Ann Clwyd MP
FGM Bill Second Reading
Debate
21 Mar 2002
|
|
Ann Clwyd MP |
FGM Bill Second Reading |
Debate |
21 Mar 2002 |
"enjoyment
of the highest attainable standard of health",
as laid down in article
24 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.
FGM was probably
never legal in this country, because it almost certainly constitutes an offence
against the person. However, in order to remove any ambiguity that may have existed
in law, it was decided to make the practice explicitly illegal. The Prohibition
of Female Circumcision Act was the result of a private Member's Bill introduced
by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), and I congratulate her
on that. It was supported by the Government of the day, and the Bill before us
follows in this tradition. It will strengthen and extend the protections then
put in place.
Legal protection against FGM is also provided by the Children
Act 1989. If a local authority has reason to believe that a child is likely to
suffer significant harm, it is obliged to make such inquiries as it considers
necessary to enable it to decide whether it should take action to safeguard or
to promote the child's welfare. Under the 1989 Act, a prohibited steps order can
also be
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1193
made to prevent parents from carrying
out a particular act without the consent of the court. So the court could, even
now, take steps to prevent the removal of a child from the UK so that mutilation
might be carried out abroad.
As I have said, to date, there have been no
prosecutions under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act. That could be,
at least in part, because people who practise FGM tend to live in closed communities,
and because many of the victims are so young and vulnerable that offences are
not reported to the police. I hope that the strong message sent out by this Bill
and the unanimity of community leaders on this issue will, in themselves, help
to encourage communities to stamp out this hidden abuse. However, the lack of
prosecutions may also be because our current law can be evaded. The fact that
people can-indeed, evidence suggests that they do-circumvent the 1985 Act by taking
young girls abroad for FGM, has been seen for some time as a loophole in law.
In November 2000, the all-party parliamentary group on population, development
and reproductive health issued a report on its survey of, and hearings on, FGM,
which were carried out earlier that year. The purpose of the hearings was to raise
awareness of FGM, and to generate support for prevention and eradication programmes.
The group was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty),
who has a long-standing interest in this subject, and who has put a great deal
of effort into trying to get the law changed. She was supported by a very distinguished
panel of people.
The all-party group made several recommendations for changes
to existing legislation. Those included substituting the term "genital mutilation"
for "circumcision" in the legislation; ensuring that UK residents who
take girls abroad for FGM, even to countries where the practice is lawful, can
be prosecuted on their return to the UK; and increasing the maximum penalty for
FGM. I am pleased to say that the Bill will give effect to all those recommendations.
First, the Bill will repeal and re-enact the 1985 Act. The short title of
the Bill describes more accurately the prohibited acts and removes any suggestion
of acceptability that the word "circumcision" might imply. Secondly,
and more importantly, the Bill gives extra-territorial effect to the existing
provisions. That means that any of the prohibited acts done outside the UK by
a UK national or permanent UK resident will be an offence under domestic law and
triable in the courts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Permanent UK residents
are people who ordinarily live in this country without being subject under the
immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which they may remain. The
Bill will therefore catch those with a substantial connection to the UK, but not
those who are here temporarily, for example, foreign students or visitors.
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1193-continued
Mr. Djanogly: If a mature woman were to
go abroad of her own free will to have such an operation, for whatever reason,
would that be permitted under the Bill?
Ann Clwyd: I would not expect so
for one moment, although I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by a mature
woman.
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1194
Mr. Djanogly: Not a child.
Ann
Clwyd: Such matters can be further explored in Committee. I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will become a member of the Committee, as he is obviously very interested
in the subject.
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): This is an important Bill and
I support it. However, for the sake of clarity and for the record, will the hon.
Lady confirm that the terrible things that she has described in her speech are
separate from the body piercing that takes place in the UK? Is that a completely
separate issue, or is there any overlap?
Ann Clwyd: It is a completely separate
issue.
It is unusual in international law for a state to take jurisdiction
over acts committed abroad by its residents, permanent or otherwise, as well as
its nationals, especially when there is no requirement for the act to be illegal
in the country in which it is committed. However, it is important that we take
that step in this case. We have a duty to protect all our residents. The new Bill
will mean that people who have a close connection with the UK, in the form of
permanent residence, cannot evade the scope of the Bill by temporarily leaving
the UK.
Thirdly, the Bill will increase the maximum penalty for FGM from
five to 14 years' imprisonment. Other than life imprisonment, that is the highest
sentence that can be imposed and reflects how seriously we take the offence.
There is no quick fix to the problem of FGM in this country or abroad. It is,
unfortunately, too deeply embedded in the culture of the practising communities.
Legislation on its own cannot eradicate it, but the Bill will send a powerful
message about the unacceptability of FGM to those who seek to perpetuate that
abhorrent practice.
9.54 am
Mrs. Marion Roe (Broxbourne): I congratulate
the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on being successful in the private
Member's Bill ballot and on choosing the very important issue of female genital
mutilation as the subject of her Bill. I also wish to thank her for her kind remarks.
As one of the sponsors of the Bill, I give my full support to its principles and
wish it every success during its course through the parliamentary process. I also
congratulate the all-party parliamentary group on population, development and
reproductive health on its report, which was published in November 2000, and on
the work that it has done to raise the profile of the issue again in recent years.
I first heard about female genital mutilation, or female circumcision as
it was known in those days, in the late 1970s, when I was a member of the Greater
London council. As a local government representative in London, I became aware
that female genital mutilation was being practised in the United Kingdom by certain
immigrant communities. That horrified me. It is not only a violation of every
child's rights, but is physically harmful and has serious consequences for a girl's
health.
As soon as I became a Member of Parliament in 1983, I began to seek
support from other parliamentarians of all parties, as well as the Conservative
Government, for
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1195
a private Member's Bill to
prohibit female circumcision in the United Kingdom. Although there was much pressure
from the immigrant communities affected-I was called a racist and I was accused
of intervening in religious freedoms, cultural traditions and so on-my Bill became
the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act, 18 years ago. It was one of the first
pieces of legislation on the issue in the world.
In formulating my Bill,
for which I received full co-operation from both sides of the House, I was at
great pains to block every avenue whereby those wishing to continue FGM in the
UK could get around the law. I remind the House that I was breaking new ground
and had no examples of similar legislation to call on from other countries. For
example, much pressure was exerted on me not to include explicit wording on a
surgical operation by a registered medical practitioner on a girl for her mental
health. Obviously, the intent was to use the stress on a girl who is not conforming
to a traditional practice as an excuse to find a gap in the legislation. Although
the Bill would change the wording of my Act, I warn hon. Members of the importance
of including in the Bill clarification of its intent, so that there is no question
that those who wish to find loopholes to exploit will be able to do so.
I
strongly believed that making FGM unlawful was only a first step. More needed
to be done to persuade those parents and family members involved to change their
behaviour. While my Bill was passing through Parliament, I persuaded the Conservative
Government to guarantee funding for educational purposes, not only in the United
Kingdom but internationally, to eliminate the practice. I am pleased to say that
the present Labour Government have continued to honour that commitment, providing
hundreds of thousands of pounds for educational programmes and research, including
partly funding the all-party parliamentary group report on population, development
and reproductive health, to which I alluded earlier and which produced many worthwhile
recommendations to the Government on the issue.
I should also like to take
this opportunity to pay tribute to the many excellent voluntary and charity groups,
such as Rainbo and Forward, which do magnificent work at the grass-roots level
among the communities. Their efforts are vital and I am sure that they and other
non-governmental organisations will be able to give expert advice to members of
the Committee on how to ensure that the principles of the Bill protect young girls
effectively in the way that is needed. The Government continue to give grants
to NGOs as a contribution to their core activities, including collecting data
on FGM in the United Kingdom; addressing linked practices impinging on FGM, such
as early marriage and childbirth; and mobilising men in the practising communities,
something that is very important indeed.
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes): Does
the hon. Lady acknowledge the role that many women's monthly magazines play in
educating young women about the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation?
Mrs. Roe: I certainly accept that. Awareness programmes, wherever they come
from, are much appreciated and desperately needed.
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1196
On the international scene, since 1997-these are the earliest figures that I have,
but I know that international funding was given earlier-£226,000 has been
given in aid to a project in Gambia, £200,000 has been allocated to a well
women media project in the horn of Africa, £150,000 has been granted to
Burkina Faso to assist in overcoming traditional practices harmful to women, and
£140,000 has been used to support the World Health Organisation in training
health care providers on the prevention of FGM and the management of complications
in Ghana, Egypt, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Cameroon. Many more countries have
received the sort of aid that is vital to programmes that they are trying to initiate.
The European Parliament has also considered the issue, making nine recommendations
to all member states on 20 September 2001 to condemn FGM as a violation of human
rights and as a crime.
Not only should FGM be made illegal and educational
programmes be initiated, but social workers and the medical professions should
be included in the fight to eliminate the practice. Their participation is crucial.
The British Medical Association has published detailed guidelines on FGM that
are of interest to many of those who must deal with women who suffer the after-effects
of FGM. That demonstrates the influence that doctors, nurses, social workers and
teachers can have when they work in communities that practise FGM. Their sensitive
involvement can have a lasting effect, particularly among younger women.
My all-party friends and I, having taken my Bill through Parliament and seen it
become an Act, believed that we had done something worth while and that FGM in
the UK would, in time, become a thing of the past. We were therefore gravely disappointed
to discover that no prosecutions were being brought under the 1985 Act. When I
questioned why that was so, I was told that it was impossible to persuade children
to testify against their parents and families. It seemed to me, however, that
there was also a conspiracy of silence among certain members of the immigrant
communities, which was very difficult to break. It became apparent that children
from immigrant communities were being sent back to their country of origin for
a so-called holiday so that FGM could be carried out.
My Prohibition of Female
Circumcision Act makes FGM illegal if it takes place within the jurisdiction of
the United Kingdom. A person may be guilty of conspiracy if he or she conspires
in the UK to commit FGM in a country where it is also illegal. However, a person
cannot be guilty of conspiracy if the FGM occurs in a country in which it is legal.
It is not an offence to conspire in the UK to commit an act abroad that is not
illegal in both the UK and the country in which it is planned to occur. The question
of a prosecution being brought under UK law on a family's return from abroad has
been a matter of great concern to me over recent years. I am delighted that it
is being addressed in the new Bill.
We must not forget those young girls
and women who have already suffered FGM. At no time should they be made to feel
stigmatised. Seven specialist clinics deal with FGM, seeing women without specific
referral from their doctors. They also undertake reversal surgery on mutilated
women, which proves effective in some cases. The well-known clinic at Guy's hospital
in London does magnificent work.
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1197
A positive
approach to FGM is evident in the UK. We must continue our commitment to women's
rights with dedication and perseverance. I have also been pursuing my quest to
eradicate FGM beyond our shores. With other Members of Parliament of all parties,
I have represented the UK at Inter-Parliamentary Union conferences for more than
five years and have raised matters of concern relating to children, including
child labour, child health and female genital mutilation. The IPU organised a
panel discussion on "Violence Against Women-FGM" during its 106th conference
in Burkina Faso in September 2001. Its purpose was to make parliamentarians aware
of the importance of eliminating this harmful traditional practice. The session
was well attended by men and women Members of Parliament who wanted to take the
matter further.
A further brainstorming session was organised at the next
IPU conference in Marrakesh, Morroco in March 2002, and a parliamentary think-tank
for the eradiction of FGM was created. The six members of the panel were Members
of Parliament from Kenya, Nigeria, Norway, Uganda, Senegal and the United Kingdom.
I am the UK member. The panel has been mandated to study the possibility of working
towards an international convention on the eradication of FGM and organising,
if need be, a parliamentary conference on parliamentary action to eradicate FGM.
That conference should be convened jointly by the IPU and the African Parliamentary
Union. It should bring together MPs, Inter-African Committee representatives,
religious and traditional leaders, non-governmental organisations, and former
practitioners of FGM, as well as many others involved in the issue.
A further
meeting of the parliamentary think-tank will be held at the next IPU conference
in Santiagio next month and discussions should result in the presentation of recommendations
to the International Council of the IPU on FGM and on further work to be done
in the field by the IPU, in co-operation with the APU, and by national Governments.
The IPU has also set up sections on FGM on its website, including details of countries
throughout the world in which FGM is practised and what action, if any, Governments
have taken to eliminate it. The idea of the website is to disseminate information
to anybody and everybody who has an interest in eradicating FGM so that the wheel
need not be reinvented and good practice can be spread. Many African countries
have found the website extremely helpful.
I also attended a conference-"Zero
Tolerance to FGM"-in Addis Ababa in February, which was organised by an NGO,
the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women
and Children. I listened with great interest to presentations and comments made
by young and old people representing NGOs and voluntary organisations from countries
throughout Africa, as well as representatives of UNICEF and the World Health Organisation.
They described plans to mobilise religious leaders, community leaders and youth
with projects for entrepreneurial training for former circumcisers so that they
can find new employment. There are, of course, also many awareness programmes.
I remind hon. Members that every year 2 million young girls are estimated
to be at risk from this harmful practice. It was a heartening experience to hear
religious
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1198
leaders explaining that there is
no religious base to FGM and also to hear young men condemning that abuse of human
rights. At the conference there were former circumcisers who had abandoned their
practice and were now preaching to their communities the error of their ways.
The conference adopted a common agenda for action and concluded that the
fight against FGM called for a concerted and co-ordinated approach with periodic
consultation and the exchange of information between all those involved in its
eradication, including parliamentarians. It also endorsed the role of advocacy
and lobbying to influence policy within Governments at regional, national and
international levels, and declared 6 February to be an international day of zero
tolerance towards FGM. The target is to eliminate FGM completely by 2010.
We parliamentarians, male and female, must work together if we are to eradicate
FGM. We must give encouragement and assist our international colleagues in making
FGM illegal wherever it is practised. I congratulate those who have already done
so-for example, Burkina Faso, which passed a law declaring FGM illegal in November
1996 and set up a national committee to combat the practice. We must support educational
programmes and ensure that adequate funding can be found for awareness projects.
We must continue the fight until we have achieved our goal of preventing young
girls and women from undergoing violation and suffering. Only our determination,
our voices and our actions will establish their rights and remove health risks.
We have that power, and I wish the Bill-an extension of my Bill-a safe passage
through its procedures as a further step forward along the long road to halt the
violation of the rights of children and women.
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1198-continued
10.12 am
Chris McCafferty (Calder Valley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the
Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on having the courage to promote the Bill
and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on having had the foresight
to promote the original Bill in 1985.
As a politician, I am not an expert
on female genital mutilation, and as a woman I can only begin to imagine the personal
trauma and suffering that the practice causes to women who have been subjected
to it. I intend to base my remarks on the findings of the parliamentary hearings
on FGM that I chaired in May 2000. It is important to set out a few main statistics.
It is estimated that 130 million girls have undergone FGM and that every year
2 million girls worldwide are at risk of undergoing some form of the practice.
The procedure is usually performed on girls between the ages of four and 13. The
World Health Organisation has stated that FGM doubles the risk of the mother's
death in childbirth and increases by up to three to four times the risk of the
child being born dead. As we have heard, most of the women and girls affected
live in Africa, but women and girls who have undergone, or are at risk of undergoing,
FGM are increasingly found in western Europe and other developing countries, primarily
among immigrant and refugee communities.
In the United Kingdom, no national
FGM prevalence data are available, but it is estimated that 3,000 to 4,000 girls
are subjected to FGM here in the UK every year. It
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1199
was in that context that the all-party group on population, development and reproductive
health decided to take on board the issue of FGM and to hold parliamentary hearings.
At those hearings, we heard evidence from a wide range of experts from the UK
and abroad. The witnesses gave evidence on issues such as training, the effectiveness
of the law against FGM, support services and care and work with community-based
organisations.
A law on female circumcision-the Prohibition of Female Circumcision
Act 1985-already exists, but there have never been any prosecutions, despite evidence
that FGM is taking place in this country. It is estimated that more than 7,000
girls in the UK are at risk every year.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings
and Rye): My hon. Friend suggests that there have never been any prosecutions.
There is presumably no time limit on prosecutions, so could not women who have
come forward to welfare groups and so forth be encouraged to give evidence, albeit
perhaps many years later?
Chris McCafferty: I am sure that that is the case.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, such matters are more appropriately
debated when the Bill reaches Committee, as I hope that it does. I know that it
has support on both sides of the House, and I am sure that it will proceed.
There are probably many reasons why there have been no prosecutions, but the survey
that we conducted prior to the parliamentary hearings suggested that the two main
reasons are lack of awareness of the law and fear of cultural sensitivities. Our
questionnaire was sent to all the organisations that we identified as working
on FGM in the UK, Europe, Africa and the USA. In the UK, questionnaires were sent
to every health authority and local authority and to all social services departments
and refugee councils. Surprisingly, fewer than half the people surveyed-only 46
per cent.-mentioned awareness of the law. In the UK, there was a fear of being
seen as racist, and the survey of the questionnaires also showed that 25 per cent.
of the UK respondents expressed a fear of being perceived to be culturally insensitive.
FGM is a fundamental human rights issue with adverse health and social implications;
it violates the rights of women and girls to bodily integrity. The issues raised
by it are many and complex. It is a cultural practice that communities living
in the UK may hold on to more strongly than communities back in their home countries,
as it becomes an important part of their identity here in Britain or in other
countries. As with other instances of abuse of women, many women who have had
it done to themselves become strong advocates for its continuance. That is sad,
but true. The right of one dominant culture to criticise or to try to stop a practice
of another minority culture is rightly a subject for debate. Germaine Greer famously
entered the debate when she compared FGM to cosmetic surgery carried out on American
women and questioned our right to sit in judgment on other cultures. Our hearings,
however, concluded very firmly that respect for other cultures should not include
condoning or ignoring
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1200
practices that abuse
and deny human rights. Personally, I believe that cultures are sacrosanct only
if they are consistent with human rights.
One of the witnesses at our hearings
was Linda Weil-Curiel, an advocate from France who has been responsible for bringing
several circumcisers to court in France. She said to us:
"Torture
is not culture . . . if a white child is cut . . . it would cause a scandal. Why
should we be quiet if it is a black child? She does not suffer less. She is no
less entitled to her physical integrity. You should not . . . make any discrimination
between women. What hurts a white child hurts a black child."
I think
that that is very important to remember when dealing with this sensitive issue.
At the hearings, I asked why she thought that there had been no prosecutions
in the UK. "Because you are chicken," she replied. She may have a point.
We have had a law banning FGM for more than 15 years but we have had no prosecutions.
Yet we know that thousands of girls are at risk here in the UK. Government and
NGO workers who are responsible for FGM issues are unclear of the law.
As
my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne has said, health and social care professionals
have an important role to play in addressing FGM in the UK. Clinical staff are
much more likely to see examples of FGM in their work, especially if they serve
areas with high populations from, for example, east Africa. I am pleased that
that British Medical Association has issued new guidance, helping doctors to educate
families about the health and legal issues that surround this practice, and ultimately,
I hope, preventing girls from being mutilated-even if that means initiating child
protection proceedings. Inter-agency co-operation is the key to addressing FGM.
The NHS has very little data about FGM, largely because it has not set out
to look for such data. Our report recommended that the Department of Health should
undertake much more data collection and then make use of those data when developing
policies. So far, that has not happened. I am aware that the specialist NGO, Forward,
has applied to the Department of Health for project grants to collect data on
FGM and to address linked practices. I believe that Forward and similar groups
are especially well placed to do that work. I have written to the Secretary of
State to reiterate the need to obtain accurate data on the prevalence of FGM in
the UK as soon as possible. We have also called on the Government to make use
of our report when they produce their national sexual health and HIV strategy.
I was delighted to see that the strategy states that FGM is
"illegal,
unacceptable, and a violation of human rights".
It also states that
there is a need to raise the awareness and skills of health, education and social
services professionals, and acknowledges that local services need to support community
initiatives that are aimed at stopping this practice.
As has already been
said, the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act entered into force on 16 July
1985, making FGM illegal in the UK. There have been no prosecutions under that
law so far. It is vital that this new law is fully implemented and that our Government
and agencies work together for the elimination of this practice. A number of recommendations
from our hearings have already been acted on but we need to
21 Mar 2003 :
Column 1201
move things further forward in order to combat this harmful and
unnecessary attack on women's sexuality and autonomy.
I am pleased to see
that the proposed changes include many recommendations from the hearings-in particular,
changing the name of the female circumcision Act 1985 to incorporate the term
female genital mutilation; and, very importantly, changing the Act to ensure that
UK residents who take girls abroad for FGM can be prosecuted under UK law on their
return, regardless of the legal status of FGM in the country where it takes place.
Sentences will also be lengthened. This is a serious and abhorrent offence and
the length of sentences should reflect that.
As a matter of policy, I hope
that the provisions will extend to all UK residents, including asylum seekers.
I note that the Bill does not include anything to do with the monitoring of FGM
and the roles of relevant agencies. Important though these issues are, I understand
that they are not measures that can be included in this Bill. However, I hope
that the Department of Health will look carefully at the need to monitor the incidence
of FGM in this country. Legislation alone, as we all know, will not eradicate
this practice. The aim of strengthening the law in this way is to send a strong
message about the unacceptability of FGM and, we hope, to have a deterrent effect.
If this Bill does become law, I hope that it will provide a useful springboard
for taking forward wider enforcement and education activities. The Agency for
Culture and Change Management is, I understand, already organising an FGM conference
as a follow-up to this Bill. The all-party group on population, development and
reproductive health will certainly support that initiative.
Today I have
focused on the situation and the education needs in the UK. However, our hearings
also looked at FGM in the international context. I would like to conclude with
a quote from one of our witnesses-a Senegalese village elder and imam called Pa
Demba Diawara-who, at the age of 65, and after going on an education programme
with a local NGO-Tostan project-to learn to read and write, has worked with his
local community to abandon the practice of FGM. Demba gave evidence to our FGM
hearings and told us:
"If I
had known what I know now, I would have started 10 years ago. I did not know the
amount of suffering our women had gone through. I did not know that the women
in the village, who were sterile, had infections after their operations. I did
not know that the girls who had died had died because of this practice . . . We
men never talked about it. We never asked and we just never knew."
I
hope that this Bill will ensure that more people do ask and do know about FGM
so that the practice is abandoned worldwide.
21
Mar 2003 : Column 1201-continued
10.27 am
Sandra Gidley (Romsey): I will
try to be brief but I want to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cynon
Valley (Ann Clwyd) on introducing this Bill because it is exceptionally important.
I would also like to put on record my congratulations to the hon. Member for Broxbourne
(Mrs. Roe). Fifteen years ago, this subject was really unknown and it is a testament
to the work that she did that we are here today in an atmosphere of much less
opposition to bringing the measures forward.
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1202
Liberal Democrats support this Bill. I welcome especially the change in the name
of the legislation from female circumcision to female genital mutilation. Some
people are unhappy with the term FGM because they think that it is over-emotive-I
do not think that it is. The word "circumcision" seems to give a medical
respectability to the issue-although my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park
(Dr. Tonge), who feels very strongly about the issue, would disagree with me on
that point. I think that the word "mutilation" sums things up very well.
It is very important to extend the measures in the original Bill so that
people who take children out of the UK for FGM are subject to that legislation.
I welcome the fact that the crime is now regarded as more serious. It is a great
disappointment that there have been no prosecutions but, if we can keep on raising
awareness, I hope that the heavier penalty, combined with that greater awareness,
will lead to a reduction in the problem. I also welcome the inclusion of UK residents
as well as nationals in the legislation. I share the view of the hon. Member for
Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) that we have to find a way of including people
who are in this country temporarily.
However, there are a number of problems
with the Bill that will require further discussion on Second Reading. It is interesting
to note that the two male Members who have spoken in this debate have hinted at
something regarding older women, but not quite said it. What they may have been
referring to, but could not bring themselves to talk about, was the subject of
a programme that I recently saw on television called "Designer Vaginas".
It was eye-opening-and eye-watering. It illustrated the fact that an increasing
body of women in this country are going abroad to have cosmetic surgery to the
vaginal area.
If we think back for a moment to female genital mutilation,
this really is a problem of the subjugation of women by men; 'twas ever so. Men
wanted to cut bits of female genitalia away so that women would not stray because
they did not enjoy sex too much; it kept women in their place. How much of the
move towards the designer vagina comes from women? In the media-the magazines
and films that pander to the male taste-there is an image of a fairly follically
challenged female with a certain style, and women think that there is something
wrong with them if they do not look like something out of Playboy. That is obviously
rubbish and we should get the message across that women are okay as they are,
thank you very much, and do not need to mess about with themselves in that way.
That observation brings me to an important point, because my understanding
of the Bill is that it will make cosmetic surgery to the vaginal area illegal.
I have no problem with that, but the issue should definitely be explored in Committee.
It is regarded as a choice issue. I do not think that we should make any exceptions
for white women expressing a choice for fashion reasons, when we are stopping
black women, who may have no choice, perhaps because they are children, from having
surgery. We must ensure that no distinction is drawn between these two practices,
and it should all be part of the same message. Perhaps the Minister would like
to comment on whether women undergoing surgery in those circumstances, where there
is no medical need, would be covered by the Bill; I believe that they should be.
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1203
FGM is a large-scale problem. The figure of
3,500 has been mentioned, but I have seen work that says that, every year, as
many as 7,000 girls under the age of 16 may be at risk of undergoing FGM. We must
find a way of targeting those communities at risk. Very few charities are working
at the grass roots; I am only aware of four: Rainbo; Forward, which has only two
members of staff; the Agency for Culture and Change Management and the London
Black Women's Health and Family Support Organisation, which is also suffering
from lack of funding. Their work is highly regarded. Change can be achieved only
by work in the community. I think that it was the hon. Member for Broxbourne who
said that we must ensure that health visitors, school nurses, even teachers, are
familiar with the problem, because often a teacher may be the first to become
aware of the problem when she realises that a girl is off physical education lessons
for a few weeks after a holiday abroad. We must find a way of handling the issue
sensitively but, more important, raising awareness so that children are not mutilated
in that way in the first place.
Sarah McCulloch, National Director of the
Agency for Culture and Change Management, has argued:
"New
legislation will be most effective if area child protection committees use it
proactively. In July last year the Sheffield area child protection committee wrote
an open letter to all Somali parents informing them of the health problems associated
with FGM and advising them that if they were planning to take their children on
holiday for FGM they should reconsider . . . It caused a furore. People were so
angry and said we were attacking their culture. But the feedback was that people
were afraid and some families cancelled their trip."
Much has been said
about human rights today, but although those are very important, we must also
stress the health benefits of not having FGM done. Relevant figures have been
mentioned; I will not repeat them, but the health message must be the predominant
one, because at the moment this procedure subjects women to increased morbidity
in later life.
I support the Bill. There are some reservations about things
that could be reviewed in Committee, but on balance, I am delighted that the legislation
is before us today.
10.34 am
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley): I have been told
that I have two or three minutes, so I simply want to place on record my support
for my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and her Bill. Cultural
difference must never be accepted as an excuse for the denial of the human rights
of vulnerable people, whether we are talking about FGM, forced marriages or honour
killings.
We should also be looking in Committee towards an educational programme
in schools where there are children who are perceived to be at risk of FGM. There
could be problems there. When I tried to visit schools and talk about the problems
of forced marriages, I was not allowed to do so because a majority of the governors
were either parents or politically correct people who agreed with parents. I got
into one school but was not allowed into two others.
21 Mar 2003 : Column
1204
I am a member of the Council of Europe equal opportunities committee,
and two years ago in Paris we held a hearing on this subject. It was the most
squirm-making meeting that I have ever attended; it was hideous. Victims, doctors,
gynaecologists and social workers were there. It was the first time that I was
aware of the horror of FGM.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Calder
Valley (Chris McCafferty) that, on some issues, perhaps we should not be put off
by charges of cultural insensitivity. Sometimes I feel as though I want to rejoice
in cultural insensitivity, especially when it is about FGM and forced marriages,
since, as my hon. Friend says, cultural differences can only be sacrosanct when
they respect human rights.
10.36 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham):
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue in the House this morning.
I offer my personal and my party's congratulations to the hon. Member for Cynon
Valley (Ann Clwyd) on her choice of subject for the Bill. I also recognise the
sensitivity of the issue, given that we are talking about some deeply held, traditional
cultural practices, which affect some of the most vulnerable groups in society,
but I commend the way in which the hon. Lady has approached this subject over
many years. Standing here at the Dispatch Box, I feel that I have been here before
in other debates on women's issues with the women in the Chamber. I hope that
the Bill makes progress today.
I take this chance to acknowledge the work
of colleagues from all parties on the all-party parliamentary group on population
development and reproductive health, under the formidable chairmanship of the
hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty), who has spoken again with fluency
this morning. The group has been very active over the past few years in lobbying
and drawing attention to the issue of FGM. I also pay tribute to the commitment
of some of our Conservative colleagues in that group: my hon. Friends the Members
for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Epping Forest
(Mrs. Laing), who make a great contribution as well.
The hon. Member for
Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who spoke so briefly-I wish that she had spoken for longer-is
a well-known champion against forced marriages and I join her in that campaign.
I wish her more power and more access to the communities where she can convey
her message.
Lastly, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe)
is second to none in her contribution to this debate and to stopping the abhorrent
practice of FGM. She has made a unique contribution over many years and continues
to spread the message at home and abroad about this utterly dreadful procedure.
I think that we are all in agreement that FGM is a serious problem, demanding
an effective multi-agency response. All forms of FGM are mutilating and carry
serious health risks. However, the immediate and long-term health consequences
of FGM vary according to the type and severity of the procedure performed. The
immediate and short-term health implications include severe pain and shock, tetanus
and other infections,
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1205
extensive damage to the
external reproductive system, vaginal and pelvic infections, and even immediate
fatal haemorrhaging. Last but not least, there may be psychological damage. As
we have heard, FGM can also cause complications later on in pregnancy and childbirth,
including an increased risk of stillbirth or haemorrhaging from internal tearing.
It doubles the risk of the mother's death in childbirth and increases by three
or four times the risk of the child being stillborn.
The roots of FGM are
complex and numerous; indeed, it has not been possible to determine when or where
the tradition originated. However, I agree with earlier speakers that it is not,
as is sometimes stated, an Islamic issue. The practice of FGM crosses religious,
ethnic and cultural lines. In cultures where it is an accepted norm, it is practised
by followers of all religious beliefs, as well as by animists and non-believers.
FGM is carried out for sociological reasons, such as initiating girls into
womanhood in their society, and sometimes for misguided religious reasons. It
is carried out for dangerously misunderstood hygiene and aesthetic reasons, and
to lower female sexual desire, to maintain chastity and virginity before marriage
and to increase male sexual pleasure. Ironically, it may also be believed to enhance
fertility and chances of child survival, which is certainly not the case. What
is clear is that those varied reasons stem from traditional power inequalities
and the ensuring compliance of women to the dictates of their communities.
We have all heard about the excellent work in this area of NGOs, charities and
even magazines, but the issue is about the beliefs and position of women in society,
and it is about the expectations, and often the role, of men. It is often about
sheer ignorance, particularly of the dangers of the practice. I, too, was moved
by the words of the Senegalese village leader who addressed the all-party parliamentary
group. He said:
"We men never
talked about it. We never asked and we just never knew."
Above all,
however, this issue is about children. FGM, with its serious and sometimes devastating
consequences, is carried out on children from when they are only a few days old
into adolescence. Girls aged between five and 10 are particularly at risk from
that damaging mutilation, which is performed for cultural reasons that they cannot
yet understand. Like the hon. Member for Calder Valley, I was impressed by the
French advocate who said in her evidence to the all-party group:
"What
hurts a white child hurts a black child."
There lies the heart of the
argument, and some uncertainty.
FGM is child abuse, and as such requires
carefully planned and sensitive interventions into the family situation. Health
practitioners and the organisation Forward, which has been mentioned, do valuable
work in campaigning against that practice among African communities in Britain.
However, they believe that FGM is a significant and growing problem in the United
Kingdom, and we will fail to tackle it unless we ensure that agencies are equipped
to deal with it.
I was alarmed to read the evidence given to the all-party
group by Dr. Faith Mwaangi-Powell of Forward, in which she said:
21 Mar 2003
: Column 1206
"Yesterday I was
speaking to a social worker from Leicester. She told me she had a case of a mother
with two girls who were both four weeks old. The mother was intending to have
them circumcised and she"-
the social worker-
"was
asking what she could do. She is terrified; she does not even want to talk to
the woman."
We must ensure that our agencies are equipped to deal with
the problem here in our own backyard.
In 1985, Parliament legislated to outlaw
FGM. Under that Act, it is an offence to carry out FGM or to aid, abet, counsel
or procure the performance of FGM by another person. The offence carries a maximum
penalty of five years' imprisonment. The only exceptions are cases in which a
surgical operation is necessary for the physical or mental health of the person
on which it is performed, and cases in which such surgery is performed on a person
who is in any stage of labour or has just given birth, and it is performed for
purposes connected with that labour or birth. Those exceptions are valid only
when the procedures are carried out by an appropriately registered medical practitioner.
As several Members have said, however, to date there have been no prosecutions
under the 1985 Act. France has the best record, with between 20 and 25 prosecutions
having been undertaken. There, notably, children at risk are checked out at school
for evidence of FGM. We should consider adding such a provision to the Bill, if
possible. In this country, two doctors have been struck off for serious professional
misconduct in carrying out, or offering to carry out, FGM. As has been said, the
lack of prosecutions here is largely because people under pressure from their
family or community are reluctant to give evidence.
The first question that
we must ask is whether the Bill will increase the likelihood of successful prosecutions
for FGM in Britain. I am afraid that on that point I remain unconvinced. There
are already great difficulties in communicating the law to immigrant communities,
and there are further difficulties in taking action to protect girls from this
practice. An increase in the maximum penalty is likely to be academic if knowledge
of the offence is poor and prosecution remains almost impossible.
That is
why any legislation on this issue must be accompanied by work with communities
to explain the law and address their knowledge and beliefs. If the Government
want to strengthen provisions against people who carry out FGM, they must also
ensure that community-based local strategies provide education and support. Several
grassroots community organisations and interest groups, such as Forward, which
has often been mentioned, are best placed to deliver those strategies. I call
on the Minister to pledge his support for those organisations and to reaffirm
the need to address underlying cultural attitudes if the law is to have a role
in promoting change.
The Bill also seeks to address the issue of UK-based
families organising to send girls abroad so that FGM can be performed on them.
Under the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 it is an offence
for parents to take their daughters abroad to have them mutilated if FGM is also
an offence in the country to which they are travelling. However, the Act is of
no use in cases where FGM is not illegal in the destination country.
21 Mar
2003 : Column 1207
Today, we are debating measures that will introduce a new
offence of assisting a non-UK person to mutilate a girl's genitalia overseas.
That is intended to cover the situation where a family resident in the UK arranges
for a girl to be taken overseas to have FGM performed. However, it applies only
where the girl concerned is a UK national or permanent resident. Forward has pointed
out that it does not cover those who are newly arrived in Britain, which includes
many of those at most risk. That will give rise to a fundamental inequality in
the rights and protections of African girls in Britain, with one rule for those
who have gained UK nationality and another for those waiting for immigration decisions.
Forward wants the Bill to be amended so that it offers protection to all girls,
irrespective of nationality, as has been done in other countries, such as Norway,
as I am sure that the Minister is aware.
It is important to note what is
not covered by the Bill. It does not require health professionals and other relevant
authorities to report incidences of FGM. It does not touch on Department of Health
issues such as ensuring that all medical personnel are trained in cultural sensitivity
and how to meet the needs of women who have undergone FGM. It does not cover the
practicalities and difficulties in social services taking action under the Children
Act 1989 or child protection procedures, which I know is a big issue. I mention
all those areas because they were raised in the recommendations made by the all-party
group in its report of November 2000.
I welcome the Bill. It is a valuable
opportunity to improve the protection of girls and women in the UK from FGM. It
is a welcome reflection of the importance of this issue and the seriousness with
which it deserves to be treated. However, further reflections and concerns need
to be addressed in Committee to ensure that the Bill offers the best possible
way of tackling the issue. I hope that the Government will assist its passage,
and not block it at any later stages. I wish the Bill well, as I believe that
it will improve the condition of women and halt an abhorrent practice.
21
Mar 2003 : Column 1207-continued
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): First, I join the hon. Member
for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member
for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) not only on her success in the ballot, but, much
more importantly, on choosing to give priority to this very important measure.
I also congratulate her on the powerful case that she put for the Bill in her
opening remarks. As she rightly says, FGM is a brutal practice that is illegal
in this country, thanks to the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, which
was promoted-indeed, pioneered-by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and
supported by my hon. Friend, among others, at that time.
I also join other
hon. Members in paying tribute to the all-party group on population, development
and reproductive health and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris
McCafferty), who has played such an important role in the work of that organisation.
Like
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1208
other hon. Members, I learned a great
deal from reading the report published as a result of the hearings that were undertaken
in 2000.
The Government condemn this practice and want to see it eradicated
both here and abroad. That is why we warmly welcome the Bill. Indeed, the Home
Secretary has said this morning that we would have wished to bring forward Government
legislation if this private Member's Bill had not been tabled. That indicates
the Government's commitment to the issue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for
Cynon Valley has said, the extent to which FGM is practised in this country is
not known. People who practice it tend to live in closed communities and offences
are rarely reported to the authorities. However, in theory, all young girls in
the practising communities in this country are at risk of FGM. That is why it
is vital that the law should protect them.
The Prohibition of Female Circumcision
Act 1985 was an important and welcome step in the fight against FGM, as it made
it clear that the practice would not be tolerated in this country. However, as
we now know, particularly because of the work of the all-party group and others,
the law needs to go further because evidence suggests that parents in some communities
are evading the 1985 Act, by taking their daughters abroad for FGM.
Indeed,
last year, the Agency for Culture and Change Management in Sheffield-one of the
groups, as we have heard, that is working very hard to eliminate the practice-informed
the Home Secretary that it had received increasing numbers of reports of families
planning visits to their countries of origin, with the intention of having FGM
carried out on their daughters. That is why the Bill is so important: it will
assist in dealing with that by making it an offence for United Kingdom nationals
and permanent UK residents to aid and abet FGM undertaken outside the UK by anyone,
including foreign nationals, although the offence will be limited sometimes to
cases where the victim is a UK national or permanent UK resident.
Hon. Members
will want to recognise the fact that the Bill represents a significant extension
of the present law because it will go a step beyond the current established international
practice that dual criminality is normally needed-namely, the practice needs to
be an offence in both countries to apply extra-territoriality-but I am very pleased
that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley has chosen to do so because of
the nature of that abhorrent practice.
We all recognise-we have heard so
this morning-that FGM is deeply steeped in the culture and tradition of those
communities that practise it. We are not in the business of preaching and imposing
our culture on others, but we must be absolutely clear in setting values that
are built on justice, equality of the sexes and human rights. We regard the genital
mutilation of any girl or female infant as unacceptable, regardless of her ethnic
origin.
Of course, as we have touched on during the debate, a degree of sensitivity
is needed in efforts to educate about the practice, but we cannot ignore the basic
truth that it is unacceptable and wrong. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr.
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1209
O'Brien), when a Home Office Minister, said
in the context of forced marriage, which is another unacceptable practice, that
cultural sensitivity should not be an excuse for moral blindness. That applies
equally to FGM. That gives me the chance to pay tribute to the work done on this
issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer).
The straight
truth is that we would not tolerate our daughters being mutilated in that way,
so we should not tolerate anyone else's daughter being forced to undergo that
brutal practice. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) was absolutely right
to talk about the importance of terminology. The Bill describes the practice for
what it is, and I am sure that the House will welcome that.
The Government
agree with all those hon. Members who have made the point that female genital
mutilation is not associated with any particular religion or ethnic group. We
recognise instead that such mutilation affects some people in certain communities.
It is not called for by any religious scripture, and there is now widespread support
among religious and community leaders in the campaign to prevent it from taking
place.
It may be helpful if I say that, in the Government's view, the Bill
is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Assuming that article
8-on private and family life-is engaged, any interference with the right would
be justified by article 8.2, as it would be proportionate to the aims of protecting
health and the rights and freedoms of others.
As many hon. Members have said,
legislation alone cannot eradicate the practice-it sends a message, marks our
abhorrence and creates a penalty-but FGM will be eradicated only if we change
the way that people think about it. That needs a continuous programme of education.
The Department of Health helps to fund the voluntary organisation, Forward,
of which we have heard so much. Of course, Forward provides information and advice
to health, education, child protection and social services professionals. The
current core grant funding for Forward is £40,000 in each of the three years
to 2004-05, which is an increase on the £25,000 in previous years. It will
receive £25,000 for each of the next three years for its "positive
partnership with communities" project. Among other things, that project
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1210
will seek to collect data on the extent of FGM-a
point made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).
The
Home Office has also recently agreed to provide funding for the Agency for Culture
and Change Management, of which we have also heard a great deal, as it takes forward
its work to combat FGM.
The opposition to FGM also has the support of the
medical community. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the two
doctors who were struck off, which shows that that concern is being taken seriously.
I want to refer to the work that we are doing internationally, because it
is not enough just to act at home, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne and my hon.
Friend the Member for Cynon Valley referred to that. That is why the Department
for International Development has been so involved in work to reduce the incidence
and consequences of FGM. Since 1997, we have committed more than £1.2 million
specifically to that work because the more that we can empower and encourage women
in their own countries to change the practice and other people's attitudes towards
it, the more successful we will be.
In conclusion, the Bill is a welcome
and necessary part of the wider campaign to eradicate FGM in this country and
abroad. The Government support it unreservedly, and I commend it to the House.
10.58 am
Ann Clwyd: With the leave of the House, I wish to say that I
am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister, the Home Secretary and all his officials
for all the encouragement that they have given me in introducing the Bill. I thank
all colleagues who have spoken so eloquently today, particularly for telling us
about their own experiences in certain countries and for giving examples of people
who have given testimony to several committees. I also thank all the non-governmental
organisations that have given us very valuable evidence. Female genital mutilation
is a barbaric practice. It cannot be supported on cultural, medical or any other
grounds, and we have sent out a very strong message from the House of Commons
today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time,
and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal
of Bills).
21 Mar 2003 : Column 1209