Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 22 March 2011
22 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill
For once, I might not use my full quota of minutes, but that does not mean that the bill is not significant. It is relatively straightforward and short, and it has managed to be the subject of consensus in the end, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not significant—perhaps that reflects how people have come together in committee and externally. As the minister said, amendments were agreed to so that people could reach a consensus on the issue’s significance and on the measures that are outlined in the bill.
In reading the stage 1 debate again, I noted Malcolm Chisholm’s comments on the original consultation, in which people expressed anxiety that legislating to create legal consequences might deter victims from coming forward. It is interesting that we had a difficulty or challenge in making a judgment on that. The way in which the committee has considered matters reassures us, because we do not want to do something that will make the situation worse.
What the minister said about implementation is important, and his plan for that provides reassurance. Post-legislative scrutiny is also important. The committee will have a role in making us alive to ensuring that the anxieties that were expressed in the original consultation in 2005 and 2006 are no longer a concern. The Parliament will have a role in that.
We should remember the power of the message that victims have sent to Parliament. In the stage 1 debate, Anne McLaughlin and Elaine Smith gave voice to victims’ experiences. It is important to recognise that the experience of forced marriage is horrific. For someone to force another person into marriage is a horrific crime. That underlines the bill’s significance.
One of the Parliament’s strengths, on which we should reflect, is that we do not just tick boxes for a bit of legislation and then move on. In implementing the bill and in post-legislative scrutiny, it will be critical to ensure that the bill meets its intended purpose. A strength in the Parliament’s culture is that Parliament does not simply move on; the opportunity exists to refresh legislation and to consider the issues that drove the legislation to be created in the first place.
In all the debate about the bill, it has been emphasised time and again that what matters is not just the bill. The bill is not just symbolic: it does send signals and it is a symbol of what we say about the offence, but it will also provide protection and offer people legal measures that are not insignificant.
We must place the bill in the context of education of our young people. We must give people the confidence to know that, despite what they have been told, forced marriage is not acceptable or reasonable, is not to do with their culture and is not expected of girls. There is a specific role for that educational side of the bill to be rolled forward. Public education is also important, given the anxieties about the degree of stereotyping around forced marriage. The challenge in the public debate is for people not to be allowed to retreat into such attitudes.
We also have to recognise that many women in such circumstances may be very isolated—perhaps deliberately so. We have to think carefully about the trusted intermediaries who will reach out to those women. An important bit of work that needs to be done is to consider which organisations—which women’s organisations—may be best placed to support women in the circumstance of forced marriage. If evidence emerges of a need for support, it is essential that the Government, of whatever colour, wills the means for that support to happen. The amount of funding that is required for such support may not be huge; small bits of funding can allow organisations to offer it. If the support is not there, victims may not have the confidence to come forward. Ignorance or fear of family consequences are not always an issue—it may be lack of confidence.
We all understand that forced marriage of any kind is unacceptable. In saying that, we recognise that forced marriage is not particular to women; it affects men, too. It is also fair to say that the issue must be seen in the broader context of the rights and role of women and their abuse in society.
The bill shines a light on the issue and challenges the attitudes that underpin forced marriage. I, for one, welcome the legislation. It will be good to come together at the end of this session of Parliament to vote on the bill before we go our separate ways. We have reached consensus on a difficult issue for which we have worked out a solution. The bill will make a difference.
09:37
In reading the stage 1 debate again, I noted Malcolm Chisholm’s comments on the original consultation, in which people expressed anxiety that legislating to create legal consequences might deter victims from coming forward. It is interesting that we had a difficulty or challenge in making a judgment on that. The way in which the committee has considered matters reassures us, because we do not want to do something that will make the situation worse.
What the minister said about implementation is important, and his plan for that provides reassurance. Post-legislative scrutiny is also important. The committee will have a role in making us alive to ensuring that the anxieties that were expressed in the original consultation in 2005 and 2006 are no longer a concern. The Parliament will have a role in that.
We should remember the power of the message that victims have sent to Parliament. In the stage 1 debate, Anne McLaughlin and Elaine Smith gave voice to victims’ experiences. It is important to recognise that the experience of forced marriage is horrific. For someone to force another person into marriage is a horrific crime. That underlines the bill’s significance.
One of the Parliament’s strengths, on which we should reflect, is that we do not just tick boxes for a bit of legislation and then move on. In implementing the bill and in post-legislative scrutiny, it will be critical to ensure that the bill meets its intended purpose. A strength in the Parliament’s culture is that Parliament does not simply move on; the opportunity exists to refresh legislation and to consider the issues that drove the legislation to be created in the first place.
In all the debate about the bill, it has been emphasised time and again that what matters is not just the bill. The bill is not just symbolic: it does send signals and it is a symbol of what we say about the offence, but it will also provide protection and offer people legal measures that are not insignificant.
We must place the bill in the context of education of our young people. We must give people the confidence to know that, despite what they have been told, forced marriage is not acceptable or reasonable, is not to do with their culture and is not expected of girls. There is a specific role for that educational side of the bill to be rolled forward. Public education is also important, given the anxieties about the degree of stereotyping around forced marriage. The challenge in the public debate is for people not to be allowed to retreat into such attitudes.
We also have to recognise that many women in such circumstances may be very isolated—perhaps deliberately so. We have to think carefully about the trusted intermediaries who will reach out to those women. An important bit of work that needs to be done is to consider which organisations—which women’s organisations—may be best placed to support women in the circumstance of forced marriage. If evidence emerges of a need for support, it is essential that the Government, of whatever colour, wills the means for that support to happen. The amount of funding that is required for such support may not be huge; small bits of funding can allow organisations to offer it. If the support is not there, victims may not have the confidence to come forward. Ignorance or fear of family consequences are not always an issue—it may be lack of confidence.
We all understand that forced marriage of any kind is unacceptable. In saying that, we recognise that forced marriage is not particular to women; it affects men, too. It is also fair to say that the issue must be seen in the broader context of the rights and role of women and their abuse in society.
The bill shines a light on the issue and challenges the attitudes that underpin forced marriage. I, for one, welcome the legislation. It will be good to come together at the end of this session of Parliament to vote on the bill before we go our separate ways. We have reached consensus on a difficult issue for which we have worked out a solution. The bill will make a difference.
09:37
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-8157, in the name of Alex Neil, on the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill....
The Minister for Housing and Communities (Alex Neil)
SNP
I thank the members of the Equal Opportunities Committee, its convener, Margaret Mitchell, and the committee clerks for their work on the bill. I thank also ...
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Lab
Will the minister take an intervention?
Alex Neil
SNP
I am afraid that I am just finishing my speech.We expect the bill to result in more victims seeking help because—for the first time in Scotland—a focus will ...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
I call Johann Lamont, who has about six minutes.09:31
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lab
For once, I might not use my full quota of minutes, but that does not mean that the bill is not significant. It is relatively straightforward and short, and ...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Con
The Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill is important legislation that the Equal Opportunities Committee had the opportunity to ...
Hugh O’Donnell (Central Scotland) (LD)
LD
There is an oxymoron at the heart of the debate—it is “forced marriage”. If something is forced, there cannot be a marriage. The evidence that we took on the...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
We have a little time in hand, so there is a bit of flexibility, if anyone needs it.09:44
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
This will be my final speech as an MSP. I have decided to set myself a challenge. Instead of having the speech written out in front of me in 16-point bold, w...
Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I am pleased to make my final contribution in the Parliament during this important debate on forced marriages. The Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisd...
Christina McKelvie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I am pleased to speak in the debate on the second-last bill that we will pass in this session of the Scottish Parliament—the first session in which I have ha...
Hugh O’Donnell
LD
Perhaps they are someone else’s.
Christina McKelvie
SNP
Perhaps they are.When the Parliament was established, human rights and equality were written into its proceedings from the outset. The Parliament was establi...
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Lab
Having served on the Equal Opportunities Committee since 1999, I am pleased that the last debate of the parliamentary session in which I will participate con...
Hugh O’Donnell
LD
This has been a short and sweet, consensual debate. However, I suspect that another event later this morning, commonly known as First Minister’s questions, i...
Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Con
I, too, thank Marlyn Glen for everything that she has done in the Parliament and wish her happiness and success in the future.It is a pleasure to close for t...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
I call Johann Lamont to close on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. You have quite an amount of flexibility, Ms Lamont.10:07
Johann Lamont
Lab
Hugh O’Donnell described this as a short and sweet debate. Neither the minister nor I often contribute to short and sweet debates, so we should cherish the m...
The Presiding Officer
NPA
We come to the minister to wind up the debate. Minister, I can offer you your second 15-minute slot in a row. You have until 10.30 should you choose to use t...
Alex Neil
SNP
Johann Lamont started by saying that it is not often she and I do short and sweet. I disagree. We do short and sweet all the time: she does the short, and I ...
Elaine Smith
Lab
Will the minister join me in thanking Jean McFadden for my knowledge of Latin? She taught me at St Patrick’s high school in Coatbridge.
Alex Neil
SNP
The Minister for Community Safety has just intimated to me that the correct pronunciation is “nobil-ay” officium. I am sure that the minister knows all about...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD)
LD
I was going to make that point to the minister.
Alex Neil
SNP
Another lawyer—they are all around me this morning. I put on record the fact that Robert Brown, who nearly made an intervention, has made an enormous contrib...