Hansard

I am pleased to take part in today’s debate on the Forced Marriage etc (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Bill. I have read the Equal Opportunities Committee report, and I congratulate it on addressing the important issues in the bill while keeping the report clear and concise so that even a Johnny-come-lately such as myself can understand it.

For most people, discussions on marriage are generally happy and positive, but for a small number of people who face the threat or reality of forced marriage the issue is full of fear. Although the bill may apply to only a small number of people, it is important that we proceed with it.

I will concentrate on three aspects of the bill, starting with the central plank that is the forced marriage protection order. Like the committee, I welcome the introduction of that measure. The order is easily understood by both the victim and the perpetrator, and I believe that it is a better way of addressing the problem than the civil remedies that we have at present. I especially welcome the fact that the measure will be both preventive and protective.

Section 1(6)(b) sets out a definition of “to force” that includes to

“coerce by threats or other psychological means”

and to

“knowingly take advantage of a person’s incapacity to consent to marriage or to understand the nature of the marriage”.

I agree that the definition is fine as far as it goes but, like Margaret Mitchell and the committee, I have some sympathy with witnesses such as Louise Johnson of Scottish Women’s Aid and Iain Livingstone of ACPOS who suggested that the physical aspect of force should be included. This is one of those debates that we frequently get into when discussing legislation: whether to imply that something is sufficient, as the minister suggests, or whether the bill needs to be more explicit. In this instance, I agree with the committee and those witnesses that the physical aspect of force should be included in the bill. I hope that the minister will look at that sympathetically.

Section 9 will make it a criminal offence to breach a forced marriage protection order and sets out the penalties that may be imposed. I recognise that that makes the Scottish bill different from the UK Forced Marriage Act 2007, but on this occasion I think that we are right. I add one note of discord in observing that we are only just catching up with the UK act; nevertheless, I welcome the fact that we are now there.

I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the criminalisation of a relative, for example. However, I remind members that we had that debate when we discussed the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders. Both of the orders are about changing behaviour. In this case, as long as the family member does not force the victim into a marriage—an act that we all find abhorrent—they will not be criminalised. I say that not to be glib, but to point out that the course of action is simple and clear. I support the committee’s plea for more clarity around the issue of how reporting and notification of a breach will be enacted, which is, I am sure, something to which it will return at stage 2.

I hope that I will avoid being chided by Sandra White for being negative today, as I am very supportive of the bill. I also hope that the minister will be able to respond positively to the committee’s report. In those terms, he will have the full support of the Labour group.

14:53