Clause 1
Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [Lords]
12:00 pm
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)
You can see, Mr. Hood, just how co-operative all parties have been on the Bill: we even have amendments that allow me to say anything that I have not otherwise said, and I shall attempt to do that now.
The provisions for forced marriage protection orders take the form of a new part 4A to the Family Law Act, thus embedding them even more firmly in the family jurisdiction, as Lord Lester particularly asked us to do. That sends out important signals about the way in which the Bill should be approached. It places forced marriages robustly in the wider context of violence against women. Many of the problems facing those confronted with forced marriage are similar to those facing the victims of domestic violence. The Government and the voluntary sector want forced marriage to be mainstreamed into domestic violence, not dealt with as a separate issue. As a result, forced marriage will enjoy—if that is the right word—a central role in the Government’s national domestic violence delivery plan.
There is also a clear practical advantage in that approach, given the links with other legislation. In dealing with cases of forced marriage involving children, the courts will be able to make use of powers under the Children Act 1989. For example, if the court is concerned about the welfare of a child, it can make an interim care order or interim supervision order and instruct the local authority to investigate the situation. Where there is domestic violence, the courts will be able to take into account the relevant provisions of the Family Law Act, to provide adequate protection for the victim.
The provisions that relate to remand under proposed new section 63K, too, are modelled on the Family Law Act and will provide that an arrested person may be remanded if the matter is not dealt with when he is initially brought before the court. If no such remand provisions were available, the court would have no power to ensure that an arrested person was brought back before the court. Clearly, that would severely curtail the effectiveness of forced marriage protection orders and could put victims at risk.
A person may be arrested either under a power of arrest, and brought to the court within 24 hours, or by virtue of a warrant of arrest. When he is before the court, the court may either deal with him straight away or remand him using the power in proposed new section 63K. Schedule 5 to the 1996 Act provides that a person may either be remanded in custody or remanded on bail. If on bail, a recognizance is taken—usually a surety—and at the end of the of the remand period, the person may be further remanded.
Schedule 5 of the 1996 Act provides that a person shall not be remanded for a period of longer than eight days except if the court remands him on bail and both parties consent to a longer period of remand and if the court adjourns for a medical report. Rules of court—rule 3.10 of the family proceedings rules 1991—set out what information must be included in such an application for bail. That works well in domestic violence cases, and I hope that it will also work well in relation to the Bill.
The provisions that relate to the time limits for remand and access to a medical examination at proposed new section 63L are again modelled on the Family Law Act 1996 and provide for a medical examination and report if there is reason to consider that a medical report is required. There is also a power in proposed new section 63N to extend jurisdiction to magistrates courts family proceedings courts by affirmative order. Family proceedings courts already have jurisdiction to deal with domestic violence cases, although in practice most such cases are dealt with by county courts. There is no reason why magistrates cannot deal with more of those cases, particularly given that they deal daily with criminal proceedings involving domestic violence.