Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [HL]

I have not had discussions with the Disability Rights Commission. I take the point, and I will talk to it in more detail. The Forced Marriage Unit is issuing guidance for social workers dealing with vulnerable adults on these issues. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: everyone is entitled to a happy, loving relationship and marriage. Thinking of adults with a different kind of vulnerability, we have also been in discussion with those involved with gay and lesbian people who find themselves forced into marriage. We have put a particular group in touch with Stonewall, who I hope will work with it to provide support and advice. That is, again, an area where we must think about the range of people who must be supported and taken into account. We will talk formally to the Disability Rights Commission and report back to the noble Baroness and Members of the Committee as the Bill goes through Parliament. We are in touch, and it is an important issue. On the definition, we have deliberately not defined it. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, says about Mr Justice Singer, and I agree with what he says; it has the range and spectrum. When we looked at this—and we had many discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Lester—we talked to the judiciary and got the advice that we could. The elements within the concept of forced marriage are varied and different in different circumstances. To try to define it always creates a potential difficulty; by defining it, you narrow the definition. I could not agree more that this has nothing to do with the long established and successful tradition of arranged marriage. That communication which needs to go out—alluded to, if not explicitly said, by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma—is critical. The judiciary is clear about that, as are we. We would not wish this in any way to be interpreted as being about any individual or community, or about a practice that has worked extremely well. This is about something entirely different: being forced into something you do not want to do. That is the fundamental difference: there is no consent. I agree that we need to do more, however. The Department of Communities and Local Government, like every other government department, has been consulted on the Bill. It is our practice to ask all departments to endorse the legislation coming before them from the Government, and it did so wholeheartedly. It was part of the process of thinking through what we need to do and it fully supported that. As I have said, this is not about being anti any community. We need to stress overand over again: forced marriage applies in all communities; it is wrong in all communities; and we need to work with those communities to ensure that we deal with it properly. Finally, I will say a little about costs, as almost inevitably money plays an important part, and the volume of cases. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, was right to ask what we thought the number of cases might be. We have an estimate of between five and50 cases from the caseworkers within the Forced Marriage Unit. They say that they deal with about 300 cases every year; two-thirds of which would not include circumstances covered by the Bill; and about 100 that would. They considered that as few as five of these might necessitate an application to the courts. But it is guesswork at this point. The senior members of the judiciary dealing with cases of forced marriage in the High Court have estimated that in the past 12 months about 30 cases of forced marriage have come to the High Court. One of the things that will happen when we have this civil remedy is that, because of the publicity and the fact that we have made the point that there is a civil remedy, the number of cases will increase. There are three elements to costs which I want to put on the record. First, there are legal aid questions. My honourable friend Vera Baird, who is responsible for legal aid, is at the moment considering how she might take that forward. Secondly, there are the important costs around the judicial processes, which we will be looking at, and the training and support for the judiciary as they take this issue forward. We will talk with the Judicial Studies Board about that. We are very aware that we need to ensure that this works effectively, and that there is proper training and support. Thirdly, there will be an impact on all the organisations which currently work with victims of forced marriage. Any publicity, anything new or different, means that their work will grow. I think I have said to all of them that I am very mindful of that and that it will be for government to seek to try to respond to that properly. Those are the three areas.