You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard by Date > Daily Hansard
Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

First, it is very rare for a Private Member’s Bill to have government support and to reach the statute book. I can think of the Great Reform Act 1832, which started as a Private Member’s Bill. I can think of Roy Jenkins’s Obscene Publications Bill, and Sidney Silverman’s Bill to abolish capital punishment. I think that homosexuality ceased to be a crime because of a Private Member’s Bill, and there was David Steel’s Bill on abortion. It is very rare, and therefore when it happens it does not really create precedents. For example, there has never been a Private Member’s Bill in the Moses Room in Grand Committee before. That is a sort of precedent, and it is a very desirable one in this case, which I do not suppose will be emulated for many other Private Members’ Bills unless the Government show their support.

Secondly, when my inadequate four-page Bill was published, it was supported by the shadow Cabinet of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, which considered it; and that was made clear on Second Reading. There was only one very minor bit that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, queried, which has been dealt with. I do not believe that the government changes have changed any of the principles of the Bill, nor do I believe that there has been a lack of support. So far as consultation is concerned, I have put it in the Library and on the web, and it is all available. I am only a private Member, I am not the Government, but we have done a pretty good job on consultation. I hope that those words will remove grumpiness.

Baroness Verma: Can I just come back on that? I did not mean to sound grumpy throughout this. We have always shown support, but we have always said that there are areas where we would like further scrutiny.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I did not think that the noble Baroness was at all grumpy. It is completely right and proper—I am looking forward to our discussions on the probing amendments that follow—that

10 May 2007 : Column GC247

we show how much we have scrutinised this legislation. It is very important to me that it is done effectively and properly. It has been a great privilege to work with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. I pay tribute to my noble friends Lady Uddin and Lord Ahmed, who have done incredible work over the years on this subject. This is a humbling moment for me as we try to tackle what is an important issue in society and beyond.

3 pm

I, too, express my gratitude for all the help and advice I have been given. I have met some extraordinary people in the past few weeks, not least the victims of forced marriage, who were generous with their time and gave me good advice on how we should approach the Bill. I also thank the judiciary. Earlier today I met Mr Justice Munby and Mr Justice Singer to talk this through, and I know that they are deeply enthusiastic that this reaches the statute book. We also have the support of the Prime Minister. On discovering the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, he is very keen that I work as fast as possible to tackle the issue in the right way.

My approach has been to talk to as many people as possible. I know that many of them are listening to the debate and I have already paid tribute to their organisations. They, too, have been extraordinarily generous. I approached the legislation on the principle that we would not do it if it was clear that it was not wanted or needed. People have queried aspects of it, and rightly so. My noble friend Lady Uddin was absolutely right to say at Second Reading that the Bill is not enough on its own; it is a tiny part of what needs to be done. Education and support are also critical, and I shall say a little more about that, too. This is a real team effort. I hope that those who read the report of our deliberations will see what I consider to be the House of Lords at its best, as well as the Government responding at their best. I had the privilege of responding to noble Lords at Second Reading and it was obvious that the quality of speeches and the level of support from everyone who participated meant that the Government should respond, and we have.

I also pay tribute to my officials, who have been nothing short of magnificent. We gave them an almost impossible time limit because we wanted to do this as quickly as possible. My goodness, they have worked incredibly hard and they have done extremely well. I have paid tribute to the Forced Marriage Unit. There are six people in the unit, and I have visited them. They spend their weekends meeting victims in motorway service stations, often having spent months talking to them before they reach that point. They are dedicated and generous, and they do their work with a happiness that is quite extraordinary to see. I know that one of the consequences of our raising the profile of this issue is that their work will increase. They received 5,000 calls last year, which is a huge number, and many hundreds of those callers have been supported and helped.

I also agree with my noble friend Lady Uddin that there is a real heroine behind all this in the shape of my noble friend Lady Scotland, who was working on

10 May 2007 : Column GC248

this issue long before we dragged her into government and away from the legal profession. On Tuesday, my noble friend Lord Triesman and I were privileged to witness the launch of The Survivor’s Handbook, an incredibly important document offering support to people who need practical advice about what to do if they find themselves in this position. This returns me to the point made by my noble friend Lady Uddin about the need to think about this issue in the round. This is about educating people, giving advice and information, and providing support. We must let the courts play their part, but see that as part of a spectrum of support. We must also ensure that we give victims the highest possible quality of support after the event. Some of them may be living a long way from their families because that is unfortunately occasionally a consequence. They need to be helped and supported either through education and training or into work. Again, I pay tribute to the organisations doing such valuable work.

Before she left, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, responded to the point made by my noble friend Lord Plant about nullity. We are not affecting current law. That is a much bigger area, which the Government could look at if they wanted to. This whole question is one of the things that will inform our decision whether to do that. The law of nullity therefore remains as it is, but it is an important part of enabling people to get out of what may be a forced marriage. We cannot, of course, intervene to change the immigration status of spouses who are abandoned in the UK, but we try to offer them advice and put them in touch with organisations that might be able to help them. Those who have been victims of domestic violence, which includes forced marriage, may be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence provision of immigration law. I completely accept the broader point, which is well made, that this is part of a whole range of work that needs to be done, such as considering immigration issues. My noble friend Lady Uddin is perfectly entitled to say “I told you so”. Both she and my noble friend Lord Ahmed have been telling us that there will be a lot to do for some time. Hopefully this will be a small contribution to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Park, raised the question of education and her experiences with schools. When I was chair of the governing body of a primary school, we had children from all sorts of backgrounds: Brazil, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Poland, Germany and so on. I can probably say this now that I am no longer an education Minister: I encouraged parents to take their children back “home” to enable them to understand and develop the culture from which they came. Many families who had come from a long way away and were not well off could do one big trip, perhaps the only one they would make in 10 years. They took their children for quite long periods of time. As a chair of governors, my view was that that was completely reasonable, providing we were able to support them in an educative way. The education they would receive in doing that was important. Our parents responded magnificently. The children came back with scrapbooks they had compiled about where they had

10 May 2007 : Column GC249

been, and would give presentations to the rest of the school when they were only six or seven years old. They benefited from the experience hugely. Done properly and done well, it is completely proper.

The issue arises when children do not come back. The Crown Prosecution Service reported in 2006 that in Bradford some 250 girls aged between 13 and 16 left the school roll and did not return: all from one place in one year. So there is an issue. Not all of them may be doing anything other than going to live in another country and not informing the education authority. That happens in every area. I suspect that some of them, however, may find themselves in a difficult position. We must be mindful of that. There is a balance.

I also agree that the quality of information and guidance coming out of education is important. The Forced Marriage Unit is working with the Department for Education and Skills on improving the situation for children missing from the education register, ensuring that we identify missing children and looking at how we can deal with that. The Forced Marriage Unit tells me that 30 per cent of the victims they deal with are under 16.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, I say that we are not setting a precedent for a Private Member’s Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, confirmed. I hope that we are setting a precedent for taking forward issues where we clearly have a strong consensus, not just within your Lordships’ House—although getting a consensus in the House is a pretty good indicator of the importance of the issue—but also outside. We are talking to organisations such as the Metropolitan Police, the Forced Marriage Unit, voluntary organisations, judges, lawyers, individuals and, in particular, victims. When you get that kind of consensus, it is right and proper for the Government to move, and to do so speedily.

As I have already indicated, the work of my officials has created a new part of the Family Law Act of extremely high quality. That does not mean that there might not be areas where noble Lords have suggestions for how we might improve the wording here and there as we take the Bill through your Lordships’ House and beyond. Indeed, when I met members of the judiciary this morning, there were two or three areas where they suggested one word rather than another. We will examine all of that, but the principal thing is that we are on our way to getting this into law.

On the difference between the judgments of Mr Justice Munby which the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, read out and what is new in this, there is, first, greater access to the county court, enabling judges—properly trained and resourced, of course—to deal with and tackle the issue speedily. There are also powers of arrest, better enforcement and statutory guidance, which we will discuss shortly. The importance of that, certainly in education, has already been addressed, not least by the example of the experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in Derby.



10 May 2007 : Column GC250

It also sends a clear message from Parliament, which is important. This is about the empowerment of our citizens and ensuring that they all enjoy the human rights which we value so much in this country. It is one, small way in which we demonstrate that. It raises the profile of the issue of forced marriage, enabling victims, their friends and family to come forward, and sends that clear signal. This is an important moment, with a lot of support. I am grateful for all the comments that have been made, and we will now have the privilege of discussing some of the detail.

Clause 1 negatived.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 1:

“PART 4AForced marriageForced marriage protection orders(a) a person from being forced into a marriage or from any attempt to be forced into a marriage; or(b) a person who has been forced into a marriage.(a) such prohibitions, restrictions or requirements; and(b) such other terms;as the court considers appropriate for the purposes of the order.(a) conduct outside England and Wales as well as (or instead of) conduct within England and Wales;(b) respondents who—(i) aid, abet, counsel, procure, encourage or assist another person to force, or attempt to force, a person to enter into a marriage; or(ii) conspire to force, or to attempt to force, a person to enter into a marriage;

10 May 2007 : Column GC251

as well as (or instead of) respondents who force, or attempt to force, the person to enter into the marriage.(a) on an application being made to it; or(b) without an application being made to it but in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (6).(a) the person who is to be protected by the order; or(b) a relevant third party.(a) the applicant’s connection with the person to be protected;(b) the applicant’s knowledge of the circumstances of the person to be protected; and(c) the wishes and feelings of the person to be protected so far as they are reasonably ascertainable and so far as the court considers it appropriate, in the light of the person’s age and understanding, to have regard to them.(a) any other family proceedings are before the court (“the current proceedings”);(b) the court considers that a forced marriage protection order should be made to protect a person (whether or not a party to the current proceedings); and(c) a person who would be a respondent to any such proceedings for a forced marriage protection order is a party to the current proceedings.(a) proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in relation to adults;(b) proceedings in which the court has made an emergency protection order under section 44 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) which includes an exclusion requirement (as defined in section 44A(3) of that Act); and(c) proceedings in which the court has made an order under section 50 of the Act of 1989 (recovery of abducted children etc.); andFurther provision about orders(a) any risk of significant harm to the person to be protected or another person if the order is not made immediately;

10 May 2007 : Column GC252

(b) whether it is likely that an applicant will be deterred or prevented from pursuing an application if an order is not made immediately; and(c) whether there is reason to believe that—(i) the respondent is aware of the proceedings but is deliberately evading service; and(ii) the delay involved in effecting substituted service will cause serious prejudice to the person to be protected or (if a different person) an applicant.(a) as soon as just and convenient; and(b) at a hearing of which notice has been given to all the parties in accordance with rules of court.(a) any party to the proceedings for the order;(b) the person being protected by the order (if not a party to the proceedings for the order); or(c) any person affected by the order.Arrest for breach of orders(a) intends to make a forced marriage protection order otherwise than by virtue of section 63D; and(b) considers that the respondent has used or threatened violence against the person being protected or otherwise in connection with the matters being dealt with by the order.

10 May 2007 : Column GC253

(a) intends to make a forced marriage protection order by virtue of section 63D; and(b) considers that the respondent has used or threatened violence against the person being protected or otherwise in connection with the matters being dealt with by the order.(a) no power of arrest is attached to any provision of the order under section 63H;(b) such a power is attached only to certain provisions of the order; or(c) such a power was attached for a shorter period than other provisions of the order and that period has expired.(a) the application is substantiated on oath; and(b) the relevant judge has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be arrested has failed to comply with the order or is otherwise in contempt of court in relation to the order.(a) the person being protected by the order; or(b) (if a different person) the person who applied for the order.
Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page