HL Deb 18 June 1985 vol 465 cc207-24

7.41 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 2 [Saving for necessary surgical operations]:

Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("any") to the end of line 18 and insert ("non-medical factors.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I reiterate what I said at Committee stage: that everybody concerned with this Bill wishes female circumcision to become illegal in this country. The question is not whether it should be made illegal, but whether this Bill will help to stamp it out. The case which I put at Committee and which I am putting again tonight with this amendment is that unless this clause, which has been declared by the Commission for Racial Equality—the Government's own official board on racial discrimination in this country—to be emotive, is altered to a neutral phrase, the Bill itself can do damage and, at the very best, will become subject to argument about racial discrimination. That would retard its impact on the people for whom it is intended to be beneficial.

There would seem to be two possible objections to my amendment. The first is that it could be held to prohibit those operations being done today which the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, spoke about at Committee stage, and which he and the rest of us consider to be legitimate operations, provided that they are approved of by the relevant doctors. This objection was firmly met by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, at Committee stage when I asked him whether the phrase that I am proposing to substitute in Clause 2 would inhibit the operations now being carried out which are considered to be legitimate. These were his answers, he said first: The answer is that the words proposed would not constitute any barrier to the proper practice of medicine. Those words are such that they should be carefully considered as to whether they provide a clear enough substitute for 'custom and ritual'. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is asking should be done".

A little later in the Committee when challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, on whether the operations would not come outside the bounds of medicine, the noble Lord, Lord Richardson answered as clearly and as directly as he had in reply to the first point. He said: If there is an abnormality which is a significant abnormality in the assessment of a case, it should be dealt with medically".—[Official Report, 3/6/85; cols. 593–4].

In other words, I have full authority from the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, according to his answers at Committee stage, to say that my amendment would not in any way interfere with today's legitimate operations.

There may be another objection. It may be posed that the phrase "non-medical factors" is vague and could allow female circumcision still to take place with the alibi that it was done for non-medical reasons. Lord Richardson's second answer at least partially covered that objection, but the term "mental health" is a very vague term. If anyone doubts that, he should examine the confusion caused by the Mental Health Act 1983. That Act is still subject to debate, discussion and argument as to how "mental health" can be used in prisons, for example, concerning committals to Broadmoor. Indeed only this afternoon I was told that this is a very real problem with admissions to Holloway Prison. So "mental health" itself is a vague term.

If it is argued that doctors performing female circumcision after the Bill is enacted could use as an alibi the point that they were performing the operation for "non-medical factors", surely it is just as easy and just as probable that the alibi could be used that they were performing the operation for the mental health of the patient, irrespective of ritual or custom.

I believe that the approval of this amendment would greatly strengthen the impact of the Bill on the public and would avoid that unnecessary, wasteful and indeed dangerous argument about racial discrimination. We have not heard from the Government, from the sponsor of the Bill or from anyone who has opposed our amendments any answer to the statement by the Commission for Racial Equality that the Bill as it stands is racially discriminatory. If, therefore, the Bill goes out in this form, it is natural and inevitable that many people inside and outside the ethnic communities will seize upon this clause and quote in their support the opinion of the Government's own board that the clause is racially discriminatory and that therefore the Bill is racially discriminatory.

I asked at Committee stage, when withdrawing the amendment, that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, should consider these alternative words and consult with the authorities—not with the DHSS, which, as we know, has dug its toes in on this—with the doctors, as to whether they would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, or not. I await the answer of the noble Baroness this evening.

I conclude this introduction of the amendment by making quite clear that at least one important organisation of black women in London, the London Black Women's Health Action Project—the people on whom we are depending to persuade their own sisters and relatives that this operation should cease, on whom we are depending to educate the young women and indeed the old women and the men in their own communities against this practice—have stated categorically that they are anxious that the practice of female circumcision be discontinued in this country. They add: We are doubly anxious that the issue be treated with the sensitivity it demands".

So far as the racial overtones of the Bill are concerned—and I would ask noble Lords to note it very carefully because this is from those women on whom we are depending to put this Bill into practice in such a way that there is no social disturbance, no social anguish, as a result of the Bill—they say: If the Bill is seen as unjust and racist then groups like ours which are trying to initiate debate and to educate people about the dangers of the practice will be seen as attacking the communities involved and it will make our task harder".

I do not believe that anyone can call up better authority than these women in supporting me when I say that, unless this clause is changed, the Bill as it stands will make the task of these women, these leading women, these women on whom we depend for education, harder. I beg to move.

Lord McNair

My Lords, the meaning of this amendment is that the doctor, in assessing the mental health needs of his patient, who (as we were reminded at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson) may be of any colour, race or type, must exclude non-medical factors. I am not sure about this but I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, comes to read what he has just said, he may, find he got tied up in his own double negatives. I think he said that a doctor might claim (presumably in court) "Oh, it is all right. I did it for non-medical factors".. Those are what he is excluding. That is a small point and I do not want to press it because I may just as likely be wrong.

The purpose of the amendment is to find, as the noble Lord put it, a neutral formula which not even the most hypersensitive, race-conscious person could possibly find offensive. This is a commendable aim and at Committee stage I made a similar attempt, suggesting a different formula. I was very sorely tempted to put down for this stage the simplest amendment of all which would simply have said: "For 'ritual' read `tradition'." Perhaps I can simultaneously explain why I have not tabled any amendment at all and why I would not be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, if he were to divide the House.

My first reason is that after deep and prolonged thought I have come to the conclusion that this semantic paper chase in which we have all been indulging, although understandable and worthy, is not in the last analysis necessary. It was at Committee stage that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said this: If you brand the use of the words, 'custom and ritual' as racialist then it seems to me that you are branding the Bill itself". My Lords, I suggest that that was a bit of blunt, unpalatable, irrefutable truth. I would put it this way, if you accept the Short Title of the Bill—"Prohibition of Female Circumcision"—you then have to ask yourself, "What do I mean by 'female circumcision'?" I leave your Lordships to answer that question for yourselves but I defy anyone to answer it honestly in terms which could not be objected to as racialist by people on the lookout for what they call racialism. To escape from this dilemma requires a feat of Houdini like mental gymnastics of which I certainly am not capable.

My second reason, both for not tabling any amendment myself, and for opposing this one, concerns that sinister but ineluctable item, the parliamentary timetable. We are, I like to think, within about six weeks of the Summer Recess. I have heard an ominous phrase in the corridors, "There is only one more Friday". I do not know exactly what that means but it frightens me. I want this cruel and gruesome practice outlawed for the sake of its helpless innocent victims. I want this Bill; and I am not prepared to do anything which might endanger the passage of the Bill even if it is slightly imperfect.

There is a third reason for opposing this particular amendment, and that is that the words proposed might not, I suspect, stand up in court. We would, as it were, be asking the court to define a negative. I very much doubt whether the term, "non-medical practice" is sufficiently unambiguous to find a place in an Act of Parliament.

Lord Coleraine

I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that I felt that this amendment was inappropriate when he moved it at Committee stage. I still feel it inappropriate because, in my view, it would have the effect of excluding all operations which are otherwise permitted by Subsection (2) except those necessary for the physical health of the person on whom the operation was performed. The illustration that I gave to your Lordships in Committee was of physical abnormality. The effects of physical abnormality on a person may be to enable someone to say that she requires the operation on mental grounds. But if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has his way, if he moves this amendment and it is passed, I shall still remain of the opinion that operations for abnormality, whether they are called for on grounds of mental health or whether they are merely demanded by the person as a matter of choice, will be totally ruled out by this amendment.

The noble Lord mentioned the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richardson. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, is not with us tonight. In particular, he mentioned the noble Lords' comment when I made this point to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in Committee. He said that, if there was an abnormality which was a significant abnormality in the assessment of"the case, it should be dealt with medically. In my view the noble Lord was giving a view clinically, and I have no reason to disagree with him. But I do not think he was giving a view as to what the legal effect would be if and when this Bill becomes law. I do not think that his views can be brought in now in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in this way.

8 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I shall be very brief. Lord McNair asked: what do we mean by female circumcision? It was a rhetorical question. The answer he expected to leap into our minds was, "Operations carried out on the female genitalia by black people". That, in his view, would be the honest and straightforward and frank answer.

I shall tell him what I mean by female circumcision. It is the carrying out of the procedures described in Clause 1 of the Bill for non-medical reasons. It is as simple as that. It seems to me that simple legislation is very often good legislation, and the form of words of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is perfectly good. They are procedures which, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, are cruel and gruesome when they are carried out for non-medical reasons; that is to say, when they achieve no good to the health of the person but only harm to the health of the person. That is what we want to prohibit; and the phrase "'non-medical' reasons" will do it.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, I rise to support the view of the noble Lord, Lord McNair. If, in a serious context, I may strike a possibly light note, I would quote an act that George Robey used to put on in the music halls when he was simulating the attitude of a landlady towards a lodger who, she thought, was getting over-familiar with her daughter. She expressed it in the views of a retailer who was objecting to the fingering of goods by a customer, saying, "If you don't want the goods don't mess 'em about". If your Lordships want this Bill, don't mess it about! What the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said is absolutely true. We are getting very close to the end of the Parliamentary Session, and the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, could result in us losing this Bill altogether.

Female circumcision is a disgusting racial practice imported into this country which should be stamped on completely. If racialism means the support of the ungodly, then I am against the support of the ungodly and I am a racialist, although in many ways I am not.

There are many reasons for my supporting the noble Baroness on this Bill and for opposing the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. I always oppose whatever he says: I always support whatever she says. If the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, proceeds to divide the House I shall follow the noble Baroness into the Division Lobby.

Lord Rea

My Lords, I think I should make a small contribution here. We have been searching for words in Clause (2)(2) which would serve the purposes of the Bill and not cause offence. I think that these words which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has suggested do just that. The noble Lord has also quoted the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, who says that they will not exclude any legitimate operations which are done for medical reasons. There is only one possible objection to this amendment apart from the one which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has mentioned of there being only one more Friday. That has been held over our heads as a sort of threat, but I do not think that it should in any way stop us discussing what we feel are important refinements of this Bill. Even if we do not feel that this House will pass them, they should go on record as having been said.

I think these suggested words are much better than the present ones for the reasons which we have stated: that they cause no offence to anyone, and fulfil the purposes of the Bill. I think the only possible objection to these words is that there might be a legal problem as to what "non-medical" reasons entail. If, for instance, mental health reasons are used for doing the operation, could they be called medical reasons? The mental health reasons might include the distress that the woman is having because she cannot have the operation, because, under pressure from her compatriots, she feels that she should have it. I think that this argument is one which can be looked at in a court of law. As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, says, I think the Short Title of this Bill is quite specific, and that any barrister or judge looking at this, particularly in the light of the views the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expressed in this House about this practice, will be in no doubt that any carrying out of the practice described in this Bill would be against the law.

Lady Kinloss

My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has said. He has said it very much better than I could. For those reasons, I cannot support this amendment.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I must just say how much I agree with the wise words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I can well understand the purpose of this amendment, which avoids the need to refer to "custom or ritual". But I have to say (as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, himself said would in fact be said) that it is very vague and would not be acceptable to the Government.

That vagueness would make interpretation difficult. The courts would need to decide what does or does not constitute a "medical factor". There are essentially two possibilities. They would decide that anxiety caused by a woman's belief that in some way her external genitalia were not acceptable to others was not a medical factor. In that case this phrase would catch not just female circumcision but also many of the mental health grounds for quite legitimate ethical operations. That would clearly not be acceptable to the medical profession or their patients.

Lord Rea

My Lords, would the noble Baroness allow me to interrupt? I do not think that there is likely to be a court case brought against a legitimate operation. This is the point. It is most unlikely that a surgeon who is doing a legitimate operation for mental health grounds on someone in this country will have anybody objecting to it on legal grounds.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, on the other hand, the courts could decide that this anxiety about the acceptability of appearance to others was a medical factor. In that case this amendment would make legal female circumcision in circumstances where it is not legal now. That, too, is not acceptable.

The whole purpose of the Bill is to make the law crystal clear. This amendment only serves to make the law so obscure that we cannot know whether or not we are making female circumcision—that pointless, harmful mutilation—in some cases legal. We must clearly distinguish in this Bill between ethical, legitimate operations performed by doctors for a patient on grounds of mental health and female circumcision. The purpose of the Bill is to prohibit all cases of female circumcision. That is achieved by the Bill as currently drafted, which should, therefore, remain unamended.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, it has been said over and over again that all noble Lords who have taken part in these stages of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill are against this cruel and mutilating practice, and this has also been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, tonight. Many people are amazed that your Lordships are still discussing this horrific custom, which appalled most people in Britain when they realised it was practised here even though by a small minority of people. Some noble Lords may genuinely be trying to improve this Bill, but they could be jeopardising it by any amendment, as has been made clear by the noble Lord, Lord McNair.

We are dealing here with a matter which is a tradition of some people, but it is not a tradition which we allow in Britain. Our cosmopolitan society has brought with it the need to clarify the law so that without any doubt female circumcision, for reasons other than the wellbeing of patients on medical grounds, will be against the law. As the Bill now stands, that is made clear.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has been looked at again, as I undertook at Committee stage would be done. The purpose of the Bill, as I have tried to stress, is to make the law clear beyond all doubt. Amendment No. 1 makes the Bill vague and obscure. The Bill must now allow the defence, after the deed has been done, that it was necessary to perform the mutilation because otherwise the girl or woman would have been greatly distressed. It is doubtful whether a doctor performing the mutilation now could successfully claim such a defence. This amendment might create that possibility: it could be a loophole.

Interpretation, of course, would be a matter for the courts. The amendment, if it prohibits female circumcision, might prohibit legitimate surgery. I should like to read a letter I received only last night from the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, after I had written to him and sent a copy of Hansard containing the proceedings of the Committee stage. The letter says: It is in the view of this college very important to have 'mental' and 'physical' included, as mental conditions may require surgical treatment to get rid of the mental problems. The idea that mental problems are all treated by psychiatric means is just not true. I note that Lord Hatch is keen to substitute 'non-medical factors'. This would not be acceptable as it is very unclear what 'non-medical factors' are. If, for example, a girl had a mental illness as a result of not having circumcision, would she then have a medical reason for doing it? It is very unclear. In my view, this could make female circumcision legal. After long reflection it seems to me that it is necessary to ban female circumcision on the grounds of custom and ritual. One has to balance the benefits of offending a few who object to the wording on racist grounds against obtaining a Bill which bans what is barbaric practice. I think a few who are offended would need to accept a wording in the interests of banning this practice. I am myself no longer worried about the word "ritual". I have discussed this with my own bishop and he said it was a useful word in this context and he felt the Bill was clearer for it. I do not think it is helpful to anyone to make out that this Bill is racist. Whoever performs female circumcision in Britain for reasons of custom or ritual, from the Shetland Isles to Land's End, will not be able to perform female circumcision, whoever they are, when this Bill is law.

We are all used to ritual in your Lordships' House, but ours is harmless and hurts no one. I believe this Bill is what the country at large wants, and this is what has been agreed to in another place by all parties. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, will withdraw his amendment. It confuses some well-meaning people outside your Lordships' House.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I do not think that any of the arguments I have put forward in support of this amendment have been answered or that most of them have even been approached. So far as the approaching end of the parliamentary Session is concerned, that really is a red herring—

The Earl of Halsbury

No.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, if we had sufficiently wished to pass this Bill 12 months ago it would have become law 12 months ago. It was the Government who insisted on inserting a clause—Clause 2 as it now appears in this Bill—on which the Government were then defeated by this House. The House has spoken once on this and the Government would not accept it. Any delay lies at the door of the Government, and it is a 12-months' delay. In any case, the Session does not end at the end of July. There are weeks in October which are available, when both Houses will be sitting, and therefore in my view the argument is a false one.

We have been asked by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, not to mess it about. But who was it who messed it about? It was the Government. We had a simple, straightforward Bill. We had a very clear and forceful statement from the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack—

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? This amendment is not a Government amendment: it is an amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

I am sorry, my Lords. It was a Government amendment which killed the Bill last year. I am referring to the last Bill, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. We had passed that Bill through this House. We passed it twice, with the interruption of the general election, and it was the Government who first of all, when they were defeated in this House, then defeated it in the other place by the simple word, "Object". This Bill could have been law 12 months ago—a Bill that carried out our intention of outlawing female circumcision.

The noble Baroness wants the Bill to make it crystal clear, but the two Bills of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, were crystal clear and then the Government—

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will give way, will he stop making a Second Reading speech and speak to his amendment?

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I am speaking exactly to my amendment and replying to the comments that have been made by noble Lords and noble Baronesses about the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has said that she wanted to make the Bill crystal clear. But as soon as the Government introduced the phrase "mental health", legal dubiety came into the Bill. What I am trying to do, having failed to remove the mental health issue, is to make sure that when "mental health" is interpreted it does not have a racially discriminatory character.

Again, I have quoted the Government's own board—I repeat, the Government's board and not our board—declaring that this clause in the Bill is racially discriminatory. It is all very well for noble Lords and noble Baronesses to say that they or their bishops do not believe that it is discriminatory. The people concerned do believe that it is discriminatory; and what I have been trying to do is to prevent this Bill being distorted and being the subject of a public argument which has nothing to do with the Bill's purpose. That is all I have been trying to do from the start: to prevent the Bill being used as a means of debate, discussion, argument and conflict on racial grounds. That, I believe, can be done through the words that I have proposed in this amendment.

I have the authority. It is no good noble Lords and noble Baronesses saying that it might interfere with present legitimate operations. The noble Lord, Lord Richardson, said categorically that it would not. Surely he knows better than any of us in the House tonight. Again, I simply beg noble Lords not to smear the Bill, not to distort the Bill, and not to send the Bill out to the public, inviting a debate on whether or not it is racially discriminatory. The debate should be led by the leaders of the ethnic communities—

Lord Swinfen

My Lords—

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I shall give way in a moment. The debate should be led by the leaders of the ethnic communities who have the terribly difficult task to perform of persuading their own people that female circumcision should be done away with in their own societies. They have said that the Bill as it reads will damage their chances. I beg noble Lords to listen to them. I will now give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I was going to say to the noble Lord that surely if his amendment is accepted, it will do precisely what he does not want to do. It will make the Bill discriminatory, because it will then possibly be legal for one ethnic group to have female circumcision whereas for the rest of the country it will be illegal. The whole point of his amendment is totally against what the noble Lord has been talking about.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, frankly, I do not understand the argument of the noble Lord. My amendment will not allow female circumcision in any circumstances. What it will do is to prevent the exemptions from female circumcision being placed on a racial basis, and it is in that sense that it is moved.

8.21 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided; Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 118.

DIVISION NO.3
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Kennet, [Teller.]
Brockway, L. Kirkhill, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. McCarthy, L.
Falkland, V. Melchett, L.
Hacking, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.] Rea, L.
Jeger, B. Wilson of Langside, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B. Gray, L.
Attlee, E. Gray of Contin, L.
Auckland, L. Greenway, L.
Barber, L. Gregson, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Grey, E.
Belstead, L. Grimston of Westbury, L.
Boardman, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Halsbury, E. [Teller.]
Brougham and Vaux, L. Hampton, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Burton, L. Hives, L.
Caithness, E. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Hornsby-Smith, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Inglewood, L.
Coleraine, L. Ingrow, L.
Colwyn, L. Irving of Dartford, L.
Cowley, E. Killearn, L.
Cox, B. Kimball, L.
Craigavon, V. Kinloss, Ly.
Crathorne, L. Kinnaird, L.
Crawshaw of Aintree, L. Kinnoull, E.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Kitchener, E.
David, B. Lane-Fox, B.
Davidson, V. Lawrence, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Liverpool, E.
Denham, L. Long, V.
Donegall, M. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. McNair, L.
Elton, L. Mar, C.
Ennals, L. Margadale, L.
Faithfull, B. Marley, L.
Fitt, L. Marshall of Leeds, L.
Galpern, L. Masham of Ilton, B. [Teller.]
Gardner of Parkes, B. Molson, L.
Gisborough, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Glenamara, L. Morton of Shuna, L.
Glenarthur, L. Mountevans, L.
Gowrie, E. Moyne, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Munster, E.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Strathcarron, L.
Nicol, B. Swinfen, L.
Orr-Ewing, L. Swinton, E.
Plummer of St Marylebone, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Teviot, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Tordoff, L.
Portland, D. Townshend, M.
Quinton, L. Tranmire, L.
Renton, L. Trefgarne, L.
Renwick, L. Trumpington, B.
Ross of Marnock, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. Vickers, B.
Sanderson of Bowden, L. Vinson, L.
Shannon, E. Vivian, L.
Sharples, B. Windlesham, L.
Skelmersdale, L. Wise, L.
Stockton, E. Young, B.
Stodart of Leaston, L. Young of Graffham, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

8.32 p.m.

Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 2:

After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— (".—(1) The Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, make regulations to require any registered medical practitioner to notify, in such terms as may be prescribed, the carrying out of operations under section 2 of this Act to the Chief Medical Officers of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Scottish Home and Health Department and the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland. (2) Regulations made under this section may prohibit the disclosure of the information, notified under subsection (1) except to such persons or for such purposes as may be prescribed in the regulations. (3) A statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2, which asks that there may be provision for the Secretary of State, by statutory instrument, to make regulations, to require any registered medical practitioner to notify, in such terms as may be prescribed, the carrying out of operations under section 2 of this Act to the Chief Medical Officers of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Scottish Home and Health Department and the relevant authorities in Northern Ireland.

I am very concerned, as are all of your Lordships, about monitoring this Bill. It is very important if we pass this Bill, as I hope we shall, that we are able to have some follow-up and to find out what are its results. I have been in contact with the department whose statistical section, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, compiles an annual report of medical statistics under which it includes comprehensive details of all operations carried out during the year. The latest figures available are for 1982 and in that year the department reported that there were 682 operations for female circumcision.

I have put clown this amendment because I want to know whether the figures for next year and the year after will be higher. If there were 682 operations for female circumcision in 1982, we must try to monitor the impact of this Bill. Will the result of this Bill be more or fewer operations? All I ask is: why and how? The report is published by HMSO and I ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether it is possible to continue to monitor these operations. I am particularly asking that there should be a clear statement that the Secretary of State should, by statutory instrument, get these figures and, if not, why not? My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I support the amendment because it gives the Secretary of State power to do something which he may wish to do or may not wish to do. I cannot see that his having the power can be objectionable to anybody.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I do not see any point in the amendment. Any illegal operations will not be recorded or reported and those are the ones that matter. The legal ones are done for a very good reason under doctors' advice. It is the illegal ones that we want to know about. They will not be reported, because they will get the reporter and other people into trouble. The whole thing is a waste of time and absolutely pointless.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord has said, but I must ask him to think a little more about this. We are not asking for the illegal operations to be reported, because of course they will not be. What we are trying to do by this amendment is to bring this operation closer to the provision in the Act to terminate pregnancies, under which the doctor has to report that he has performed the operation. That is quite different from what the noble Lord has said. We know that illegal operations will not be reported, but unless we get a report of what is happening we shall not be able to follow up the results of this Bill.

Lord Rea

My Lords, I must say that I have to oppose my noble friend on this amendment because, owing to the way in which it is worded, there would have to be notified some 100,000 or so episiotomies and 9,000 legitimate operations which are done on female genitalia. However, I should have much more sympathy if it could be narrowed down as in subsection (2) of Clause 2, but the amendment as it stands does not do that. Perhaps my noble friend could think again about that.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I feel inclined to support this amendment, but I would ask my noble friend Lady Jeger just to clarify one point. Can she tell us why she has used the word "may" rather than the word "shall"?

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, I should just like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for what he has said, because, although I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is well intentioned in putting down this amendment, it would become a bureaucratic nightmare. I am told that the word "may" in a statute is not permissive; it is mandatory, and the Secretary of State would not have discretion about whether or not to make these regulations. He would be obliged to do so. Just think, my Lords, of the problems which would arise, as has been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Therefore, I could not accept this amendment.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I hope that I may, with leave, come back again, because I am very worried about what the noble Baroness has said. The figures that I have from the department and from the Library show that there were 682 operations for female circumcision in the year 1982. So I am not asking for anything new or special or difficult. I am trying to make it mandatory that these operations are recorded in future as they are being recorded at the present time. There is nothing extraordinary about what I am asking for. The idea that this would create a lot of bureaucratic business is not sustainable. If there have been 682 operations for female circumcision in 1982, there has been all that bureaucracy. All I am asking is that we go on—

The Earl of Halsbury

Stamp collecting.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, someone says "stamp collecting", but I think that if we are to get any sense out of Clause 2(2), we must know what is happening. That is all I have to say.

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, in view of the point that has been raised, can the Minister—

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, with due respect, I think that the noble Baroness has in fact moved the amendment.

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, I wanted to ask the Minister to give an assurance to the House. The suggestion has been made that in the context of this amendment the word "may" makes the provision mandatory. I think we need some assurance about that.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, I think I have answered that already by saying that it did. Therefore it would become a bureaucratic nightmare, with hundreds and thousands of cases having to be notified, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Rea.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Clause 4 [Short title, commencement, and extent]:

8.45 p.m.

Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("force") to end of line 35 and insert ("on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, being any day in the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the Act is passed.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would empower the Secretary of State to bring the Bill into force at any time he liked during the period of 12 months after it passes. I propose the amendment because of the need for time for education. Perhaps I may give the House the evidence of this need. There are two main bodies from the immigrant communities concerned who are involved in the campaign to educate those communities on the undesirability of female circumcision. They are the London Black Women's Health Action Project and FOWARD. Both are strongly in favour of the possibility of a delay in the coming into effect of the Bill. I shall quote the words of the former group: Outlawing female circumcision in other countries has been partially successful but the practice continues underground where proper work has not been done to re-educate and support families, particularly women, in opposing the practice. Legislation which does not allow a period of time in which educational work can be done will not succeed in stamping out the practice of female circumcision in the UK".

These are people who know better than we do and even better than the Department of Health, if I may say so.

They go on to say: We do not believe that the practice of female circumcision will disappear overnight when the Bill becomes law, and we are worried. We believe that legislation alone cannot change people's minds about circumcision. It must be accompanied by education, counselling and communication, and it is for these reasons that we urge an amendment to delay implementation".

To me the case is obvious. Let us think what might happen at the worst. The first case brought to court might involve a family who were unaware of the existence of this law. They would be prosecuted under a law of which they had not heard and which they did not understand when they did hear of it. That I submit is worth going quite a long way to avoid. The House simply ought not to want such a possibility to be written into the statute book. There has been no Government help for education or counselling for these people. I do not blame the Government. The Government became aware of the problem only rather recently. They are now aware of it. There are applications before them for financial help in this matter from several organisations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, told us at the Committee stage. The Government have not had time to consider them; quite right. Let them not bring the Bill into effect before they have considered them and before those organisations have had some months to speak in their own language, using their own images, to what is one of the most cloistered, sequestered immigrant communities in the country.

One of these groups has had some money from the GLC. It is only a London-wide group. There are immigrant communities concerned not only in London but also in Cardiff, in Liverpool and especially in other docklands. If the Government urge the House to reject this amendment or if they threaten to use their very easy majority by bringing in all the people who are not listening to the debate but are having dinner, I think they will have a considerable criticism to face in the event of convictions of totally ignorant people.

The amendment does not amend the Bill. The amendment does not amend the effect, or meaning or purport of the Bill. The argument that it might therefore delay its passage through the House of Commons if it were adopted is untenable. It affects only the date on which it comes into operation; it affects it only at the discretion of the Secretary of State. If the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is going to advise the House not to accept the amendment, the House must listen to her arguments and see whether they are arguments why the Secretary of State should not have the power to delay implementation if he wishes.

The House should also remember that in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this Bill is probably not necessary in any case; that is to say, if there were evidence, convictions could be brought under the present law. I do not know whether or not that is true. The noble and learned Lord does; I do not. None of us here does.

The noble Baroness is looking at her watch and the Government Whip has been running around threatening that we shall lose the Bill if we do not terminate our discussions within the next five minutes. In this Chamber it requires the Motion of the House to terminate a particular stage of a particular Bill at a particular time. The Government Whip wisely announced that the main business would not be resumed before twenty minutes to nine. Nobody has the power to insist that it should be resumed by that time or by any other.

If after having overridden medical opinion in this House, the opinion of their statutory advisers outside the House, and the opinions of the minority communities concerned and so on and so forth, on the substance of the Bill, the Government continue to use their majority on this minor point of procedure, giving themselves as Government greater freedom than they would otherwise have, I do not know what conclusion noble Lords will draw. I beg to move.

Lord McNair

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I am puzzled by one thing. The Bill says: This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed". In other words, there is a two months' delay written into the Bill. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would enable the Secretary of State to bring it into force the very day after it was passed if he so wished. Obviously, there is something here I do not understand and as the noble Lord had not really sat down, I wonder whether he can clear it up.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I do not think it matters. The amendment has the effect of allowing the Secretary of State to bring the Bill into effect 10 months later than it would otherwise have come into effect, or two months earlier. I want the Secretary of State to be free to do what he thinks fit and I hope that when he has had time to think he will realise that there must be time for the education and counselling, as the communities say.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, we fully accept that this Bill of itself will not eradicate female circumcision. It is a part, albeit a necessary part, of the wider campaign that includes education and counselling. That education is happening now. It does not await the passage of the Bill, although we all hope that it will be greatly assisted by it. We must do what we can to help this wider campaign, and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I know that officials in the department are having meetings with organisations in this field of interest to see what can be done to help them. It would be of no assistance to those organisations, or to anyone else, to delay this clarification of the law. If delay encouraged anyone to perform female circumcision then it would do a great disservice.

I remind the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that he drafted a Bill on this subject during the last Session. Had that Bill been successful, it would now be on the statute book. Why should the noble Lord urge delay of the commencement of the Bill now before us? The noble Lord's Bill had no transition clause. Even if it had had such a clause, the Bill would probably now be in operation. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. The Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would have been ineffective. The Bill now before your Lordships is a great improvement. I see no reason to delay still further this effective legislation.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, it is with some grief that I have to declare that I cannot support this amendment. If female circumcision is wrong today, it will be wrong in 12 months' time. If we were to pass this amendment, we would be suggesting to some of the people most concerned that they could continue performing female circumcisions for the next 12 months and that there would be nothing wrong with that. This amendment would mean that many women would be subject, without legal protection, to risk. It is not a good amendment. I want to see this Bill brought into law as soon as possible. Any postponement would be harmful and wrong.

Lady Kinloss

My Lords, I understand the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in arguing for a 12-month delay. It could be argued that such a delay could benefit some, but delay could also cause pain and suffering of a wholly needless kind to others. I am more concerned with the pain that can be prevented rather than the pain that might be prevented. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench but it seems to me that the Government are disregarding the advice they were given right at the beginning of this whole process—with the first Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.

Female circumcision is already illegal today. So says the primate of the judicial system of this country. Why have no prosecutions been brought? Is it because there has been no evidence? Is it because witnesses will not give evidence? How will all that change with this Bill? According to the Lord Chancellor, anyone who has performed female circumcision can be prosecuted under 19th century legislation dealing with assault on the person. We would not be putting anybody at risk by postponing the coming into force of this Bill.

Would it not be sensible, and would it not be sensitive, if the Secretary of State were given the power to bring together those upon whom we rely to educate their own people, so that they may decide when they have been sufficiently successful and have a good body of opinion behind them? The Secretary of State could then decide in turn when the moment has come to put the Bill into operation. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, the whole point of this Bill is to clarify the law. The law is not very clear at the moment and that is the crux of the situation. There is no doubt that education is needed for those groups of people who have had passed down to them this cruel and misguided practice of mutilating their families. Such men and women need educating, and no one would argue with that.

The World Health Organisation and the United Nations are striving to educate at an international level, as are other splendid and progressive groups throughout the world. Britain has delayed too long in making clear legislation prohibiting female circumcision. Ours is the mother country of the Commonwealth. People still look to us for leadership in legislation. We have been discussing this matter for two years. We should dither and haver no more. This amendment would serve only to delay the issue, and I see no real merit in doing that. The sooner the legislation is on the statute book the sooner real, positive education can start and people will take this matter seriously.

If this amendment had to go back to the Commons and the Bill were lost, Britain would be doing a great disservice to many people who are striving to prevent this horrible practice. For such legislation to fall for a third time would be very damaging, particularly in respect of a matter such as this. Does the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, really want to risk this Bill? I hope that he will not press this amendment, because I cannot accept it.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I have already explained why the Bill would not be put at risk if this amendment were accepted.

The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, accused me of wanting to have it both ways. She asked why the Bill which I introduced into this House three years ago did not contain a clause empowering the Secretary of State to delay the Bill's enforcement. The reason was quite simple. It was because the communities concerned had not told me that that ought to be done. At that time, and indeed two years ago, there was no discussion in the communities concerned of the desirability or undesirability of the Bill. There was no discussion of the need for education. Indeed, there was no awareness of the need for education or awareness of the law. Today, there is such awareness. Relevant bodies have been formed and they have asked for time to carry out education.

I shall not waste the time of the House by putting this amendment to the vote. But I will ask the House to listen while I put certain remarks on the record. I am not putting this amendment to the vote because the Government—not Lady Masham—have already shown what they can do by bringing out the "dining room vote". They will do it again and it would waste time. Such people have not heard the discussion. There are at present seven or eight souls on the Government Benches but 119 Peers went through the Lobby to vote against just now, as your Lordships will remember, and no doubt they would do so again.

The Government are denying themselves the power to have mercy in this matter, if they should wish to reconsider it.

Baroness Trumpington

Nonsense.

Lord Kennet

I heard the noble Baroness's observation, my Lords, and I wonder whether it applies to my use of the word "mercy" or to the fact that the Government were denying themselves the power to delay. Obviously the noble Baroness was applying it to my use of the word "mercy". I can only say that I hope that I am proved to be wrong and that it turns out that the Government are right and only conscious criminals will be prosecuted under this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.