Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for her introduction to this amendment. This Bill has had an interesting passage so far. It has undergone its metamorphosis from a Private Member’s Bill to government legislation in the blink of an eye. We on these Benches congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on persuading the Government not only to bring forward these new amendments but to support what will be a new government Bill in the proper way with a fully equipped Bill team. My noble friend Lady Anelay regrets that she is unable to be here. I thank the Minister for arranging for us to meet before the debate. I should also like to thank the Bill team, which has provided prompt and ready assistance and has liaised most effectively with my office. I pay particular tribute to the work that it has managed to do in such a short timeframe. I regret only that a rather rushed procedure has categorised this Bill in recent weeks. It is a shame that due to its previous status as a Private Member’s Bill without government support, the supporting framework is, through being understandably under-resourced, deficient in public Bill standards. It would have been more appropriate to have been able to have had sight of the individual responses to the consultation,as is the case when requested with government consultation. While the Government have consulted on this issue with regards to introducing a criminal offence, as this is civil law that consultation does not have direct relevance. While I emphasise again that I am most grateful to the Bill team for its hard work in organising an initial regulatory impact assessment, I note that this was produced only on request by myself and colleagues, and that it is only in its initial stages. Taken together, it is my concern that this lack of formal preparation could impair the scrutiny of the Bill in your Lordships’ House. I hope that this may be improved on before consideration in another place. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether she believes that the handling of this Bill, including the extension of the Long Title under AmendmentNo. 14, will set a precedent for Private Members’ Bills. We on these Benches very much welcome the form that the Bill will take following the Government’s amendments. We believe that it is right that it will mirror Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 and that, by and large, the penalties for breach of orders are appropriate. In order to ensure that the Bill is subject to appropriate scrutiny before reaching another place, we have tabled amendments to probe the future implementation of orders, the potential future effect of the Bill on the communities it targets, the appropriateness of the Secretary of State’s powers and the substance of the orders themselves. I will have further questions to put to the Minister following the invaluable advice that I have been grateful to receive in the past few days. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that the time for consultation on the amendments, although it has been extended, has been somewhat limited. It is right in principle and right in practice to try to prevent forced marriages from taking place. At Second Reading of the previous version of the Bill, my noble friend Lady Anelay noted that to be in a position where one is forced to make an application for nullity after having been forced into a marriage is invidious. I support that statement, and I follow it with a few questions to the Minister. The Bill will allow action to be taken on an attempt, rather than waiting for a marriage to occur and then applying for an annulment. I note that government Amendment No. 14 will allow for forced marriage orders to apply after a marriage has been entered into. I highlight for noble Lords that the High Court, as is evident in Justice Munby’s judgment in NS v MI, is already able to deal with the problem of forced marriage within the current framework of the law. I note that in paragraph 12 of his judgment, Justice Munby refers to Justice Bracewell’s exposition of current procedure in the order in R v R. He goes in to say that, "““criminal law already provides protection from and punishment for the crimes that may be committed when forcing someone into a marriage, whether in this country or abroad””." On civil law, he states that forced marriage will also expose the perpetrators to civil remedies for such torts as trespass to the person and false imprisonment. I reiterate that I support the legislation, and I raise these matters to elicit a response from the Minister that will detail how this legislation will add to the panoply of existing law.