Female Genital Mutilation

Debate between Naz Shah and Karen Bradley

Tuesday 15th December 2015 General Committees

[Karen Bradley]

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The reason why we introduced protection orders at the beginning of the school holidays was that we know that is a time when girls can be taken out of the UK to be cut. The families know that the girls will come back to a new class, and possibly even a new school if they are moving from primary to secondary school.

The hon. Gentleman is right that girls leaving school for a significant period of time can be an indicator of FGM, and I know that there is multi-agency working across the country to look carefully at that. Reports can be made to multi-agency safeguarding hubs and, of course, to the NHS helpline. We have also published multi-agency guidance, which, as I have said, we are putting on a statutory footing. That includes information for schools and teachers on what to look out for.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Do we know how many protection orders have been used for FGM so far, or even in the last year?

[Karen Bradley]

We do not yet have the final figures. Protection orders were only introduced on 17 July, so the first set of statistics has not yet come through. We hope to have them shortly, and I am sure the hon. Lady will be made aware of them when they are released.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I will be happy to write to my hon. Friend with an analysis of the comparisons because we probably do not have time to go through it now. Let me be clear: the protection orders are for girls that we consider to be at risk of FGM, to protect them and stop them from being taken out of the country—for example, their passports are removed. That is girls who are at risk of FGM. We have also taken measures for girls where FGM has been committed. To return to mandatory reporting, that has been in force only since 31 October, but it means that any professional in a public body who comes into contact with FGM—to be clear: a health professional who sees that FGM has been committed and who knows it has been committed—has a mandatory duty to report it so that we get the information.

[Naz Shah]

I am going to speak about my experience of honour-based forced marriages and the case of Shafilea Ahmed. In that case we did not have a body, but we prosecuted. What I am struggling to understand is why, when we have got the evidence base—when we have clear medical evidence of mutilation—we need witness testimony. Why are we not prosecuting?

[Karen Bradley]

I cannot answer for why the CPS would choose to take a prosecution or not. I repeat that no cases were referred to the CPS before 2010, so it was impossible for it to take a prosecution. Cases are now being referred and the CPS will make its best judgment on whether a prosecution can be achieved.

The hon. Lady is right about the evidence. That is where mandatory reporting is so important, because it means that those professionals who feared coming forward and saying they had seen this, because they feared it was somehow going to create a cultural difficulty, now know that they have to come forward and we will get that evidence.

[Naz Shah]

We have had 386 reports connected to FGM since 2009. I accept that the law is complicated, but we have the evidence. Do we need to do more in terms of changing the law? The prosecution that was pursued had nothing to do with a parent or a non-family member; it involved a medical practitioner who was not trained and who was found not guilty. It was not set within the context of the law—when we introduced the law, it was not for that kind of case. It is exactly the same for forced marriage: when we prosecuted in Cardiff, the first prosecution was not to do with parents or people who take very young girls out of the country to get them married. In both instances, we are failing. Please can we acknowledge that and do something more than just what we are doing here, because clearly we are not doing it right?

[Karen Bradley]

I dispute that we are not doing enough. I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s frustration about the lack of prosecutions and successful convictions. However, the measures in the Serious Crime Act 2015 were included in response to failings or gaps in the law that this Government perceived. We have taken those steps, but she has to recognise that that does not simply change things overnight. The changes to the law apply to offences committed after the Serious Crime Act commences, and there will be a time lag, which we all have to acknowledge, while evidence is gathered and before a prosecution takes place. I want to see a prosecution and a successful conviction as much as she does but, also, I do not want to see FGM happening in the first place. The hon. Lady is right that a successful conviction would send a clear message, as it has with forced marriage, that the practice is not acceptable. We must have the deterrent of a successful conviction, but we also have to prevent this practice from happening. A conviction is, in many ways, a failure, because a crime has happened. That is not a success; a success is preventing it from happening.

The hon. Member for Luton North and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington made a point about men. They are both absolutely right; we need to change the culture, and not just among women. We need women who have been victims or who are worried about their siblings and members of their family to come forward, but we also need men to speak out.

One of the most heartening things I heard over the summer was when I visited the Border Force safeguarding team at Heathrow terminal 5. The law had only changed a week before, and the team told me about their experiences of families traveling out of the country, often via the middle east, to countries where FGM may take place. It was the men—the brothers, the uncles and the fathers—who said to the Border Force guards, “Thank you for having told us that this is a criminal offence and that if this happens to my daughter, sister or niece while she is out of the country, you will be watching for that on her return and we will face jail for having allowed it to happen. That means I have the power and the authority to tell members of my family who want to do this to my relative that they cannot, because it is a criminal act here in the UK.” That is such an important point.