---

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the whole House owes a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, for initiating this debate. In responding I want to give some background on what the Government have been doing and then, because the noble Lord was kind enough to indicate to me earlier the general thrust of some of the questions he wanted specifically to raise, I will seek to address those. I have been listening to all of the debate except for about two minutes when the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was speaking, when I had to leave the Chamber, and I hope I can cover most, if not all, of the issues that have been raised.

One thing I want to say that is not in my notes is that most of the conventions, units and government actions that I shall refer to are fairly recent, having been established from about 1999 onwards. Over the past few days, since it was decided that I would answer the debate, and indeed during the debate, I have wished that some of these conventions and special units in the police and the Home Office had been around to help me in the mid-1980s, because the issues have not only just arisen; they have been around for a long time.

I have personal knowledge and experience of dealing with forced marriages—not arranged; those are two quite separate issues—and kidnappings. I hope that the days have gone when it was possible for a man to walk into the consulate of particular countries in Birmingham and around the UK with just a photograph of a woman and obtain a passport for her. The girl would have destroyed her passport to prevent her being filched and sent abroad for marriage. It was so easy to get that passport replaced. I know this to my certain knowledge. Those days have long since gone.

I also wanted to pay tribute to the work of the Southall Black Sisters organisation, which was referred to earlier. In the 1980s I had experience and help from them with some of my constituency work. This issue has been around for a long time, although action—collectively, corporately, by the Government and by institutions of the state—is only of recent years. Nevertheless, it is better late than never.

I have some difficulty in using the word honour. It has been used throughout the debate and what the judge said—and I will refer to it later—is quite right: it is a dishonour. It dishonours the individual, the family and the community. It is a crime of dishonour in that respect, committed by people who frankly are inadequate human beings—they have to be. It is a difficult concept for those who are outside, or who watch or hear about this debate. The very concept of the use of the word honour is a contradiction in terms.

As is known because of legislation, we are committed to tackling domestic violence. The figures have been given, but I will repeat them: the United Nations estimates that some 5,000 women a year are victims of honour murders and honour killings in the Middle East, south Asia and elsewhere and in countries with immigrants from those regions, such as the European Union. Turkey has already been mentioned. In response to this horrific crime, on
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1447
 
15 October last year the United Kingdom and Turkey jointly presented a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly on working towards the elimination of crimes against women and girls in the name of honour. The resolution focuses on preventing dishonour killings, emphasising that the elimination of crimes against women and girls requires enhanced efforts and commitment from governments and the international community. The resolution declares the obligation of states to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish the perpetrators of crimes committed against women and girls in the name of dishonour and to provide protection to victims.

The resolution highlights the responsibility of men to promote gender equality and to change attitudes to eliminate gender stereotypes. In the UK, as I speak, there are 12 known honour killing cases—not per annum—and 117 cases being reinvestigated by the Metropolitan Police, the lead police authority nationwide on this. It is not just a London issue, so the figures do not refer only to London. It is looking at those cases to see whether there is an element of crimes of honour or whether they were accidents, suicides, missing person cases or any of the issues that those working in, and representing, the communities will be aware of.

States have an obligation to promote and protect human rights, including the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Turkey is taking a positive attitude on that. In my view—one speaks from this Dispatch Box always on behalf of the Government unless one speaks for oneself—the measure of Turkey wanting to change its ways to become a member of the European Union will have to be subject to a test by any reasonable person in due course, but all the signs are that it wants to tackle the problem and is taking action to do so.

The issue for the Government is that all forms of domestic violence must be condemned. Domestic violence may be perpetrated by family and extended family members. Such crimes are not committed by individuals, as examples have shown; the family team has dishonoured the family by operating together to perpetrate murder. There is very rarely just a single person involved. The family team is also involved in female genital mutilation and forced marriages.

Government action on domestic violence is led by an inter-ministerial group on domestic violence in Whitehall, in which I participated for a couple of years when I was at the ODPM. It includes five departments—the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Work and Pensions. Wales and Northern Ireland are also represented. It is led by my noble friend Lady Scotland, the Home Office Minister. The group sets the Government's overall strategy on domestic violence. There is a broad range of representation because work must be done in partnership; it is not an issue for one department but goes across the piece.
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1448
 

We have published a document providing a summary of responses to the consultation paper Safety and Justice, which focused on prevention, protection and justice, and support. The document sets out a range of actions that we are now taking forward across government. We also published and introduced the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. It is early days but nevertheless the number of refuges and attitudes towards domestic violence have changed dramatically. It is still the case that approximately two women are killed every week in this country. One-fifth of all violent crime in this country is domestic violence-related. It is high on the agenda.

We have a domestic violence delivery plan because the action is being proactively pushed from Whitehall; it is not a question of passing the law, putting it on the statute book and expecting things to happen. Activity has to be co-ordinated across government, including black minority ethnic domestic violence issues relating to forced marriages, but not exclusively. The European examples are not born in Europe; they involve families who have come here from outside Europe. Honour-based violence goes beyond killing; there is a broader description. Work is ongoing.

The crimes are the result of a collective decision of the family and are the final stage of repression, because a lot of actions will have taken place before the actual killing. Those few lines in the poem told of the final stage of repression and what was happening before the death.

We have to make sure this violence does not glorify crimes of honour. It is a dishonour. We must make that absolutely clear, and not be mealy-mouthed with the language. It demeans the person. Men who conduct these crimes are inadequate: inadequate human beings, inadequate men—they are small people. They are not honouring anybody. They dishonour themselves and their community. Whether they are locked up or not, they cannot secretly live and think they are honourable. They are not.

As many noble Lords have said, this is an issue linked to women's sexuality and fear of women—fear of women standing up for themselves. I will never forget, as I explained to someone the other day, a lady who came into my surgery and told me of terrible trouble I will not repeat here. She said to me, "I have learnt to speak up for myself." She had passed that threshold where she was prepared to take the trouble on. I can see her now, though it was many years ago, trying to come to grips with some of these problems. We also recognise, as has been said, that though the victims are mostly women, some may be young men—as we know, tragically, from the court case this week.

There is a trans-national component; it is not limited to geographical borders. The point is that as the world becomes a smaller place, such practices gain ground in places where they never occurred in the past. We have to make it absolutely clear, as religious and community leaders do, that this is not a matter related to religion, ethnicity or culture, but it does probably relate to the degree of patriarchal cultures and family structures in the past. It comes about from ownership:
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1449
 
what the family owns, the family can dispose of. That is the attitude and frankly it is not good enough. Up with it we will not put, and neither will our European partners.

As I said, the violence is primarily against women, though men can be exposed to the violence, and forced into committing such violence because of threats against themselves. We know there is a direct link between forced marriage and crimes committed in the name of honour. I want to make it clear that we are not talking about arranged marriages. Forced marriages are a completely different issue. I make that clear just so that those who listen to or read what we say do not get a confused message.

We certainly need to focus attention better on getting more reliable statistical data. For obvious reasons, coming across the data is a precarious activity, but we need figures. The figures that are available may be underestimated and miss a variety of violent acts such as suicide and so-called accidental deaths. Deaths by burning—family accidents in the kitchen—were quite a feature in the 1980s. There is considerable statistical evidence from work by the Department of Trade and Industry about accidents in the home, an awful lot of them in the kitchen relating to fire. Those are the sorts of thing we will consider when looking at old deaths, to see if there is any such element.

In the time available I hope to deal with the questions that the noble Lord asked. I am not ignoring anybody else but, by and large, the issues have been covered. I have made the point that there is a direct link between forced marriage and these horrific killings, and it begs the question whether forced marriage should be an offence. Many different offences can be committed when forcing someone into marriage. These include, but are not limited to, assault, unlawful imprisonment, kidnap and rape. Yet there is no specific criminal offence relating to forced marriage. This is similar to domestic violence, where there is no specific offence but perpetrators can be prosecuted for a range of other offences. The Forced Marriage Unit—a body that would not have existed a decade or more ago—has just finished national consultation on whether a specific offence of forced marriage should be created. A summary of the responses will be published within the next three months. The consultation document sets out a number of potential advantages to introducing a new offence. It could challenge people's views about whether people should be forced into marriage, which could in turn lead to fewer cases of forced marriage. A new offence could be a strong deterrent. People might not force others into marriage for fear of being prosecuted. The introduction of a new offence could empower young people with more tools to negotiate with their parents—that is a powerful point. They could tell their parents that they did not want them to get into trouble, because what they are trying to make the children do is illegal.

There may be some police officers, teachers and others who do not know that forced marriage is wrong and that they have the power to tackle it. A new
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1450
 
offence could simplify and clarify matters for public sector employees and give them the confidence to tackle it. There is no doubt that a new offence could make things easier, but there are reasons why this should not be a criminal offence. I do not know the results of the consultation, which deals with a number of issues. There is a risk that the fear of their families being prosecuted may stop the victim from making the complaint in the first place because of the strong family bonds, even though these crimes of repression are being committed. Many victims who ask for help at the moment ask for confirmation that their families will not get into trouble. That is quite normal, so there is an issue there.

There is a risk that parents may take children abroad—a constant theme in this debate. I have said how easy it was—in the past, I hope—to get passports if the children have got rid of them because they knew what was coming. It is difficult to collect evidence and many victims are reluctant to testify against the family. It may be difficult therefore to bring about a successful prosecution. That is a problem. That is not a reason not to pass the law, however, because we must send the right signals, but the new offence could be devalued if it was thought that nobody ever got caught.

The new offence would disproportionately impact on black and minority ethnic communities and might be misinterpreted as an attack on those communities. If we decide to go down this route, all we have to do is be better at explaining. We can overcome that problem.

The noble Lord asked whether the Home Office had been in discussion with religious leaders. There is no doubt that an awful lot of work has been going on, some of which has been detailed by speakers in the debate. Last year in Luton there was a conference about forced marriage and dishonour crimes. It was funded by the Home Office and attended by many community and religious leaders. Work is ongoing with a range of religious community leaders. Dr Siddiqui of the Muslim Council of Britain has spoken out against forced marriage and honour killings and participated in the conference and other events aimed at raising awareness of the issue—an important reason for this debate.

The joint Forced Marriage Unit is carrying out consultation about whether to make forcing someone into marriage a criminal offence. We have consulted widely; including with religious and community leaders. There is also outreach with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office website. We are, of course, willing to provide information for those who require it. There has also been attendance at media events during that consultation, so a lot of work has been going on.

The noble Lord asked whether schools could be more helpful when young people are removed for forced marriages. Some head teachers are tearing their hair out because children disappear out of classes and nobody knows where they have gone. Sometimes, perhaps a year later, they turn up at the school gate or the playground, dumped by the parent or
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1451
 
grandparent, back to school into a different classroom where everything has changed. There is no mention of why they have come back. They may have been taken abroad to have been promised to someone—that can happen at an early age—to get the family fixed up with other families for later on. It may be an arranged marriage, or it could be a forced marriage if the person does not want to go through with the arrangement. There is a problem there. However, we have issued guidance for education professionals for dealing with these cases of forced marriage, which has been approved by the Department for Education and Skills. We are working with the Miss Dorothy.com charitable foundation, which is dedicated to the protection of children and the prevention of child abuse, to raise awareness of what young people at risk of being forced into arranged marriage can do to seek help.

The distribution of the leaflet to schools in Derby was mentioned. Those guidelines from the Forced Marriage Unit can be requested from the unit and the information is available. If the noble Lord has any particular details, I invite him not to give them now in public, but maybe to direct the individuals to give them to the Forced Marriage Unit, either through the relevant department or through me in answering this debate. I will ensure they are acted upon—we are more than willing to do that.

Regarding training for police, judges, magistrates and the statutory sector, the Police Standards Unit has been working closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the National Centre for Policing Excellence to raise the awareness of officers and police staff with regard to the identification of dishonour-related violence. The PSU has been promoting the use of a risk assessment toolkit. It held an international conference on honour-related violence in London in March this year. The 2004 guidance on investigating domestic violence has been produced on behalf of ACPO. It contains guidance on investigating cases that may be committed in the name of honour or forced marriage. ACPO has also provided guidance on honour killings in its murder investigation manual, so it is highlighted there. The Home Office, the Foreign Office and ACPO published Dealing with cases of Forced Marriage: Guidelines for Police in May 2002, and that has recently been updated.

The Forced Marriage Unit was launched in January between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, and replaces the FCO's Community Liaison Unit, which dealt with 1,000 forced marriage cases over the last four years, including 200 that involved rescuing young people from overseas and bringing them back home. We are working with the Metropolitan Police on accrediting police training on forced marriage as part of domestic violence training. This issue is inexorably linked—forced marriage is domestic violence as well.

The FCO funded a successful conference on honour killing held in Karachi on 24 to 26 November this year. The conference was part of a larger project in Sindi and
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1452
 
the southern Punjab providing training and awareness on honour killings for the police, the judiciary, the media and civil society organisations. The project contributes to the wider goals of countering extremist positions in society by promoting the rule of law.

The use of the death penalty as punishment to deter future honour killings was raised sporadically during the conference. The drafting of the communiqué was a delicate process that at times risked promoting punishment of honour crimes using the death penalty. The majority of the debate pointed towards focusing on changing cultural practices at the local level, curbing feudal powers and providing training for the police and judiciary to investigate. There is of course a domestic violence training package for magistrates in the UK.

Before I make my final point, I want to add that 30 years ago there was one refuge. Today there are about 400 refuges nationally. There is also the Domestic Violence National Helpline, which is linked to refuges online, meaning that whoever answers the phone can see in an instant where a bed is available that evening anywhere in the country. That was set up with money from both the Government and, I think, the largest donation ever made by Comic Relief, to their credit. It is not government-run; it is run by Women's Aid and Refuge, so it is slightly disconnected, but nevertheless with funding from the Government and Comic Relief. The phone number is widely available. It is easy to remember, but I am not going to do it from memory. It is not just for advice; it will link to bed space. People's great fear is that, although they want to get away, they need to go somewhere else, maybe with their kids. Young girls will be fearful about where they are going to sleep that night, because they do not want to be forced on to the streets. More resources are available for young girls, but I have run out of time, so I will not be able to deal with that.

In conclusion, on one point relating to a case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston: the father in that case who committed the murder received a life sentence. He may be talking about another case, but the father in the case he referred to did not receive 10 years—it was a life sentence. This was the man who claimed that he feared his daughter was becoming westernised.

My final point is one that Mr Justice Gross made in passing sentencing this week. He hit on the head, once and for all, the argument that one can mitigate because honour killing is traditional. That is not the case—it is aggravated killing. That is the issue that has to be addressed. The sentencing guidelines are being looked at and the forthcoming guidelines will state that aggravating features such as planning an offence, abuse of trust and abuse of power will be highlighted. Those aggravating features will reflect the seriousness of the crime. There will no longer be any reason for anyone—I repeat, anyone—in the judicial system to say, "There is a mitigating factor here, because it is part of the tradition and, therefore, there is a lesser offence".
 
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1453
 

I am grateful. There are issues that I have not touched, but I will look at what has been said by all noble Lords who took part in this debate and ensure that the issues are addressed in a letter.

---