Proceeding contribution from Helen Grant (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 8 March 2012. It occurred during Topical debate and Backbench debate on International Women's Day.
International Women's Day
Since the introduction of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, there have been 257 forced marriage protection orders, five recorded breaches and one person sent to prison, and in 2010 alone, 1,735 people were supported by the Government's forced marriage unit. The youngest victim was 12 and the oldest 73. In just a few short years, that legislation has made a positive impact, and demand for orders continues to rise. However, there are still major problems with education, discovery and implementation. Not enough is being done on prevention, and ongoing scepticism greets women and children when they report forced marriage. Consideration is now being given to how to make the breach of a forced marriage protection order a criminal offence, and, going even further, to whether forced marriage should be a criminal offence. Criminalisation might seem to colleagues a popular and reasonable option, showing the public a tough approach against an alien and wicked practice, but I urge caution. My 23 years as a family lawyer leave me with some doubt that criminalisation would improve matters for victims. Indeed, it could be a backward step. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 criminalised the breaching of a non-molestation injunction order. There were very good intentions behind that, but there were many unforeseen consequences. Important comparisons can be made between that legislation and what is being contemplated now in relation to forced marriage. I was a busy domestic violence practitioner at the time, and I made three principal observations. First, the police were often slow and reluctant to pursue breaches because of perceived more serious crimes such as robbery and burglary. The Crown Prosecution Service was also slow or reluctant to do so because of the need to satisfy the high criminal burden of proof, namely ““beyond reasonable doubt””, and because of the evidential difficulties of crimes that often happen behind closed doors.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 541 c1047
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Child benefit Development aid Women Housing benefit Equality Families Domestic abuse Gender Discrimination Forced marriage Poverty Welfare tax credits Reform Rural areas Stalking International Women's Day Forced marriage protection orders
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-11 18:17:33 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_815994
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_815994
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_815994