Hansard

As convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I am pleased to speak in the debate. The bill represents a landmark for the committee, as it was the first time that we had been designated as a lead committee on primary legislation. The bill's sensitive subject matter and the vulnerability of the people at risk from FGM, as well as the devastating and irreversible impact that FGM can have on the lives of those whom it affects, presented us with a real challenge. I am pleased to say that the committee and its clerking team rose to that challenge. As a result of our detailed scrutiny, I am confident that we have made improvements that strengthen the bill's provisions.

During stage 1, we heard a considerable volume of evidence from a range of people who are involved in the issues that the bill covers, and we became convinced of the need to make specific changes both to enhance the clarity of the provisions and to increase the protection that they aim to provide.

Initially, concerns were raised that certain changes to the bill could not be made because they might lead to legislative inconsistencies with provisions in the rest of the UK. However, from the evidence that we received at stage 1, certain issues emerged that we felt had to be explored further, even if that did result in inconsistencies with similar legislation passed at Westminster.

Through continued dialogue with the Executive, we managed to achieve several improvements to the bill. I pay tribute to the Deputy Minister for Justice and his officials for listening to the committee and working with us to improve the bill. The exercise is a positive example of how committees and the Executive can work together to improve legislation.

I will describe how a few of the committee's key concerns were resolved. FGM is most often performed on young girls. In evidence, concern was expressed that child protection services might not be able to act to protect a child if FGM was suspected, so I welcome the Executive's stage 2 amendment to give potential FGM cases priority in the child protection system.

Evidence to the committee made it clear that protecting asylum seeker children is an issue. We were happy to see a stage 2 amendment to prevent UK nationals from performing FGM on non-UK nationals outside the UK. That change is significant. As we have heard, it goes far beyond the existing UK legislation. That sends the important message that, whenever possible, we in the Scottish Parliament will seek to enhance legislation from an equalities perspective.

The definition of FGM in the bill caused us concern. At stage 1, we heard evidence that the definition should mirror the World Health Organisation definition. We were pleased that the Executive lodged amendments at stages 2 and 3 to reflect more accurately the FGM procedures that are set out in the WHO definition. I also welcome the Executive's acceptance of the committee's stage 2 amendment on the definition of FGM.

The committee was firmly of the view that the provisions should outlaw the practice of reinfibulation following childbirth. Doubt had been expressed about whether the bill covered that procedure, so I welcome the minister's assurance in a letter to the committee that the bill will outlaw reinfibulation. I also welcome the commitment of the minister and the Executive to work with health professionals to produce guidance and ensure that no confusion is felt in the medical profession about the legality of some medical procedures.

The Equal Opportunities Committee worked on the bill diligently and with commitment. I thank our first-class clerking team and my committee colleagues for all their hard work and dedication to the issue. In particular, I thank Elaine Smith, who, in her role as gender reporter, met the Somali women's action group twice, which ensured that the group's valuable and extremely relevant views were taken into account. I compliment committee members on their responsible and consensual approach to considering this important equalities issue.

It is fair to say that the committee's scrutiny of the bill greatly improved it. The bill as introduced closely mirrored a private member's bill that was passed at Westminster. The work that the committee and the Scottish Executive did greatly clarified the bill and will provide those who work on issues that relate to FGM with a clear set of guidelines to follow. The bill will enhance the protection for all women and children in Scotland who are at risk of FGM. Our Westminster colleagues may wish to examine the bill, which we hope to pass, and amend their legislation accordingly.

The bill will not only continue protection of women who are at risk of FGM, but ensure that children also have the protection to which they are entitled. I am proud and pleased to support the bill.