Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [HL]

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Opposition support this Bill. It is right in both principle and practice to try to prevent forced marriages taking place—they can and they do destroy lives. It is surely better to prevent a forced marriage taking place rather than to leave a person in the invidious position of trying to make an application for nullity after the event of the marriage taking place. This Bill does make some advances through the civil rather than the criminal law. It should not be seen as a eureka answer to the problem, although it is a worthwhile piece in the jigsaw. The aim of the Bill is laudable, but it needs to be more than window-dressing. We have seen enough of that from the Government over the past 10 years. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for meeting me last week to discuss his Bill in detail. I am certainly convinced that he is making a worthwhile addition to the measures that are currently available to victims of forced marriage and those who are at risk of being victims in the future. As always, this House will wish to scrutinise the Bill’s provisions very carefully at Committee. We will need to consider how effective it will be and how accessible it will be to those who should benefit from it. In particular, we will have to consider what protections it adds that are not adequately covered by existing legislation. Noble Lords have today been at one in condemning the practice of forced marriage. Noble Lords, such as my noble friends Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Lord Sheikh, who made a particularly powerful speech, were right to draw the attention of the House to the differences between arranged and forced marriages. It is absolutely vital that we do so. I was interested to read the guidelines on this matter that were issued for the police by ACPO, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office. They are sensible and sensitive—not words I often use in the same sentence as the Home Office these days. The guidelines state: "““The tradition of arranged marriages has operated successfully within many communities and many countries for a very long time. A clear distinction must be made between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage. In arranged marriages the families of both spouses take a leading role in arranging the marriage but the choice whether to accept the arrangement remains with the individuals. In forced marriage at least one party does not consent to the marriage and some element of duress is involved””." It is right to stress now, and to continue to do so in our examination of the Bill, the difference between arranged and forced marriages and ensure that we do not by mistake or oversight bring arranged marriages within the scope of any measures that are intended to prevent forced marriage. That would not be the right thing for Parliament to attempt to do. But I believe that it is right for Parliament to take an active role deterring in the imposition of forced marriage. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was right today, as he so often is on these matters, to remind us that legislation should not be our first or only recourse in changing human behaviour. There are other and much better methods, which have to be complementary and, if possible, preferred routes. There are times when I agree with the Minister, Lady Scotland, who has the policy responsibility in this area—we all regret that, for a very good reason, she is not able to be here today. In her press statement on 7 June last year, she said: "““Forced marriage is an abuse of human rights and a form of domestic violence which cannot be justified on religious or cultural grounds””." She was right to draw attention to the fact that forced marriage is more than domestic violence. It is violence to the right of the individual to make their own life choices. No doubt when the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, replies to the debate, she will tell the House of the various schemes that the Government have launched in recent years to give aid to those who are the victims of forced marriage. I do not criticise those schemes—far from it. They are important, but I ask whether they are enough. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government have changed their position regarding legislation. They had promised a criminal offence as requested by police, but then backed off. In September 2005, the Home Office put out a press release about its plans to hold a three-month consultation on whether to create a specific criminal offence of forcing someone to marry. The police had already told the Government that there should be a new criminal offence. They believed that it would make prosecutions easier and send a clear message that intimidating young people into marriages that they do not want is unacceptable in the UK. In the Government’s consultation document, Forced Marriage: A Wrong Not a Right, Ministers accepted that the arguments against creating a new criminal offence outweighed those for it. Despite that, the Government said that they would go ahead and create a criminal offence. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that a new offence would act as a preventive measure and ““say to people this is wrong””. She told reporters in central London: "““It’s like a clarion call that this is not legal, you are not going to get away with it””." The Government subsequently changed their mind, and I think that it is important that we hear from them why they did. There may be very good reasons for the Government changing their course on this occasion, but we need to hear them. Noble Lords who have spoken today have pointed out some of the dangers that may follow from criminalising forced marriage. My noble friend Lord Sheikh set out how a criminal offence in particular could be counterproductive in its effects. I note that there have been concerns in the past that, if there were a criminal offence, young people might not report their parents for fear of criminalising them. Have the Government carried out any further research on that matter? If the concern remains about introducing a criminal offence, surely it should not interfere with having a civil offence. I do not think that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, should fall foul of the same arguments; I think that he has found his way round that difficulty. What work has been done over the past two years to make better use of existing civil remedies and the family courts, and with what success? I would be grateful if the Minister could give us information on that. I am aware that there is a range of criminal offences that can cover some of the aspects of the abuse involved in a forced marriage: rape, false imprisonment, kidnap, and assault. However, that can usually follow on only after the event of the marriage and after the damage has been done. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has the enormous advantage of trying to prevent the abuse in the first place. As noble Lords from around the House have so correctly pointed out, this a highly sensitive issue, but one that must be addressed, in a sensitive way but strongly and with determination. As my noble friend Lord Sheikh said, it is a global problem. It is not just about one ethnic or religious community. It is not a south-east Asian issue per se. It affects communities across a wide range of countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Syria, Sri Lanka, the USA, Holland, Somalia, Lebanon, Hong Kong, Turkey and Bosnia—we could go on. I look forward to the opportunity to examine the detail of the Bill closely in Committee. In relation to Clause 2, there is one improvement that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may consider, and I have already given him notice of it in advance. I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, because he highlighted the fact that Clause 2 could provide some element of controversy and I hope that we can find a way of overcoming that; I am sure that there are practical ways in which we can address it. I am concerned that the drafting of Clause 2 may not go wide enough to protect those who need to be protected. It covers people who threaten, ““If you don’t help me, I will damage you””, or offer a benefit to the person that is being threatened or coerced. I am concerned to assist in circumstances where someone says, ““If you don’t help me, I will not necessarily damage you, but I will damage your mother-in-law’s or father-in-law’s business. I will cause damage to another person who is of great importance to you””. We need to ensure that Clause 2 provides all the protection that it needs to, without bringing too much within it. I note that when the Government published their consultation in 2005, the estimated cost of creating a criminal offence was around £420,000 in the first year of implementation and £220,000 in subsequent years. Can the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, say what he considers might be the costs of implementing the Bill? If not, perhaps he may assist us in Committee. Clause 5 makes it possible for the victim of a forced marriage to make a civil claim for damages in the last resort. We will have to consider in Committee whether daughters and sons would wish to do that by imposing extra financial burdens on their parents by suing them for payment. We need to explore that legitimate area. Last month, the Women’s National Commission, ably chaired by the Minister’s noble friend Lady Prosser, published its report from the Muslim Women's Network, She Who Disputes—Muslim women shape the debate. It makes for arresting reading. A respondent from Bradford made the following plea: "““By minimising our problems on domestic violence and forced marriage it will not disappear. It has to be addressed. Women would rather die in their silence—we need confident women; we don't need shattered, battered women””." I agree with her with all my heart. In the final analysis, that is why my party supports the Bill—I certainly do—and I hope that the Government will support it.