Clause 1
Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Jo Swinson (Shadow Minister (Women and Equality), Department for Communities and Local Government; East Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat)
May I, too, say how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Hood? I suspect that amendment No. 12 was tabled with a similar intent to that underlying the other amendments in the group. The issue dealt with by the amendment is one that I raised on Second Reading, so I hope that the Minister has since had time to consider it.
Amendment No. 12 would ensure that, in deciding whether to make an order against forced marriage, courts had regard to the wishes and feelings of the person to be protected. It would insert two new subsections. Proposed new subsection (3A) would allow the court to direct that the examination of a person to be protected should take place in the presence of an intermediary. As many hon. Members are aware, intermediaries ensure that the wishes and feelings of vulnerable people are given sufficient consideration throughout the process of giving evidence in court, even if traditional court proceedings would make it very difficult for such people’s wishes to be heard.
Proposed new subsection (3B) would merely reiterate the definition of an intermediary as set down in section 29 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
The job of an intermediary will be to help communicate questions to the witness and then communicate answers given by that witness back to the person who asked the questions. They should also provide any necessary explanation of the questions or answers to aid understanding.
Forced marriages often involve children or people with learning disabilities. Those people can be forced into marriage through a whole host of sources, such as trickery, assault, kidnapping or blackmail. The motives for that, as set out on Second Reading, can include efforts by the family to find a full-time carer for an individual with learning disabilities or to obtain a visa.
I shall give an example. Rani is a young woman with mental health needs and mild learning disabilities. She was living at home with her mother and sister. Her mother was put under pressure by the local community for Rani to marry a young man from India who needed to marry a British citizen to remain in this country. Rani’s mother believed that that would be a good match, because she felt that nobody else would marry Rani due to her disability.
After Rani had been married for a year, it became clear that her husband had been taking all of her social security benefits and sending the money to his family in India. Rani had been assaulted regularly and had suffered a miscarriage, which made her husband even more aggressive towards her. Although she had asked for help, her mother said that she had to stay with her husband for the sake of the family’s honour. That is just one telling example of the problem that we are trying to solve.
It is essential for us to ensure that people with learning disabilities, or children who are vulnerable to the prospect of forced marriage, can give evidence adequately. Intermediaries are one way to help that to happen. It is true that they are often used in criminal cases. Technically, judges have the power to order the use of an intermediary within a civil case to help witnesses in giving evidence. However, evidence suggests that that power has been underused and judges seem reluctant to suggest the process. Perhaps they view intermediaries for use solely in criminal justice cases and see them as not appropriate within a civil setting. Whether or not the amendment is accepted, it is important that guidance is issued alongside the legislation to encourage and explicitly say to judges that the use of special measures, such as intermediaries, would help to ensure that justice is available for everybody at risk of forced marriage.
In addition to the support that the amendment has received from the anti-abuse and learning disability charities, Respond, the Ann Craft Trust and Voice UK, the Disability Rights Commission has also indicated its support, as it has concerns about the issue. I welcome any reassurance that the Minister can give about how people in such vulnerable situations will be well served by the Bill.