Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [HL]

I support where we are today. It is a great honour and privilege to be here. I pay tribute to the way the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the Minister have taken us onward in this journey. I also pay great tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for the dedication with which she has pursued the matter over a long period. I do not want to bore the Committee, but I want to take the opportunity to make a few points. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. I welcome very much the framework within which we are approaching this issue. As noble Lords present at the discussion in January will remember, I think that I was the only one who cautiously welcomed this legislation. I have been reminded about that on more than one occasion by numerous colleagues and noble Lords. That note of caution was very important. It was based not on my personal opinions but on what I had heard, and on experiences of talking to women and women’s groups. We have arrived at the very important process of looking at this fundamental human rights issue. We have arrived where my noble friend Lord Ahmed and I wanted to be all those years ago when we proposed the need to embrace and embed protection against forced marriages within the mainstream framework of family law in the Family Law Act. I remember saying that on many occasions. This is not the time to say ““I told you so”” because I did not go far enough then to take on the labour of love which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, clearly did. I greatly welcome that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about new Section 64R in particular as it embraces everything I hope I have argued for. As has been acknowledged, forced marriage is a complicated issue. It is very important to give courts and professionals these wide-ranging powers and the ability to deal with the issue and to provide services and protection to women and individuals or families who are involved. Without it, the idea that we need to empower women in order for us to address some of these complicated issues would not be addressed. It would be remiss of me not to remind Members of the Committee once again that I welcome forced marriage being embraced within the mainstream law, but that a loss of status for women, especially if they have come here already married—forced or otherwise—needs to be addressed. It must be addressed within the main framework of the law. Although this may not be the time to ask the question, it needs raising: once a woman has left the home, where does she go? What does she do and who will provide the support and services for her? Those of us who have been more sceptical see a fundamental difference. Questions have been raised about domestic violence, child protection, family breakdown and a number of other issues. I therefore hope that guidance and instructions to local authorities and institutions will be explicit, providing a statutory obligation to support women. I welcome the amendment on which I had intended to make only a few comments—and I hope that they were only few.