Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [HL]

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 3: 3: After Clause 1, leave out lines 123 to 136 The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 3 would leave out proposed new Section 63E, which allows the court to accept an undertaking from a respondent that he will in effect abide by the terms of an order without actually being subject to one. Although I appreciate that this may function as an effective light-touch measure that will enable the respondent to avoid the shame of being subject to a court order, while giving the petitioner some reassurance, I have a few concerns with the way in which the order is set up. Proposed new Section 63E(2) states that no power of arrest may be attached to an undertaking, but it goes on to say that an undertaking given to the court is enforceable as if the court had made an equivalent order. There seems to be some contradiction inherent in the making of the orders. I appreciate that undertakings cannot replace orders that would otherwise have had a power of arrest attached to them, but I notice that if an order without a power of arrest attached is breached, it is still subject to the existing law of contempt of court under proposed new Section 63O, which, unless I am mistaken, comes with a power of arrest. So either there is a power of arrest attached to an undertaking, in which case there needs to be some amendment to clarify this in the Bill, or I am mistaken and there is no power of arrest. If so, I confess that I do not see how effective such an undertaking would be in practice. On the powers of arrest attached to the orders, proposed new Section 63H(2) states that the court need not attach a power of arrest to an order if, "““it considers that, in all the circumstances of the case, there will be adequate protection without such a power””." Can the Minister say what she thinks will constitute ““adequate protection””? On varying orders to include a power of arrest retrospectively, what will occasion such a reaction from the courts, apart from an application to a judge? Will respondents be monitored once they are subject to an order? Perhaps a description of how orders are followed under Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 would give us an idea of how this may function. In the event that a respondent is arrested, the power to remand, as indicated in new Section 63K, and consequentially in Schedule 5 of the Family Law Act 1996, seems to be open-ended. I refer to paragraph (3) of that schedule, which states that the court may enlarge a person’s recognisance to a later time. Can the Minister give an indication of the maximum remand time that she expects a respondent to be subject to? I hope noble Lords will forgive me for these lengthy questions, but it is important to tease out every detail at this stage, so that this Bill goes to another place with a clean health check. The real issue here is the effect that these various orders, undertakings and powers of arrest will have on the communities that the Bill will target. I refer to paragraph 5 of the regulatory impact assessment, which estimates that the legislation is likely to impact on, "““individuals, in practice particularly those from South Asian cultural and ethnic groups””." My experience in working with those groups is extensive. I have, sadly, witnessed the pressure put on young girls in families where family honour and respect are constantly cited as reasons for these matches. The high level of emotional stress is unremitting and the complete feeling of isolation inflicted is quite impossible to imagine. These incidents are on the rise, particularly with the social and political climate increasingly making it more difficult for people in some communities to feel confident and sure about the wider world. Those who seek help in these circumstances must be confident that no system is then going to fail them; as the consequences of failure could, sadly, in some cases prove fatal. My concern is that even with light-touch legislation, the threat of orders and arrest could drive the practice of forced marriage underground and overseas. I echo the concerns of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach in his excellent speech at Second Reading, when he raised the question of overseas jurisdiction. I quote the response of the Minister, who acknowledged that in the consultation: "““The overwhelming majority felt that families might take advantage of lack of overseas jurisdiction, taking their children overseas to circumvent laws in the UK””.—[Official Report, 26/1/07; col. 1363.]" I do not oppose the Government’s amendments to the Bill on those grounds, as I believe that the orders and undertakings could be put to good use. Rather, I seek reassurance from the Minister that this legislation will not result in either having too little success for the people it seeks to protect by way of inadequate powers of enforcement, or have the unintended consequence of alienating the very communities that it seeks to assist. For example, what evidence does the Minister have that closed communities will accept this legislation without taking action deliberately to avoid it? What monitoring will there be of orders and undertakings? Will the social services be involved, and will there be special liaison officers appointed in local police forces to deal with victims of forced marriage, in the same way as there are for victims of rape? What extra training could that involve? At this stage, I am purely probing the Government’s thinking on this and the plans that they have in place. I did not note in the RIA that any supporting structure was to be put in place or that any costing had been carried out. If there are such plans, what is the estimated cost, and where will the money come from? I know that noble Lords have raised such questions under my previous amendment, but there is further probing to be done on this. I look forward to the Minister’s response. It may be that she will need to write to me on some of the points, and I would be happy for her to do so. I beg to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 3.