§ 3.10 p.m.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Baroness Trumpington was speaking for the Government when on Third Reading of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill (col. 1142) she said, "It is not very difficult to make up one's mind, whether one is in the Chamber or not, as to whether one is in favour of female circumcision or against it", thereby implying that those Lords who voted for Amendment No. 1 on Report were in favour of female circumcision.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords the Government remain of the view that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch's amendment, which the House decisively rejected, would have damaged the Bill irreparably. My remarks referred to noble Lords who voted against the amendment. It is not for me to comment on the motives of those who voted for it.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that she has not retracted the absurd statement that there are 14 Members of this House in favour of the atrocious mutilation known as female circumcision? Is it her own personal opinion and is it the collective opinion of the Government that not to retract an absurd and unpleasant allegation of this sort is not in accordance with the best traditions of this House?
§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)My Lords, it is for me to answer collectively for the Government in this matter. I consider that my noble friend Lady Trumpington has acted perfectly properly in this case. I stand fully by what she has said.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, will my noble friend the Leader of the House say whether it is in accordance with the normal practice of this House to seek to continue by way of Starred Question a debate on which the House spent a great deal of time not very long ago?
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, I do not think that it would be for me to comment off the cuff on a matter like that. I certainly note that it is not desirable to use the Order Paper when a great deal of correspondence has proceeded beforehand. I quite appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, did it. I hope that I have given him an answer which, in all the circumstances, is a fair one.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, may I ask either the Leader of the House or the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whether any implication will be withdrawn that those of us who supported this amendment were in favour of women's circumcision? Are they aware that 50 years ago, H. N. Brailsford and I exposed what was termed women's circumcision? Are they aware that when I went to Kenya in the 1950s to support the African demand for independence I was in a dilemma because they were supporting women's circumcision? I opposed it when I met Jomo Kenyatta and other leaders. I had discussions with the Christian Churches about it. It is easy 40 years later in this House to oppose it. It was not easy among the Kikuyu.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, it is not very easy for me to answer the noble Lord's questions. I would just point out that Ministers have made it abundantly clear that they would support effective legislation to prohibit female circumcision. Previous attempts failed because, unlike the present Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act of 1985, they would not have led to effective legislation.
§ Lord ThorneycroftMy Lords, does my noble friend recall that it was a jolly good speech that she made and that no one capable of recognising that they were actually in this Chamber and that this Chamber was a debating society could possibly take any exception to it?
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
Lord MorrisMy Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is not for her to withdraw an implication that does not lie in the words quoted in the Question but rather that it is for noble Lords opposite to withdraw the totally unfounded inference?
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, I sense that the House probably feels that there has been sufficient discussion of this matter and that it has been fully ventilated in all the circumstances. I hope that we can now move on.
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, may I appeal—
§ Lord Hatch of LusbyMy Lords, may I appeal to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and urge that, as this Question concerns an action of mine, I should be allowed to put a question to his noble friend Lady Trumpington? The amendment was my amendment. Those who went into the Lobby with me were supporting me.
§ Viscount WhitelawMy Lords, I did not perhaps fully appreciate that. I did feel that I was giving vent to the feelings of the House in saying that this Question has been fully discussed. I hope that in those circumstances and despite his involvement in it the noble Lord will feel that honour has been satisfied on all sides by the exchanges that have taken place. I hope that he will take that view. I can only interpret the wishes of the House—that is my task—but I do feel that this is what the House as a whole feels. I would ask the noble Lord to accept it.
§ Lord MelchettMy Lords, as one of the other noble Lords who voted for the amendment, may I say to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that we spent seven minutes on each of the preceding three Questions and have spent about two minutes on the substantive point of this Question? While the feelings of the House as a whole have clearly to be respected, so, I would suggest, have those of a small minority who happen to be involved in this particular Question.
§ Viscount WhitelawYes, my Lords. I have done my best to get the feelings of the House and of all those concerned. If I have made a mistake, I can only apologise to the noble Lord. I did feel, however, that I was doing my duty to the House. We have had some 28 minutes on Question Time—
§ Lord MelchettMy Lords, two minutes on this.
§ Viscount Whitelaw—and much of that time has been spent by noble Lords asking questions about which they feel equally as strongly as noble Lords feel about this one. That must be appreciated.