Hansard

It is a reflection on how far we have come that there is consensus that this matter is serious and appropriate for public debate and political action. We have come a long way from the time when agencies regarded such matters as being purely domestic, private and nothing to do with them. The irony in saying that forced marriage involves a violation of human rights is that there are at the heart of the matter people who have no awareness that they have a human right to say no, and no capacity to resist something that they see as being expected of them. It is a comfort to us that we are now able at least to recognise that it is a subject for public concern and action, and that many people in our communities would support such action.

At the heart of much of the work that we do, we must place ways of supporting people by reaching out to individuals and speaking to them about the issues that affect their families in language that they understand, rather than by putting up posters on the walls of places where they might go to seek help.

On domestic abuse, it makes me shudder to think that, when I was in the public services, we needed to help a woman who was fleeing violence by getting her a mobile telephone number that would not show up on a telephone bill. That shows just how frightened people must get. We have to think about factors like that when we are shaping services.

We do not know the number of people about whom we are talking. As happened with domestic abuse, when we start to talk about the issue and give people confidence, the figures will go up. That, perhaps, is a matter that we must reflect on.

I welcome the consultation, because it is my instinct to support legislation. Indeed, when consultation was being undertaken at UK level, I was surprised at the consultation responses that expressed the view that forced marriage should not be criminalised, and called for civil legislation. I respected those arguments, which were made by people whom I trusted and who feared what would happen if forced marriage were criminalised. However, I stress that we should not close the door fully on legislation, because it might be that we realise in time that civil measures are not sufficient.

I ask the minister to reflect on the points that Marlyn Glen made about the implications of our approach to this issue for legislation that is currently going through Parliament or with which we might deal in the future.

I want to reinforce the points that were made about the distinction between arranged marriage and forced marriage. We should not overstate the prevalence of forced marriage and we should not afford certain people the opportunity to stigmatise whole communities by focusing on a practice that is anathema to most people in those communities. Although I would obviously commend the Labour Government for the action that it took, I recognise the work of others in this field, and I acknowledge how powerful it is when people such as Mohammed Sarwar and Bashir Ahmad speak up on these issues, because their doing so refutes the argument that whole communities are at fault, rather than a small section of those communities.

There is a debate about whether we should rely on education or legislation, but our approach cannot involve only one or the other; it must involve everything. We must use the legislative route to provide protection, but we must also work with communities and young people to give them confidence to resist.

Earlier, I made the point that it is not enough just to aspire and that we must will the means to deliver. We have to have resources for specialist groups who can speak within those communities, but we also have to train teachers and youth workers in the main stream who can listen and act to support young people in particular who are vulnerable and who need to be reassured that they are able to resist their families' wishes.

I urge the minister to consider the questions that I asked earlier. What does he consider to be the role of the national group to address violence against women? How is the Government discussing local outcomes with COSLA and community planning partnerships? How is it asking them to assess the resources that would be required to support that work? When will guidance on the equality aspects of single outcome agreements be available? Answers to those questions are critical to allaying people's fears that there is not sufficient recognition of the challenge that this work presents while the process is on-going.

I urge the minister to be creative—as other members have suggested—in how he consults, and to recognise that the conclusions that he reaches will not be the last word, but will be a critically important word in respect of supporting people who find themselves in such circumstances.