Hansard

A number of important points have been brought out in this very brief debate. Sandra White made the point about the need to treat forced marriage as we do other abusive practices within the family. The LCM is obviously intended to bring the deterrent of a significant maximum sentence. I agree very much with the concerns that have been expressed that there was virtually no consultation on the increase of the sentence from two to seven years.

The committee was advised about the slow process of domestic abuse being recognised as a serious offence and the role that legislation and prosecution can play in effecting cultural change. Of course, the current legislation will send out a message about the unacceptability of forced marriage. As was mentioned in the debate, evidence from Police Scotland indicated that there have been seven forced marriage protection orders, and I note that most of those cases came to light through child protection procedures. However, support organisations will have received considerably more inquiries about help that did not result in formal FMPOs. It is therefore difficult to assess the impact of the current legislation, which has been in force only for a couple of years. The minister advised the committee that evidence from other countries shows that, where forced marriage is a criminal offence, it results in increased reporting, but we do not know what will happen in Scotland.

John Pentland stressed the need to comply with the international obligations and the need for consistency. I recognise Margaret Mitchell’s point that many aspects of Scots law are different from the law in England and Wales. However, theoretically at least, where members of an extended family live in different parts of the UK, a legislative framework that was perceived to be less stringent in respect of forced marriage could result in family members in Scotland becoming the instigators of forced marriage because the penalties were less.

Christine Grahame mentioned the problems with the LCM process. I think that we were all frustrated by that, and indeed by the number of amendments that kept coming up. Returning to a point that she made, I note that the problem is the way in which the civil and criminal systems work in tandem. That will have to be resolved in the UK as well as in Scotland if we are required by the Istanbul convention to make forced marriage a criminal offence, so we need to concentrate on how the problem can be resolved in practice.

If a legislative route is required, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is nearing completion of stage 1 in the Parliament and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has signalled that he will lodge amendments to end automatic early release for some crimes, for example. I would think that, if required, there is an opportunity to amend the bill further to ensure that we take account of victims’ rights to have their desires prioritised when it comes to whether cases go through the civil or the criminal process.

I was interested in Malcolm Chisholm’s points on ratification. Interestingly, none of them was raised in evidence to the committee. The issues came up today, in this debate. I am not absolutely clear whether the legislation is required to be in place prior to ratification or whether it would be appropriate to consider it after ratification, so I, too, will be interested to learn the minister’s view on that issue.

This has not been a particularly happy experience. I do not think that any member of any party has been particularly happy about the way in which the LCM has proceeded but, to use a phrase that I do not particularly like, we are where we are. We are possibly now at a stage at which the only way forward is to agree to the LCM but to take the necessary advice on what safeguards must be put in place thereafter to ensure that victims’ wishes are always respected.

17:38