Hansard

This has been an important debate about a sensitive issue. Bashir Ahmad was right to say that one forced marriage is one too many.

I thank all those who have assisted people who are affected by forced marriage, whether through the voluntary sector, the FCO's forced marriage unit or the Scottish Government's forced marriage network, which was set up by the previous Executive. Hugh O'Donnell and many other members have rightly called on the Government to consider the impact of potential funding difficulties on some of the groups in the sector because of the importance of their work in our communities.

We welcome the Scottish Government's announcement of further consultation on forced marriage as there has been a significant change since the previous consultation. Legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom—the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007—targets forced marriages and creates a range of civil offences that cover not only those who force someone into a forced marriage but those who aid or abet the practice. Crucially, as we have heard, the act allows third parties to apply for court orders. That is an important feature.

I pay tribute to my Liberal Democrat colleague in the House of Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who introduced the proposal to Parliament as a private member's bill and managed to persuade the UK Government to support it to become law. It was a good move on the Government's part to take the bill on and make the change happen.

I have my own views on the need for legislation, although I understand that we must listen to what emerges from the consultation. The 2007 act is important legislation; it provides victims with a range of civil remedies, which include injunctions, and compensation. The civil route could answer some of the concerns that respondents to previous consultations have expressed: that by making forced marriage a criminal offence we would be expecting somebody to give evidence against family members, which could result in their going to prison; and that it would force the practice to go even further underground. I have some sympathy with Cathy Peattie's point that similar arguments were made about domestic violence and sexual abuse in families. It is a dangerous line to take. I would far prefer to take a pragmatic approach and ask whether legislation or another approach is more likely to stamp out this abhorrent practice. That is the key question.

Forced marriage is undoubtedly a complex legal matter, as Marlyn Glen and others have made clear. We must ask whether separate legislation is required or whether existing common law, legislation on protection from abuse or family law—or, indeed, proposed legislation on sexual offences—might cover it adequately. John Lamont made interesting points about voiding marriages, but it is fundamental that any legislation or any further action that we take be focused on preventing forced marriages rather than ensuring that we are able to do something about a forced marriage after the fact.

An element of the debate is reminiscent of some of the arguments that were used during the discussion of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill. It was argued that emergency workers who are assaulted can be protected by common law, but there was also a genuine feeling that the people who protect us require specific legislative protection from us and that, in introducing that legislation, the Parliament would highlight the problem, raise awareness and make clear its utter contempt for those who perpetrate such attacks. Similar arguments can be made for legislating on forced marriage.

Many members, including Bashir Ahmad and the minister, have made clear the difference between forced marriages and arranged marriages. Arranged marriages are an integral and acceptable part of the culture of many of our fellow citizens. It is essential that we make it clear that an arranged marriage in which both parties give their full and free consent is different from a forced marriage, in which an individual is coerced to marry. It is every person's human right to be allowed to choose whom they marry and when—or, indeed, not to marry. Forced marriage is a gross abuse of the individual's human rights and cannot and must not be condoned or apologised for in any way.

As Johann Lamont and Christine Grahame said, living in a forced marriage is deeply distressing and many who do so suffer serious depression as a result. Those who decide to leave a forced marriage find it incredibly difficult to come to terms with the situation, and it takes a huge amount of courage. They are compelled to cut family ties and start out alone. For many people, there are other aspects to the abuse: research has shown that an element of domestic abuse is involved in about 25 per cent of forced marriages.

I understand that the debate is being held partly as an aspect of our recognition of the 16 days of action on violence against women. Although it is true that the vast majority of victims of forced marriage are women, many are young men. Often, forced marriages are used as a means of controlling sexuality, including homosexuality. Many individuals are compelled into marriage in the belief that it will stop them pursuing relationships that are considered unsuitable. There is no standard victim of forced marriage.

The sad fact is that we do not know the extent of the problem. The Council of British Pakistanis Scotland believes that one Asian woman in 10 in Scotland was forced to marry. A great deal of work is being done to help those who are subjected to the practice, such as the good work of the forced marriage unit. We need to take a pragmatic approach to doing whatever will best tackle the problem and support the people who need our help. We need an approach that not only encourages people to speak out and can prevent forced marriages from taking place but provides assistance to those who have been forced into marriage and need to get out. The safety and welfare of the victims of forced marriage must be the primary concern.