Debate
11 July 2003
| Female Genital Mutilation Bill | Third Reading | Debate |
11 July 2003 |
Female Genital Mutilation Bill
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 1
Offence
of Advocating Female Genital Mutilation
'(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he advocates the practice of female genital mutilation for any reason other than those specified in subsection (2) of section 1.
(2) For the purposes
of determining whether an offence has been committed under this section, it is
immaterial whether the advocacy took the form of spoken or written words.
(3) For the purposes of determining whether an offence has been committed under
this section it is immaterial whether there are any religious, cultural or ritual
reasons.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
1.14
pm
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): I beg to move, That the clause be read
a Second time.
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1553—continued
The events that
take place on a Friday morning are many and various, and sometimes debates are
held for reasons other than the real purpose of the Bill under discussion. On
this occasion, I start by making it clear that the amendments in my name are in
no way intended to delay or water down the Bill. I tabled them because I believe
that some issues need exploring.
Before I speak to the new clause, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member
for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)
on choosing a very worthy cause that has the
support of the overwhelming majority of people not only in this House, but in
the country at large. I have no hesitation whatever in supporting everything in
the Bill. These are very serious matters. The Bill deals with what is, sadly,
a growing problem in the United Kingdom and a huge problem elsewhere in the world.
It is absolutely right that an individual Member should take it up in a private
Member's Bill as a cause that needs our urgent attention.
The various amendments, of which the new clause is the first, are attempts to
explore whether even at this stage or in another place, there may be some scope
for strengthening the Bill. I can always understand why private Members' Bills
generally stop short of going as far as the promoter and probably a lot of other
hon. Members would like. If that is so in respect of the amendments, it would
be helpful if the hon. Member for Cynon Valley or the Minister could explain the
difficulties associated with the various changes that I have proposed. I did so
in order that we may discuss them rather than because I desperately want them
to be accepted. I think that the underlying principle might be helpful, but if
not, I shall seek to withdraw my proposals without hesitation.
New clause 1 is about advocating the practice of female genital mutilation—or
promoting it, if that word is preferred. I tend to be associated with promoting,
as I was the hon. Member who introduced what is now known as section 28, which
deals with the promotion of homosexuality. Any debate about advocating or
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1554
promoting is therefore one with which I am horribly familiar, and I know that
the matter raises some issues that have to be thought about.
The Bill's starting
point is to make it an offence to carry out any act of female genital mutilation.
That is quite right: the act itself is the primary target. Clauses 2 and 3 address
the issue of assisting, procuring, helping and so on. That is absolutely right.
It is a separate issue to discuss helping and assisting in this country or abroad,
so I shall come to that later. However, I wonder why the Bill is silent on advocating
the practice with which it deals. One of my amendments focuses on mental health.
If mental health is a justification for the practice of female genital mutilation,
surely the Bill should take into account somebody who advocates the practice as
relating not only to the cultural and ritual reasons to which the hon. Lady already
refers, but to religious reasons as well.
I wonder why the Bill as it stands shies away from any reference to religious
justification. I know the sensitivities that are involved, but I have a sense
that, if it is not made an offence to advocate, particularly for religious reasons,
that this practice enables somebody to be more respectful to their god or guru,
it might be possible that, at some stage, somebody will be so mentally traumatised
by that advocacy and so committed to the beliefs that are being advocated that
the result of it not being possible to go through the procedure will mean that
she becomes mentally ill. If that is so, the person who has done the advocating
should be caught by the Bill.
That is the issue that I am raising. I am very conscious of the fact that, if
we are to get involved in a debate about advocating or promoting—we can use
whichever word is preferred—we will enter into a debate about the freedom
of speech. I accept that we could also enter into a debate about the freedom of
religion. However, in this country, we have no hesitation in saying that incitement
to racial hatred is an offence. In a growing number of situations, freedom of
speech is not absolute. There are certain practices that people should not be
allowed to advocate; given the seriousness of the problem, this is one such practice.
New clause 1 tries
to strengthen the Bill by bringing another activity into the group of activities
that it seeks to stop. It does not in any way affect the others: it has nothing
to say about doing or assisting in the act. The Bill could contain a loophole;
I am merely trying to close it. I shall be interested to hear the thoughts of
the hon. Member for Cynon Valley.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): I am grateful for the spirit in which the hon. Member
for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is approaching the Bill. I hope that I can assure
him that the concern that prompted his new clause is unnecessary, because the
criminal law on incitement is sufficient to meet it. To incite any of the prohibited
acts in clause 1 would be an offence in common law, even if that incitement had
no effect. For the purpose of determining whether a person is guilty of inciting
a criminal offence, it does not matter what form the incitement takes, so subsection
(2) of the new clause is superfluous. It is not necessary to go beyond what the
law of incitement already provides, nor, given the need to protect the fundamental
right to freedom of
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1555
expression guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights,
would it be appropriate to do so. I hope that in view of that, the hon. Gentleman
will withdraw his new clause.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins):
It is not my intention to detain the House, but I wish to confirm what my hon.
Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) says about the sufficiency of the
criminal law in this area. It does not matter what form the incitement takes,
nor even matter whether it has an effect. Inciting any of the prohibited acts
in clause 1 would be an offence in common law, as she suggests. Although I appreciate
that the motivation of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is to try
to improve the Bill, new clause 1 is unnecessary.
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): I, too, appreciate the spirit in which the hon.
Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is approaching the Bill. Perhaps I can put
his mind at rest even further by saying that my experience in reproductive health
and in international development—I share the latter with the hon. Member
for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—tells me that the practice is not advocated
by religious groups, nor even by particular ethnic groups: that is what makes
it so difficult to deal with. It is a practice that has grown up within family
groups and village groups; nobody quite knows its origin. If we were to prosecute
everyone who encouraged it, we would probably end up with prisons full of grandmothers.
That is how the practice is perpetuated. It is important to say at an early stage
of our deliberations that it is not a religious or a cultural practice in the
sense of being confined to a particular group, but a tradition that has grown
up in various parts of the world. It must be regarded as such and dealt with very
sensitively; it is certainly not a practice that is publicly advocated.
Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. If I had
suggested that a specific religion advocated the practice, I would be wrong. I
hasten to tell the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that I did not intend
to give that impression. I have been involved in such issues generally, although
not in the specific matter that we are discussing. When considering matters of
tradition, where does tradition end and ritual begin? Where does tradition end
and cultural activity start? Where do tradition and religion merge? I would not
care to reach a conclusion on those questions. I simply say that, in new clause
1, I would be willing to bracket religion with culture, tradition or whatever
word the hon. Lady would like to use. As sure as day follows night, somebody will
advance a religious argument one day. However, I do not suggest that any religion
in the world is currently involved in the practice. I put the record straight
on that.
The experts
tell me that the common law of incitement is adequate. Who am I to dispute that?
I am not lawyer and if lawyers say that it is adequate, it is all right by me.
However, I believe that it was also said that it would be better to use common
law than to get involved in article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1556
Perhaps Hansard will bear me out on that. That prompts the question of whether
article 10 is justifiable if it allows someone to advocate female genital mutilation.
I am not comfortable with that. If it was claimed that it would be better not
to pursue the debate on freedom of speech, perhaps we should consider discussing
article 10. However, that matter is not before us.
I am glad that I raised
the matter and that I was reassured that it can be tackled in a different way.
If that is so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1
Offence of Female Genital Mutilation
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment
No. 8, in page 1, line 5, leave out "or mental".
Mr. Deputy Speaker
(Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, we may take amendment No. 9, in page 1, line
21, leave out subsection (5).
Mr. Wilshire: Amendment No. 9 would remove
a subsection, thereby ruling out a specific defence. I want to make it clear that
that is consequential on amendment No. 8. I do not want amendment No. 9 to be
considered as a free-standing amendment. It flows from amendment No. 8 and I hope
that no one would read anything more into it.
I am not a doctor or an expert in such matters. I am not involved with psychology
or psychiatry. However, over the years, one gets a sense of some of the relevant
arguments and issues. Again, to draw out some of the reasoning, amendment No.
8 would remove the justification of carrying out female genital mutilation on
the ground of mental health needs.
I have no difficulty with the argument
about physical health needs. The reasons that the Bill sets out are straightforward
and sensible. Sadly, there are occasions when the procedure has to be carried
out. A doctor is sitting near me and perhaps the hon. Member for Richmond Park
(Dr. Tonge) will correct me. However, I accept that there will be occasions, when,
with all the good will in the world and the different methods of tackling problems,
there is no other alternative for the health and life of the relevant person.
That must be a difficult decision for medical practitioners, the relevant person
and perhaps the families, but I have no quarrel with that.
11 Jul 2003 : Column
1556—continued
1.30
pm
There have, however, been occasions on which practices with which we do
not agree have been justified on the ground that they were carried out in the
interest of the mental health of the person concerned. I sense a loophole there.
As I suggested in relation to new clause 1, a girl or woman, or her family, might
have considerable pressure brought to bear on them in this regard, on the grounds
of ritual, custom, tradition or religion; it does not matter which. They could
be told that if they did not do this, they would be letting the family down, letting
themselves down or letting their guru down. Whatever the argument might be, I,
as a lay person, suspect that there would be a real risk of mental
11 Jul
2003 : Column 1557
ill health resulting from the repeated pressure and the repeated argument that
a person would be a failure because they had not done certain things that we are
seeking to make illegal.
Can the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) reassure me and anyone else who
shares my concern that it is possible to have a reason that I can understand as
to why mental health could be relevant. I find it difficult to see how, for mental
health reasons, a woman could be helped by having part of her genitalia removed.
It puzzles me, as a layman, that that should be a justification. If there is a
reason why that sort of thing has to be done for mental health purposes, I would
bow to that superior judgment and would be happy to withdraw my amendments. For
the moment, however, I put this issue in front of the House in order to ask what
the mental health justifications are. How can I be certain that this is not a
loophole? Would it harm the Bill if this provision were taken out?
Ann Clwyd: I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman. The effect of amendment
No. 8 would be that any surgeon carrying out an operation of this kind for which
there was a genuine psychological need would be committing a criminal offence.
As the hon. Gentleman said, amendment No. 9 is consequential on amendment No.
8.
Operations that
are genuinely necessary for mental health reasons might well be rare, but it would
be wrong to criminalise them. That was certainly not Parliament's intention when
the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 was passed, and there is no reason
to suggest that the intention of this Bill is any different. In particular, we
need to allow for the fact that gender reassignment surgery is less rare than
it once was. That is a good example of an operation that may be necessary for
mental health. The British Medical Association supported that view in guidance
issued in 2001. I hope that, in the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw
amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
Paul Goggins: I rise briefly to confirm what my
hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said. Surgical operations
of this kind carried out for mental health reasons are extremely rare, but there
may occasionally be strong grounds for allowing them to be carried out. For that
reason, the Government believe that these grounds should be included.
Dr. Tonge: If the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) would like to see
me afterwards, I could give him a whole catalogue of reasons why there might be
mental health grounds for carrying out operations on the female genitalia. I understand
his reservations, however. We have all heard stories about people having breast
operations, for example, with mental health being given as the reason, when it
probably should not have been. There are, however, genuine mental health reasons
for carrying out operations. I assure him that there is a huge range of female
genitalia out there, and sometimes they cause enormous problems, both mentally
and physically, but primarily mentally. I want to reassure him that this provision
is necessary.
Mr.
Wilshire: Earlier, I had some free advice from a lawyer, which is a rarity. I
have enjoyed my free
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1558
consultation, but I will
pass on the offer of free medical advice. There are things in this world that
I do not wish to know, and those may be some of them.
A number of points arise from what has been said. I say to the Minister that I
am sure that there are strong grounds. I think that he used that phrase, but I
would have found it helpful had he said what they are. To assert that they exist
is helpful, but to know what they are would be doubly helpful.
I am not sure that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) necessarily reassured
me as much as I know she was trying to. Again, I am happy to stand corrected,
but I am not sure that I buy the argument that it is wrong to criminalise a surgical
procedure. I think that that is what she suggested. I would be surprised if there
are not surgical procedures that are already made illegal. I think of the abortion
legislation. Under certain circumstances, late abortions, as I recall from the
debates in the House, are indeed prohibited. That might not be the best example,
but I am not sure that I buy the argument that we must not do this because we
cannot make surgical procedures criminal offences. I think that we can, and there
are occasions when we should. Whether this is one is a different matter.
The hon. Lady then offered me the fact that gender realignment might be a justification.
I tend to understand the term as sex change. I am not sure that I have got into
the newspeak on some of those issues, but we shall let that pass. If this procedure
is necessary for that procedure, it would be perfectly possible to make the procedure
of gender realignment one of the justifications for it not being a criminal offence,
rather than using the blanket argument of mental health reasons.
I do not think that either argument that the hon. Lady offered in itself persuades
me that the amendment is not worth pursuing. Fortunately, the hon. Member for
Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who sits on the Liberal Democrat Benches, managed to
save the day by saying that a range of other issues gives rise to mental health
problems should surgery be necessary. Coming from a medical practitioner, I unhesitatingly
accept that. She is an expert, but I ask her to spare me the gruesome details.
In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3
Offence of Assisting a Non-UK Person to Mutilate Overseas a Girl's Genitalia
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 10, leave out paragraph
(a).
The amendment raises the following issue, if I understand the Bill correctly.
It will become an offence for somebody going abroad to carry out, assist in or
procure—or whatever other phrase the Bill uses—this procedure in respect
of UK citizens or people permanently resident here. The only question I would
ask is, why stop there?
Parliament has the power to legislate and say that acts carried out abroad by
people who would otherwise be in this jurisdiction can be prosecuted in it. I
wonder whether we should be singling out UK citizens and
11 Jul 2003 : Column
1559
people normally
resident here as those we are trying to protect and whether we should be considering
the citizens of the world. I am not sure that I would like a distinction to be
made in respect of somebody who goes abroad to get involved in this ghastly business,
the victim of which might happen to be a Somali rather than a UK citizen. I think
that the crime is the same in both cases.
The only purpose of the amendment, if I have the wording correct, is to say that
if anybody goes from this country to get involved in this business elsewhere,
it is immaterial who the victim is. We do not seek any restriction that applies
only to UK citizens. The Bill's promoter or the Minister may tell me that that
is not possible because of how our legal system operates. If that is the justification,
I will stand corrected. For the moment, I would like to know why we do not protect
foreigners as much as our own people.
Paul Goggins: I appreciate the strong wish of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr.
Wilshire) to protect every girl from this procedure. All children should be protected
from female genital mutilation, whatever their nationality or residency. It does
not necessarily fall to the United Kingdom, however, to legislate to protect all
victims outside our jurisdiction, nor is it possible for us to do so. That is
why the offence of assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia
is restricted to cases in which the victim is a UK national or a permanent UK
resident. Without such a restriction, we would be making it an offence to assist
any female genital mutilation operation carried out abroad by a person with no
connection with the UK, and in which the victim has no connection with it. Restricting
application of the clause to victims who are UK nationals or permanent UK residents
increases the connection to the UK, and lessens the risk that another state may
object to the assertion of extra-territorial jurisdiction by the UK.
It is, of course, desirable to protect all victims from this dreadful practice,
and the Department for International Development supports a range of work throughout
the developing world to eradicate female genital mutilation. I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will accept that there is a limit to how far the UK can go in this regard,
and I ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Mr. George Osborne (Tatton): I want to join my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne
(Mr. Wilshire) in teasing out some answers.
The new offence is intended to
cover circumstances in which a family resident in the UK arranges for a girl to
be taken overseas for the purpose of an operation of this kind. However, as the
hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) probably knows—it has been pointed
out by the pressure group Forward—it does not cover those who are newly arrived
in Britain. That includes many of those who are most at risk. The group believes
that that could give rise to a fundamental inequality in the rights and protections
of, for example, African girls in Britain. There could be one rule for those who
have gained UK nationality, and another for those awaiting immigration decisions.
Forward wants the Bill to be amended so that
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1560
it offers protection to all girls, irrespective of nationality. I believe that
that has been done in other countries, such as Norway.
We are not talking
about all girls everywhere in the world; we are talking about girls in this country
who are awaiting immigration decisions and are then taken abroad. I should be
interested to hear a response from the Minister or the hon. Member for Cynon Valley.
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1560—continued
Mr. Wilshire: I understand what the
Minister said, but I am not sure that it covered the point that I was trying to
make. Perhaps I did not make it as clearly as I should have.
The reply that I received seemed to be that we might be seeking to become involved
in acts carried out by foreigners on foreign nationals, which would be extending
our attempts to legislate too far. I have no difficulty with that: I would deeply
resent, as I hope the Minister would, some other country passing legislation and
trying to control what went on in our jurisdiction. The clause that I want to
amend, however, relates to a person who
"aids, abets, counsels or procures
a person".
There is no attempt to say anything about the person carrying
out the operation, or the procedure, if that person is not a British subject.
There is no attempt to say that a foreigner who is not covered by our laws must
not carry it out because we will prosecute that person if he or she does so. I
understand clause 3 to refer to a UK citizen, who is prosecutable in this country,
who goes abroad and aids, abets, procures or encourages someone else. What concerns
me is the act of aiding and abetting, rather than the carrying out of the procedure.
I am not sure that I understand what the Minister said about why, if someone who
would normally be prosecutable in this country becomes involved in the aiding
and abetting—rather than the carrying out—that should be offensive to
a sovereign independent state.
1.45 pm
Paul Goggins: To
try to clarify the position, if the person in this country is the person who is
aiding and abetting, they will be open to prosecution. That is the purpose of
the legislation. What we are seeking to emphasise is that both the person who
is doing the aiding and abetting and the victim need to have that close connection
with the United Kingdom—that, in particular in relation to the victim, they
must be a citizen of the UK or a permanent resident here.
Mr. Wilshire: We have sought to take powers to treat certain things done outside
this country—for example, acts of terrorism or murder—as prosecutable
here. I hope that we will never get to a situation where we say, "We will
prosecute you for murder if you carry it out abroad, provided it is a UK citizen
whom you murder." I would have thought that where the victim is from was
not as important as the Minister wants me to accept, but I do not want the Bill
to get bogged down and disappear into a big black hole because of my being somewhat
pedantic, as the Minister may see it. I would be grateful if he gave the matter
some thought and, if there is anything more useful that he wants to say, wrote
to me about it. If he does write to me about it, I am sure that he will put a
copy in the Library.
Paul Goggins: I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman
to clarify the position further. May I
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1561
respond to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who asked about people newly
arrived in this country? Considerable thought has been given to the matter. Of
course, those newly arrived in this country who may be subjected to the procedure
here would already be covered by existing legislation. We regard it as highly
unlikely that someone who has just arrived here who is perhaps seeking asylum
will remove themselves or be removed from the country to go to another country
where the operation could be carried out, because if they did that, their application
for asylum would fall. Therefore, we believe that, in all the circumstances, we
have the balance about right.
Mr. Wilshire: In view of the Minister's offer
to write, I do not want to detain the House any longer. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8
Short Title, Commencement, Extent
and General Saving
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3,
line 13, leave out from 'on' to end of line 14 and insert
'the day after this Act receives Royal Assent.'.
The House will be relieved to know that this is the last of my amendments. Probably,
it is the one that either the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) , the promoter
of the Bill or the Minister could accept because to me, the layman in all this,
it is the obvious thing to do. Clause 8(2) says:
"This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order
made by statutory instrument appoint."
It would be out of the spirit
of the debate if I were to seek to repeat some of the things that I said earlier
on the Ragwort Control Bill. Suffice it to say that I have throughout my 16 years
here been deeply suspicious of Governments—all persuasions, I hasten to add
for the Minister, if he did not hear me say it before—introducing such provisions.
This is not an attack on his Government; it is probably an attack on all Governments.
I am deeply suspicious of provisions that say a Government may do something, because
experience teaches us that they usually do not. I would prefer "must"
or "shall".
We accept that the Bill is important and addresses a nasty problem that needs
urgent action. I do not like the idea that we pass the Bill, it becomes an Act,
we all say that it is wonderful, but there is a provision that says that it will
take effect only as and when a Secretary of State gets around to saying that it
will. I cannot for the life of me think of any good reason why the Bill does not
say that it shall come into effect the day after, the day or even the moment that
it receives Royal Assent. If it needs doing urgently and addresses a real problem,
why not get on with it? Having passed the measure and applauded the hon. Lady,
why have a provision saying that we must wait for a Minister, of whatever political
persuasion, to do something about it? I should be grateful if the Minister justified
why the amendment was not acceptable. If it is acceptable, I hope that he will
say that he is happy to accept it.
Paul Goggins: I understand the desire of the hon. Gentleman to make sure that
the Act comes into force
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1562
as soon as possible,
but I hope that I can reassure him. We all want the increased protection that
the Bill will bring to be put into place as soon as possible. The disadvantage
of the commencement date proposed by the amendment is that it would allow too
little time for law enforcement agencies, health professionals, social services
and others involved with child protection—and, crucially, the practising
communities themselves—to become fully informed about how the new law will
operate.
We take
this issue seriously and we know from discussions with those who work with the
practising communities that proper time for preparation and raising awareness
is crucial. Bringing the Act into force by order means that the implementation
period can be used for those agencies to promote the new law and its effects before
it comes into force. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will bring the Act into
force as soon as is practical. Our aim would be to do so within three months of
Royal Assent. It is important that there is flexibility and I hope that, with
that reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister, who has probably persuaded me of
the exact opposite of what he hoped. Only his mention of three months might save
us from catastrophe. I am conscious that dividing the House would have the unintended
consequence of bringing things crashing to a halt. That is not what I want to
do, and that is the real reason why I shall not press the amendment to the bitter
end.
There is an alternative comment to, "We need time to consult."
I see a danger of the following happening. Following Royal Assent, people will
go out and say, "In three months' time, these activities will be illegal."
We will have given people three months' notice to get on with it, and we could
have a great campaign and an outbreak of the activities that we are trying to
stop. I know why the Minister said that we need time to spread the word, and I
know that that is sensible, but there is another way around it.
It would be more realistic to bring the law into effect and say that we will phase
in enforcement over the period of consultation, preparation and explanation, but
if anyone were to decide that that was a justification for organising these activities
in the period, we would have the means to prosecute them. Doing it the Minister's
way has a serious danger. However, three months is three months, and we have that
on the record, which is hugely helpful. I shall not press this matter, because
it is important. Destroying the Bill is the last thing I want to do, so I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third Reading read.
1.53
pm
Ann Clwyd : I beg to move that the Bill be read the Third time.
I
shall be brief, as I have been at the bottom of a pile in this House, waiting
to propose a Bill. I thank everybody who has taken part in enabling the Bill to
reach this stage. The Bill cannot solve the problem of FGM overnight; legislation
on the issue has to go hand in hand with educating the practising communities
to abandon FGM and to raise awareness of the law.
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1563
Neither will it necessarily remove some of the barriers to prosecution. Many of
the victims are too young and vulnerable, or too afraid, to report offences because
they are under pressure from their families or their communities to remain silent.
We must create a climate in which victims will be able to come forward and receive
the help and support that they need to give evidence. Increasing the maximum penalty
reflects the seriousness with which this appalling practice is viewed and I hope
that it will have a greater deterrent effect than the present maximum of five
years.
As the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said in Committee,
if the Bill succeeds in sparing even one child or young woman the appalling suffering
that FGM causes, it will have been worth while. I therefore commend it to the
House.
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1563—continued
1.54
pm
Paul Goggins: I certainly want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member
for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—as, I am sure, do Members on both sides of the
House—on the way in which she has steered this Bill through the House of
Commons. It is very important legislation and a further example of her efforts
to uphold human rights in this country and throughout the world.
Female genital mutilation is a barbaric practice that is already illegal in this
country thanks, I might say, to the pioneering work of the hon. Member for Broxbourne
(Mrs. Roe), who introduced the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. This
practice cannot be justified on cultural, medical or any other grounds. It causes
extreme pain and suffering and often leads to permanent health problems. For all
of those reasons, the Government have supported the Bill very strongly.
The extent of the extra-territorial jurisdiction provided for in the Bill is unusual.
However, unlike some offences that are illegal in this country but legal abroad,
the offence of FGM is of international concern, and the UK has a proper interest
in suppressing it. The practice is rightly and widely regarded as a form of child
abuse, although those who belong to the communities that practise it may not see
it as such. It is right for us to strengthen our law in this way—we simply
cannot allow people with a close connection to the United Kingdom to evade the
law by temporarily leaving the country.
Of course, as others have said today and in Committee, legislation alone will
not eradicate FGM, which is deeply ingrained in the social fabric of the communities
that practise it. Educating them about the dangers and unacceptability of such
a brutal practice is the best way to break the cycle of mutilation. That is why
the Government support, and help to fund, organisations such as Forward and the
Agency for Culture and Change Management, which do such valuable work at grass-roots
level. And as I have already said, the Department for International Development
also funds and supports work to eradicate FGM in other countries.
Alongside education, we need to promote greater awareness of the law. Between
Royal Assent and the legislation's being brought into force, health professionals
and others will work with those communities that practise FGM in order that they
become aware of its provisions.
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1564
I conclude
by renewing my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley on
bringing the Bill this far. I commend it to the House and I hope that its passage
through another place will be equally successful.
1.57
pm
Mr. George Osborne : I, too, take this opportunity, on the Opposition's
behalf, to congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). She has
had a pretty memorable 12 months in this place—indeed, I saw her on television
the other day, being awarded the prize for Back Bencher of the year. That was
for other things, but I hope that she will also remember the past 12 months for
this Bill and what she is seeking to achieve through it.
I want briefly to acknowledge the work members of the all-party group on population,
development and reproductive health—which includes people from both sides
of the House—under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Calder Valley
(Chris McCafferty). That group has been particularly active in lobbying on this
issue. And I join the Minister in once again congratulating my hon. Friend the
Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who first brought this issue to the House's
attention in 1985.
Before I finish I want briefly to discuss one point. Of course, there have been
no prosecutions under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985—although
two doctors have been struck off the register—so we must ask whether the
Bill will lead to an increased likelihood of successful prosecutions in this country.
There are already great difficulties in communicating the law to immigrant communities
and in taking action to protect girls from this practice. An increase in the maximum
penalty or the creation of new offences will be academic if knowledge is poor
and prosecution remains almost impossible to obtain.
In general, however,
we very much welcome the Bill, which provides a valuable opportunity to improve
the protection of girls and women in the UK. The House's handling of it is a welcome
reflection of this issue's importance and the seriousness with which it deserves
to be treated. I commend the Bill to the House.
1.59
pm
Dr. Tonge : The Liberal Democrats also welcome the Bill. On behalf of all
health and social services professionals in this country, I would like to thank
the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for choosing this issue when she
won the ballot for a private Member's Bill. The subject has exercised many people
for the last 20 years and the problem has escalated during that time. As the hon.
Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said, I hope that the Bill will lead to prosecutions.
Only by that means will we manage to highlight the problem. I thank the hon. Lady—and
everyone else who has helped to pilot the Bill through the House—from the
bottom of my heart.
2
pm
Mr. Wilshire : I, too, will be brief, because we have other business to
consider. Having perhaps worried the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)
by my amendments, I would like to take the opportunity to
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1565
congratulate her on performing a huge service to
all political parties and the whole House. She has helped this country to give
a lead to other countries to take firm action against what the Minister described
as a "barbaric practice"—I could not think of a better phrase myself.
It is indeed extremely barbaric.
On the number of prosecutions to which the Bill will lead, I would like to think
that just one prosecution will get the message out pretty firmly and pretty smartish.
If this practice continues, I certainly hope that there will be one prosecution
and, if it continues after the first, I hope that there will be lots more prosecutions.
We must take action; we must prosecute; we must send out the message. On the issue
of the appropriate penalty, I was relieved that my hon. Friend the Member for
Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) did not press his amendment to reduce it, because
I would have been forced to debate whether 14 years was adequate. I accept the
hon. Lady's wisdom on that.
The Bill is, sadly, necessary, and it is timely. I commend the hon. Lady and I
commend the Bill to the other place. The quicker it gets on the statute book,
the better.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third
time, and passed.
11 Jul 2003 : Column 1566