give
us the opportunity to prepare for the single family court, the strategy
for whose creation we have already published. Magistrates and district
judges will constitute the first tier in that new court. It is right to
indicate now that family magistrates will have jurisdiction in future
over forced marriage cases.
The provisions relating to
contempt set out who can exercise the applicable powers when a person
fails to comply with a forced marriage protection order. In those
circumstances, the courts powers to deal with contempt will be
exercised by the relevant judge, defined in proposed new section 63S.
For a High Court order it will be the High Court judge and for a county
court order it will be a judge or district judge of the relevant county
court or any other county court. That means in practice that a person
in breach of an order who is arrested under a power of arrest will be
brought back to court, and that any judge of that court will be able to
deal with the contempt, with the result that the
contempt will be dealt with quickly. That is a practical measure, which
means that there will be no need to wait for contempt to be dealt with
by the judge who made the original ordera procedure that those
of us who have experience of the court system know to be one that often
causes considerable delays. The new section will be important too in
the event that the protected person moves to another part of the
jurisdiction and there is a breach of the order there. It will allow
local enforcement by the county court.
Given the way in which the
legislation has been drafted, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
giving me the opportunity to make certain points that might not have
been made had there not been such a good stand part debate. On that
basis I suspect that he might want to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Grieve:
The Ministers comments have been
enlightening and I am grateful for them. We have touched on a point
that was of further interest to me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Grieve:
I beg to move amendment No. 7, in
clause 1, page 8, line 21, leave
out may and insert must.
I realise that it might just be
drafting practice, but is it not the case that if jurisdiction is
extended to the magistrates court it will be absolutely essential to
have a mechanism for an appeal procedure? So must is
preferable to may, even though I am sure that if
may is used it will still happen. I raised this matter
with the Minister because there cannot be a processif we were
to extend the provision to the magistrates courtwithout a
mechanism of
appeal.
Bridget
Prentice:
The amendment requires the Lord Chancellor, in
consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, to set out the circumstances
in which an appeal can be made against decisions in connection with the
transfer or proposed transfer of forced marriage proceedings. At the
risk of sounding like a broken record, that rule is modelled in section
61(5) of the Family Law Act, which does not require the Lord Chancellor
to make an order setting out the circumstances in which a decision to
transfer may be
appealed.
Orders
made under the Bill, excluding decisions regarding transfer, will be
subject to the provisions regarding appeal that apply to family
proceedings generally. As far as appealing orders generally is
concerned, section 77(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 and section 16
of the Supreme Court Act 1981 enable parties to bring appeals. The
rules of court set out procedures. Those regimes enable parties to
appeal decisions made under the Bill, apart from decisions to transfer
proceedings.
The power
in the Bill only relates to specifying circumstances when it is
possible to appeal decisions regarding transfer. The Lord Chancellor
may decide not to use that power. He has not so far used the power in
the Family Law Act 1996. I suspect that the chances are that, as we are
following the Family Law Act in every other respect, we will follow it
in this respect, too. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Grieve:
I am grateful for the Ministers response
and for that clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 21, in
clause 1, page 9, leave out lines 1 to
16.
Mr.
Grieve:
The Minister may have said as much as she feels
the need to say on guidance. I mentioned earlier that the guidance
issue would be critical in respect of whether the Bill, when enacted,
operated successfully in practice, particularly because for it to work
properly the active co-operation of a number of people exercising
public functions would be needed. Those people may not be familiar at
all with the working of the court systems and they will need to be
fairly proactive in their approach if they are to intervene
successfully in the way in which the Government and those who proposed
the Bill intend. With that in mind, if the Minister feels that there is
anything that she can usefully add on how the guidance is being put
together, or the progress that is being made on producing it at the
moment, it might be interesting to know a bit more about
it.
On amendment No.
21, we have already touched on the main issue of concern to me, which
was the relationship between the Bill and continuing criminal liability
and how that would operate in practice. If the Minister feels that she
has answered fully on thatI suspect she haswe need not
go into it any
further.
Jo
Swinson:
This is a welcome amendment that touches on
guidance, which was mentioned briefly earlier in the debate. The hon.
Member for Keighley made the excellent point that teachers will need to
have clear instructions to be able to make representations, often on
short time scales, given what we are dealing
with.
The legislation
will be successful only if it is widely publicised. Although specific
legal guidance may need to be issued, I urge the Minister to ensure
that there are some simple, easily understood leaflets so that anybody,
regardless of their legal background, is able to use the legislation.
Presumably, it would also make sense to make the guidance available in
a range of languages and online, and to disseminate it widely to a
range of bodies and individuals.
The forced marriage unit will
be the first port of call in many cases, but social services, teachers,
who have been mentioned, youth group leaders, religious and community
groups, and various helplines, childrens groups and charities
may have a stake in the measures and may be able to intervene, but they
might be blissfully unaware of the legislation, even though it might be
able to help them. A high-profile campaign to ensure that more people
are aware of the legislation and how it may be used will help to get
information to potential victims, which might in turn encourage people
to come forward.
The whole point of the
legislation is that offences will be civil rather than criminal, which
will mean that victims have another route, but unfortunately, if people
are not aware of such a route, and if they believe that they might end
up criminalising family members, they might not have, say, a
conversation about a forced marriage with their teacher or a member of
a social services
team.
On Second
Reading, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) urged us against
complacency. The consensus in the House on this issue is welcome, and
the Committee has been constructive and consensual, in stark contrast
to some other Committees on which I have served, but we should not
allow that to lull us into a false sense of security that would involve
believing that the matter is done with once the legislation is on the
statute book. Delivering the measures and ensuring that they work is
crucial; guidance is an important part of that, and I am sure that the
Minister will have had some interesting thoughts on how it can be made
most
effective.
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Lady has highlighted a number of
agencies that will need to be kept informed as to what our proceedings
mean for them and the people whom they support and represent. I am
pleased that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield tabled this group of
amendments because it has given us the opportunity to talk about the
importance of the guidance that we will
provide.
The
Secretary of State will provide guidance to public bodies on how to
deal with cases of forced marriage. It is essentialabsolutely
crucialthat agencies work together on the matter, and the
guidance is key to ensuring that that happens. The forced marriage unit
issued guidance on 4 June to help doctors, nurses and dentists to
identify victims of forced marriage. Last year, the unit issued
guidance to other health professionals and to registrars, although that
was not formal guidance; rather, it was a letter that raised the issue.
The unit has also updated the guidance to police and teachers, but it
will need to go further. It is currently drafting guidance in
consultation with practitioners and relevant professional bodies.
Stakeholders in the voluntary sector, such as academics, womens
groups, charities and so on, will be asked to be involved in drawing up
the guidance.
I do not
wish to put a dampener on what has been a positive debate, but the
dissemination of the guidance, for example, might well be dependent on
budget. I hope that the guidance will be distributed at outreach
events, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. The FMU goes
to around 70 or 80 outreach events a year. The unit was invited to
those events, but it will now be more proactive and will hold its own
conferences and workshops. Copies of the guidance will be freely
available to anyone who
asks.
For example, I
wish to involve organisations such as one whose representatives I met
at peoples day in my constituency on Saturday. Victim Support
in Lewisham has a section run by and for young people. They see some
1,500 cases a term concerning everything from bullying to stealing
mobile phones to other abuses. We do not have a forced marriage problem
in Lewisham, but an organisation such as a young Victim Support
would be the ideal agency to raise the profile of this Bill with young
people. If there are such organisations elsewhere in the country, they
are the ones that we should target, in order to ensure that they
understand what the Bill is about so that they can direct young people
to the appropriate agencies if necessary. As always, guidance is
available on the
website.
12.30
pm
Finally, the
hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable. The revised guidelines for
social workers are due out before the end of the year. The original
guidance was in one volume, and the revised guidance will be in
twoone for social workers dealing with children and young
people, and one for those dealing with vulnerable adults. We hope also
to publish a legal handbook by the end of October. That will contain
chapters on the legal situation on forced marriage in Pakistan,
Bangladesh and India, as well as on legal and non-legal remedies
available here. Legal briefing sessions will be conducted by legal
experts. We do not want the Bill, excellent as it is, to be lost
because people are not aware of its provisions. For the Bill to work,
it is essential to ensure that those who are in a position to make it
work and to protect the victims of forced marriage are aware of their
powers and those of the court. We are as one with the Committee in
wanting to send this message out as forcefullyif I can use that
word in these circumstancesas possible, and I appreciate the
comments that have been made.
Mr.
Grieve:
I am grateful to the Minister for her words and
the information on the guidance that has been produced, although her
description made it sound rather technical. That is perfectly
appropriate for social workers, but it is key for the Bill that that
information is provided to a wide range of other people. The Minister
knows well that if, as a Member of Parliament, she is sent a 100-page
tome, she is unlikely to look at it, whereas two sheets of A4 can often
be very helpful. If the legislation is to work, the guidance and
information must not be only of the type that social workers have to
read and inwardly digest as part of their professional calling. We also
have to provide a lot of information to people who need to use it in
their daily lives: teachers, particularly, health care workers and
others. The Minister has something in front of her that might even
correspond to what I hope to see. With that in mind, and in the hope
that there will be a range of information that enables people to know
about their
responsibilities
Mrs.
Cryer:
If we do not get such information, in the simplest
possible terms, through to the young girls and boys who will be able to
take advantage of it, we will have wasted our time this
morning.
Mr.
Grieve:
I agree entirely. I have no doubt that the hon.
Lady will be active in badgering the Minister to ensure that that is
produced. That is my concern as well. There is no point in enacting
legislation unless it is workable and people know exactly what they
have to do to make it work.
Bridget
Prentice:
The hon. Gentleman is right, as is my hon.
Friend the Member for Keighley. Some documents have already been
produced, and I shall
make them available to the Committee. I think that the font size used in
one of them is a little small, but let us not go into technical
details. It is essential that we send out guidance to professionals,
but we must also ensure that simple, basic information goes to people
who could be victims, or the friends of victims, so that they know that
there are people who have the power to do something. That means using
not the language of legislation, but clear, simple English, so that
people can read a small leaflet and know that they have a telephone
number or a contact name that gives them information. What the hon.
Gentleman says in that regard is spot on.
Mr.
Grieve:
I am grateful to the Minister, and for the debate
that we have had on the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
1 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 2
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
1 agreed
to.
Clause 3
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
2 agreed
to.
Clause 4
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the
House.
Bridget
Prentice:
We have been forewarned by my hon. Friend the
Member for Slough that we should not be complacent because there has
been such all-party support for the Bill. She is right, and I hope that
every member of the Committee, and others, will keep a close eye on us
in government to ensure that we carry out the promises that we have
made with regard to the principles of the Bill.
I want to take this opportunity
to thank you, Mr. Hood, for the way in which you have
conducted proceedings. You have allowed us to have a full debate on the
major issues and ensured that those who have listened to us have a
better understanding of the matter. I also thank the Hansard
writers and the Clerks for their help and support, as well as the
members of my Bill team. Although I met them for only the first time a
couple of weeks ago, they have been excellent and expert in giving me
good advice.
I thank
all members of the Committee, particularly my hon. Friends the Members
for Keighley and for Birmingham, Perry Barr, for their contributions.
As everyone in the Committee and the House knows, my hon. Friend the
Member for Keighley has played a leading role in addressing the
horrible issues that arise out of forced marriages. She has been expert
and splendid in ensuring that the Bill has been taken
forward.
I also thank the hon. Members
for Beaconsfield, for Woking, for East Dunbartonshire and for Solihull
for their contributions, which have added to our understanding of how
to deal with this terrible situation. In particular, I thank the Whip
on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting. His expert
advice in organising how we should proceed with the Bill has clearly
been followedwe have finished not only one day early, but one
and a half days and 20 minutes earlier than expected. On that basis
Mr. Hood, I again say thank you very
much.
Mr.
Grieve:
Mr. Hood, I join
the Minister in thanking you, all members of the Bill team, the
Clerks and the Hansard writers for the help that we have
received in Committee. I also thank all the other members of the
Committee who have attended and participated in our debate.
This has been
a short debate, and the truth isI have always taken this
viewthat the Bill was very well drafted at the outset. The
Government stepped in to help Lord Lester translate a well-intended
piece of legislation into something that worked well, particularly by
incorporating its provisions into the Family Law Act. They thus left us
with little work to do. None the less, I am grateful to have had the
opportunity to look at it in Committee, which has certainly been of
assistance to me. I shall doubtless go away and see whether I can think
of anything else that would be needed to improve the Bill before we
return to it on Report.
I express my thanks for the
Bill. The Minister was kind enough to say that we had made time
available for Second Reading, and we very happy to do so. This is an
extremely important piece of legislation, and we hope that it works in
practice.
Jo
Swinson:
On behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member
for Solihull, I want briefly to thank you, Mr. Hood, for
your chairmanship of the Committee. I also thank the officials and
everyone who has been involved in the Committee and in drafting the
Bill.
Obviously, this
is an important piece of legislation. Sometimes, when we are knocking
on doors, someone says, Whats the point of voting?
Politics is all but pointless. The Bill is a good example of
something that will enable us to say, Actually, you can make a
difference in politics.
I also give our thanks to Lord
Lester, who introduced the Bill in the other place. Once it has passed
all its stages, as I hope it will, we will have managed to make a good
contribution to the statute book. As the Minister said, we will have to
keep an eye on progress to make sure that the Bill is
implemented.
Question put and agreed
to.
Bill to be
reported, without amendment.
Committee rose at eighteen
minutes to One
oclock.
|
![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 18 July 2007 |