HL Deb 21 April 1983 vol 441 cc673-97

5.31 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. First of all, may I say that the fact that I am speaking from my usual place in this House does not mean that this Bill is in any sense a party measure. It is obviously a matter on which each individual should form his or her conscientious opinion. I am glad to see, so far as I can judge from the list of speakers and from what I have heard, that the Bill will have pretty full support from all parties.

First, what is female circumcision? Although it is in the Short Title of the Bill, I have to admit that it is a misnomer—a very common misnomer, which is now in such universal use that I think it would be pedantic to seek to upset it. The operation the Bill addresses itself to is something far worse than the misnomer suggests. It is nothing short of the cutting out of the clitoris, and a whole spectrum of other mutilations beyond that. I am going to leave the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who is qualified to do so, to explain in more detail what it amounts to physically and in medical terms. The point to grasp, for the needs of the legislator, is that all these procedures are mutilations, and that the operation assaults, and attempts to cancel, the womanhood of a person.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Articles 5 says: No one shall be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". I think that when the House has heard the full account from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, of what goes on no one will be able to doubt that this operation falls under those words.

Where is it done? It is done in an East-West belt across Africa between the Sahara and the Forest and just running into South-West Asia across the Red Sea. Within that belt it is done to babies, to little girls and to young women, who may belong to any of the tribes and religions found in that belt. That means it is done among Muslims, among Christians, among Jews, among polytheists and among animists. The point is that it is in many places a majority operation, and in some countries it is estimated that as many as 90 per cent. of girls and women have suffered this mutilation.

Why is it done? It is not required by any religion. It is custom, pure and simple, and that is all we really know. Anthropology and psychology are still groping for the deeper reasons; and theories about it are many and extremely interesting. However, this Bill has nothing to do with Africa. The reason for the Bill is that this operation has begun to appear in this country, among people who come from that belt in Africa and South-West Asia.

The evidence that it is being done is as follows. The BBC's Radio 4 programme, "The World Tonight", on 12th November last year, transmitted the voice of a GP. He said that he had referred—I now quote textually— about eight in the last four years. They were from the Third World. They had a removal of the clitoris". A tape of the programme exists and the staff of the programme have assured me that the speaker was indeed a general practitioner in this country, and that his identity is known to them. I accept that, and I can say to the House that it should do so also.

Quite separately from that evidence, I have in my possession incontrovertible documentary evidence that the clitoris and labia minora of a woman were excised in a London clinic in 1981. Beyond those direct pieces of evidence, it is commonly believed, among serious people who have made inquiry into the situation in this country, that those pieces of evidence are the tip of the iceberg.

Why is it appropriate to legislate? Some say we should legislate because it will help those who are working against this practice where it is prevalent. That opinion is to be found among leaders of the movement against it in certain countries: I have evidence of that too, but I will not delay the House with it at the moment. Some people say that we should legislate here to stop this country becoming a haven to which well-off people come to have it done, as pressure against it mounts in their own countries. It is in fact already banned in Sudan and in Kenya, and has recently been banned in Sweden. Those practising the operation have been prosecuted in France. The new Swedish law provides for two years in prison.

I merely report these opinions. I do not myself urge these arguments upon the House as reasons for legislating. It is in any case doubtful whether we should legislate for ourselves, solely or principally to help people in other countries: there is an interesting argument concealed there. What I do urge as a simple, sufficient, and indeed imperative, reason is that we will not have this mutilation done here. It is against all humanity, kindness, respect and love; and we will not have it.

Who backs this Bill? The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, gives full support to any measures which will help to eradicate what it regards as a repugnant and unnecessary procedure". But the Royal College has reservations about the provisions for certification and notification which are in the Bill as it is drafted. I will come back to those reservations shortly. The British Medical Association supports the Bill; the Royal College of Midwives supports the Bill; the Royal College of Nursing supports the Bill, including an emergency resolution of their representative body last week; and I believe that we shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that the Association of Health Visitors supports the Bill.

Going now outside the medical organisations, the following bodies also support the Bill—the National Council of Women, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the Minority Rights Group, the Anti-Slavery Society, the Fawcett Society and the Josephine Butler Society. Even during this afternoon I have received—and I must mention this—a petition from 16 African women living in London, which says: We give our full support to your effort to legislate against the operation of female sexual mutilation in the United Kingdom". Lastly, to come close to home, 110 Members of the House of Commons have signed an Early Day Motion which, calls on HMG to make it illegal for doctors practising in the UK to carry out female circumcision on girls living in the UK or brought to the UK from abroad". I have heard also of a good many petitions destined for Members of the House of Commons.

Let us look at the Bill for a moment. It starts by defining the actual deeds which must not be done under the Bill, and it then goes on to prescribe the penalties for those who do them. Clause 2—and this is the most important part of the Bill—provides that, so long as these deeds are done for the physical health of the patient, no offence has been committed. This is here because about 8,000 or 9,000 operations in this country are done every year which include the cutting, sewing or cutting out of some relevant part, or parts, of girls or women. They are typically done for cancer and for pre-cancerous conditions, and there are a whole lot of minor conditions which it can be no part of this Bill to seek to prevent or to incommode, as part of the ordinary everyday life of the medical and surgical professions.

The Bill then stipulates that the operations must be done in a National Health Service hospital or a registered nursing home, and empowers the Secretary of State to make statutory instruments about various matters.

Here I come to the reservations of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. They are directed to the procedure which is set out in the Bill, by which the confirmation of two medical practitioners that the operation is indeed in the interests of the physical health of the patient is required before it may be done, and so on.

These reservations of the Royal College are obviously weighty and must be met if the Bill is to be good law. I never supposed that I would be able to get these provisions right the first time round, and I am glad to say that both the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the officers of the British Medical Association have agreed to meet me and discuss how we can improve these provisions. Perhaps we shall be able to meet at the same time with the Department of Health and Social Security. The Minister may be able to say a word about that when he comes to reply. After that, I will introduce amendments for the Committee stage of this Bill.

Lastly, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' goodwill and shall listen carefully to points which will be made in this Second Reading debate. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—.(Lord Kennet.)

5.43 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)

My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Trefgarne replies on behalf of the Government, in view of what has been said I think that I ought to acquaint the House, at least, as Lord Chancellor, with my opinion as to the present legal position, because I think that anyone hearing the noble Lord would think that it was lawful to do this thing in this country at the present time.

Under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be liable to imprisonment for life. Under Section 20 of the same Act, whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than five years.

I do not want to talk about this Bill at all, because my noble friend will do it far better than I, and he is the spokesman for the department concerned. But, at any rate, I really must make it plain to the House and to the public that it is my solemn opinion that anybody who participates in this country in the excision of a clitoris is guilty of one or both of the offences which I have just read out, and will render himself, and anyone participating in such a procedure will render himself, liable to prosecution for an offence for which a private prosecution is available. I must say this, because I believe that people are beginning to think that this is not against the criminal law. I can only say that I am quite sure that it is against the criminal law as matters stand. It may be an argument for the Bill; it may be an argument against the Bill. But I am simply stating what I believe to be the criminal law at the present time.

The second thing I must say is that, in the case of a minor under the age of 16, there is no possibility that consent is any defence at all. A minor under the age of 16 is not able to consent to the commission upon her of a criminal assault. Neither parental consent nor the consent of the minor would be any defence at all, and if the parents did such a thing, or instigated such a thing or participated in such a thing, it would only render them liable to criminal penalties, too. The doctor, the anaesthetist and the nurses involved would all be guilty. And I must add this. Of course, these matters are ultimately for the courts to decide—my opinion is worth nothing, unless backed by the opinion of a court and the verdict of a jury, because these are indictable offences—but I must utter the most solemn warning against members of the medical profession, or anyone else who thinks that this is lawful under the laws of England.

I must add this, too: that we know that in the best conducted operations death can sometimes ensue. If I am right in what I have said up to this point, the minimum charge in such a case would be manslaughter and if a properly directed jury found that the operation was carried out with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm—and in my opinion, for what it is worth, and speaking simply as a judge of fact, the excision of the clitoris is grievous bodily harm—then the more serious charge of murder would possibly lie. So that people had better be careful, whether this Bill is passed or not.

I must also add that I very much doubt whether the consent even of an adult is possible. There is a long, long history in English law, whereby the consent of an adult to a maim is not admissible as a defence, if a person inflicting the maim—which this certainly is—is charged with an offence against the person. It is, of course, in the end a matter for the courts; it is a matter for juries. But I do not think I should be doing my duty as Lord Chancellor if I did not say quite emphatically that, in the case of what is now being discussed, the excision of the clitoris, unless there is some very unusual reason and there are physical or medical indications—for instance, in certain kinds of cancer—to the contrary, people would be running the risk of prosecution and going to prison for a very long time. Having said that, I leave the debate in the hands of those more capable than I of discussing the merits of the Bill.

Baroness Wootton of Abinger

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord resumes his seat, in order to clarify the position may I ask him one question? When he read the sections from the 19th century Acts, I think the word "unlawfully" appeared—"when any person unlawfully does grievously bodily harm", or words to that effect. This seems to limit the scope of those sections.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I think not, although the point was raised in a very different connection in a case in which I sat judicially in your Lordships' House. Obviously a surgical operation inherently involves doing that which would prima facie be an assault. What I have been saying is that an assault without definite physical-medical indications is criminal and, therefore, unlawful under these sections. As I believe I have just said, if for some reason, which I do not pretend to be qualified to speak on, there was a medical indication that an operation of this kind ought to be performed, that might be different. Then the word to which the noble Baroness has drawn my attention would have significance.

It fell to my lot when I was hearing an appeal in a murder case to point out that where a surgeon operates in order to save a patient's life, knowing that the chances are that the patient will die under the operation, it is not unlawful because he is performing that operation to save the patient's life. Then the word "unlawfully" does operate. In my opinion, for what it is worth—I do not claim to be infallible in these matters—I can think of nothing other than a physical condition of the kind I have indicated which would render an assault of this kind lawful, either upon a minor or upon an adult, subject to what I have already said.

5.33 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, first may I say that the Government share with the noble Lord the repugnance with which he views these operations when they are carried out for customary or cultural reasons. This is not a part of our culture, and we would not wish it to become so among any part of our population here, whatever their ethnic origins. We cannot of course legislate for other countries, but through the World Health Organisation we have added our voice to encourage those who, through exhortation and education, are trying to eradicate these practices abroad.

The noble Lord is therefore to be congratulated on having brought forward this Bill. But, even if it were not the case that operations of this sort, without medical justification, could be classified, for example, as unlawful wounding, as my noble and learned friend has just explained, the Government would, I fear, be unable to accept the Bill in its present form. There are a number of medical conditions, some simple and some complex, which can necessitate operations such as those described in Clause 1(1). This is of course recognised in Clause 2(1) which provides exemption for operations necessary for the woman's physical health. But the requirement to obtain a second opinion when legitimate operations are to be performed, and to give notice of these operations, would in our view represent a serious interference with legitimate medical practice.

The certification and notification procedure would be a thoroughly unwelcome piece of additional bureaucracy, and one which might also create problems in relation to confidentiality. Most important, it could harm the interests of patients by delaying necessary and even life-saving treatment. I understand that the Bill, as presently drafted, might result in a need for at least 8,000 second opinions, including those for cancer, pre-cancer and possibly many more. Even minor biopsies in the defined areas might require a second opinion, and this would add to the total I have mentioned. Indeed, the Royal College of Gynaecologists—the noble Lord referred to this in his opening remarks—hold the view that this pertains even to episiotomy, which is a common procedure during childbirth. The Bill provides that the second opinion must be obtained from a doctor who is not in the same "practice" as the doctor who proposes to perform the operation. While the term "practice" has some meaning in the context of a family practitioner, it is hard to see what would be meant in the case of a hospital doctor, and it is of course in hospitals that legitimate operations of this kind will mainly take place.

Without in any way lessening our repugnance at the idea of women being subjected to this sort of mutilation and degradation, we must retain a sense of proportion. Press reports talk of only a handful of these operations being carried out in this country, for cultural reasons, during recent years. But of course I accept that even one operation is too many. I accept also that there have been a number of rumours about the operations being more widespread. Were this Bill to be enacted in its present form, it is unlikely that anybody who is about to, or who has undertaken, a ritual "female circumcision" would issue a notice to that effect, or seek a second opinion. We feel therefore that notices and second opinions will only impinge upon legitimate medical practice, and will impose a time-consuming burden on doctors and on whoever, at public expense, has to monitor the notices.

The Government also have to consider the views of the medical profession. I understand that some parts of the profession may have reservations, both about the imposition of legislation into the doctor-patient relationship and with regard to the questions of notices and second opinions to which I have referred.

To summarise, therefore: the Government's view is now that these procedures, when carried out without medical justification, are already contrary to the law as it stands. My noble and learned friend described that. The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, while commendable in its overall intention, would in its present form tend to impede the medical profession in its legitimate function, without helping the difficult problem of bringing a successful action against an offender in cases where an adult has given her consent to the operation.

But, having said all this, we do acknowledge the case for a firm statement in legislation which would put the illegality of the practice of female circumcision, in its ritual and cultural sense, beyond any possible doubt. It is not clear that the difficulty of definition and scope that I have referred to in the noble Lord's Bill can be satisfactorily overcome. However, the Government would not seek to oppose the Bill at this stage. Indeed, I would most certainly be prepared to participate in the discussions to which the noble Lord referred. I cannot, I fear, guarantee that time can be found for the Bill in another place; but, as I have said, I will most certainly participate in discussions with the noble Lord to see if it is possible to overcome the difficulties I have described.

5.59 p.m.

Lord Rea

My Lords, there must be very few people in the United Kingdom, whether they be men or women, who approve of the carrying out of this mutilating operation anywhere, let alone in this country. There is therefore widespread support for the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in introducing this Bill. He has described why it is particularly timely. I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, I should like to point out that so far there has been no prosecution against doctors or others who have carried out the operation in this country, which suggests to me that there is a need for a stiffening of the law, such as is suggested in the Bill.

It falls to me, with a medical background, to describe in more detail what is involved in so-called female circumcision. After describing the operation, I will say a little about its origins and its consequences. As has been pointed out, the term is in fact inaccurate because far more is involved than circumcision, which literally means "cutting around", as applied usually to the familiar operation on the male foreskin. In that operation, the male sexual organ (the penis) is left completely intact, apart from the hood known as the prepuce or foreskin, which covers the sensitive glans. After the wound of male circumcision has healed, the function of the penis as a sexual organ is in no way impaired. The sensitivity of the glans is slightly decreased, but some claim that this is an advantage since it decreases the chance of premature ejaculation.

In female "circumcision" the central part of the operation is the removal of the tip or the whole of the clitoris. This small organ is the female equivalent of the penis and, like the male organ, is highly sensitive, richly supplied with blood vessels and nerves, and when appropriately stimulated gives rise to pleasurable erotic sensations leading to sexual climax or orgasm. In other words, it is the core or focus for a woman's sexuality and ability to experience sexual pleasure.

There are other erotic areas which can sometimes give rise to sexual pleasure or orgasmic intensity but the clitoris is the main centre. To deprive a woman of her clitoris is thus to deprive her of her major source of sexual pleasure and satisfaction. Sexual arousal can still take place, however, but without the relief given by a climax or orgasm this can lead to tension and unhappiness.

The operation carried out traditionally in large parts of Africa, and sporadically in the Middle and Far East and in South America (and which, incidentally, was carried out in this country) is usually much more drastic than mere clitoridectomy. The removal of the surrounding hood of the clitoris is the only true female circumcision—the so called "Sunna" circumcision. It is only rarely performed; and the most common form, which is apparently undergone by 80 to 90 per cent. of the women in the Sudan, is the co-called "Pharaonic" circumcision, which involves not only total clitoridectomy but also the removal of the inner lips or labia minora and partial removal or paring of the inner parts of the "outer lips" or labia majora. The raw edges of the labia are then sutured together, apart from a small finger-sized opening towards the back to allow the passage or urine or menstrual flow. This part of the operation is known as infibulation. Thus, the woman is not only deprived of her main organ of erotic sensation but is effectively "sewn up" against normal sexual activity.

The fact that this operation is done at all is unknown to most people in this country, but it has been practised in one form or another for centuries—probably millennia—in many parts of the world. As suggested by the term "Pharaonic", it was practised in ancient Egypt. The main areas where it is practised today (as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said) tend to be those where Islam has influenced the African cultures of the Southern Sahara. However, it does not appear to be a particularly Islamic practice—nor is it a formal initiation rite, like male circumcision in much of Africa, although there is often a local ceremony surrounding the practice.

Explanations given by those practising the operation are complex; that it promotes virginity before marriage, promotes fidelity within marriage, and protects against rape. But it is also held to be an ennobling procedure and has correlations with high social prestige. Whatever the reasons, sexual activity and a high birth rate clearly occur in countries where it is practised, despite the fact that after every birth the infibulation has to be cut or torn and subsequently restored.

Theories for the origin of the practice are numerous. One possibly over-simplistic view is that it is part of the tradition in which, in a male dominated society, women are regarded as the "property" of men. To decrease a woman's sexuality and effectively seal off her sexual availability might prevent her from being "taken" sexually by other men. Virginity in unmarried women is much prized in many countries—not only where female circumcision takes place. But in those countries clitoridectomy and infibulation are felt to ensure virginity.

More basic anthropological and psychological reasons are felt by some to be operating subconsciously—such as male fear of female sexuality; a belief that this is more powerful than the man's and will prove too demanding for the men to satisfy, so that women will gain power over them. In the Sudan (as sympathetically described by Anne Cloudsley in her book Women of Omdurman) the practice is very deeply ingrained. It is now carried out mainly by locally-trained midwives. It is accepted by most Sudanese women, who regard the operation as a mark of womanhood; non-infibulated women being regarded as outsiders or curiosities. There the practice is carried out on young girls, usually between the ages of five and seven, often without adequate hygiene or anaesthesia—as those who watched the recent very disturbing BBC documentary will have seen.

The adverse consequences of the operation can be very serious, especially when carried out in primitive circumstances. First, there is the psychic trauma associated with a very painful procedure involving the genitalia. This may give rise to inital if not permanent dread of the sexual act. Secondly, there is the danger of wound infection and subsequent scarring, or severe haemorrhage, at the time of the operation, followed by urinary or renal infection.

Thirdly, the sexual act after marriage is made extremely difficult, with a need to artificially widen the residual small orifice, causing pain and possible haemorrhage. Fourthly, every time that a delivery takes place there is the danger of a third degree tear into the rectum, or even of obstructed labour in badly scarred cases. This is only averted by an anterior as well as the usual posterior episiotomy—cutting of the skin and tissues around the vagina at delivery. After each delivery this need to be repaired, and the woman is "re-infibulated" or sealed up.

Despite all these difficulties associated with suffering, and at times death, the custom dies very hard where it is practised traditionally. The operation has been illegal since 1946 in the Sudan, and yet it is practised now as widely as ever before. However, other African countries—such as Kenya—have either banned the operation or are considering this. The practice in those countries will only die out when the women themselves realise that it is an unnecessary and cruel procedure. Throughout Africa, women are campaigning to end the practice. To me, it seems intolerable that the operation can take place in this country, when the countries in which it is a major problem are struggling to end it.

For these reasons I strongly support this Bill. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists find the provisions in the present Bill cumbersome, but I am sure that at Committee stage, a formula can be found which will meet the college's objections—especially if we can count, as we have been promised, on help from the Department of Health. I would therefore ask noble Lords of all parties to give this Bill a Second Reading.

6.8 p.m.

Baroness Cox

My Lords, I will begin by expressing my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this Bill. It draws our attention to a matter of great concern, which has both medical and social implications. I should like to speak in strong support of this Bill, as both a nurse and a sociologist.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already made clear, the term "female circumcision" is generic—covering a range of procedures involving varying degrees of mutilation. The least traumatic is termed "Sunna" circumcision, and the most radical form is called "Pharaonic" circumcision or infibulation. The wording of the Bill makes no distinction and effectively proscribes all forms of female circumcision. This, I suggest, is to be welcomed because all the evidence indicates that there are no physical benefits whatever to be gained from any of these practices—rather the reverse, because there are numerous attendant risks.

These risks are of many kinds, and although they may vary according to the type of circumcision, the health hazards associated with some or all of the procedures have been well documented by health care workers. They indicate a strong justification for their prohibition. If I may, I should like briefly to summarise some to these health risks. Immediate and short-term physical complications include haemorrhage, pain, shock, localised infection, septicaemia, difficulties with micturition, and damage to adjacent tissues and organs. Longer-term physical complications include the danger of chronic infection, development of abscesses, scar tissue, cysts and neuromas, dysmennorhoea, dyspareunia and obstetric complications. Many other secondary and long-term complications may also follow: for example, renal disease resulting from urinary tract infection.

In addition to such physical ill-effects, psychological, and especially psycho-sexual, problems may result. The research evidence is less substantial here, partly because many of the women involved are reluctant to speak on the subject, and partly because many are naturally influenced by the norms and values of their culture, which may advocate circumcision as desirable. However, the physical mutilation resulting from circumcision in even its mildest form must be expected to have some adverse psycho-sexual effects. There are many accounts of women who have undergone infibulation who experience terror at the prospect of marriage and acute pain in the process of deinfibulation.

As we have heard, female circumcision is widely practised in many parts of the world. It is found in more than 20 countries in Africa, in Oman, South Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and among the Moslem populations of Indonesia and Malaysia. While it is impossible to estimate precisely the numbers of women involved, well-informed sources claim that the order of magnitude is at the level of tens of millions, and a small number of cases have recently been reported in Europe, in France and the United Kingdom. Hence the significance and the timeliness of this Bill.

Turning very briefly to the reasons for female circumcision, clearly a practice which is so widespread must have powerful social and cultural legitimation and be supported by many members of the communities involved. If it is hoped to achieve change, it is important to try to understand the socio-cultural reasons for this support. We have already heard of some of them. They include beliefs that circumcision is desirable because it is hygienic, because it prevents promiscuity, because it enhances the desirability and value of women, because it is in keeping with age-old tradition and because it symbolises a girl's transition to adulthood. And sometimes, especially in Moslem communities, it may be carried out in the sincere but erroneous belief that it is demanded by Islamic faith.

It is perhaps relevant to point out that many of these beliefs are inconsistent in so far as they bear no relation to empirical reality: for example, there is no correlation between female circumcision and hygiene—rather the reverse, as it is often associated with infection. With regard to the argument of the traditional association with the rite de passage into adulthood, this too is inaccurate, as circumcision is frequently performed on infants or girls who are so young that they cannot be seen as nearing adolescence. And finally the belief that it is a religious requirement is inconsisent with the facts because it is carried out by adherents of many faiths—Roman Catholics, Protestants, Copts and Animists, among others—which clearly do not require it.

Given these anomalies, it is important perhaps to explore other reasons for the perpetuation of this custom. The informative report on Female Circumcision by the Minority Rights Group suggests several other reasons, including the financial incentives for those who perform the operations, the influence of older women who have themselves been circumcised, the power of community pressure and a suspicion that Westerners are trying to eliminate traditional cultures.

If we turn now very briefly to the case for action and legislation, given the complexity of the situation, attempts to bring about change must obviously be sensitive to the multiplicity of factors involved. Recent initiatives have consisted of two kinds of approach, legislative and educative, and several organisations have made strong recommendations designed to try to eliminate the practice of female circumcision. I will briefly refer to four such initiatives. First, the World Health Organisation Seminar in Khartoum in 1979 recommended: —adoption of a clear national policy for the abolition of female circumcision; —establishment of national commissions to co-ordinate and follow up the activities of the bodies involved, including where appropriate the enactment of legislation prohibiting female circumcision; —intensification of general education of the public, including health education at all levels, with special emphasis on the dangers and undesirability of female circumcision; —intensification of educational programmes for traditional birth attendants, midwives, healers and other practitioners of traditional medicine, showing the harmful effects of female circumcision with a view to enlist their support along with general efforts to abolish this practice". The second example is UNICEF's Position on Female Circumcision, May 1979, which concluded: The abolition of a widespread and deeply entrenched custom of such long standing, fraught as it is with cultural sensitivities, cannot of course be accomplished overnight. What should be emphasised is that the task is being undertaken carefully, but actively, on several fronts and that UNICEF is seriously committed to the effort to overcome the practice of female excision". Thirdly, the Council of Representatives of the International Council of Nurses agreed the following Motion: That the international Council of Nurses: —endorse the WHO/UNICEF position on the practice known as female excision, female circumcision and female mutilation; —work actively with appropriate colleagues and community groups for the abolition of this custom, and, —include this subject matter in all maternal and child health programmes and health education programmes of the international Council of Nurses as appropriate". Finally, coming nearer home, the Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom has followed suit by offering strong support for this Bill and by seeking evidence of the extent to which female circumcision is practised in this country. For example, the college has published a request in the Nursing Standard, which reaches about 43,000 nurses, for any nurses who come across cases to notify them to the college, so that some indication of the extent of the practice in this country may be gained. And as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, only last week at the Royal College of Nursing's Representative Body's Congress the following Motion was agreed unanimously and with acclaim: This meeting of the Representative Body recommends Council [of the Royal College of Nursing] to support current legislation to prohibit in the United Kingdom female circumcision and infibulation". My Lords, before concluding, I should like very briefly to refer to two kinds of argument which I have heard in opposition to this Bill and in opposition to the idea of passing legislation designed to prohibit the practice of female circumcision in this country. First, there are those who argue that it is wrong to impose what they regard as "Western values" on people from other cultures. Secondly, others claim that if the practice is made illegal it will merely be driven underground, be performed in insanitary conditions and be fraught with even more danger of complications.

I do not believe that these arguments constitute grounds for opposing this Bill. On the first point there are surely some cultural traditions which are so antithetical to human well-being that they cannot be regarded as sacrosanct. Cannibalism and the burning of widows are two such examples. I would argue that the mutilation inherent in female circumcision could be seen in a similar light, especially as it is all too frequently carried out on small girls who are not in a position to choose for themselves. On the second point, that there is a danger that the practice will be driven underground, this is clearly a possibility. However, one may hope that it will be outweighed by the deterrent effect of the law. I understand that, in other countries where female circumcision is widely practised, the symbolic effect of the passing of this law in this country would be welcomed as an example and as a precedent.

I therefore conclude as I began, by expressing my strong support for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his endeavours to bring about the prohibition of female circumcision in this country.

6.20 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, female circumcision is a totally heinous thing. It is impossible to find a single circumstance in which such a barbaric procedure could be justified, in a civilised society such as ours, for non-medical reasons. This is an opportunity for your Lordships to show the world how atrocious we think this practice is. I hope we can pass a Bill which simply says: "Any form of ritual or custom of female circumcision or infibulation is an offence punishable by a prison sentence and being struck off the medical register". Perhaps a fine could be imposed as well, at least to cover the court case; but to most of the doctors practising in Harley Street, for example, a fine would not make much impact. What the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us today should be written into this Bill.

The television programme explaining female circumcision shocked many people. That female children and women can suffer so much and be treated in this debasing way, which is so much against nature, is a revelation to many. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that there already is legislation which makes it an offence to assault a child in this way. But if that is so, what of an appendicectomy or a tonsillectomy? Might these not fall into the same category? We must be totally clear.

This horrible, barbaric operation has taken place here in Britain, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. If there are three cases a year, it is three too many. I hope that we can find a way of showing how strongly we feel, so that other countries may feel guilty and tighten up their own legislation. There may be a spin-off and understanding that human kindness and women's dignity is needed throughout the world in this respect. There are some feelings that this Bill needs amending. They are well-intentioned, but they might give the impression that there just could be circumstances in which female circumcision was justified. There is only justification for operations for medical reasons, and this must be made utterly clear.

There is also concern from some doctors about the way the Bill is drafted because occasionally the labia majora or minora or clitoris have to be removed because of (a) cancer; (b) suspected cancer; (c) skin changes which precede cancer, called leukoplakia (d) intractable itching and pain; and (e) genetic or congenital abnormalities. If the Bill becomes law as it stands, doctors wanting to treat vulva cancer surgically would, for example, be legally bound to seek the signed consent of a colleague from a different practice (which is a meaningless term in a hospital setting) or a special certificate, which will have to be preserved for possible inspection at a later date, by unspecified individuals. Would this not establish an unacceptable precedent?

This procedure might slow up cancer operations, which I am sure those who drafted the Bill will not have intended. When a cancer operation is performed there will be proof that it was done because of cancer, as the histology and pathology results will be written up in the notes and documented. In the case of genetic or congenital abnormalities in a child, several doctors will almost certainly be involved—the general practitioner, the paediatrician and the surgeon. There will be no such proof for female circumcision operations.

Most doctors are honourable men and women. I am sure they would deplore female circumcision on nonmedical grounds as much as your Lordships, perhaps even more so. It is just as likely, if dishonourable doctors want to perform female circumcision for money or custom, that two could be in league even if they are from different practices. But as I have already said, practices would not apply to hospital doctors.

Some doctors seem worried about Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill, but surely most patients in this country will have at least two doctors involved in their case—the referring general practitioner, the surgeon, and, if a child, a paediatrician. But the Bill does need amending for the reason I have already stated—the hospital doctor. May I ask: would Clause 2(1)(a) apply to patients coming from abroad? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would clarify that point. Clause 3(1)(a) causes concern to some gynaecologists. Would it not be simpler, rather than having certificates and regulations, that any such opinions be referred to in the patient's clinical rcords?

The penalties for female circumcision must be so harsh that the risk of performing such an operation is just not worth even contemplating.

6.28 p.m.

Baroness Gaitskell

My Lords, I cannot congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, enough on this issue. He is a very courageous man to have brought up this subject at a time when it really is becoming quite a common thing for Eastern and African women to come here to have an operation. I am entirely with the noble Lord except on one small point. Jewish women are not subject to any kind of circumcision; it is only the men. I am told that, on the whole, circumcision for men is a healthy thing rather than the opposite.

It is a tremendous thing at this time, but people have left out the psychological urges that make people come to this country to have the operation, and also the attitude towards sex of people from, let us say, India and Africa about this whole problem. No one has spoken about the men's attitude to women's sexuality. In some countries—I cannot, of course, name them—their attitudes are extremely mean. They want their women entirely for themselves. They will not suffer any kind of infidelity, and that is one reason why some of the operations have been done in this country. It is all wrong that they have been allowed to be performed.

What has been so satisfying this afternoon has been the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and of the Church. They have all been sympathetic to this Bill. I personally am very happy about that.

There are a great many speakers and I shall not make a long speech. The problem is that some men in other countries will not put up with any kind of infidelity. I know that this operation is undertaken to keep their women faithful to themselves. It is one of the strongest reasons for getting it performed. The fact that the women come here to have it done is simply shocking. It is terrible. It is the most cruel operation possible. One thing about it is particularly cruel. The clitoris is the organ which gives women pleasure. That is another reason for men being thoroughly chauvinistic and why some of them may not wish to support the Bill.

There is not a great deal that I wish to add. I cannot take the reservations of some doctors seriously at all. When the operation is performed properly it is perfectly all right, but when it is not done by qualified doctors of course things go wrong. It cannot be helped. I still feel that this idea of keeping women faithful by performing this absolutely savage operation is a great indictment against men in countries where it is done for that reason.

6.32 p.m.

Baroness Vickers

First of all I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this Bill. It will teach us a geat deal. I should especially like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his expert opinion at the beginning. He put our minds a great deal to rest about the state of the law. We shall have to discuss this more. What he said will also be a warning to the medical and legal professions about what are the rights at the present time. It may help us tremendously in getting the Bill—if we have it—correct. Anyhow, it will awaken people, particularly in the medical and legal professions, to what is the present situation. I should like to offer the noble and learned Lord my sincere thanks for coming in at the very beginning and giving us a lead.

I really enter this debate because I have, unfortunately, had the opportunity of seeing these operations take place. When I was the delegate to the United Nations I did bring this question up. In 1959 the matter was referred to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations to ask whether they could persuade the World Health Organisation to take on this responsibility. WHO refused at that time because they said that it was not within their powers or within the recognition of what they should do. It was not until the Khartoum conference, which has been mentioned, that the WHO acted. I think that it should take further action. It is necessary to educate the people in the countries in which the operation takes place.

I should like to suggest that we press home this business. It is not anything to do with religion; it is to do with customs. It is not so difficult to change a custom as to change beliefs and religion. If persuasion could be used to show the film in other countries, that would be very helpful. It was an excellent film. In many of the countries concerned people cannot read or write but they can see with their eyes what is happening. It would be of great use if this could be done and if we could have illustrated leaflets which could go to hospitals and clinics through UNICEF and UNESCO. It has to be done by tremendous propaganda and perhaps not so much by physical action. Young children should be taught about it. Children of the age of five can undergo this operation. If only they could protest against this themselves, it would be very helpful. As has been mentioned, one of the great difficulties is that many women earn their living in this way. It is women who do a great many of these operations.

I think it will have been helpful to have this debate today to arouse the interest of many people in this country who can be helpful overseas. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned the question of health visitors. They passed a resolution on the matter. I want to mention particularly the Commonwealth Countries League, which has not been mentioned. It is made up of 40 women of different nationalities throughout the Commonwealth. They meet regularly in this country. They have affiliated to them 25 other women's organisations. These are the type of women who can help people to understand this type of operation and can do the propaganda themselves.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The debate has brought out very many interesting points, particularly legal and medical points. I hope that we shall be able to get some satisfaction in getting a better understanding and eventually getting this very nasty type of operation stopped.

6.36 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, first I apologise for speaking out of order. My noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby was good enough to change places with me, because I thought at one point the debate would go on at great length and I would, sadly, have to leave for a very long-standing engagement before it ended.

Like other speakers, I, too, certainly would not like to make a long speech at this stage. After all, we have had the case for the Bill put very admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I, too, would like to congratulate him very much indeed on all the work that he did to bring this Bill forward. Then we have had the medical facts put again in an absolutely clear fashion by my noble friend Lord Rea. I do not think that anybody would like to draw on the emotive quality brought out by these facts. Then again the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has given supportive evidence of those facts and also many ideas about why this practice exists.

I would merely like to make two points, having first expressed my very great support for the Bill. They relate to two possible objections which could be made to the presentation of such a Bill. The first one is that I suppose it could be said that the feelings of outrage which are certainly felt here towards this barbaric habit exist only in the Western countries and that women in the countries concerned not only accept that this happens but also want it. Of course, this argument could be true. These women, through deeply ingrained and entrenched traditions, and also through complete ignorance, feel that they are compelled to undergo this operation. Furthermore, mothers feel that it is their duty towards their small daughters to make them succumb to this mutilation, one of the reasons being that it will facilitate their marriage. I understand that it is very difficult to get married and to get a man to accept you if you have not undergone this operation in those countries.

It is quite undeniable that an increasing number of outstanding and prominent women in both Africa and the Arab countries are becoming fiercely opposed to this monstrous practice. It is they who support the introduction of the Bill. To suppress the practice would help enormously the work that they are doing in those countries. I should like to name a few of the organisations. One organisation in this country is called the Women's Action Group in Femal Excision. Another is the International Planned Parenthood Association. In Egypt there is the Cairo Women's Family Planning Association. In the Sudan there is the Nursing School of the Khartoum University Medical School. In Kenya there is the National Council of Women in Kenya, and in Somalia, the Somali Women's Democratic Federation.

So, as I have said, the members of all these organisations would welcome the Bill, since it would help them in their campaign of education. I do not think that there could possibly be made the objection that a Bill of this kind in this country would be regarded as an interference in the countries where the practice is commonplace.

My second point is with regard to the objection to legislating against a practice arising from which there has been only one proven case, or only a very few. Surely the point—I think that this point has been made, but I should like to put it again—is that once society has identified a particular practice as being inhuman and cruel, once that has been made unequivocally clear, then it must he the duty of that society to take action to prevent it happening; to take action indeed before there are further cases. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that with Kenya and the Sudan having brought in laws of their own to render the operation illegal in their countries, then the demand for the operation in England surely must grow. I feel that this is a very definite point that ought to be made.

As I am sure your Lordships know, both Sweden and France have made the practice illegal in their countries. We do not want to happen here what happened in France, where a little girl died undergoing the operation, before the French authorities had taken action.

So, in conclusion, I should like to say that I give my whole hearted support to the Bill, for I feel convinced that such legislation will render the position here unequivocally clear, notwithstanding the law as it stands, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made plain to us. It really ought to be made quite clear that we are totally opposed to the practice ever taking place in this country. The Bill would be a very great help to all those people who, through health education campaigns in the countries concerned, are trying to free women from this violation. There can be no doubt that they have a lengthy task ahead of them, because the custom is so deeply ingrained. Only the women of those countries can rid themselves of this terrible violation. But what we can do to help them, and at the same time to support the dignity of women everywhere, is extremely important. Therefore, I support the Bill unequivocally.

6.43 p.m.

Lady Kinloss

My Lords, like other noble Lords who have done so before me, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for, and congratulate him on, introducing the Bill. In a report of the World Health Organisation on female circumcision it is stated that at one time it was performed among various communities in all continents of the world, both old and new. Today it has long been abandoned in many places. Herodotus tells of female circumcision practised by the Phoenicians, Hittites, and Ethiopians, as well as by the Egyptians in the fifth century BC. Although its origins are obscure, it seems evident that circumcision was first performed on the male, and then on the female.

I think that one can readily understand the social pressures on women when one realises how long circumcision has been practised. The problem has worried me for many years. During some of that time I have lived in and visited a number of countries—in both sides of Africa and in North Africa—in which the various forms of mutilation commonly, but mistakenly, known as female circumcision prevail. In most of these countries Islam has been the prevailing religion, but neither female, nor for that matter, male circumcision is mentioned in the Koran.

There is however a traditional saying that the prophet Mohammed was born circumcised, and that Abraham, whom Moslems reckon as a prophet, was circumcised at the age of 80 years. So far as I can discover, there is no religious sanction whatsoever for either the circumcision or any other mutilation of women. There are however other forms of mutilation of different parts of the body, tattooing, and scarring of the face. However, these are no longer practised.

Over a long period I have met women who have suffered agonies of pain from this practice in one form or another. The Minority Rights Group Report No. 47 on female circumcision, excision, and infibulation, has confirmed what I learnt long ago. In Moshi Hospital, on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, in the present Tanzania, an African nurse told me of her fears for her small daughter. She lived with her mother, since her husband had left her, and was constantly pressed by her mother to have her daughter circumcised. She was equally determined that it should not happen, having herself been circumcised and suffered many problems.

Precisely such a case as that is mentioned in the report. It relates to the mother of three daughters who had been born in France while she and her husband were there. They returned home to their own country. While the mother worked, her own mother used to have the children to stay with her. One weekend the mother returned to fetch them, only to find that they had been excised and infibulated, the grandmother having arranged it, knowing that it was against the parents' wishes.

While I was in Moshi a woman was brought down the mountain. She had been in labour for two days in great pain before it was decided to take her to the hospital. She died as she arrived, and the baby with her.

My husband and I lived in many parts of East Africa, and in West Africa. I encountered these problems not only on that continent, but in the United States as well. In New York State, where my husband was lecturing as professor of African history, one of his students came to us in great distress. She was a Somali girl, who had been infibulated. She did not realise that she was different from the majority of other women until she became unwell and had to visit a doctor, who had never before seen an infibulated woman. When he asked what on earth had been done to her, she realised that she could not explain, as she was only about 18. So she ran away and eventually came to us, since she was aware that we knew members of her family.

Only last year when we were in Nairobi, President Daniel Arap Moi announced his intention to legislate against female circumcision following the deaths of at least six young girls in the bush at the hands of unqualified practitioners.

The fact is that great changes are taking place in Africa as elsewhere—changes as great as the abolition of the slave trade in the last century, for which my noble ancestor Lord Grenville was responsible, when Prime Minister in 1807. The struggle against slavery was a struggle against ignorance on an international plain—to put it in the mildest terms. Slavery was an obsolete institution and a violation of the dignity of man. So, too, are the various forms of mutilation practised upon women, which this Bill is intended to prevent in this country. May it, with parallel legislation in Kenya, be an example to other countries.

My Lords, my fervent prayer is that the present young married women doctors and nurses in Africa and Arabia, who are against it, will be able to help future generations to forego this mutilation and so help to end it worldwide.

I have given these examples just to show what a distressing and damaging practice this is, not only physically but psychologically, too. In view of the recent publicity given to this subject, I hope that the Bill, when amended as necessary, will have a rapid passage through Parliament.

6.50 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, to me, this is a somewhat bizarre experience. It is now nearly 21 years since I was declared a prohibited immigrant and deported from Sierra Leone on account of an article that I had written in the New Statesman which stated the simple fact that female circumcision still took place in that country. I knew that it took place because it occurred in the women's secret society which met about 50 yards below the garden of the university campus where I was living. I never dreamt at that time that I would be standing here able to discuss this subject in open forum.

Frankly, at that time, only 20 years ago, female circumcision was a taboo subject in Africa. In this country, it was almost totally unknown. When people came to me and asked me why I had been deported from Sierra Leone and I explained to them, they did not know what female circumcision was. I have no doubt that a large percentage of our present population is equally ignorant. But for this reason and for this change in attitude of Parliament, I am deeply grateful. I shall lend every possible support to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who has had the courage to draft and introduce this Bill.

It might be supposed that when this incident took place in Sierra Leone, which was widely publicised across the world, there would be a conspiracy of silence in that country. Not at all. In fact, one of the most encouraging outcomes of the incident was that there was an immediate public and national debate. The two leading African nationalists of the time, Wallace Johnson and Siaka Stevens, both came publicly to my support and attacked the then Government of Sir Milton Margai on the grounds that, if they could not answer my argument, they had no right to try to silence me. I regarded that as an extremely encouraginging sign, because there had previously been no discussion and no debate. The subject was taboo. Nevertheless, I would point out, as is only fair and honourable, that the Prime Minister, Sir Milton Margai, a medical doctor, had attempted, 10 years earlier, to stop the practice of female circumcision and had failed. He was therefore particularly sensitive but he had made an honourable attempt, as both a doctor and a politician to stop the practice in his own country. I wish President Moi well. I hope that his efforts will be more successful than those of Sir Milton Margai.

That was not my first encounter with the subject of female circumcision. Ten years earlier, I travelled down the East coast of Africa with a World Health Organisation team which had been sent out to investigate the practice of female circumcision. It was led by a Belgian doctor. That team finished its task as puzzled at the end as it was at the beginning. I wish to pay tribute to the efforts made in this debate by Baroness Cox and Lady Kinloss to investigate the origins and the concepts behind the practice of female circumcision. I do not believe, and I do not think that they would claim, that there is any simple answer or, indeed that there is any single answer. I tried to discuss this very subject with Jomo Kenyatta. Frankly, it was a dialogue with the deaf. Those of your Lordships who have read Jomo Kenyatta's book published in the mid-1930s Facing Mount Kenya, will recognise that one of the purposes of that book was to explain among other things the part that female circumcision had in Kikuyu tradition.

Where does this leave us in this country? I have no hesitation whatever in agreeing with, I think every speaker, that we must say that this practice cannot be practised within our shores. I wish to add the hope that the message will also go from this House that this is not because we are attacking the customs of other people. It is very important that this should be emphasised. There are lots of customs and traditions in this country that people outside this country do not understand and that they disapprove of. You try explaining our practice of beating schoolchildren. There are many countries of the world whose people do not believe that this can be equated with a civilised society.

A good deal has been stated tonight about male dominated societies. It is less than 50 years ago that women were given political equality in this country. I do not accept that we are attacking in any way the traditions and customs of other societies in this Bill. We are saying that in this country female circumcision is regarded as of the utmost cruelty and that we will not tolerate it here. In doing so, as has been stated by previous speakers, we are lending support to the very brave people, particularly women, who are trying to undermine this practice in societies where, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, stated, it has been the custom for more than centuries, for millennia. We must understand this. We must not put blame on societies that continue their traditions.

The women who perform this vile operation are not sadists. They believe that they are contributing to the preservation of their traditional society and, in so doing to keeping the unity of their people. Of course, they are wrong. Of course, it is a cruel act that they are performing but they are certainly not performing it for the motive of sadism. Having said that and having added, as mentioned by a number of speakers, that it is mainly the women who are anxious to preserve this custom, I would take issue with those who have suggested that this is the outcome of a male dominated society. Those with knowledge of virtually every African society are aware that men and women have a different role from that which has been recent practice in this country. That does not mean that those societies are dominated by men. Indeed, there are many men who are assisting the women's leadership against the continuation of female circumcision. We shall be assisting them if we pass this Bill into law.

I sincerely hope that the words that were spoken by the Government spokesman at the beginning will be translated, first, into the consultative action which he promised but I hope he will be able to persuade his colleagues to go further and to find Government time and Government support so that this Bill is not lost during this Session but becomes law with, as I believe it will, the total support of Members of both Houses of our Parliament. Thus, we shall give our assistance to those who are trying to undermine this practice overseas and we shall make it quite clear that this violation of the basic human rights of a woman will not be allowed so far as the United Kingdom is concerned.

7.1 p.m.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I am glad to say on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches that we totally support the Bill and thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having brought it before us tonight. There are, of course, some criticisms, but I believe that a Second Reading is not the time for detailed criticisms. I am sure that the points that have been raised by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and elsewhere can be taken care of by means of amendment. It is very important that the Bill should proceed to its Committee stage.

It is very significant to me that not one noble Lord has spoken against the principles of the Bill. I was very glad that the noble Lord the Minister said that the Government would not seek to oppose it. However, there are just one or two points that I want to make. I point out to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I am trembling with fear as I try to understand and ask him a little more about the present legal situation. As I understood him, the noble and learned Lord made it clear that already the 1861 legislation dealing with malicious wounding and grievous bodily harm would cover these cases. But what I have not been able to find out is how many people have been brought to trial under the 1861 Act for committing the offence of female circumcision in this country.

I was even more confused when, doing some homework, I looked up references in the House of Commons. I must say that the junior Minister who replied to a similar question is nowhere near such a luminary in the knowledge of the law as our Lord Chancellor. I must ask the House to bear with me while I quote an extract, because it seems to me to be very important. On 9th November 1982, at col. 132 of the Official Report, for the House of Commons, Mr. William Hamilton asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, whether he will introduce legislation to make unlawful the practice known as female circumcision. Mr. Kenneth Clarke replied: I fully share the abhorrence of this practice which has been expressed by a number of representatives of the medical profession. The report which appeared in The Observer newspaper on 10 October 1982 referred to female circumcisions being carried out by doctors working in private clinics in London. Unethical practices by doctors are a matter for the General Medical Council to consider, and we have written asking the council what action, if any, it proposes to take over these allegations. We shall consider urgently in the light of its reply whether any additional steps are needed.". That seemed to me to throw the onus back on to the General Medical Council, which I understand has taken no action in the cases which were referred to in the Observer of 10th October and which were apparently correct allegations. The Minister in another place did not refer to the law at all. He did not mention the 1861 law. It is for that reason that I hope that the proposed legislation will go through, because it will strengthen the views which all of us share and will help to clarify what seems to be a rather confusing legal situation.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting, I do not want there to be the smallest doubt about this. I was speaking as Lord Chancellor, and I thought it my duty to tell the House what I thought the law to be. My belief is that in all circumstances except in fairly rare cases where there are medical indications—possibly of cancer—to save life, this practice is already against the criminal law. Anyone who participates in it is liable to prosecution and severe custodial punishment, whatever the General Medical Council or anybody else may say. I thought it my duty to speak as Lord Chancellor. I was not speaking as a member of the Government at all; I was speaking as Lord Chancellor.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I very much appreciate the robust and clear reply that the noble and learned Lord has given. I very much hope that Mr. Kenneth Clarke will read in Hansard tomorrow what the noble and learned Lord has made so clear and which was not made clear in another place.

I shall not repeat the arguments in favour of this Bill and against this practice. In fact, I have only one quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and that is about the title of his Bill. The word "circumcision" is associated very much in the public mind with a far lesser procedure that is found among Jewish boys and men. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has pointed out from his clinical experience, we are dealing now with a form of mutilation which is totally and completely different in every way from the male procedure. I am sure that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists will be helpful, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is to have discussions with them, because these are points which can be dealt with in Committee.

I saw a very interesting BBC film on this subject, and I was very impressed by an Arab woman doctor in a family planning clinic who is one of the brave women who is trying to end this practice. She put forward another reason. The mutilation is causing great difficulty in family planning. When a woman is not able to take the pill, as this doctor explained, it becomes almost impossible to have a coil inserted or to use a Dutch cap or other means of birth control, which are so desperately needed. Many of the women themselves, after five, six or seven babies, are all too anxious to get help from the family planning clinics. When a distinguished doctor from that part of the world herself explains on our television the difficulties with which she is confronted, I think we should take it seriously.

If I am correct, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to there being only a handful of cases. There may be only a handful of cases that we know about because it is very difficult to find out what is happening. Women to whom this has happened will not let down their families and their friends by making public the procedures that have happened to them in this country. There is, of course, a great deal of pressure on them, first, to have the operation carried out and, secondly, not to say anything that would get anyone into trouble as a result of the practice. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made clear, they would be in serious trouble. Even if only a few people are involved, surely we do not want to wait until this becomes a growth industry in this country. Let us rejoice at the "fewness", if that is the truth of the matter, and say at once, "This must stop in this country".

I have been very moved by what several speakers, with knowledge of other parts of the world, have said about the bravery of men and women who are trying to resist the pressures to continue this mutilation. If the noble Lord's Bill were not to go through, it would be a great discouragement to all those men and women who are trying to put these practices behind them into the darkness of the past. Therefore, for all these reasons—and we have had a very good debate, especially with Members, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, speaking with professional wisdom and experience—I think your Lordships must agree that an unanswerable case has been put before us tonight.

I very much hope that the Government will find time for this measure to get on to the statute book before the next election, whenever that is. No noble Lord can say that this is a party point. I do not think that it is likely to be in anyone's election manifesto. I only hope that, because of the agreement on all sides of the House and taking into account the wisdom of our professional colleagues, we shall shortly hear good news from the Government, and that this Bill will go through all its necessary stages. I commend the Bill to the House.

7.12 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I shall detain the House only a minute longer, as I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has said most of what I would have wished to say. As is very often the case, the House has brought forth a wealth of background knowledge and experience about this horrible matter—it does so whether or not the matter under discussion is horrible. But the amount of background that has been filled in today has been very marked.

Perhaps I may express my personal gratitude to all those who have spoken about the matter. I should like to make just one or two detailed points. Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Vickers and Lady Jeger, referred to a recent television programme. I say this because I want it to go into Hansard. It was a recent BBC documentary in the "Forty Minutes" series on BBC2 and, in my opinion—and I think in the opinion of most of those who saw it—it was just, accurate and harrowing, all three.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, also referred to the matter of the Title of the Bill. I accept that it is not ideal, and I shall be more than happy to try to amend it at the Committee stage. Despite her kind words, I should like to say a few words to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. If she looks at Hansard tomorrow she will see that the point I was making about Jewish women was not at all as she stated it. I did not say that Jewish women are, by custom or tradition, circumcised, as are Jewish men. The point was quite a different one.

Lastly, I should like to deal with the extremely clear intervention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He told us, with all the tremendous authority of his office, that under English law—and I repeat, English law—it was his opinion that these operations were already illegal. I emphasise "English" law because, of course, Section 20 of the 1861 Act does not apply to Scotland. The noble and learned Lord went on to say that this fact, which he stated from the Woolsack, may be an argument for the Bill or it may be an argument against it. He did not commit himself on that.

A minute or two afterwards I heard the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the Government, acknowledge the case for a firm statement in legislation about these operations. Of course it would be open to the House to decide not to go any further with the Bill at the moment, and to wait for a prosecution in England under existing law. But I should not recommend the House to do that. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is right in seeing a case for a firm statement in legislation.

Let me repeat the statement that I made earlier, that I and my friends in this matter will be more than willing to take all the Committee points and to advance all the amendments, which I feel sure can be found, in order to get rid of the worries, particularly those of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.