Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

1: Clause 61, page 49, line 40, leave out “sheriff principal” and insert “Sheriff Appeal Court”

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, these technical amendments relate to the rights of appeal in Scotland against decisions on seizure and forfeiture of substances used as drug-cutting agents. In Scotland, the appeal from the decision of a sheriff under Clause 60 is to the sheriff principal. The Scottish Parliament has recently passed the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. Among other things, that Act establishes a new right of appeal from the sheriff to the Sheriff Appeal Court and, in the process, abolishes the current right of appeal from a sheriff to the sheriff principal.

Amendments 1 to 5 to Clause 61 accordingly update the avenue of appeal. The consequential amendment, Amendment 10, to Clause 74 is a transitional provision. As it is not known for definite when the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill will come into force, this amendment provides a mechanism to refer to an appeal to the sheriff principal, if circumstances arise where this is necessary. I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

7: Clause 67, page 54, line 39, after “4” insert “of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003”.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, these drafting amendments simply seek to split Clause 67, which, as amended on Report, now deals with two distinct, albeit related, issues; namely, the extension of the extraterritorial reach of the offences in the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and conferring lifelong anonymity on the victims of FGM.

I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has to say about her amendment before responding to it. I also understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would like to put on the record some further observations about her proposed new offence of encouragement of FGM. For now, I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am sorry not to hear further from the Minister about her amendments. We had a very helpful and productive debate on Report, where it was clear that your Lordships’ House was united in a desire to tackle FGM. The government amendment was welcomed, but it was agreed that the issues raised by our amendments, which I have again tabled today, were both valid and reasonable. There was no policy disagreement; the difference was one of approach and what would be most effective in achieving the aims that we all share.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, emphasised the need to use civil law and family courts. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, agreed with him and said:

“I would like to see what is good in each set of amendments put together”,

and expressed the hope that,

“the Opposition and the Government will get together … and thrash out what would be the best of everything and get that into one list that could go into Third Reading”.—[Official Report, 28/10/14; col. 1092.]

That explains why we have retabled our amendment here at Third Reading. We felt that the House would want to hear what progress we have made in those discussions.

There were two issues of difference between us and the Government. I say “difference” rather than “disagreement”, as the whole approach on this matter has been consensual. Our intention in tabling amendments is to ensure that the legislation, and its application, is the best it can be. That is why we sought advice not just on policy but from leading practising lawyers in this area. I put on record my thanks and appreciation to Kirsty Brimelow from Doughty Street Chambers and the Bar Human Rights Committee and Zimran Samuel from 42 Bedford Row Chambers. Their considerable practical experience and expertise have been of enormous assistance in understanding all the implications of the proposed legislation. We are grateful to them also for attending the meeting we had with the Minister and her officials. I am also grateful to Catherine Meredith of Doughty Street and Dexter Dias of Garden Court Chambers. I am not a lawyer, but I felt that I needed to be absolutely clear on the implications of the amendments before us—not just how they would be implemented in theory but how much difference they would make in practice. There is old saying: in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they are often different.

As legislators, we must be concerned about practice— the very point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss— when debating the use of civil law. There are two issues of difference, both relating to the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. We welcomed the Government’s support for our calls for FGM protection orders and were grateful to them for bringing forward their own amendment on Report. The issues of difference that merited further consideration were highlighted by the Bar Human Rights Committee, whose members proposed such an order in the first place and are experts in this area.

The first issue relates to where the orders sit in relation to civil and criminal law, and which Act the amendment relates to. It might seem just an academic argument, but if that were that case, I would not raise it today in your Lordships’ House. The 2003 FGM Act, which the government amendment seeks to amend, is a criminal statute and not necessarily familiar to family law practitioners. The Family Law Act 1996, on the other hand, is their first port of call. Forced marriage protection orders, which are used all the time in the family court, are in the Family Law Act and have been successful. Having FGM orders also in the Family Law Act would mean that they would sit beside and complement the existing regime for the protection of children in the Children Act 1989.

I appreciate that the Government’s proposal remains a civil order, but it is a civil order within criminal legislation. Those who are involved in family courts told us of the practical reasons why not all family court lawyers would know, understand or appreciate that they should also look to criminal law statutes for civil measures.

There is the issue of the deterrent factor for those whom we want to come forward, when a civil measure lies within criminal law. The difference may be understood by criminal lawyers or across the Dispatch Box in your Lordships’ House, but it is not necessarily understood by those whom the orders seek to protect.

I totally understand that from the Government’s point of view it makes policy sense to have all the legislation relating to FGM in one place. It sounds logical. But when those who will use this law, and who really care that we get it right, tell us that it could make application for and gaining of an FGM order harder and therefore less likely, I feel obliged to take their views and experience into account. What matters is what works in practice.

The second issue is about the definition. As I explained in Committee, the government amendment uses the definition in the 2003 Act. The Government believe, as was the intention when we reintroduced the legislation in 2003, that this covers reinfibulation. I am not going to test your Lordships’ House again with an exact explanation of what is involved. Last time, “Today in Parliament” put out a warning before I spoke, and gave the programme a G certificate, standing for guidance. I think that is the first time that that has happened, but it does convey some of the brutality and horror of what we are talking about.

The law was intended to include reinfibulation. Any definition or interpretation should include reinfibulation, which involves unnecessary and non-medical restitching to reclose the female genital mutilation following childbirth. However, the Bar Human Rights Committee and Doughty Street lawyers tell us that there is some misinterpretation. That is why we use the World Health Organization definition instead. That would ensure that our law is consistent with recognised international standards and understandings and clarifies any existing confusion around offending conduct such as reinfibulation.

I was reassured on Report by the willingness of Ministers to discuss this further and, as a result, I agreed to withdraw our amendments. The lawyers who advised us attended the meeting with the noble Baroness and her officials. We were looking forward to the meeting, and we were optimistic that we would make the kind of progress that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others, had wanted us to make. However, I have to tell your Lordships’ House that we are very disappointed with the outcome. It appeared to us in that meeting that the Government were not prepared to take on board any of the points raised by us or, more importantly, by the barristers who deal with this issue on a regular basis. On the issue of definition the Government are now concerned that such clarification as we have called for could affect any existing or current cases. I am surprised that that was not mentioned on Report. That assessment is questioned, including by senior lawyers who we have spoken to. Perhaps the noble Baroness and I could pursue that at another time.

No one is suggesting that the law is wrong; there is a problem with interpretation. When the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists say that the definition does not include reinfibulation, that seems to me to be an excellent case for clarification. Despite the clear will of your Lordships’ House that such discussions should take place with the intention of ensuring that whatever was brought forward works well in practice, I deeply regret that I do not consider that we had productive discussions. The Government clearly have no intention of making any modifications or improvements in this area.

I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. The government amendments are not wrong, but they could be better. We believe that this is a lost opportunity, and I ask the following questions.

First, can the Minister tell us what the Government will do to raise awareness among practitioners and the public that these orders exist? Secondly, will she agree to report to Parliament on the number of orders that have been made after, for example, one year of operation —although that might of course be under a different Government—so that the effectiveness can be considered? Thirdly, will she clarify the legal aid position? My understanding is that legal aid will be made available because these are civil FGM orders, even though they sit within criminal legislation. Without such legal aid, these orders would fail. How does the Minister intend to make that clear, or is my understanding of legal aid wrong? Fourthly, will the Government consult on the interpretation of the definition of FGM?

While we are disappointed that we do not have the best outcome, we feel that we have done all we can to make the case. The proposals from the Government are important, they are a significant improvement and we want to see them be as effective as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussions to enable the progress mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hamwee to take place. I think we all want the same thing; there is a slight difference of opinion in how we get there. I thank specifically the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Meacher, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee for the time they have taken in the discussions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised two substantive points. The first concerned whether there would not be advantages in placing the provisions in respect of FGM protection orders in the Family Law Act 1996 rather than in the FGM Act 2003 and the second concerned whether the statutory definition of FGM should be updated expressly to refer to reinfibulation. I will take the two points in turn. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and her advisers for discussing with me the issues she raised on Report. On the first point, I believe that the noble Baroness accepted that the Government’s provisions would allow proceedings for FGM protection orders to be heard in the family court or in the family division of the High Court as family proceedings with the full range of the court’s powers. However, she was concerned that civil or family law practitioners might not be able to find the FGM protection order provisions in a criminal statute and that victims would be deterred from availing themselves of them.

As its Long Title indicates, the FGM Act 2003 restates and amends the law relating to FGM. It is not exclusively a criminal statute nor do I think that is a particularly helpful label. We remain of the view that is sensible to have all the provisions relating to this area of the law in one place—that point was made on Report. We will work with the legal profession and others to ensure that the FGM provisions in the Bill are widely publicised when we come to bring them into force. I think this is crucial because it is not just the law but the reinforcement and the engagement with communities that will be so important.

With regard to the definition of FGM, I also had a helpful discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and her advisers on whether there should be an explicit reference to reinfibulation in the FGM Act 2003. I have tried to persuade the noble Baroness of the Government’s firm view, which I set out on Report and reiterate today, that reinfibulation is already covered by the wording of the 2003 Act. As infibulation is an offence under that Act, so is reinfibulation. That reinfibulation or resuturing is an offence is clearly stated in the multi-agency practice guidelines on FGM and in the guidance of almost all of the relevant royal colleges. There may of course be a need to communicate this point to practitioners more effectively—I think there will be—but we do not accept that there is currently any need to clarify the law.

The noble Baroness also asked about the legal aid position. The Government are giving this further consideration and will clarify the position on legal aid in due course. The noble Baroness also asked whether there would be a report to Parliament on FGM protection orders after one year. We expect that the provisions of this Bill will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny in the normal way. We will ensure that our report on the working of the Bill gives figures as to the number of FGM protection orders made. I think that will be very important. It will, of course, be open to any Member of your Lordships’ House to table a Question at any time seeking such information.

I will now respond to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the constructive way in which she has pursued her and the Local Government Association’s campaign for a new offence to outlaw statements that encourage the promotion of FGM. As I indicated on Report, the Government remain to be persuaded of the case for such an offence. The Government believe that the provisions added to the Bill at Report stage are a far more targeted, and therefore more effective, way of dealing with the problem.

Of course, as well as this now strengthened body of criminal and civil law, there is more that can and should be done to overcome the culture and attitudes that allow FGM to persist. That is why, at the Girl Summit in July, we launched a declaration condemning FGM, signed by more than 200 faith and community leaders from all major religions. The faith leaders have declared that FGM is not required by their religions and is a form of child abuse. The declaration has it made clear that all religions will work together to end FGM for good. The support from faith leaders has been overwhelming and the Government are committed to turning these signatures into further action through education and community engagement, which, as I have said, are crucial. Our aim must be for all these powerful voices from authoritative and respected local leaders to drown out the minority, to whom the noble Baroness referred, who advocate and encourage FGM.

Finally, we have real concerns about the necessity and proportionality of an offence of encouraging the promotion of FGM, given that it would engage Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects freedom of expression. None of us would condone such statements, but it does mean that we have to tread carefully before introducing what amounts to a speech crime. The noble Baroness has briefly touched on these points and has referred to the advice she has recently received from Dexter Dias QC. I am ready and willing to meet both the noble Baroness and Dexter Dias to discuss these issues further. I hope that the offer of a further meeting will go some way to reassure the noble Baroness that we will continue to explore the issues she has raised, although I hope she will understand that I cannot offer her any commitment to bring forward a government amendment on this matter during the remaining stages of the Bill.

I say again that the whole House is united in seeking to eradicate the vile practice of FGM both from this country and across the globe. Your Lordships’ House is sending the Bill to the Commons with a powerful suite of new measures to help achieve that objective. I hope that, having heard the Government’s reasons for the approach we have taken, particularly as regards FGM protection orders, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will not press her amendment—as she has stated she will not—and will join me in commending the government amendments to the House.

Amendment 7 agreed.