My Lords, the amendment would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a report every two years, detailing expenditure on training and guidance for the previous two years and providing a forecast of the projected guidance and expenditure that will be given for the next year. While I realise that the amendment may leave something to be desired in terms of technical drafting, it serves its purpose at this stage as a probing amendment, tabled in response to the broad concerns that became apparent from my reading of the consultation documents published just before the Whitsun Recess. I thank the Odysseus Trust for making those documents available. I was glad to have the chance to look at them, if not before Committee, then in time for Report.
The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government’s plans on the provision of guidance and training. Who do they anticipate will be given guidance, and how will it be disseminated? Does the Minister anticipate that that guidance will be mandatory in all police forces? Will there be police officers with special responsibility for or knowledge of forced marriage? Does the Department for Education and Skills support the dissemination to schools of information about forced marriages? The matter of country-wide guidance could be important, given the rapidity of movement in cases such as these. If a victim were to flee to another part of the country for safety, a part of the country that was not accustomed to the culture surrounding forced marriages, it would be important that his or her claims were taken seriously. The terrible, tragic case of Banaz Mahmod will undoubtedly focus our mindson the importance of swift, effective and well understood action by the police when such cases are reported.
I hope that in setting up the provisions for training and guidance, the Government will ensure that voluntary, locally based organisations are included and that guidance is implemented in co-operation with the communities it seeks to help. It is important to remember the double-edged nature of this issue. While the threat in cases of forced marriage may well come from within the communities themselves, it is often people in those communities who are most keen to protect and ensure the safety of young womenand men who may face coercion or the threat of violence.
The sensitive handling of these cases on the ground will be the true test of the mettle of this legislation. I welcome the comments made by the Minister in Committee that the Government understand that it is essential to deliver the message that, "““we want to deal with criminals, not criminalise communities””.—[Official Report, 10/5/07; col. GC 267.]"
Even there, we must tread carefully and be careful that this legislation is not designed to criminalise but to protect.
I was grateful to the Minister for her remarks in a meeting when she stated that the Government would publish a report on the progress of training and guidance. That will be valuable to all concerned who will make great use of the information available. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that it will provide your Lordships’ House with a more detailed description of the plans for establishing and integrating guidance and training at all levels of the community. I beg to move.
Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Verma
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 June 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c1764-5 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:52:16 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402675
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402675
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_402675