---

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston for initiating the debate. I am also grateful to my noble friend for producing statistical evidence about the extent of the problem. This subject needs to be addressed because honour killing is a practice that we must condemn. As my noble friend said, and as cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, murder is murder; it does not matter how you describe it. The sooner that we remove the word honour and start to talk about murder, the better.

Our starting point is that a single incident is one too many and no civilised nation should tolerate it. My noble friend is right when he says that the percentage of suicides in the Asian community is twice as high as that of persons from the indigenous community. We need to ask why. Does the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, offer us a solution or an explanation?
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1440
 

I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, is here to talk about female genital mutilation. Last week, she instigated a debate on the subject and its consequences for victims. Your Lordships' House is always at its best when addressing issues that affect the rights and liberties of the individual. I am also delighted to have heard the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, who explained what it is when we talk about honour.

I want to use the example of a family that I knew for years whom we used regularly to visit. Suddenly, a male member of the family was no longer there. For two years, we paid frequent visits yet there were always excuses for why that person was not at home. At the same time, I was a member of the board of visitors for a prison in Sussex. To my horror, when paying a visit, I saw that he was committed to prison. He explained that he was involved in an incident of robbery, and that is why he was punished. Then I asked the family why nobody had told me that he was in prison. They said, "That is because of our family's honour". I could understand the extent to which many people, particularly in our communities, would regard it as for honour, because no one should be aware of what has happened to an individual within their family's circumstances.

I know of no religion that condones the practice of honour killing. Honour killing, in Islamic definition, refers particularly to extra-legal punishment by the family against the woman. That is forbidden by Sharia, the basis of Islamic law. The same appears in relation to other major world religions. So-called honour killing is based on ignorance, disregarding the law of the land, so that the religious beliefs of those who commit such crime are unlikely to lead us to understand why honour killings happen. We may have to look at other avenues.

In almost all cases, honour killing is the practice of a family member killing a female relative when she is considered to have brought dishonour to that family. We are also aware of the practices of forced marriages, which often feature in such events. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, is right to point out that, to a great extent, women are the predominant victims.

I deliberately used the words "in almost all cases" because we have evidence of male partners of women being killed when they are held responsible instead for the dishonour brought on the family. Take the case dealt with earlier this week in our courts, of a father who ordered his teenage sons to kill their sister's unsuitable boyfriend. He was gaoled for life and sentenced to a minimum of 20 years; his two sons will serve at least 16 and 14 years respectively. I suspect that the family had, probably, never featured in criminal activity before and that the men are unlikely to do so again when they are released. But Justice Gross was right to condemn what he called a cold-blooded intentional killing. He said:

"Far from vindicating your family's honour you have permanently dishonoured your family with the stain of murder".

The sons were convicted because the father disapproved of the victim's relationship with his daughter.
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1441
 

I am no authority, but I can speak about the ethnic communities from the Indian subcontinent that have, from time to time, featured in such incidents, as was clearly demonstrated in the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston. I should, however, mention that such practices are not restricted to the Indian community or the subcontinent, as several noble Lords have explained. No country is immune; there are recorded incidents in South America, the Middle East, Europe and Africa, to name a few. The UN Population Fund estimates, as my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston rightly pointed out, that the total number of honour killings may be as high as 5,000, most of them women. But that evidence does not take into account suicides and abductions or violence perpetrated on victims.

Honour killings are often, but not exclusively, associated with the first generation of migrants who came to the United Kingdom. We must go back to the process of migration to the United Kingdom which started in the late 1940s and 1950s. Most migrants lived in villages or small communities within the subcontinent. For centuries, arranged marriages had been part of the culture that they practised. Mystery often surrounds arranged marriages, but it should not. We should not condemn the practice because people living in small communities grow up together. In many cases people look within their community to choose partners for their sons and daughters. From time to time such marriages may fail, but overall the practice seems to work well in many countries, and let us not forget that it was prevalent here during the Victorian age.

But, of course, sometimes the arrangements do not work out. A girl or a boy may choose a partner other than the one the parents had in mind. Again, in a large number of cases that may strain family relationships, but time is a great healer and normality is re-established. However, in some cases the preservation of family honour results in the kind of tragedy we are so familiar with. But there is still hope that as minorities settle down in their adopted homelands, no longer will the second and subsequent generations accept some of the values to which their parents attach so much importance. Marriage, food, dress and music are good examples of the fusion of cultures. Not only in the United Kingdom, but also abroad, the pattern of the caste system is gradually breaking down. Second and subsequent generation youngsters are more confident about building relationships with partners of their choice. Historical evidence from around the world is a living proof that integrated societies are the product of many cultures, some voluntary and some imposed by the law of the land. Our food, art and education have been enriched by those who have contributed towards our society.

Change is always painful, but there should be no fear of accepting what is good in other cultures and we should resist practices that are unlawful on legal grounds or unacceptable on moral ones. The generations of people born here are living in a fast-changing world, which brings with it a change in
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1442
 
attitude and a new assertiveness. Youngsters are better educated and more questioning of authority than ever before. They are also better informed.

Other factors have an influence. The globalisation of power and the decline of class loyalty are putting great pressure on antique structures and often antiquated ways of thought. Of course for many, in particular the first generation, the challenge is frightening. But let us look at the more confident second and subsequent generations growing up in this country. They are rejecting class and caste conflict, elitism and controversy. They are gaining interdependence, self-reliance, openness, liberty, diversity and pluralism. What we are seeing is the birth of new values and a new culture encompassing all that is good in our own values and all that is good in others. So there is still hope that the vile crimes dressed up as honour killings, although few in number, will gradually decline even more.

What is expected of all of us? I do not look to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, or the Government to offer a solution. On their own, the Government cannot wipe out all the ills of a society. We all have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that such practices stop. First, we must not be afraid to discuss these issues in the mainstream of our own communities. Our debate today is a good example of how to go about the task. We must accept as a starting point the fact that honour killing in our community is a reality and that we are against it. Secondly, no one should be in any doubt that we abhor such practices wherever they occur in the world, and the full force of the law will be used against them, as happened in the case I described earlier. Thirdly, we must ensure that help is available for the victims of honour crimes. The impact on the families of those affected is great and they need help to rebuild their lives. Fourthly, communities have a responsibility to ensure that temples, mosques, gurdwaras and other places of worship are able to discuss the issue with a view to ensuring that there is no such thing as an honour killing.

As my noble friend has described, honour killing is murder under any law around the world. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno explained that we have seen evidence of ritual killings, such as the murder of a child which still remains unsolved. To this day, we see incidents of so-called honour killings, suicides, self-harm and violence, detailed by many noble Lords. These are unacceptable and we must do everything we can to put a full stop to such practices.

4.25 pm

---