Mrs Ann Cryer (Keighley, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 124, in schedule 7, page 44, line 14, at end insert—

'43 In Schedule 21 to that Act (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) after sub-paragraph 10(e) insert—

''(ea) a connection to a forced marriage or attempted forced marriage,

(eb) a connection to an offence aggravated by the victim's perceived conduct as defined under section 145A,''.'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 40—Forced marriage—

'(1) A person commits an offence if he causes or attempts to cause another person to enter into a forced marriage.

(2) In this section ''forced marriage'' means a marriage entered into in which one or both parties has been subject to—

(a) intimidation,

(b) harassment,

(c) false imprisonment, or

(d) domestic violence

with the intent to cause the party or parties to enter into the marriage.

(3) For the purposes of this section ''domestic violence'' means—

(a) physical abuse;

(b) sexual abuse;

(c) psychological or emotional abuse, including, but not limited to—

(i) intimidation;

(ii) harassment;

(iii) false imprisonment;

(iv) damage to property;

(v) threats of physical abuse, sexual abuse or psychological or emotional abuse;

(d) any act defined under paragraphs (a) to (c) directed against a dependant of the person,

(e) threats of any act under paragraph (d)

committed by a cohabitant, relative or member of the same household.

(4) In this section—

''cohabitant'' and ''relative'' have the same meaning as in section 62 of the Family Law Act 1996;

''member'' of a particular household has the same meaning as in section 5 of this Act.

(5) Behaviour which does not involve actual or threatened physical or sexual abuse may be psychological or emotional abuse for the purposes of subsection (3)(c).

(6) Without limiting subsection (2)—

(a) a single act may amount to domestic violence for the purposes of that subsection;

(b) a number of acts that form part of a pattern of behaviour may amount to domestic violence for that purpose, even if, taken individually, some or all of those acts would not be of sufficient severity to meet the criteria in subsection (3).

(7) A person (whether or not a United Kingdom national or permanent United Kingdom resident) is guilty of an offence if he aids, abets, counsels or procures a person (whether or not a United Kingdom national or permanent United Kingdom resident) to commit an offence under subsection (1).

(8) An act is a relevant act for the purposes of this section if it would constitute an offence under subsection (1) or (7), and—

(a) it is done in relation to a United Kingdom national or permanent United Kingdom resident (whether or not done in the United Kingdom), or

(b) it is done in the United Kingdom (whether or not by a person who is a United Kingdom national or permanent United Kingdom resident), or

(c) it is done outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national or permanent United Kingdom resident.

(9) If an offence under this section is committed outside the United Kingdom—

(a) proceedings may be taken, and

(b) the offence may for incidental purposes be treated as having been committed,

in any place in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.

(10) A person to whom an act is done which would constitute an offence under subsection (1) or (7), but which is not a relevant act, is a victim (as defined by section 29 of this Act), while resident in the United Kingdom.

(11) A United Kingdom national is an individual who is—

(a) a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas) or a British Overseas citizen,

(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 (c.61) is a British subject, or

(c) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act.

(12) A permanent United Kingdom resident is an individual who is settled in the United Kingdom (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971 (c.77)).

(13) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or a fine, or both;

(b) a summary conviction, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

(14) After section 12(f) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c.18) (Grounds on which a marriage is voidable) insert—

''(g) that either party was subject to an offence under section [Forced marriage] of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004''.

(15) In Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) after sub-paragraph 10(e) insert—

''(ea) a connection to a forced marriage or attempted forced marriage,''.'.

New clause 41—Victim's perceived conduct ('honour crimes')—

'In Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) after section 145 (Increase in sentences for racial or religious aggravation) insert—

''145A Increase in sentences for offences aggravated by the victim's perceived conduct (honour crimes)

(1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence.

(2) If the offence was aggravated by the victim's perceived conduct as defined by this section, the court—

(a) must treat that fact as an aggravating factor, and

(b) must state in open court that the offence was so aggravated.

(3) For the purposes of this section an offence aggravated by the victim's perceived conduct means an offence motivated (wholly or partly) by a belief that—

(a) the victim's conduct has disgraced the victim's family by defying cultural rules, or

(b) the victim has aided, abetted, solicited or encouraged conduct by a person considered to have disgraced the person's family by defying cultural rules.

(4) 'cultural rules' includes codes of behaviour (whether or not formally expressed) relating to religious, racial, or ethnic communities.''.'.

Mrs Ann Cryer (Keighley, Labour)

Amendment No. 124 is a probing amendment. Grouped with it are new clause 40, which deals with forced marriages, and new clause 41, which deals with perceived conduct and honour crimes. First, I will speak about honour crimes—mainly, honour killings—because there is a clear connection between crimes of honour and honour killings and forced marriages.

The problem with honour killings is that they go unrecognised. A couple of weeks ago, there was a conference in The Hague, which has been mentioned in various contexts. Earlier in Committee we talked about domestic homicide reviews; such reviews would be useful in identifying killings related to crimes of honour. About a year ago, I did a report for the Council of Europe Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. I was asked to be the rapporteur on honour killings in the 52 states of the Council of Europe. It was traumatic to go into all the details of the issue, but the worst thing was that it was extremely difficult to get information on the subject: because none of the states of Europe identify honour killings as such, it is extremely difficult to get facts and figures.

At the conference in The Hague, police officers said that if we do not know which killings are related to crimes of honour it is extremely difficult to establish patterns. Police forces in areas with large ethnic communities would be helped if, on sentencing or at some point during the proceedings, mention was made of honour killings, and if honour killings were specifically treated as such. The amendment mentions

''a connection to an offence aggravated by the victim's perceived conduct as defined under section 145A'',

and new clause 41 refers to an

''Increase in sentences for offences aggravated by the victim's perceived conduct (honour crimes)''.

I am not pushing for all of that; I simply point out to the Government and the Minister that if we could identify such crimes, police forces throughout the country would know what they were looking for. Social services departments, schools and colleges would all be in the picture about things that might go wrong for a particular girl or woman, and could identify those things before she was killed. That is what I really want to ensure this morning. I want to make the Government aware and I want them to look into the issue.

When I prepared the Council of Europe report 12 months ago, I heard again and again that people

did not know what was happening, even though all the warning signals were present beforehand. Even though things were going wrong in a girl's life, she lacked protection because people did not know the pattern. In fact, they were not even establishing patterns. The clause on domestic homicide reviews will help greatly to identify what things were going wrong in a girl's life before she met a horrible end. Colleges, schools, social services departments and the police will therefore know where to look.

New clause 40, which embodies the main thrust of my arguments, would deal with forced marriages. It begins:

''A person commits an offence if he causes or attempts to cause another person to enter into a forced marriage.''

The Government have done some pretty brave and imaginative things to protect girls from forced marriage, but thus far we have not really carried with us the various communities that go in for forced marriage, even though they have been sympathetic and made all the right noises—certainly the communities in my constituency have done so, although five years ago, when I first raised the issue in an Adjournment debate, I was told that there was no such thing as forced marriage; my constituents said that I had dreamt it up. Now, every week a girl comes to me to ask for help in putting a stop on her husband's entry clearance.

We have a term for such girls now: reluctant sponsors. Reluctant sponsors know very well the difference between a forced and an arranged marriage. One of the points that keep being put to me is that I do not understand the culture and that the marriages are arranged, not forced. There is a clear difference; yet the issue of forced marriage has kept raising its ugly head during the five years in which I have been dealing with it. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) deal with as many as two cases a week of girls who are reluctant sponsors.

Such girls have the support of many of the community leaders and of many other women in their community, and they certainly have the support of the Government and. Almost immediately after my Adjournment debate five years ago, the Home Office set up a working group, jointly and very capably chaired by Baroness Uddin and Lord Ahmed, to consider the causes and the results of forced marriage. As a result, all sorts of changes were made to the way in which the various statutory authorities worked. I am proud to say that West Yorkshire police, who might not come off terribly well in the league tables, have really blazed a trail in protecting these unfortunate women, for example, they have established extremely good relationships with the police in Mirpore and Pakistan. In addition, there are some terrific people working in the Foreign Office consular division in Islamabad helping such girls. We are doing all that we can.

More recently, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children issued strong guidelines to social services departments. Since then, the guidelines have been sorted out and thinned down and have been sent to most schools, school governors and education authorities. Such action will help to cut back the

number of forced marriages, but if there was a specific criminal offence of forcing to marry, we would start to have a real impact on the perpetrators of these terrible acts, who would realise that they were committing an offence not only against every aspect of Islam, but against our criminal law. I hope that the Minister will tell us that progress is being made and that, eventually, we will have some form of criminal law that will deter such parents—who, I stress, are in a minority.

Week after week in my constituency I help young men and women who are very pleased with their arranged, genuine marriages and want to bring their husband or wife into the country; my office and I give them that help. However, a minority of young men and women—nearly always women; men seem to have their own way around these problems—are being forced into marriages. We must win the hearts and minds of those people. To say that forcing another into marriage is a specific criminal offence would go a long way in that direction.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am very pleased that the hon. Lady and other Government Members have tabled this group of probing amendments. It is important that we use the course of the Bill to hear the Minister's views on the subject. The hon. Lady is a well known champion on the subject, and although I am in danger of repeating myself, let me say that I take my hat off to her for what she has done for her community. I think that it is much appreciated.

I first came across the phenomenon of forced marriage in my constituency. A teacher approached me because she did not know what to do about some young women in her class who were going to be taken back to Pakistan to make marriages that they did not want to make. She came to ask if she could bring them to see me separately and in secret. I thought that that was an extraordinary way to behave, but when I saw them and spoke to them I understood the fear and trepidation in which they were living. It was not so much that they wanted me to do anything about their particular cases, but that they wanted me to learn from their experience and to reinforce on the Government—of whatever persuasion—their message that they cannot resist what is going on in their communities unless they have the backing of the Government of the day and some form of legislative protection behind which they can seek refuge.

Following the conference in The Hague last month, I was amazed when Scotland Yard's head of homicide, Commander Andy Baker, revealed that the police in London are approached by an average of two women or girls a week who fear being forced into marriage against their will. I think that that is the tip of the iceberg, and if that is what is happening in London, there will be many more cases in our communities throughout the United Kingdom. There is an urgent need for the Government to examine the issue of forced marriages and to go beyond paying the lip service to the problem that we all pay. Hopefully, they will come up with proposals that, at the very least, can be discussed.

Turning to honour killings, many cultures place emphasis on so-called honour, but precisely what

constitutes honour is quite unclear in many instances. In addition, the concept seems to be entirely differently applied to men and to women. It seems to place men ahead of women, put men in a position of strength and allow them to behave almost as they choose, yet women's behaviour is severely restricted to the point of illogicality. The concept of loss of honour varies from the loss of virginity before marriage to the ridiculous idea prevalent in certain societies that if a woman is raped, that is interpreted as promiscuity and she faces a penalty through no fault of her own: the victim is held responsible. Such is the nature of honour within certain cultures that hit men and women are sent out to deal with offenders. It is very dramatic, and we often read about the results in our newspapers. Reading some of the harrowing stories and seeing the results of so-called honour is alarming. There is a view that only Muslim families are involved, but, in fact, Sikh and Hindu families are as well. Sadly, the practice is widespread.

I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I refer him to an article in Jane's Police Review of 18 June this year in which Dr. Aisha Gill made an interesting case. At the end of the article, Dr. Gill set out a series of suggestions that I hope the Minister will consider. The first is,

''effective legislation to punish all crimes committed in the name of honour and ensure that all reports of violence and abuse are taken seriously, with action taken''.

I support the amendments. I will be interested to hear what resources the Minister intends to put into the field and his reaction to the substantial research being done by Scotland Yard and others. What action do the Government intend to take?

Mrs Ann Keen (PPS (Rt Hon Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer), HM Treasury; Brentford & Isleworth, Labour)

I support the amendments. The purpose of an offence of aiding, abetting or coercing a forced marriage is not in any way to denigrate Asian communities, but to support them in their aim to save and protect their most vulnerable members—boys and girls—from being forced into marriage. There may be few prosecutions under such a provision, but, like the recently passed Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, it sends a clear message about society's repugnance and determination to stamp out a form of abuse. In addition, the police, schools, the Foreign Office, social services and so forth will feel that they have much stronger grounds for intervening to prevent the offence and aid the victims, and they will have a much stronger duty to intervene and offer services.

Many families still do not realise that what they are doing is wrong, especially when they exert intense psychological, as distinct from physical, force. The amendment would leave them in no doubt that in this country such practices are illegal. All the religions practised by Asian communities in the UK, in particular Islam, condemn forced marriages. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, the leading international Islamic scholar recently took part in a film for young people made by the Home Office in which he makes it clear that forced marriage is abhorrent to Islam and Muslims. Such a provision is therefore far from a manifestation of Islamaphobia; in fact, it upholds the

true doctrines of Islam and the Sikh and Hindu religions.

It could be said that current criminal provisions have plainly failed to reduce the abuse because they do not cover coercion by psychological pressure. Drafting a provision will not be easy, but it is far from impossible. Perhaps it will be difficult to prove the offence—especially if it a question of the victim's word against the family's—but the same difficulty is faced by many rape and sexual abuse victims and it does not prevent many successful prosecutions.

The proposed provision has received total backing from the Association of Chief Police Officers through the domestic violence lead taken by Jim Gamble. The chief constable of Manchester, Mike Todd, spoke out strongly in its favour on 18 June this year, when he described it as a very useful and necessary tool in

''the Police armoury to combat this from of abuse''.

I have taken part in many conferences on this subject, and was privileged to host one in my constituency last year, which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) attended. I met District Judge Marilyn Mornington, who with many in the northern circuit, of which she is a member, has worked extremely hard on this issue. Many other brave women have spoken out, not only Southall Black Sisters, but other members of our communities.

The Government should not be afraid of introducing the provision. We as politicians have never been afraid of doing what is right. This is without question the time to do what is right for the young people in our communities.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley for the single-mindedness and selflessness with which she pursues these issues on behalf of her Asian community. I suspect that some elements of that community, which dominates her constituency, do not always thank her for doing so, but she continues none the less, and she daily impresses me with her commitment.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen). I have had the privilege of being in meetings with her in recent weeks, so I know that she is closely involved with the Asian women's community and its specific problems in her constituency. She, too, is a doughty fighter for its rights.

On no possible basis of cultural tolerance can the kind of behaviour that has been described be allowed. We are almost at the same stage now with honour killing and forced marriage as we were some years ago with domestic violence, when it was almost a secret and was talked about only by very brave people. When the debate about domestic violence started and we began to tackle the issue, it was only whispered about. That was when it was at its worst.

There is an urgent need for these crimes to be named and identified, and it should be made very clear

in the legislation that they are unacceptable. I invite the Minister to respond as positively as he can.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. She described the work that she has done in the Council of Europe, and we know of her work in this place and admire her for it. These are difficult and complex issues, and she approaches them with characteristic sympathy and courage. I think that all of us would unite in paying tribute to her.

I made it clear on Second Reading that the Government are sympathetic to the thinking behind new clause 40. We recognise that it is driven by a sense of urgency about the problem, a desire to raise awareness and to get the public to acknowledge that it is important, and a wish to send a clear signal of condemnation.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth are right that there can be no justification for forced marriages, and I agree that if we can take further steps in the Bill to achieve the goals that we all share, we should take them.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley for tabling her amendments, which have helped the Committee to focus its attention on this issue. However, what she proposes is not without difficulties. The Government would not generally wish to adopt a measure purely for symbolic reasons. There would have to be real, solid grounds for doing so. I am aware of the Home Office report following the proceedings of the working group on forced marriages that was chaired by Lord Ahmed and Baroness Uddin. It recommended many positive measures, which my hon. Friend welcomed, but it also recommended against the kind of offence that we are discussing. We must at least take account of such opinions.

The amendment raises a number of important and complex questions. Can some of the psychological and emotional pressure that is used in certain cases be criminalised without stepping over the borderline into normal family interactions, which the state should hesitate to seek to regulate? Might the fact that an offence has been committed for the purpose of bringing about a forced marriage be treated as an aggravating factor that the court should take into account when sentencing?

We will need to think very carefully about all such questions, which is why I will ask my hon. Friend to agree to seek leave to withdraw her amendment, which she has already indicated is a probing amendment. If we decide in the end that a specific offence is required, we will almost certainly need to engage in a formal public consultation on the matter, since such action was not proposed in ''Safety and Justice''. It is only right that we engage the opinions of local communities and others on this issue. In the meantime, I hope that she is reassured that the Government take forced marriage seriously.

I was grateful for my hon. Friend's positive comments about the action that the Government are already taking. For example, the Government have published extensive guidance for the police and social services. It has been suggested that that guidance should be backed by section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children is looking sympathetically at that proposal. The ACPO working group on forced marriage has been playing an important, constructive role. Indeed, we have heard this morning about some of the work that it has been doing.

A UK-wide working group on forced marriages has been established to bring together voluntary and local agencies throughout the UK to improve grass-roots services to victims and potential victims of forced marriage by working with the police and the Home Office. The Government have also funded a range of educational initiatives, including a training programme at Tower Hamlets college to influence attitudes and practice on forced marriage and, rather imaginatively, a teenage soap opera addressing domestic violence and forced marriage, which will be distributed free to every secondary school.

New clause 41 deals with so-called honour crimes. Like all Committee members, I welcome the initiative by the European police meeting in The Hague to consider ways to tackle the rising phenomenon of honour killings. I support its aim to set up a pan-European unit to combat such killings. I also welcome the move by the police in England and Wales to reinvestigate more than 100 murders that they suspect could be honour killings.

Although I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, I do not think that her suggestion in the amendment about how to deal with these serious crimes is appropriate, because offenders in honour killings would, in most cases, be subject to the murder sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides that offenders must receive a life sentence and sets out lists of factors that should be taken into account when setting tariffs for those convicted of murder. The Government considered carefully the range of murder offences committed and how they should be included in the tariff framework that we set up. Honour killings do not appear in that schedule, although we believe that the majority of such killings would be likely to fall into the aggravated sentencing ranges.

Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

The Minister is touching on the nub of the issue. It is difficult to see why this category cannot be included, now that it has been highlighted. Although I accept that it may fall within the ''aggravated'' range, I point out that Parliament could choose to make it specific not by introducing this amendment, but by the device that he has mentioned.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

As I said, we are thinking carefully about all the issues, but we do not believe that honour killings should be described in that way and included in the list. The aggravating factors, which are already covered, would capture these horrendous killings, which are often carried out by family members and

are generally premeditated. Some of them may be contract killings, and there may sometimes be an abuse of a position of trust. Those are all strong aggravating factors in the legislation that can play into the sentencing for a murder.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I understood from the reports that I read that the national review dealt with nearly 120 murders, of which 13 were identified as being so-called honour killings. Can the Minister say what lessons were learned from that review and how the information from it will be shared with other police forces? Those are not isolated cases.

I was pleased to hear that an innovative play would be sent to all secondary schools, but what about the lessons learned from the pilot project? Will that project be spun out across the country? Are there plans to expand it or are there any pointers from it whereby we can learn across the board?

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

The hon. Lady is right that we are learning a great deal, and it will be necessary to spread that learning across police forces throughout the country in a relevant and sensitive way.

One particular point that we need to think a bit harder about—I am responding partly to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley in dealing with it—is how the police are able to identify that a killing is a so-called honour killing if we do not have a specific category of honour killings. How could the police deduce from the list of the aggravating factors that a murder was indeed an honour killing? If they are looking for a pattern of offending and trying to get behind what is going on in order to identify the perpetrators and deal not only with an individual case, but with the whole trend of honour killings, they will need to have some way of identifying precisely what is going on.

I undertake to have discussions before Report with law enforcement agencies to see how precisely they are able to inform their policing arrangements from what is said at trial and in relation to sentencing, so as to detect further crimes in the future. I know that my hon. Friend is interested in that issue, and I undertake to come back to her on it.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

Will the Minister examine cases in which the deaths were previously thought to be accidental? I gather that they have been included in the review. That might be extremely informative for other police forces and I would be interested in his reaction.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

We need to look with fresh eyes at all cases that may have been misinterpreted in the past. We need to learn from such cases and spread what we learn throughout the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley made clear, this is an issue that is deep within communities, but which has only recently surfaced, so there must be a great deal that we can learn. We need to learn quickly and use those lessons practically to bear down on what is a completely unacceptable practice.

I have not had the opportunity to read in detail the article to which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred. I shall do so,

because it clearly contains much important information. We all have a lot to learn about these matters. I undertake to engage with law enforcement agencies between now and Report to find out precisely where they have got to and what further help they need.

I hope that, having described the Government's response to both amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley will agree to seek leave to withdraw the amendment on the clear understanding that we intend to take forward the issue of enforced marriage in the best way that we can.

Mrs Ann Cryer (Keighley, Labour)

I shall seek to withdraw my amendment, but before I do so, I shall draw together one or two strands that came out of our discussions.

I understood from the comments made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about the outcomes of the police officers' conference that the 120 killings to which she referred are going to be investigated. I do not think that we know what proportion are honour killings, but we are moving in the right direction in that the police are going to look at those deaths and also at the totally disproportionate number of young women in the Asian community who commit so-called suicide as compared with the number in the white community, as it is four times as great. In addition to accidents, there are suicides. I cannot believe that all those women died because of their own actions. I am certain that many of them took their own lives because of the pressure from their extended family and the community. All that pressure comes from family honour or izzat, which plays such a strong role in those communities. It is difficult for us on the outside to understand what pressures are brought to bear on these girls to make them take their own lives.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I based my information, probably unwisely, on an article featured in the Evening Standard on 23 June. It said that, of the 120 deaths that the police had so far identified, 13 were suspected cases. If I am incorrect, it is because the information that I got from the newspaper was incorrect. I hoped that it was right.

Mrs Ann Cryer (Keighley, Labour)

As a well meaning reader of The Guardian, I think that the Evening Standard probably got it right in that there were 120 deaths throughout the country. Many of them occurred in the Met area, but there were also cases from throughout the country.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, when the Department for Constitutional Affairs was the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), held a range of meetings across the country, particularly in areas where there are ethnic communities. Certainly, a meeting was arranged in Brentford and in Bradford. That is where I came across the formidable District Judge Marilyn Mornington. It was she who had the idea of creating a criminal offence. She comes across many problems relating to the issue and she felt that the creation of a

specific criminal offence would be a step in the right direction.

Of course we have to consult the communities, but let us talk to women, too, and not just to so-called community leaders. I remember a time in Bradford when if the local authority was asked to consult the community, it meant a particular council official picking up the phone and ringing five named persons in the Pakistani community. That was consultation. We do not want to go down that path. The meetings that the Lord Chancellor's Department organised were excellent. People from all over the country were there, and I met a group of women from Sahela in Cardiff who had some good information.

Shortly after the report of the group looking into forced marriages was published, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office set up the FCO community liaison unit with the help of the Home Office. There, a group of people—mainly women—have a hotline for girls in difficulties who either are about to be, or have been, forced to marry. It does some wonderful work. With the combined help of the FCO community liaison unit, our high commissions, MPs who help girls individually, social services, and, in particular, police forces, such as West Yorkshire police, we are moving in the right direction, but what we are not doing is stopping the practice; it is continuing apace. We are simply helping girls in awful situations, but once a girl has been forced into a marriage, her life is in tatters, no matter what we as a society do to help her. For the rest of her life, she is practically cut off from her community and family. Frequently, she even banned from seeing her brothers and sisters.

I readily withdraw my amendment, but I hope that the Minister will take into account everything that has been said this morning, particularly about consultation with the community. We must remember that there are women out there who are suffering, so we must listen to what they have to say. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.