Llywodraeth cyflawni o meddwlol cyd-wylliant o 12242 ar kami. O'r Llywodraeth Gwrdeinig Cymru, y cyflawni, sy'n deall gyda'r ddigwydd Cymru. B tbspwysig, torri ac rwynt i gyflwyterio'r cyflawni ac fy rwynt i gyweithio'r cyflawni, mae'r ddigwydd Cymryd Cymru yn ei wneud, sydd yn eich bodo'r eu ddweud i ddweud i cerddurenau fynd i cerddurenau sefydlu'r cerddurenau hyn, oherwydd i gael gyflawni i'r Llywodraethmake the vital services that community across Scotland depend on. Wel, it also seeks agreement to the allocation of additional funding for the current financial year since the 2014 orders were discussed and approved at this time last year. In 2015-16, local government finance settlement is a single year settlement. It is necessary that a Scottish Government can allocate funding only, once we know where our budget settlements are, from the United Kingdom Government. ac, ond, we are only aware of our budget for the forthcoming financial year. In 2015-16, the Scottish Government will provide councils with a total funding package worth over £10.85 billion. That includes revenue funding of almost £10 billion and support for capital expenditure of over £856 million. Today's order seeks Parliament's approval for the distribution and payment of £9.8 out of the revenue total of almost £10 billion. The remainder will be paid out of a specific grant funding for which separate legislation already exists and other funding will be distributed later. I will bring a second order before Parliament once councils have set their 2015-16 budgets to pay the £70 million to compensate all councils that freeze their council tax again in 2015-16 for the eighth consecutive year. I will use the second order to distribute the funding for the discretionary housing payments amounting to £35 million for next year, which will enable this Government to fully mitigate the effects of the UK Government's bedroom tax and any other changes that may be required. I advised Parliament yesterday in the budget debate about the approach that the Government is taking about the number of teachers employed in our schools. The Government has been clear and consistent in our commitment to maintain teacher numbers in line with pupil numbers as a central part of our priority to raise attainment. Over the period from 2011 to 2012 to 2014-15, we have provided additional funding of £134 million to local authorities specifically to support them in maintaining teacher numbers. As I explained yesterday, despite specific and sufficient funding being made available to maintain the employment of teachers, the number of teachers declined slightly last year and the ratio of pupils to teachers rose slightly into the bargain. In discussion with COSLA, I have offered to suspend the penalty for 2014-15 that I was entitled to apply as a result of the fallen teacher numbers, as well as to provide a further £10 million next year on top of the previously allocated £41 million to support the employment of teachers. In fact, £10 million is the amount that is put to me as necessary by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to deliver that commitment. At this stage, COSLA has been unable to agree to what I consider to be a fair and generous offer of government support to deliver a good outcome for our education system. As a result, the Government feels that there is no alternative but to make that funding available on a council-by-council basis if and only if councils are prepared to sign up to a clear commitment to protect teacher numbers. Individual councils who share our ambition to maintain teacher numbers will have access to a share of the planned £41 million and of the further £10 million to help them to deliver on their commitment. However, a failure to deliver will result in a clawback of funding. The most important changes to the figures that I announced in December are the distribution of £343 million in respect of the council tax reduction scheme. The only addition to the total figure is the £869,000 that is resulting from the Government's decision to bring forward legislation to ensure that local authorities can take no further action to recover ancient community charge or poll tax debts. The 2015 order also seeks approval for the changes to the net increase of £146.5 million in 2014-15 funding allocations that was either held back from the 2014 order or has been added to fund a number of agreed spending commitments that have arisen since the 2014 order was approved. Those include £68.6 million representing the agreed 20 per cent holdback for the council tax reduction scheme, £27.5 million for the teachers induction scheme, £16.5 million for the free school meals in primary 1-3 policy, £15 million for looked after children, £12 million for discretionary housing payments, £5 million for the national teachers qualifications policy and £3.5 million for workforce development resulting from the Children and Young People Act 2014. I should also explain that the total revenue funding to be paid out to councillors but not included in the order in 2015-16 includes £86.5 million paid directly to criminal justice authorities, £70 million to fund the council tax freeze, £35 million for discretionary housing payments and £27.6 million for the teachers induction scheme. The £70 million to fund the council tax freeze will be added to the individual local authority settlements totals, which I bring forward when I bring forward the local government amendment order for those councils who have budgeted to freeze the council tax in 2015-16. Presiding Officer, you will be aware that my budget bill statement yesterday included changes that will impact on the 2015-16 funding, both on the total local government financial settlement and the distribution of the figures included in the local government finance order under discussion today. As a result of our decision to match the UK Government's capital and business rates poundage, the increase will be limited to 2 per cent, which reduces our business rates income by £11 million. However, as I explained yesterday, I have allocated a compensating amount from the associated Barnett consequentials to match the reduction in income. What that means in practical effect is that I will reduce the distributable non-domestic rates amount by £11 million in the amendment order and increase the general revenue grant total by the same amount. The redistribution of those sums will ensure that all 32 local authorities receive exactly the same total funding as set out in the order before Parliament today. Although not part of today's order, the overall package for local authorities includes support for capital funding in 2015-16 of over £856 million, delivering on our commitment to maintain local government's share of the overall capital budget. I now turn to the issue of business rates and our continuing delivery of the most competitive business tax environment in the United Kingdom. For example, support under our small business bonus scheme is at a record high, with more than 96,000 business properties now benefiting. In December, I confirmed that we will continue to match the English poundage rates for 2015-16, and that reaffirms the Government's commitments to maintaining the competitive advantage enjoyed by Scottish businesses since 2007. Our extensive package of business rates relief also continues, worth around £618 million in the forthcoming financial year, offering enduring support for Scottish businesses. Our community empowerment bill proposes the power for councils to offer further rates reliefs in their local authority areas if they choose to do so. As confirmed previously, the public health supplement will conclude at the end of this financial year. Looking ahead, we will continue to use the time before the 2017 revaluation to make further improvements to the business rates framework based on our 20-point action plan and our current consultation on the appeal system and responding to the important feedback that we receive from ratepayers. In summary, the total funding from the Scottish Government to local authorities next year amounts to more than £10.85 billion. With that in mind, I move that Parliament agrees to the local government finance Scotland order 2015. Thank you, I know, called Rackabilly, Ms Beall, about six minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Local government is of course key to delivering social justice and tackling inequality. If we care about preventative action, and I believe we do across this chamber, then the services provided by local government, such as education, such as social care, absolutely need investment. Yet this is probably the only major spending portfolio to experience a real cash cut in their budget. In 2010-11, local government received 38 per cent of the Scottish Government budget. Today, it is 32 per cent. That is 6 per cent less, and members will have heard me before explaining that that equates to a £1.8 billion of a cut if it was to be applied today. Indeed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that local government spending in Scotland will have fallen by 24 per cent in real terms this year. I know that John Swinney is a master at spinning figures, but transparency suffers as a consequence. He tells us that local government share is increasing. He certainly did during the discussion on the budget. What he does not do is include the whole budget, and he still counts in the resources for fire and police that were transferred out two years ago. Spice confirmed that, contrary to what the cabinet secretary claims, local government share has indeed fallen. Joseph Rowntree tells us that there is a cut, local government tells us that there is a cut, unison tells us that there is a cut. Only John Swinney pretends that there is not. Make no mistake, the cuts that the SNP has presided over are not just austerity. That is austerity plus from the SNP-Edinburgh Government. In October, the cabinet secretary wrote to every council to tell them that the Scottish Government had experienced cuts of 10 per cent from the UK Government, and that was absolutely accurate. However, if you take his assumptions and apply them to local government, what he did not tell them was the scale of the cut that he would be passing on to them would be even greater still. In Renfrewshire, the cut is 17 per cent. Edinburgh, the cut is 20 per cent. Western Bartonshire is 22 per cent. Local authorities in every part of Scotland have received austerity plus even more cuts from the SNP. Let me turn to the question of teacher numbers. There are 4,275 fewer teachers in Scotland because of the SNP. They are committed to maintaining teacher numbers, so that is a considerable failure on their part. John Swinney is only now attempting to put a sticking plaster on that failure and concedes, as his starting point, a worsening of the teacher pupil ratio and a reduction in teacher numbers. That strikes me as an incredible lack of ambition for Scotland's parents and children. Labour is committed to maintaining teacher numbers, but Mr Swinney needs to give education enough money to do so. I think that he fundamentally makes a mistake in playing politics with this issue. Let me remind him of Renfrewshire Council when it was run by the SNP under the control of none other than Derek Mackay, former local government minister. I do not see him in the chamber today. Teacher numbers when he took over in the council in 2007 were 1,853. When Labour took control five years later, they inherited 1,598 teachers. The SNP and Derek Mackay had removed 255 teachers from local schools. Since then, Labour in Renfrewshire has not just maintained teacher numbers, but they have managed to increase them, albeit marginally. Actions speak louder than words. It is clear that, in this case, the SNP in local government as well as the SNP in the Edinburgh Government are cutting teacher numbers. If we are agreed that we want to maintain teacher numbers and we are agreed on that point, we need to make sure that there are sufficient resources to do so. Faced with an average of a 20 per cent reduction in their budget, the scale of the response from the Scottish Government needs to reflect the challenge experienced by local government. I touch on discretionary housing payments, because I am conscious that they have been reduced by the UK Government for this coming year. There will, in effect, be less available for local authorities to help some of the most disadvantaged people in our communities. I always listen very carefully to what the cabinet secretary has to say. He said that the Scottish Government's position is to provide sufficient funds for the full mitigation of the bedroom tax. Although I do not believe that we should constantly be making up for the proposition that has been put to us by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government, he spoke about the full mitigation. Therefore, there is a short fall in funding to some of our most hard-pressed local authorities to help the most disadvantaged in our communities. I would be interested to hear if his intention is to provide additional resource to ensure that we do help those local authorities and those people across Scotland that need that assistance. We are also in agreement, Presiding Officer, as I draw to a close, that there is a structural problem with the financing of local government. I very much welcome the cross-party commission on local government funding, but there is an urgency to help now. Whilst we will vote in favour of the order this evening, we do so in recognition that the amount available to local authorities is in substantial decline and that position does need to be reversed. Thank you. As the Scottish Government's budget was approved yesterday, it is of course welcome that this order regarding the money to be distributed to local government is before Parliament. It is important that all members and the public are kept well informed of local government finance orders, particularly because every detail matters to the communities that Scotland's councils serve. I imagine that all members present are aware of the financial difficulty facing many local authorities at the moment, which heightens the importance that Parliament debates local government policy at length. On this point, the debate gives us the chance to consider some of the ongoing issues related to local authorities' finances and how their relationship with the Scottish Government is influencing them. It is very important that we give some context to this debate about the local government finance order, because ultimately what matters is what the public get from their local authority. With this in mind, the financial situation at the City of Edinburgh Council is an example worth considering. They are presently needing to find £138 million worth of savings in their budget for 2017. They have consulted the city residents to gauge which services are considered essential, in which they may have funding withdrawn. I therefore wonder why the City of Edinburgh's funding has been reduced on a like-for-like basis from £746 million to £739 million, and we welcome an clarification on that. It seems to me that the only council that has had its funding reduced. I will not go into the detail of the council's decisions, which are a matter for them, but what I will say is that this situation is not unique in Scotland and this Parliament would do well to consider such a context throughout consideration of the funding being provided by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government and local authorities do, in my opinion, have a duty to be as transparent as possible regarding financial choices and the need to ensure that these decisions are made on spending are clear for all to see. Councils as well as central government must be accountable to the taxpayers. Having said this, responsibility does apply both ways, in particular to those who owe tax to councils and they should have to pay it. Councils depend on this to be able to fund the services that local residents need. However, this Government is planning to remove the debt that local authorities are owed and offers compensation.  When councils are facing substantial budget difficulties, this Government is choosing to support people who have avoided paying their tax. Hard-working taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise other people's tax avoidance and local authorities should not be left to suffer the financial consequences when people avoid paying tax, if they expect their debt to be cancelled by a future Government. This is a context that we cannot ignore while considering this order before us. Finally, I would like to use this opportunity to redraw attention to the crucial aspect of local government policy, which is exactly how local authorities are funded. In previous debates, we have discussed how there is a broad agreement that the present model of council funding through council tax, Scottish Government grants, fees, business rates and other income needs to change. As yet, a crucial decision on how to reform this has not been reached. However, I would like to emphasise my hope that a sensible and fair solution can be reached. According to the Presiding Officer, I would like to express my hope that, when it comes to local government, the Parliament continues to focus on the real issues affecting councils every day. With that in mind, it is within the context of pressing financial difficulties exacerbated by this Government's policy on community charge debt that we should consider the order before us, as well as any future reviews of how local government is financed. We will, however, be supporting the motion this evening. Thank you, Mr Buchanan. We now move to a very short open debate. Speeches for Minutes. Kevin Stewart followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am glad that we can debate this local government finance order this afternoon. I am extremely pleased that we will see the council tax freeze for the eighth consecutive years, which will give the average household a saving over the period of 2008 to 2015 £900 in their pocket. I think that that will be welcomed in households across Scotland. Beyond that, we are seeing, once again, delivery of the most competitive business environment in the UK. 96,000 businesses throughout the country will benefit from the small business bonus. Compared to our counterparts in England and Wales, Scottish local government is doing quite well. Where the difference lies is that we are seeing drastic cuts south of the border, meanwhile here in Scotland, while the Scottish budget has risen by 6.4 per cent since 2007-08, local government's share of that budget from the Scottish Government has increased by 8.9 per cent. Yesterday, we saw the Labour Party vote against £330 million for further investment in schools for the future. We saw them vote against extending childcare for all three and four-year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds. We saw them vote against the council tax freeze and we saw them vote against the most competitive business tax regime in the UK. What I have heard since that budget vote yesterday is a number of Labour politicians taking to social media and to the newspapers saying that they will have a war about teacher numbers, a war about teacher numbers. I would say that the money to hold these teacher numbers is being provided. All that councils need to do is to spend that money to ensure that those teacher numbers are maintained. If there is a war and they chose not to do this, then that war will be on teachers, pupils and parents. That is what bothers my constituents, including the parents, at Broome Hill School, who have been on at me this week about teacher numbers. It concerns parents across this country. Instead of talking about a war over teacher numbers, I would suggest that councils the length and breadth of the country should take the money from Mr Swinney and ensure that that money is spent on maintaining teacher numbers across this nation. I am pleased to see once again that Aberdeen is going to benefit from this settlement with an extra £10 million in the next financial year. I am always a little bit parochial in those regards. There is always something that I say during the course of these debates, Presiding Officer. That is an appeal not to the cabinet secretary but to COSLA to have a look at the local government funding formula, because I think that a change to that would benefit Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland even more. I would like to thank you and I will be supporting that order today. I think that the chairman of the local government committee's comments are so far removed from reality that, to be honest, I would not want to waste any more four minutes' time speaking about them. Yesterday, I was really disappointed when the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, decided to turn this into a political argument with local government. As I spoke to local council leaders today, they are equally disappointed in moving forward. One of the concerns that is an important one that I hope the First Minister will address is that, first, at that COSLA meeting last week, I found out that there were 12 out of the 28 council leaders that were Labour leaders. That was not simply Labour and local government, it was across all parties and local government that there were genuine concerns. However, one of the genuine concerns that I understand that they wanted to discuss with Mr Swinney was his ability to meet those numbers in terms of teacher recruitment. Now, I spoke to my colleagues in Fife this morning and we had the situation there. Another council up in the north-east last week was Angus. It was one of the councils where they were taught about having to send pupils home because of the problem with recruitment numbers. I am told that, in Leave Mouth in Fife, they have a major problem right now and the director of education in Fife is advising Fife council that they have a major problem in a number of areas being able to recruit teachers. When I ask council leaders what is the issue with that, they tell me what the Scottish government has got wrong in terms of their preparation and the fact that they have a national planning process in place so that the failure of the Scottish Government to plan properly could, in Mr Swinney's words, result in councils being penalised and money is taking off them that needs to go into education. He needs to address that issue and he needs to talk to councils. I am hoping that council leaders and council education spokespersons right across Scotland will be contacting Mr Swinney and will be having meetings with him. I am certainly asking them to publish all the figures that they have on teachers, on their education budgets, because right across Scotland we are seeing major cuts taking place in education budgets. The big issue that I have with John Swinney's budget, I have to say is that the failure to look at joined up. One of the things, one of the reports and one of the strategies that Mr Swinney has been pushing and pushing over a number of times was that to come from the Christie commission. The Christie commission talked about the need to change the way that we deliver public services. It talked about the need to look at investment and look at investment in prevention and yet his budget fails to really come on to that because local government has to be at surely the front line. Local government is the front line in terms of tackling inequality and tackling poverty but, as Audit Scotland and Unison point out, the types of cuts that are taking place means that there is more pressure and less opportunity. They say that 4 out of 5 in the 50,000 job cuts in the public sector are from local government with many more in the pipeline. Services have been salami-sliced, increasing pressures on remaining stars to deliver services with fewer resources. The point is that, if you are going to tackle inequality and poverty, you need to be in communities at the heart of communities, putting in place programmes, training skills, getting people opportunities to get jobs because it is jobs and skills that will tackle poverty and inequality. I have to say, and as a finish by a comment that was made to me this morning by the deputy leader of the five council, she said to me, we have a STEM strategy in place because we recognise that we need to do more in terms of getting young people opportunities for jobs. What is the point of having a STEM strategy if we cannot recruit the teachers and mathematics in other areas to be able to do that? That is the real problem and I hope that Mr Swinney will address it and go back and speak to local authorities. I apologise for politicising this issue. On Tuesday, I asked at Fergus Ewing why Aberdeen City Council's funding allocation was below the funding floor. He just recited the script of the finance minister over the last three years that he made an adjustment three years ago and nothing more needs to happen. I have had to listen to John Swinney say in this chamber that it was very important to him not to look again at the settlement for the last three years. While that complacency and neglect completely ignores the situation with the North Sea oil and gas industry that has changed in the last three years, it simply does not help us to react to decisive shifts in the economy, all of the emergency meetings, the renews strategies and the summit meeting. They are supposed to show how serious we all are about oil and gas in the north-east of Scotland. They were supposed to get action, but the Scottish Government lets the region down with its failure to meet its promise on city council funding. In the north-east, our local economy is of national importance. We have a council in Aberdeen with important work to do to help the industry that drives that economy. There is no recognition in this settlement of the work that needs to be done by our partners in Aberdeen City. We showed in December that the city was shortchanged by £16 million. The Scottish Government should admit today that that is the case. The promise of a funding floor has not been met. Aberdeen was promised at least 85 per cent of the national average, and we have not got it. SNP ministers and their MSP supporters boasted about that funding floor. Maureen Watt even put it on her website. Now she is a minister and she is voting for less than 85 per cent. For Aberdeen, the funding has not followed the flannel. The funding floor simply does not exist. In this year of all years, Aberdeen City needs a decisive commitment from this Government, and yet we are not going to get it today. Thank you. I now call on Mr Swinney to wind up. Mr Swinney, four minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me address the last point that Alison McInnes has raised, because the point is raised frequently. I will also answer Mr Buchanan's point about the city of Edinburgh, because the two points are linked. When the Government—I might point out—became the first Government ever in Scotland to do anything to tackle the underfunding of Aberdeen City Council, when we became the first Government ever to do anything about that, we introduced an 85 per cent floor. Of course, I will give way to Alison McInnes. Thank you very much, Mr Swinney. I have the figures here, your own figures here. The research from SPICE has shown time and time again that Aberdeen was above the floor. We did not need an 85 per cent floor, because it was always above the years that we were in Government, year on year. Mr Swinney. The problem for Alison McInnes is that the issue of the difference in funding for Aberdeen City Council versus the Scottish average has been a persistent problem, which I am afraid to say that her Government did absolutely nothing to resolve. We were the first ones to resolve it, and this year, in the forthcoming financial year, if I had done nothing about this issue, Aberdeen City Council would not be getting £11.3 million in the forthcoming financial year. The reason why Aberdeen City Council is getting that extra sum of money is because the amount of money that is going to Edinburgh falls because of the changes in the distribution formula. Edinburgh last year, for example, out of the 85 per cent floor money, got £22.9 million, and that will now be £13.7 million, which answers Mr Buchanan's point. All I would say to Alison McInnes is that it would be nice if she welcomed the fact that the Scottish Government had actually acted to address the funding situation in Aberdeen, which was such a campaigning priority of my late colleague Brian Adam. Jackie Baillie raised the issue about the share of local government funding and the pattern of local government funding. Alex Rowley made his contribution about that into the bargain. Jackie Baillie's contribution would take more seriously if he had come to the budget proposals yesterday and offered some more money for local government. However, he did not. Jackie Baillie came here, and all her colleagues came here, and they told me that they were going to be so good this year. They were not going to have a big shopping list of all the things that they normally come here with, and they were incredibly disciplined. They managed it until the last stages of the debate, when the list, which was just to be only about health, actually became about health, local government and colleges. However, if I give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the only thing that they came here in the budget process to demand was more money for health, then they shoot their argument in the foot by saying that there should have been more money for local government. What they are arguing here today, Thursday, it is just a day late, it is just an afternoon, it is not even 24 hours after we voted on the budget, and they are here asking for more money for local government, which they did not bring forward to Parliament. Of course I will give way to Mr Baillie. What we are here arguing for today is more teachers for local government. Do you accept that there is not enough teachers and that you have got the planning wrong and local authorities across Scotland, in many areas, are struggling to find teachers? What I am doing is I am actually bringing it. What I did yesterday was I brought forward an announcement that £10 million of extra money would be available to fund teacher posts. Where did that figure of £10 million come from? I did not dream it up, that was the figure that was put to me by the convention of Scottish local authorities. I thought that being a reasonable man, if I offered to pay that £10 million, I might get an agreement from the convention of Scottish local authorities, which I was unable to get. I went through yesterday carefully with Parliament my regret at the fact that I was unable to get a deal with local government. The reason why we have worked so hard over the years to get agreements is because local government has been very fairly treated in the financial arrangements of the Scottish Government. The Labour Party supports us on what we have done on health expenditure. In fact, it would like us to go further. That was its position yesterday. It would like us to go further. If we take the health funding out of the equation, the local government's share of the total budget available to the Scottish Government is going up under this administration when we take health into account. What about teachers, Mr Rowley? Teachers are putting £10 million into the settlement to support the funding of teachers. If Mr Rowley, rather than shouting at me from a sedentary position, which is most unlike him, it is normally reserved to Jackie Baillie that does that sort of thing, I would encourage Mr Rowley to do something constructive and encourage his local authority colleagues to accept the deal that I have offered. That concludes the debate on the local government finance Scotland order 2015. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 1-2-2-4-1, in the name of Alex Neil, on working in partnership to end the practice of female genital mutilation. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak mutins now or as soon as possible. Cabinet Secretary, if and when you are ready, you have 13 minutes all thereby. On behalf of the Scottish Government, I am pleased to open the debate on this very important issue, working in partnership to end the practice of female genital mutilation. The Scottish Government considers female genital mutilation to be an unacceptable and, of course, it is an illegal practice, a form of child abuse and violence against women, and a violation of the human rights of women and girls. It is a specific form of violence under the guise of culture and religion and there is no place in Scotland that we all want to create. It is gender-based in its nature and, as you will know, is often closely linked to other forms of violence against women and girls such as forced marriage, which became a criminal offence at the end of September last year. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors. The World Health Organization estimates that between 120 million and 140 million women from 29 countries worldwide have been affected by FGM and that every year another three million girls become at risk of the procedure, which partially or wholly removes or injures their genitalia for non-medical reasons. What about Scotland? The Scottish Refugee Council's report tackling FGM in Scotland, a Scottish model of intervention, launched last December and funded by the Scottish Government to the tune of more than £20,000, goes some considerable way to achieving an understanding of the scale of the issue in Scotland and to identify how, by working collaboratively, we can prevent and, hopefully, eradicate it. That report has adopted a well-rounded approach to the gathering of data to identify populations that are potentially affected by female genital mutilation in Scotland, with figures indicating that between 2001 and 2012, just under 3,000 girls were born in Scotland to mothers from FGM-practicing countries. The debate is timely, coming as it does the day before the international day of zero tolerance for female genital mutilation. A day when the world will take a stand against child torture, the heinous physical abuse of women and a practice that has no place in society yet, unfortunately, still affects far too many across the globe today. Last week, I was able to hear at first hand about the important work of London-based FGM organisations such as Equality Now in tackling FGM across the UK. Indeed, I am delighted to show a commitment in Scotland to tackling FGM by announcing that there will be a launch tomorrow by the women's support project of the Scottish Government-funded awareness-raising materials. My colleague, the Minister for Housing and Welfare, will be attending the launch. In the discussions with Equality Now, I think that we can and we agreed to share good practice across the UK because we are doing some things in this field that they are not doing but now we would like to consider and vice versa. The Scottish Government has provided almost £50,000 funding to the women's support project to develop a range of materials, including one, a Scottish DVD outlining the law, child protection, prevention work in communities and services for women and girls who have experienced FGM, secondly, information leaflets for practitioners highlighting key points, good practice resources and services, and a standardised training package and risk assessment tool, and thirdly, an FGM statement that sets out the law in relation to FGM in Scotland, which individuals can show to family, friends and or relatives when travelling abroad to remind them that FGM is a serious offence in Scotland and in the UK and that there are severe penalties for practising it. Raising awareness and promoting understanding is absolutely vital in addressing the complex issues of FGM and I welcome this launch and the focus that it brings to this important issue. Presiding Officer, the debate this afternoon provides the opportunity to do two things. One, to highlight the excellent work that is being done across Scotland working with her partners and secondly, to set out to members our proposals for tackling FGM in the coming year within those communities potentially affected by this practice. I want to pay tribute to the wide range of third sector organisations who continue to campaign against FGM and to provide specialist support services such as DARF, who I visited this morning and who are doing excellent work with very minimal resources. Roshney, Scottish Refugee Council, Sahilia and of course the Women's Support project. Their campaigning over many years has helped to raise awareness of and influence and shape our understanding of the practice of FGM. I would like to take a moment to reflect on what has been accomplished over the last year. Between 2012 and 2015, £34.5 million has been allocated to tackle violence against women, including FGM. In the last year, the Scottish Government has funded over £140,000 directly towards what to tackle FGM. That compares very favourably with the £370,000 that the UK Government has committed to a community engagement initiative and to community projects across England to help to end FGM and honour-based violence, including forced marriage. Colleagues in Education Scotland, working with partners and education authority staff, have produced a learning resource in which authorities and headteachers can use to raise awareness of FGM in schools and in early-year setting. Last May, we published updated national guidance for child protection, which is used by all children's services in Scotland, providing advice on how to respond if there are concerns that a child may have been subject to or may be at risk from FGM. Police colleagues have produced honour-based violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation standard operating procedures to provide all officers with the necessary understanding and skills to deal appropriately and consistently with honour-based violence incidents. Equally important is the need to work with communities in all areas of intervention. One of the points that has driven home to me in my visit this morning is the need to work with communities, not to tackle this as purely a criminal justice issue, but actually to work with communities and give them the enablement and the facilities and the support to be able to change attitudes and culture to this issue from within communities rather than being handed down from people in authority like yourselves. In terms of our next steps, following on from the Scottish Refugee Council report, we will be exploring how we can take forward those interventions under the five Bs, policy, prevention, protection, provision and participation. By having a baseline of Scotland-specific data, we can ensure that what we are doing in Scotland to tackle FGM is right for our communities here. Our work in relation to those interventions will be facilitated by the multi-agency FGM short-life working group on which the Scottish Refugee Council, among other key stakeholders, from both the statutory and third sector are represented. The group, which will report later this year, will make recommendations on the best way forward to prevent and eradicate FGM, aligned with the Scottish Government's policy to prevent and eradicate violence against women and girls, as was set out in the equally safe document that was published in June last year. It will ensure that what we do nationally is informed by expert opinion in relation to the overarching themes of the SRC report. If we are to banish FGM to history, we need to understand why practising community sustained traditions are so unacceptable and therefore how we discuss FGM is important. The practice must not be tolerated but equally we must be conscious of how we engage with minority communities on these sensitive issues. Standing up to FGM in Scotland is about much more than what is on the statute book. We have to build capacity to engage with communities potentially affected and to raise awareness among those who work with but who may not belong to those communities. We need to work with organisations such as DAF to support engagement with affected communities to educate people about the realities of FGM and the law in Scotland and to tackle the pressures that many women in practising communities face. I was delighted, as I said, to meet with DAF this morning because those pressures are very often from the most immediate family members, which makes it much more difficult to resist those pressures. One of the areas that we are supporting in raising awareness is, as the motion calls, at the girls' summit in July this year, which is the invitation for which I think I have just got out today from Glasgow City Council and from UNICEF. That will be held on 9 March 2015 in Glasgow, and the theme is ending violence against women, where Lord McConnell, former First Minister and Nicola Sturgeon, the current First Minister, will be speaking along with the Lord Provost and giving their support to the campaign and its policies. Child and early forced marriage and FGM will be part of that event in March. Before I conclude, I say that the Government will vote for Ken Macintosh's amendment this afternoon, because I think that it is important that we try to speak with one voice on the issue in the Parliament. In doing so, and recognising that it says in the amendment that we are disappointed that there have been so few prosecutions, I can update the chamber that, since 1 April 2013, when Police Scotland became operational, there have been 23 referrals or child welfare concerns made to the police from partner agencies about FGM, which initiated an interagency referral discussion for 25 girls. In all 23 cases, the referrals related to concerns that girls were at risk of having FGM performed on them. Those concerns have been fully investigated and no criminality found. Cutting had not taken place in any of the cases referred, and all referrals have now been fully investigated and therefore no criminality was found. By supporting the amendment, I do not want to give the impression that we are being critical of the police. The work that Police Scotland is doing in the area is very helpful indeed, and it is almost revolutionary in terms of what went before and what happens in other jurisdictions. In conclusion, all that I have outlined is intended to strengthen our response to FGM and to complement measures that are already in place. Those measures include working closely with police, health professionals, social work and education to share good practice and promote awareness of the prevention of FGM, continuing our support to voluntary organisations that provide support to victims of FGM and, most importantly of all, engaging with people from potentially affected communities. Without that genuine and effective commitment to the participation of affected communities in working on the issue, we would fail to understand the true levels of potential risk that women and girls in Scotland face today. If we do not work with the communities, we will risk further marginalisation of the community voices that are the most effective advocates for change. The desire to drive in determination to ridder society of this intolerable act of violence against women and girls has united and does unite this Parliament. Together with our stakeholders, I believe that we are making a difference. It is only by working together that we will be able to achieve our goal of eradicating the scourge of FGM in our communities, and in that spirit I move the motion in my name. I thank the cabinet secretary for introducing today's motion and for giving the Parliament the opportunity to mark the international day of zero tolerance of female genital mutilation. It is right for us all in this chamber for all Scots to speak up against this brutal and barbaric child abuse to ensure that we tackle FGM as we would all forms of violence against women and girls, to try and change behaviour but to do so while sending out a clear and strong message that this is a criminal act that will merit severe punishment. Just this week, we discovered that one in three people in the UK do not fully understand the term female genital mutilation with one in five young people admitting that they had never heard of it. Whether it is called cutting or as previously female circumcision, FGM can lead to infection, abscesses, infertility, physical and emotional trauma and even death. Our levels of ignorance may be worryingly high but it has been estimated that up to 125 million women and girls, mainly in pockets of the Middle East and Africa, are currently affected by this painful and violent abuse of their bodies and of their rights. What is perhaps less clear is how many women and children living in Scotland are affected or at risk. It is thought that the figure could be as high as 3,000. At the very least, we need to give this vulnerable group the voice that they desperately need. I am pleased that, on all sides of the chamber, we can stand united today in condemnation and in offering what we can in terms of prevention and protection. I believe that we should welcome the multi-agency approach that we are now seeing and the difference I am sure that we will hope that that will make in raising awareness. One of the difficulties, of course, is that so few women are willing to talk about the issue, let alone report it. However, the NSPCC have shared with us some of the information that has emerged from their helpline and support services. Many of the young girls who contacted Childline, for example, said that they were exposed to FGM when they were abroad and that they felt deceived by their parents who made their arrangements. They said that, if they had known why they were being sent on such a trip, they would have tried to prevent such a painful and distressing procedure, but they also said that they felt powerless to stop it in the face of their family's cultural beliefs. In most cases, those young girls then lived with the pain and upset, not even going to the doctor for fear of getting their own parents into trouble. We are talking about girls of school age more often than not refugees to Scotland potentially socially isolated and therefore not in a position to challenge the brutality of this abuse, coping by themselves with unimaginable and horrific injuries. They are told by their communities that these procedures are not only religiously, culturally and socially acceptable, but that they are necessary and will make them more manageable by discouraging promiscuity. We support the Scottish Government's commitment to removing that behaviour from our society and ensuring that FGM is treated as the criminal act. We recognise—and I am sure that the minister does—that, despite their best efforts, there have been so far very few prosecutions. Last year, there were 14 possible cases, but I am pleased that the minister has updated us on 23 referrals and 25 girls identified as potentially at risk. With no prosecutions made, we know that health professionals, teachers and the police face a very tough challenge in gaining the appropriate evidence to prove when girls and women are at risk. In June last year, whilst giving evidence to the Equal Opportunities Committee and when asked if they felt that they had enough resources to tackle female genital mutilation in Scotland, Police Scotland said that they did not understand the problem and the extent of FGM in Scotland, and that until they increased the level of reporting and fully understand the prevalence of female genital mutilation in our society, it would be difficult to assess whether they had sufficient resources. That is why Labour's addendum to the motion today calls on the Scottish Government to review its investment to ensure that it is effective. Can I just assure the minister and the member for giving way that it is certainly not intended to be critical of the case, far from it? It is aimed at working towards supporting long-term, sustainable community development in at-risk communities. I thank the member for taking the intervention. To provide some information, I am a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee. When we took that evidence, I think you missed the last sentence when you said that, at present, the funds are sufficient. Of course, if we needed to do a lot more, we would need more money, but at present, the funds are sufficient. In fact, it leads me on nicely because there has been work done even since then. I think that we need to build on the excellent work of the Scottish Refugee Council and others in assessing the extent of FGM in Scotland in identifying the at-risk communities. The SRC estimates, for example, that, in 2011, there were just under 24,000 men, women and children living in Scotland who were born in one of the 29 countries that were identified by UNICEF as FGM-practicing or FGM-affected countries. The largest community that is potentially affected by FGM in Scotland is the 9,500 Nigerians living here. In order to truly eradicate FGM from Scotland, we need to work with community leaders, educators, young men, as well as women, with religious and cultural leaders throughout the country and to strengthen all forms of engagement with those at-risk communities. In fact, one-off engagement events or consultations are important in terms of informing communities about health services and so on, but the key to long-term change is to support and resource proper community development, building up sustainable relationships based on trust. There is strong support, too, for the SRC finding that this work sits clearly under equally safe—that is, within the work to address gender-based violence against women and girls. Like other forms of violence against women, such as forced marriage and honour-based violence, which the cabinet secretary outlined, our criminal justice system needs to recognise that approach and ensure that investigations are focused on the victims. There has been good work going on in the rest of the UK, too, which, again, the cabinet secretary nodded and alluded to, but which we could learn from. Those include, for example, efforts to support women-only health clinics, to provide a supportive environment in which those affected or at-risk may come forward and seek help. The SRC has made a number of recommendations that I hope the minister will be responding to, for example to provide clear national direction on the role of front-line professionals in the prevention of FGM. The SRC suggests that relevant professional bodies and agencies should develop training on FGM for all front-line staff, including GPs, maternity services and schools. I think that the minister referred to some of that in his opening remarks. They go on to recommend that both statutory and voluntary agencies developing training and guidance for professionals should use and value the expertise of specialist NGOs. My Labour colleagues and I were unsure about one particular conclusion, that a girl born to a mother who has suffered FGM should be the subject of a child intervention order. I would ask the minister whether it might not be better to look at it as a child protection issue and to treat such a birth as you would domestic violence where you support the mother who is also a victim as well as the child, as well as protect the child. FGM is a problem affecting communities in nearly every part of Scotland, with the largest concentration in our cities, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee. There are more than 350 girls born every year into these at-risk communities here in Scotland, that is, to mothers from an FGM practising or affected country. The problem will be with us for many years to come. Despite efforts made by campaigning groups by MSP colleagues notwithstanding legislation passed in this Parliament, public awareness on female genital mutilation remains low in Scotland. We, on all sides of the chamber, have a responsibility to increase that awareness and to do much more to put a stop to this brutality in Scotland. The Scottish Government must show national leadership by ensuring that all forms of FGM abuse are recognised as violence against the human rights of women and children, and we must engage constructively with at-risk communities in challenging the cultural and moral attitudes associated with the practice of FGM. In eradicating that practice, we must eradicate the perception that FGM is a right of passage for young women. Today, the Parliament has the opportunity to show international solidarity by condemning female genital mutilation and ensuring that we will do what we can here in Scotland to protect all women and girls from FGM. Presiding Officer, I welcome this debate and thank the cabinet secretary for bringing this subject, one in which it is not easy to judge comment lightly to the chamber and for his commitment to working in partnership across a number of different ages and ages in Scotland to tackle the shocking and abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation in Scotland, which Scottish Conservatives completely agree is the key to fighting this practice. I welcome the content and the various announcements and comments made by the cabinet secretary in his opening speech. I also am aware and acknowledge that both Jenny Marra and Hansala Mallock have been steadfast in giving this issue attention. I think that the Scottish Government now gives it such a high priority, and the real change in our approach to tackling FGM is an advance for which they can claim, in some measure, deserved credit. Scottish Conservatives, together with this Parliament, clearly are united in our commitment to ending FGM in the UK and ensuring that all girls have the right to live free from violence and coercion and the lifelong physical and psychological effects of FGM. That said, I believe that it is clear that it will now take increased partnership from the police, education services, health services and child agencies if we are to put a decisive end to the sort of shaming headlines of recent years that Scotland was thought to be something of a soft touch. The BBC investigation in 2013 revealed concerns that young girls were being brought to Scotland to undergo FGM because Scotland then was viewed as a country that perhaps did not take this issue as seriously as I believe it now does. There are still, as Ken Macintosh and both the cabinet secretary have said, yet to be any prosecutions for FGM in Scotland, even though Police Scotland has investigated a number of cases involving girls. That is not due to any failing on the police's behalf but simply underlines the particular challenges of secrecy within the communities committing this crime. I noticed to all the cabinet secretary had to say a few moments ago regarding the number of cases referred and investigated. I accept the argument that prevention of FGM must be the priority. However, I believe that it is equally essential that prosecutions are seen where appropriate to take place in order to act as the effective deterrent to those mutilating girls and girls' families. That is supported by the Scottish Refugee Council, as has been said. I suspect that the nature of many of the speeches this afternoon will prove to be somewhat repetitive. I have called for the Scottish Government to ensure that the criminal justice system response in Scotland is perceived as being effective and that anyone found to have subjected a child living in Scotland to FGM will face robust criminal sanctions. A prosecution in Scotland may help to ensure that those brutal criminals have nowhere to hide. However, it is arguable that it is only when that attitude and the community culture will start to change in conjunction with the community education initiatives to which the cabinet secretary referred. Figures from forces across the UK reveal dozens of suspected FGM offences that have been recorded over the past few years, but only a handful of arrests have been made with the first FGM prosecution in the UK ending in the accused doctor being acquitted yesterday. We must learn lessons from the UK trial, which the acquitted doctor has labelled a show trial and from which it has now emerged that the alleged victim never supported the case. What is clear is that the doctor was not adequately prepared for the circumstances which faced him and that the hospital had failed to pick up on the wooden's medical history. However, I think that it just illustrates how difficult this is going to be as an issue to pursue, even though I think that we are all committed to the fact that we are appropriate pursued it must be. I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement today. There will be a girl's summit in Glasgow in March 2015. The Prime Minister held a girl's summit last year alongside the Home Secretary, where he set out his and his government's commitment to end FGM and childhood forced marriage. He said that both should be stopped worldwide within this generation. At the summit, David Cameron also announced a number of new policies and funding to protect the millions of girls at threat from FGM both at home and abroad, including new police guidance and new legislation that will mean that parents can be prosecuted if they fail to prevent their daughter being cut, a consultation and proposals to introduce new civil orders designed to protect girls' identities at being risk of FGM and new legislation to grant victims of FGM lifelong anonymity and a new specialist FGM service, which will include social services to proactively identify and respond. At the time of the Prime Minister's announcement, the Scottish Government spoke and said that it would look closely at the policies to see which could be applied in Scotland. I would appreciate a discursive response from the cabinet secretary on how that review is progressing. The cabinet secretary has already outlined in his speech the welcome launch by the women's support project of the FGM training and public education resources. Our education services have a vital role to play in the fight against FGM, and I would draw that to the attention to the NSPCC, who have argued that fundamental to that is detailed child prosecution protection training for teachers in the schools in areas where girls have been identified as at risk for FGM. I ask the cabinet secretary to implement that as a matter of urgency in Scotland. In conclusion, I emphasise Scottish Conservatives' support and commitment to ending FGM in Scotland, which we believe—while we believe that Labour amendment is possibly unnecessary—we will support it and offer our support for the Government's motion this afternoon, promoting work in partnership across Scotland. In so doing, we repeat our call to take the action required to support Police Scotland, to secure a prosecution where that may be appropriate, and to stop anyone in the future carrying out FGM in Scotland. We now move to open debate. Six-minute speeches. We are tight for time today, so I will confine you two six minutes. I thank the cabinet secretary for instigating the debate and welcome the amendment or addendum, as Ken Macintosh called it, from the Labour benches. I know that it has been said before, but I think that we have to reiterate this. I really would like to begin my contribution by saying that female genital mutilation or FGM is shortened to is child abuse. We really need to realise that. It is child abuse. There are no medical reasons to carry out this horrendous practice. It does not make child birth safer. It does not enhance fertility. It really is used to control female sexuality, and it causes severe and long-lasting damage to the victim both physically and emotionally. I think that everyone here has already said that it must be eradicated. I hope that we move on to eradicating this heinous crime. I thank the many agencies that are working with communities that could be potentially affected by FGM. I want to put this into context. I think that the cabinet secretary has already mentioned, as has Ken Macintosh. The number of children born in Scotland to mothers who are born or come from an FGM-practicing country has increased significantly. In fact, the cabinet secretary gave us the numbers for that. It is why it is so important that we continue to work in these communities on a partnership basis, working with all concerned. I am now a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, but I was a member a number of years ago, I can think about six or seven years ago, when we looked at FGM at this particular time also, and had visited agencies in my area in Glasgow at that time, the Glasgow regional area, to speak to families there. We had the families come in in private to speak to us also in the Equal Opportunities Committee. Listening to the evidence from those young women, it was quite horrendous. Obviously, our hopes were that we would be able to eradicate it, but, as has been said before, it is not a short-term issue. It will take time, unfortunately, to not just eradicate but to educate the people from those communities to stop them committing these horrendous crimes. However, it has been raised before all those years ago, and it has raised yet again in those communities that they may see it as a custom or a right of passage or a religious aspect. As I said before, we have to continue to mention to people that it is nothing but child abuse and it has to stop. The Scottish Refugee Council report on tackling female genital mutilation in Scotland, a Scottish model of intervention, is a very good example of the good work that is being carried out by agencies along with the Scottish Government and others, and there are five key themes—participation, policy, prevention, protection and provision of services. It is important—and it has already been said, I think that Jackson Carlaw mentioned—that we really need to build up trust within not just the communities but also the agencies that they do work together. In particular, education, absolutely. I think that Gearfax might have a role to play in this particular aspect of the child, in education, also in the medical profession as well, and all the agencies that work together on the ground to ensure that we have the trust. We need to have a positive relationship with those communities and that has to be based on trust and built up of trust as well. Otherwise, they will not deliver the key that we wish to get into those communities to stop those heinous crimes and stop this particular participation in a criminal act. We need to lead it to prevention. When I mentioned the fact of education, it was brought to our attention that, obviously, if teachers see that children have been missing for a period of time, if they go abroad, if they are within that particular community, that should be picked up in the medical profession. There was one aspect in which women do not want to be medically examined. We need to ensure that they have interpreters when they go into hospital for anything in particular, and when they give birth. There must be a way of finding out when they give birth if anything that mutilation has taken place previously, and then we can protect the child as well. I know that it is a subject that is very difficult to speak about and deal with, but that is the reason why it is so important that we do deal with it. We do talk about it. I know that one of my colleagues is going to explain more of the medical aspects of it as well, Margaret MacDougall. I will not go into that field of it, but when you hear some of the terminology, what happens to young girls is absolutely horrendous. It is child abuse and violence against women. It has been mentioned about the lack of prosecutions, and we have seen the case that dropped south of the border. It is very difficult to put forward a prosecution. First, the jury is there, you have the evidence that it is sufficient and then you have the child themselves. It is very difficult even to come forward and say that this has happened to you, because it is basically within your family. To turn on your family or them to turn on you is a very difficult thing to do for anyone who matters raw age, but it is very difficult for a child. I thank the cabinet secretary very much for bringing this debate forward here, and hopefully we can push it forward to eradicate this heinous crime. Since we last debated international day of zero tolerance in FGM, the Equal Opportunities Committee has continued scoping the potential for an inquiry. As convener, I also held a number of confidential meetings with those who work directly with the victims. Today I want to take a step back and explain FGM what it is and why it happens, and I also want to share some of my own thoughts. UNICEF estimates that there are over 120 million women and girls living with the consequences of FGM worldwide, mainly in 29 African countries where the practicing population is high and also in areas such as Kurdistan, Iraq and Egypt. Mass migration and cross-border travel bring opportunities, but it also means that policy makers here must confront unfamiliar challenges such as FGM. Those I met with are keen to stress that there are different forms of FGM and that the world health organisation has defined four distinct categories that I will explain to the chamber. Type 1, mainly, involves the partial or total removal of the clitoris. Type 2, excision, again involves partial or total removal of the clitoris, as well as the partial or total removal of the labour. Type 3, infubulation, involves the narrowing of the orifice and creating a seal by cutting and repositioning the labia with or without cutting the clitoris. Type 4 covers all other procedures, including pricking and burning and some of the most extreme and disturbing forms of FGM. Needless to say, there are no health benefits in any of those procedures. It only serves to injure and to harm. It causes physical pain, bleeding, shock, infection and longer term abscesses, cysts, adhesions and neuromas. Type 3 FGM can cause further complications such as reproductive tract infections and incontinence. Many of the women who are cut experience chronic pain and recurring infections for the rest of their lives. They may also experience depression, terrifying flashbacks, vivid nightmares and post-traumatic stress. According to the World Health Organization, death rates among babies during and in the musical after childbirth were higher for those born to mothers who had undergone some kind of FGM. FGM primarily occurs up to the age of 15, mainly in gills between five and eight, but adult cases often involve restoring type 3 after childbirth or a husband forcing his wife to be cut as a condition of marriage. FGM is most often carried out by someone with no formal medical training. In those cases, there will be no anesthetic and it will be typically done with a knife, scissors, razor blades or even bits of glass. It is estimated that 3 million gills are cut every year, and often they are forcibly restrained. FGM has no basis in religion. It is a cultural practice, rooted in patriarchy and gender inequality. It can be seen as a prerequisite of marriage in societies where marriage is the only means of achieving status and economic security. There is also a widely held belief in practice in communities that FGM can preserve a girl's chastity before marriage and her faithfulness afterwards. Without being cut, a girl can become an outcast. Pressuring young girls to undergo FGM can come from those closest to her. In the most extreme cases of FGM brought to my attention by organisations working here in the UK, concerned a girl who resisted being cut. After years of avoiding the procedure, she was taken by force, held down and subjected to one of the most extreme forms of type 4 FGM where she was cut and mutilated. That individual story is so distressing that I cannot share all the details with the chamber today. I have also heard some other similar stories where gills are subjected to the most distressed and stubborn violence by the people they know. The challenge before us is to eliminate this cruelty against women and children. We must play our part internationally but we must also recognise in Scotland that there are victims needing support and there are women at risk and gills at risk. We need to build the capacity to reach women and children in affected communities to ensure that they can be protected. We have to develop best practice, training the health, social work and education professionals to recognise the signs and work sensitively with those affected. We also need to work with affected communities to tackle the reality of FGM and the effects that it has on women and girls. This is abuse and all abuse is unacceptable. However, let us also be clear that a strategy of persuasion and prevention must not conflict with a principle of zero tolerance, it must not preclude prosecutions. FGM is an abuse of women, of gills, of their bodies and of their human rights. It is a crime, it is a violation, it is abhorrent and it must be dropped. I thank the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government for bringing this important issue before the chamber today and the day before the international day of zero tolerance for female genital mutilation. It is an issue that I have long been concerned about and indeed I first submitted a motion to this Parliament condemning the practice some 14 years ago. FGM is an abhorrent, primitive and almost unspeakable form of violence towards girls and women, as we have heard so eloquently from Margaret McAlloch just a few moments ago. It is also an especially pernicious form of child abuse, as many members have commented. UNICEF estimates that half of all girls subjected to FGM are under the age of five, while most of the remainder are under the age of 14. I know that members across the chamber are united in condemning an antediluvian practice. It does so much harm to millions of girls and women around the world, both in terms of their physical and psychological health. However, some members might be surprised to hear how prevalent this practice is in some communities relatively close to home. Members might expect to hear about instances of FGM being inflicted upon girls in pockets of the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. What about in Birmingham? In 2013, the Sunday Times magazine reported that Birmingham Heartlands hospital had handled some 700 cases of FGM over the course of the preceding 27 months. In 2012, the Royal College of Midwives stated that up to 66,000 women in the UK might have endured the agony of FGM. If FGM is being carried out in such numbers so close to home, that is absolutely shocking and I know that members will share my disbelief. Those Birmingham figures are deeply disturbing. If FGM is being inflicted upon so many girls in these islands, and how prevalent is it here in Scotland in the communities that we are elected to represent and serve. Tackling female genital mutilation in Scotland, a Scottish model of intervention, the Scottish Refugee Council report produced in conjunction with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine provides useful policy recommendations but does not shed any light on how prevalent the practice may be in Scotland and nor does it claim to. In fact, the report explicitly says that and I quote, at the time of writing there were no public studies looking at the scope of FGM in Scotland. I recognise as other members have today the sensitivity of this issue and the challenges in gathering this kind of data. Nevertheless, I hope research will be carried out in the near future. It will not be possible for a society to gauge the extent of and comprehensively address this problem if we cannot define its scope. The Scottish Refugee Council report indicates that 24,000 women in Scotland were born in FGM practising countries. Those women live in every local authority area yet we are not able to reasonably reduce how prevalent the practice is. All we can infer is the number of girls and women who may be at risk, which in reality could be very different from the number that is actually subjected to FGM. For its part, I welcome the actions of the Scottish Government in addressing this issue, some of which the Cabinet Secretary outlined today. I hope that ministers will continue to prioritise this issue as more research is conducted and evidence comes to light. In the meantime, the Scottish Refugee Council's report offers useful insights into policies implemented in several other European countries to combat FGM, and perhaps there is some scope for replicating what has worked elsewhere in a Scottish context. When François Mitterall was elected president of the French Republic in 1981, he created a new ministry of women's rights. That move is credited with ensuring that FGM stayed relatively high up the policy agenda, following a number of FGM-related deaths in France in the early 1980s. The Scottish Refugee Council report also noted that there has been relative success in France after public information campaigns raised awareness about the criminality of FGM, which we partly explain why France has a relatively high number of convictions for FGM-related offences. For its part, the Scottish Government already has ministers with responsibilities for issues of particular importance to women spread across several portfolios, and I have every confidence that the Cabinet Secretary, among others, will continue to ensure that this issue is prioritised. I recognise the importance of appropriate engagement with those communities with the largest number of potentially affected girls and the need for sensitivity when dealing with the problem if we want to make progress in addressing it. However, the desire to show sensitivity should never do anything to reduce the vigor with which we pursue the issue. FGM, quite simply, can have no place in more than Scotland. During the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow this last summer, Scotland sent a bold and unequivocably clear message to the rest of the world, and in particular those areas where persecution of and violence against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation is still commonplace. The pride flag flying in front of St Andrew's house throughout the games was a positive gesture towards valuing equality. Presiding Officer, before we can have any credibility in speaking out against FGM in other parts of the world where this despicable practice is prevalent, we must ensure that we are doing all we reasonably can to eradicate it at home. As a global citizen, part of Scotland's contribution to the world is through the positive example that it sets for other nations and societies. Of course, FGM is not just a woman's issue. Speaking as a son, a father and a brother, I do not want a society in which FGM is permitted or ignored, and I certainly do not want a society in which some women from southern minorities communities feel that they do not have the protection of our society. Let us strive to lead the fight against FGM by our own example here in Scotland. I now call on Alison McInnes to be followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is a crying shame that in 2015, girls all around the world are subjected to this brutal abuse, although the most shaming that it is happening to girls born here in our own country is that it is hard to bear, hard to hear that young girls are in pain, isolated and frightened, that women are living with the daily consequences of FGM, difficulties with menstruation, pelvic and urine and retract infections, painful intercourse for some infertility, for other difficulties with childbirth and an increased risk of stillbirth or hemorrhage, not to mention the psychological consequences of such a trauma. It is hard to hear that teenagers fear for their younger sisters yet despair of their parents changing long-held views. We must hear it because, hard though it is, it is nothing to the burden that these girls and women carry. We all have to face up to it and demand an end to it. We must speak up for those girls and women around the world until they are confident enough to break the cycle and assert that they will not allow their daughters, their sisters, their nieces or their grandchildren to be cut. The World Health Organization estimates 140 million women and girls in the world have been subjected to this, and yet, until recently, it has been considered a minority issue. But now at last, I think that there is a tidal wave of change to end this damaging practice within a generation. We know that there is a lack of data about the Scottish refugee council telling us that they think that there were 363 girls born in Scotland to mothers who had been born in an FGM practicing country in 2012. They advise that there are potentially affected communities in every local authority area, with the largest groupings in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee. Other people have talked about the lack of prosecutions, and they understand the difficulties in bringing prosecutions, but we must also understand the message that successful prosecutions could send and how powerful that would be. We must robustly pursue criminal convictions. However, as the Scottish Refugee Council says, that strong criminal justice message must be accompanied by investment and behaviour change interventions with affected communities, in particular with key community leaders, with young people and with men. Never has it been more important to seek the active involvement and participation of the at-risk communities. I want to press for a focus on three issues. Firstly, what can be done in communities is to empower young girls and women to challenge, to refuse to be strong enough to seek help, to feel safe in asking for help. We know that it is a complex emotional issue, and we should not underestimate the tensions between family tradition and the wish to change. That is a struggle faced by many FGM survivors who know the harm that they have suffered but are unwilling to break with the culture that condoned it. So, peer education is central. One woman recently explained that deciding not to get my daughter's cut was a tough decision to make. Going against tradition can be difficult. First, you need to convince yourself that the decision that you are making is the best one. You need to know the facts in order to do that. Once you have been trained on FGM and the consequences, you can make the courageous decision to go against tradition. Secondly, what support is there for victims who have already been mutilated and are living with the scars, the mental and physical scars? In England, we have specialist clinics in major cities. Does the Government have plans to develop centres of excellence in Scotland? Thirdly, the need for training and guidance for professionals is very pressing, particularly for GPs, maternity services and school staff. The Scottish Government and local authority needs should provide national and local direction on clear child intervention responses where an FGM survivor gives birth to a girl. However, the Scottish Refugee Council does not think that it should be an automatic child protection referral. Local authorities and local health boards should develop a network of name professionals with expertise on FGM across Scotland, and they must ensure that clear referral pathways are in place. Some concern has been expressed about that automatic child protection referral, so we need that clear guidance. I want to congratulate the Government on the developments that the minister has outlined today and for the vigor with which they are pursuing this. I associate myself with the praise that Alex Neil has given to the wide range of third sector partners. Like other members, I thought that the Labour amendment was unnecessary, but we will support it. At the end of the day, this is about a girl's ability to make decisions about our own life and our own body, and we must do all that we can to ensure that every girl in Scotland has that autonomy. The very idea of FGM appalls most people. We shudder and reject the 5,000-year-old traditional brutal and often unclean surgery carried out in young girls. It is intolerable, it is obscene and it is undoubtedly a child abuse issue. In some cases, that abuse takes place with the active consent of some mothers. When Alison MacKinnon was talking about educating mothers and working with mothers, that is something that is very important because going against that natural tradition is something that is very tough. However, for us, to sit in critical judgment of the practice will get us nowhere and achieve no liberation for those who are suffering at the end of a scalpel. Condemnant from a white westernised, liberal, modern social democracy fails because it does not take into account the wider context, the wider picture. The Refugee Council's report of which we have heard a lot of this afternoon provides an excellent understanding of the background within which we need to carefully, sensitively seek to bring about change. Can I pay tribute to the Refugee Women's group who have done amazing work in this area and a number of areas over the past few years and have had the real privilege to work with them on some of that work? The Refugee Council's authors point out that FGM is an emotive and complex issue and is such that it cannot be tackled by simply slapping our answers in the back of other cultures' issues. The Refugee Council estimates that there are many thousands of men, women and children who were born in one of the 29 countries that were identified by UNICEF in 2013, as FGM practice in countries are now living in Scotland. Can I welcome the cabinet secretary's awareness of the commitments and the recommendations and his commitment to the five P's? It is something that has been worked on over a number of years to bring it to the stage that it is at now. I am sure that the Refugee Council and the Refugee Women's group will be very pleased to hear that. The Refugee Council tells us that one of the largest communities that is potentially affected are people from Nigeria, with 9,458 people resident in Scotland. The national prevalence rate in Nigeria is relatively low, at 27 per cent. That is compared to 98 per cent in Somalia. Throughout Scotland, those communities are, of course, having children of their own. We do not currently have the data to give us an overall picture of how many mothers have undergone FGM, nor can we measure the likelihood that the 363 girls that we have all spoken about today, born here over the last decade, could find themselves victims of FGM. What we clearly have is a responsibility to build on compassion and healthcare, to work with not against the communities where FGMs practice. Both the policy makers and the service providers need to make sure that everything that we do is shaped and driven by the experiences, the needs and the views of the communities affected. That means that our interventions need to carry the support of the communities involved, not the resentment. We need to work to build change from within, because only by doing that we are going to shift the mindsets that have been unchanged for those 5,000 years of tradition. Yes, we need to have in place a strong criminal justice message, but it needs to be accompanied by investment and behaviour change interventions with the affected communities. We need to look towards particular segments within those groups, key community leaders, young people and men. Without a genuine and effective commitment to the participation of affected communities in work on this issue, not only will we fail to understand the true levels of the potential risks that women and girls face in Scotland today, we will run the risk of further marginalising the community voices that are the most effective advocates for change. We have a duty to ensure that NHS Scotland is providing the right healthcare provision to survivors of FGM so that we remove any danger of insensitive or judgmental responses and have instead a culturally competent reaction. We need to be careful not to stigmatise the victims too. Taking together what we need to drive forward is a meaningful, well-structured, multidisciplinary hub service, much like Alison McInnes has mentioned in Scotland, with clear links to named professionals. Frontline staff should be carefully and sensitively trained to carry out inquiries about FGM and pregnant women in the risk groups will need to be identified and supported. Criminal justice and child protection must not be enacted effectively and fairly, but for that to work professionals from all sectors need to have a clear and accessible risk assessment with reporting guidelines. Tomorrow, as we know, is international day of zero tolerance of female genital mutilation. It is a timely reminder that Scotland is home to many women and girls who are survivors or at risk of this brutal and intimate violence. However important, however violent the practice is, we have to look at ways of changing behaviour, changing attitudes, changing traditions as we are already doing so across the wider domestic violence abuse issues. However, Cabinet Secretary, we must bring the affected communities along with that change. We cannot enforce it upon them. We have to work with them, and I ask you to do that. I want to say that we have gained a little bit of time, so there is an opportunity, should people wish to make supportive interventions. As other colleagues have said, it is entirely fitting that we debate this issue on the eve of the international day of zero tolerance of FGM. I want to add my thanks to all those organisations and individuals who raised their voices about the issue and who work hard to support those who have been victims of it or who think that they may be in the future. FGM is, of course, an abhorrent practice. It is both physically and psychologically damaging and must not be tolerated. However, it is, of course, a practice that is clouded in secrecy. Within communities and within families, it remains a secret, one not to be spoken of. Sometimes the victims are embarrassed to seek help. Sometimes they want to protect a family member, and often they are simply too afraid to make it known. They live with the fear and the shame, and they live with the discomfort and the pain. They often live with the knowledge that their own family members were complicit in inflicting this terrible ordeal upon them. In some cases, girls are taken on holiday to meet family members, only to find that the real reason for their visit is to inflict FGM upon them. Many women and girls report that their female family members actively participated in the process, often holding them down while they were cut. They live, too, with the betrayal of the people who should be most concerned with their care and welfare. This secrecy and this fear makes it hard for agencies to identify and support those who have been the victims of FGM, and to prosecute those who encourage or inflict it. However, we have to recognise that we have to do more in order to get over those particular difficulties. Following on from the girls' summit that was organised by the UK Government last year, campaigners have suggested that the number of women and girls who are contacting them to ask for help quadrupled. Hopefully, tomorrow's event and the girls' summit organised by the Lord Provost of Glasgow, Sadie Docherty will have a similar effect in shining a light on the practice, and, hopefully, two women and girls will find the courage to raise their voices and to speak out about it as a result. However, we have to ask ourselves critically if we are prepared for a possible quadrupling of people identifying themselves as victims or possible victims. Are all the systems in place to support them? Do the organisations best place to help to have the resources that they need to provide that help and support? Do the practising communities have the support that they need to make a difference and to make that vital change? Coordination of all that is absolutely important, and I think that that is really what the Labour Addendum amendment tried to pose. Because the hidden nature of this crime demands that resources are provided, but also that they are very carefully targeted. We, too, must continue to try to do whatever we can to persuade the practising communities that this cannot carry on. I noticed that, at the girls' summit, the UK Government launched a declaration against the FGM, which it asked faith leaders to sign. I understand that, to date, some 350 faith leaders have signed the declaration, which has searched that no religion condones this practice. I wonder whether that is something that the Scottish Government might also consider organising, as clearly we need the support of community leaders in the fight to eradicate FGM. We need those people to lead the way in their communities and, crucially, we need the support—I think that Christina McKelvie mentioned this—of the men in those communities to support the mothers and the women making the decision not to allow this to continue into the next generation. We do not know the scale of the problem in Scotland, but we know that a prevalent study published by Equality Now, which the cabinet secretary mentioned, and City University identified that approximately 60,000 girls aged from birth to 14 have been born in England and Wales to mothers who had themselves undergone FGM. That is a quite shocking figure in my view, but we must also presume that proportionately the figure in Scotland will be roughly similar in proportion. However, we need more research to allow us to fully understand the scale of the problem here, so I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to a baseline study. Those of us who live and work in areas where there is a high concentration of asylum seekers know that there are young women and girls affected by this practice living in our communities. There must be. In my view, the possibility of FGM being carried out in a young woman or a girl should be part of the monitoring and assessment process undertaken when asylum claims are being processed because policies have to be consistent on this issue if they are to be effective. As the Labour motion says, it is a disappointment that there have been so few prosecutions to date, although perhaps understandable. Perhaps more needs to be done to co-ordinate the response of the agencies to cases of abuse, so I very much welcome the partnership approach that the Scottish Government is taking, but we must always be vigilant and constantly look to see what else will make a difference. As the cabinet secretary will be aware, the UK Government has recently consulted on the idea of mandatory reporting of FGM. Interestingly, the BMA briefing that we were all sent on the issue made it clear that this was something that they did not support. I was initially surprised by the stance, and I asked them for more information which they have provided, but I must confess that I am not convinced by their argument, which seems to suggest that doctors should make a decision based on the circumstances of the individual case. It seems to me that doctors would not hesitate to report other forms of abuse, so why should FGM be treated differently? Interestingly, again, this seems to run counter to the approach of the midwives organisations who think that all cases should be reported. The reason that I mention it in the debate is because I would be interested to know, just genuinely interested, if the Scottish Government has had any discussion or consideration has been given to mandatory reporting as an option in policy. In this debate, we have heard FGM described as child abuse, and it is, but I would go further and say that FGM is akin to torture. We must make it clear that we will support anyone who is a victim of FGM or fears they might be. We must offer them our understanding, our compassion and our support, but our determination to help those women and girls must be matched by our determination to act against the perpetrators, and we must be united in saying that FGM is not tolerated in this country. John Mason, to be followed by Hannah Malick. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have to start by saying that I do not find this the easiest topic to speak on, and we have already had a number of very moving speeches on this subject. Perhaps the fact that it is not easy to talk about is one of the problems, and so I am pleased that we are having this debate, and I did feel that I should attempt to speak about it. I am grateful for the different briefings that we have received for today's debate, and especially for the report from the Scottish Refugee Council, which I have already referred to this afternoon. When we started looking at the subject of FGM at the Equal Opportunities Committee, I was struck by the lack of information about the situation in Scotland, and that continues to be the case. We have had some information given to us on a confidential basis, but even then a lot seems to be second hand informal and uncertain. I think that one of the aims of the SRC report or scoping study was to see what we could learn from our European neighbours, and it immediately becomes apparent that the French and the Dutch do things slightly differently from each other. From what I can understand, the French model certainly involves compulsory medicals for all girls, and that has the advantage of even-handedness, but maybe it does not fit quite so well with the way we do things here by way of respecting ethnic minorities and allowing them to operate a bit differently, as I think Christina McKelvie was referring to. France has also had some high-profile criminal cases, and that seems to have had more impact than merely stating that FGM is illegal. I think that the Netherlands is emphasising prevention with relevant professionals being highly trained in spotting danger signs. That has been made clear to us at the committee, although we are really on the beginning to look at the subject, that one of the high-risk times is when young girls travel abroad, as has been mentioned. I understand the Dutch and also the Catalan's try to tackle this by issuing Government certificates saying that parents will be in trouble if FGM is carried out. The hope is that extended family members in the home country will take this seriously, not least because the transfer of money from Europe could be halted. I understand that this idea has been used in a smaller scale in Scotland, possibly with the parents signing a certificate that they will not allow FGM to be carried out. I have to say that my gut feeling is that I am more comfortable with this approach than what some might see as the more heavy-handed and intrusive French approach. I also note the argument that if you have to choose between regular physical checks on young girls on the one hand and the potential for FGM being carried out on the other hand, most of us will be pretty clear about which is worse. One of the things that has also interested me and I would like to know more about is how some African or Middle Eastern countries have reduced the prevalence in their own countries. I do not think that this is something that the SRC study has concentrated on, but it strikes me that if we want a sustainable long-term solution, the answer has to lie in the home countries. Just as controlling immigration is best done by people having a decent life in their own country rather than putting a fence around UK or Europe, so surely if the prevalence is reduced in Africa or the Middle East, it will almost inevitably have a knock-on effect here. First, we can learn from countries that are tackling FGM seriously, and secondly, perhaps we can actually think of helping them if finance or improving literacy, for example, would be beneficial. So I just did a quick look today at one of the countries that does seem to have made some improvements, which is Kenya, where they state that the estimated prevalence of FGM in girls and women aged 15 to 49 is now 27.1 per cent, and that is a reduction from 37.6 per cent in 1998 and 32.2 per cent in 2003. That certainly strikes me as quite a significant reduction, as I say on the look briefly at the report, but it is quite interesting to look at some of the history in Kenya. It talks about attempts being made to persuade communities to abandon FGM by first Christian missionaries and colonial authorities in the early 20th century and later by Western feminists in the 60s and 70s. Those attempts were largely considered to be Western imperialism and something imposed on communities by outsiders. It says that Kenya's first president, Kenyatta, was a strong proponent of the practice, but during the UN decade for women in 76 to 85, the Kenyan Government participated in a series of conferences and the movement to eradicate FGM continued since then. A national action plan for accelerating the abandonment of FGM in Kenya 2008 to 2012 was taken forward. It meant lists some of the interventions that were made have been made in Kenya, which seem to have had an impact. Some have been mentioned already today. Things like health risk, harmful traditional practice, addressing the health complications, educating practitioners, alternative rights of passage and so on. It was raised at one of our committee meetings that there is probably greater prevalence in Glasgow than in Edinburgh, but perhaps Edinburgh had moved further ahead in some of the support and help that has been given. I did write to the director of social work in Glasgow about that, and as has been mentioned, there is an event tomorrow and a DVD being launched in line with the women's support project. Because we are looking at the subject in today's debate and the Equal Opportunities Committee, I think that some members have had emails that I have suggesting that male circumcision should also be restricted. I think that this is a completely different issue and male circumcision has been practised safely for thousands of years. I suspect that some of the motivation for people raising this is to criticise the Jews and potentially Muslims and other groups. I think that we need to stay focused on what we are looking at today, which is FGM, which is a completely different order and concern. In conclusion, I hope that we can all agree on the importance of this issue that we need to continue seeking facts about the situation in Scotland and continue to use all means to reduce the prevalence of FGM. If that includes some high-profile prosecutions, well and good, but if the prevalence can be reduced without prosecutions, I for one would certainly welcome that. Thank you very much. I now call on Hans Alamalik to be followed by Christo Alar. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. I welcome this debate on female gender mutilation. I have had serious concerns about this subject for a number of years now and have attempted to look at as much detail as possible into the subject. Scotland made FGM illegal in 2005. However, we have had no prosecutions. This is hardly surprising as FGM is rarely discussed in the communities let alone reported. It is a very difficult and complex practice that has existed for thousands of years now. In an interview, a community activist stated that the nature of the subject is so private that many girls from practicing countries are not even aware of FGM exists and that many would be at risk when they go to visit practicing countries. I commend the Scottish Government in their effort to tackle such a serious and complex issue. I feel that the scoping work by the Scottish Refugee Council and the improved multi-agency co-ordinators are a good foundation on which to build on. I have a lot of experience in working with minority communities in Scotland and one of the major points is in order to have a real change it has to be the communities themselves that have to decide to change. The practice of FGM is rooted in some communities but I have had the honour of meeting both men and women from these communities who are actively and passionately working against FGM. The organisations commanded in the motion for their valuable contribution in tackling FGM in Scotland has all stated that the key to long-term change is to support and reassure communities to address this issue. This means having a much long-term strategy in investment in community development itself. Now at the moment most public bodies including the Scottish Government hold one of engagement events or consultations although these are also important in terms of informing communities about health service etc but have a limited impact. Now if I imagine for example I am a Somali woman living in Glasgow and I know it's a little difficult to imagine and imagine I get a flyer inviting me to a talk on FGM I probably won't go because I don't call it FGM in the first place. Even if I did know what it was why would I want to attend? It doesn't sound very exciting to me or to anybody else for that matter. Now if there was a group that I attended where the people I was comfortable with who happened to talk about the issue I assumed that people would be more willing to listen discuss and perhaps even share their experiences. As the chair of a cross-party working group on Middle East and South Asia I've held around table discussion groups followed by a report on FGM for that report. I would like to give an example of progress FGM for from the Kurdistan regional government in Iraq the figures emerge that from Kurdistan region given rise to caution optimism FGM is that part of the world is described decided that from 73% which some of the local communities have reduced to 60% which is a huge difference for that part of the world. Kurdistan regional government passed a law making FGM illegal and I think I would want to congratulate them at this point because it is a difficult decision for them to have made and they have to be commanded for that and I think I would want to commend every government that makes that decision. The problem is complex some refugees have sought asylum in the UK because they have been persecuted for campaigning against FGM in their own countries. Presiding officer it is important that today's debate is sending out a clear zero tolerance message against FGM but more importantly it's absolutely critical that the Scottish government actually engages with the communities themselves. The idea of the Scottish refugee council and various other statutory organisations doing this job it's not going to happen and I think that sometimes we are perhaps guilty of underestimating the power of the communities themselves. I believe that funding community groups assisting them in the process would be more advantageous and I believe would drive the real results that we're looking for. One of the issues we should always understand is the communities that will do this work. It won't be us and unless we support them in that they will not succeed. It is absolutely critical and essential that we support those communities in undertaking those responsibilities and I as well as the Parliament would want to wish them the very best in that. Thank you very much. Many thanks. I now call on Christian and Art. We follow by John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yesterday morning I had the visit of a group of students, a young woman who wanted to understand better how this Parliament works and pleased that we treated last night two words to qualify the visit, happy and progressive and we are always happy to say that this Parliament is a happy Parliament. The contribution of this debate is certainly demonstrating how progressive this modern Parliament is and yet we cannot be in a happy place when debating female genital mutilation. As a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, I found it difficult to call this an acceptable and illegal practice by its abbreviation FGM. Ken Macintosh told us that many people in Scotland didn't understand what FGM was. Maybe one of the reasons is because we use its abbreviation and I will ask the Cabinet Secretary to reflect on this. We might want to call it what it is for people to understand a lot easier what it really is and best tackle female genital mutilation. I would encourage anyone to use this full name, female genital mutilation. We did a lot of work at committee level and we had a lot of members of the Equal Opportunities Committee talking about it, some in public session and some in private session. We really all were looking forward to the publication of the Scottish Refugee Council report on female genital mutilation in Scotland and that will help our committee as well going forward. Let me add my thanks to the Scottish Refugee Council and to all who participated in making this report relevant to both the situation across the world and here in Scotland. And of course I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice Committees and Patients' Rights for bringing this debate to the chamber. Partnership is key. It is indeed the best world to use today as a recognised solution both by the Scottish Government and this report, a solution to best tackle female genital mutilation in Scotland. This partnership must include the communities affected by this terrible practice right from the beginning to create long-term behaviour changes. This report recognises that communities have to be involved as much at a strategic level but also as in prevention, as in data gathering and as in protecting the victims of female genital mutilation. When I say communities private presenting officer, I would like to point out like all the members did before me, a free woman did before me, that the role of men in race communities must not be excluded but be seen as part of the solution to end this unacceptable and illegal practice. However, victims for me should always be at the centre of the debate, not on front pages of newspapers but fronting any approach on tackling female genital mutilation. We heard today and members of the equal opportunities heard before that that different countries have different approach and John Mason talked a lot about France for example. I have no problem with this but I like to say, you know, Jackson Carlaw talked about England as well, what happened in England and Wales. I like to say that as much as we learn a lot from what's happening abroad, I strongly believe in a Scottish solution for a Scottish problem because let's not forget communities, it's our own communities, they are Scottish communities, whatever people come from, whatever they are, first generation, second generation, third generation, they are part of Scotland, they are part of our communities. So we have to reflect this when we go into legislation or we're going to eradicate this problem. And one thing I would like to say, a presenting officer, I would like to kind of apologise to the media because during our evidence and when we talked about it at committee level I kind of think that sensitive, because it's such a sensitive issue, maybe the media will not be apt to talk about it. And I can't change my mind, I think Scottish media particularly I think will be well equipped to do so. And I take the example of children's sex abuse that we have seen, the cases that we have seen over the years. And I think the media contributed very well at explaining to people, I understand that secrecy that some of the members talked about it early on and maybe removing the veil from what's happening out there. And I think we should take clinicians and Christina McKelvie talk about it. Us western civilisation and western nations have to understand that what we do is seen as bad from other countries of what other countries practices have.  Let's remember that we need a New Zealand high court judge to come to lead an inquiry on this historical child's sex abuse in England and Wales. So that gives us a bit of perspective and I will encourage the media to talk about it on that way, not targeting particular committees, but really targeting the issue which is most important. We live in one world with multi communities and challenging isolated members of different communities is important as well.  People will be more and more isolated. So we need to understand that better. To conclude, let me address the amendment by Labour and I welcome the clarification on that point by the Cabinet Secretary. I'm not disappointed that there have been so few prosecutions. I trust Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to first investigate then to bring cases to court. Some consider that legislation on session acceptable practice must mean that people will automatically reach the courts and be prosecuted. I disagree. Good legislation must be used first as a preventive measure and as a deterrent and I just say I trust Police Scotland for this. The example in England which we are beginning of show exactly this that best cases can't be forced by political pressure to being brought in front of the court. I'm more concerned on provision of the communities affected by female genital mutilation and care for the victim. This is why I thank again the Scottish Refugee Council for their report and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice for bringing this debate to the chamber. Tomorrow is the international day of zero tolerance of female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is a human rights variation that affects anist as an estimated five girls each minute worldwide. UN Secretary of the General Bank immune said health system and health professionals are essential for the well-being of societies. They provide credible scientific and unbiased information that can help people protect themselves from violation of their rights. I believe that this progressive Parliament and the Government will bring this nation to a better and a happy place. Thank you very much. I now call on John Finnie after which we move to closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm a fan of international days. I think that they bring a worldwide focus on issues and what could be a more important issue than this. I warn to the phrase that I think that Ken Macintosh used of solidarity. I think that that's entirely appropriate in this instance. I welcome the motion, the reference to the thank the Cabinet Secretary for bringing it, the project, the short-term working group and the funding. I would like to thank all the organisations who are actively involved in this very sensitive work and, indeed, some of them for the briefings. The Scottish Refugee Council said that, because of the limitations of global and Scottish data, we do not seek to definitively quantify the nature and extent of female genital mutilation in Scotland. Communities potentially affected by female genital mutilation is the term that they're going to use. I think that there's been many references to that dearth of hard facts, but, of course, the condemnation that's implicit in this motion is not conditional on numbers. Indeed, we heard of the Equal Opportunity Committee last year from one survivor who said, this is not a matter of numbers but a matter of need, and I think that we would all agree that one case is one case to many. Can I commend the convener of the Equal Opportunity Committee who's really grasped this issue and has been working very diligently meeting groups and being showing the support of this Parliament in a very much enjoyed our speech? I don't intend to make a mention of nationality countries or, indeed, religions, because I think that this is an issue for us all to address. If we want to understand some of the challenges, whether one of the reports uses the term informant—and I think that that indicates the level of secrecy and sensitivities around it—effective interventions are terribly important. In one of the private briefings that we got, we heard from an external engineer that women presenting are unlikely to identify themselves as survivors, likely only to understand community-specific terminology, frequently meaning purification or cutting, unlikely to be willing to talk about female genital mutilation, unlikely to understand that their health issues are a direct result of female genital mutilation, qualifying that by saying, due to the normalisation in affected communities, all the women they know have the same problems. Mothers and carers rarely know that it is illegal, rarely know that it is harmful, and they may say that they are opposed to female genital mutilation, even though they are not. That is the scale of one of the challenges that we have. Prevention clearly is key, and education is key to that. There are challenges with the terminologies that we have heard from others. Any discomfort about discussing, for whatever reasons, is not going to help prevention. We have to talk about it, because what we do need is disclosure from individuals, communities and professionals. Protection is vital as well, not only to those at potential risk, those in imminent risk, but also survivors under loved ones. An often missed section is the psychological damage that has been visited on the individuals and their families. There is a need to protect and support familial and community relationships, which we would have to acknowledge are inevitably going to be strained by the, however, well-meaning involvement of third parties. We also need to protect those communities from any backlash, from any group or individuals who would misunderstand this issue. We must understand what is needed to protect, and I would suggest that that is not always money. Provisions of services and participation are very important, too, and, as ever, I will make a plea for the unique nature of access to those in rural areas. Yes, the NHS will have procedures in place for that, but the studies have shown that the isolation of geographic isolation is often compounded for visible ethnic minority groups in rural areas, so I am sure that that will be borne in mind by the group's supporting. We are asked what is required and who can tell us. One of the answers in the reports is that policy makers and service providers should ensure that policy and practice development across all areas of work is shaped and driven by the experience, needs and views of communities affected by female genital mutilation. None of us would take issue with that, I am sure. It is very important, in my opinion, that this is done by and for communities affected by female genital mutilation, rather than done to them. A key role for that is the police. As a former police officer, I know that practices have changed drastically in relation to things such as domestic violence and sexual crimes. Likewise, the Crown Office's fiscal service and social work services with joint investigations, which are child-centred with the outcomes for victims being at the forefront of everyone's deliberations, I think are terribly important. Having said all of that, I do not want to give any suggestion other than that I wholeheartedly believe that this is a violent act against women and girls must be stopped, and it is a further expression of deeply entrenched gender inequalities, such as forced marriage and honour-based violence. I support the need for a national action plan. I think that behavioural change, and many of the papers talk about that, does take time. I gave those examples of domestic violence and sexual crimes in our own communities and the different approach that has been taken to that, and I think that that is entirely possible. I am reassured. I had a comment earlier about the women's support group that talked about some of the materials that are needed to be updated, because some of the references related to English laws and procedures. I am heartened to hear from the cabinet secretary about the materials and the videos that will involve that. It is terribly important. Whilst noting what my colleague Krishnalaard said about Scottish solutions, I think that collaboration is hugely important. I know that that was not his suggestion. Key to that, with young folk, is the application of the very, very similar papers. We need to bring a remarks to close, please. Yes, indeed. We are getting it right for every child. What we have heard, Presiding Officer, is that we have heard of the brutality and the great pressure that women are placed under. We have heard of issues of secrecy, and it is important that we do not drive that issue underground. Women who spoke to us privately were adamant that they wanted that action to be taken. I think that that is a very helpful debate, and thank you for my part of the debate. Thank you. We now move to the wind-up speeches in the net mill. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Unsurprisingly, that has been a very consensual debate, indicating this Parliament's commitment to working towards the eradication of female genital mutilation and its support for the Scottish Government's partnership approach to tackling the problem. I first heard about the important practice of FGM when I was a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, which took evidence during stage 1 of the prohibition of female genital mutilation Scotland Bill, which was approved in 2005. That legislation came 20 years after the practice Euphemyslith, known at the time as female circumcision, was outlawed by the Westminster Government. I was quite shocked to learn on this very date last year when I was preparing for Jenny Marra's debate to mark the international day of zero tolerance for FGM. There has not been a single police report, prosecution or conviction within the UK for such a brutal assault on young women and girls from certain ethnic communities. It is of some small comfort that there have now been a number of investigations by Police Scotland into potential cases of FGM, as well as the recent trial in England that was referred to by Jackson Carlaw. However, as yet, there have been no prosecutions here. However, FGM is almost certainly still going unpunished, and many young lives are at risk of being indelibly blighted by a barbaric practice that, unfortunately, is still deeply embedded in the culture of those communities that sanction and perform it as a right of passage to womanhood and marriage. There is clearly no disagreement in the chamber, nor should there be, that FGM is quite unacceptable in a modern civilised society and that it must be tackled and got rid of. Indeed, we have heard some very moving speeches from members about their concerns for the victims of FGM in some of Scotland's migrant communities. Detection and eradication of FGM is, of course, more easily said than done, because, as we know, the practice is very difficult to run to ground as it is kept very private within the communities where it is practised. Because it often involves family members, such as parents and grandparents, are hard to come by. Because of that and a lack of information on the influence of migration on the practice of FGM, the welcome and recently published report by the SRC supported by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which has been frequently quoted today, does not definitively quantify the nature and extent of FGM in Scotland, but rather refers to communities in Scotland that are potentially affected by FGM. It is estimated that there are such potentially affected communities living in every local authority area in Scotland, with the largest of them, as we have heard, in the cities of Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee respectively. The number of children born into such communities in Scotland has increased over the past 10 years. Without further qualitative research and better data gathering, particularly across the statutory services and among potentially affected communities, the actual problem in Scotland will be difficult to quantify given the complexity and the emotive nature of FGM. It is interesting that the Refugee Council's research also looked at what is happening across the EU and found that, despite having similar statistical challenges to Scotland, EU nations appear to have been successful in tackling FGM and in supporting women and girls within their borders to both resist and to recover from it. That gives us the opportunity, both across Europe and within the UK, as Alex Neil mentioned in his opening speech, to draw on best practice in developing and taking forward a Scotland-specific approach to intervention. There is clearly the will to build on all the valuable work that we have heard about this afternoon by bringing together the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, the NHS, education, social and child protection services and the voluntary and third sector organisations working with children and young people and their families. Jackson Carlaw, in his opening speech, listed some of the policies that the Prime Minister announced an indicated funding for at the girl's summit, which he and the Home Secretary hosted last summer, aimed at protecting the many girls at home and abroad who are at risk of FGM and childhood forced marriage. We welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to fund a programme of work to try and achieve such protection for women and girls thought to be at risk in Scotland. We look forward to the proposed girl's summit to be hosted in Glasgow next month and attended by Lord McConnell and the First Minister, and we hope to hear some policy-specific announcements coming from that event along the lines of those proposed last year by David Cameron. There is no doubt that we are all committed to the eradication of FGM in Scotland, but to achieve that, we must find a way to overcome the centuries of culture that influence the communities that practise FGM. That is bound to take time. It will involve working together with those communities across Scotland. As the cabinet secretary has said, it will have to be in a sensitive and culturally acceptable way, and involving all the many statutory and third sector organisations involved in protecting the very vulnerable girls and women who may be at risk of violation by those of their compatriots who are willing to carry out FGM. However, action must not stop for protecting those at risk. A number of members have mentioned this. The message must also go out to the perpetrators of the crime of FGM, that their practice is illegal and will be punished. Those people need to be found and dealt with by the courts, and to achieve that, Police Scotland must be supported to bring forward prosecutions as a deterrent to those who persist in carrying out such barbaric procedures in violation of their victims' human rights. I commend the Government's motion and the amendment in the name of Karen Macintosh, both of which, of course, we will support at decision time. This debate is timely and welcome, coming as it does, the day before the United Nations Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation. The whole chamber has united around condemning this barbaric act. It has been sometimes a difficult debate, sometimes a very moving debate, but I think that many people have agreed that we need to continue the good work that has been on-going previously to make sure that we outlaw this barbaric act. Our amendment seeks to be helpful rather than critical, and I think that many of our speakers today have pointed that out. I think that it is also important that some speakers have suggested that maybe it was not important, but I believe that it is, so let me just take a moment to explain why we felt the need to put it down and what it actually means. We welcome that the Scottish Government funds information initiatives and the like, but our amendment is asking them to review how this funding is used and indeed its impact. Would it be more effective to use the funding to equip and build community groups, some of which are already on place, which could then be used as a vehicle to engage and inform with the communities involved? The Liberal Trust is able to put across messages and reinforce them in a way that one-off events cannot. Anzala Malik made the point that FGM is a taboo subject and often a one-off meeting to discuss it is unlikely to attract the target group of people that you want to influence. However, if this information is delivered through a trusted grassroots community group, it is much more likely to gain traction. Those vehicles can also be used to deliver other information on different issues as well. That is not to say that good work is not already going on. The Women's Support Project and the Refugee Council are doing excellent work, but we need to create and sustain grassroots organisations for women in those vulnerable communities. John Finnie made the point in his speech that interventions need to be by the community rather than be to them by outside groups. If we build that community resilience and use that to change and influence cultural norms, that can also mean that more children at risk will be reported and protected. Patricia Ferguson made a really good point about building that support that is critical within the communities. If we are successful—and we all hope that we will be—and providing and changing that cultural norm, there needs to be trusted support within the community to provide the medical and emotional interventions that those people will need. All our amendment is asking the cabinet secretary to review how we put those messages out and, indeed, to look at adopting best practice. Rather than being critical, we are being helpful. The only point that is ever so slightly contentious in the debate today is about child protection. I truly believe that every girl born in Scotland to a woman who has undergone FGM should be considered a child at risk. FGM is violence against women and girls, and it must be tackled as such, and a child at risk has to be protected. When a mother has been abused in this way and gives birth to a girl, we must see that as a sign that protection is required. It must be recognised that the mother has already faced abuse and her daughter is now at risk. Support and protection must be given in a way that recognises the trauma of the mother, and a number of speakers made that point. The pressure that she will be under from within her community to have the same procedure carried out for her daughter, she herself may require medical intervention both physically and mentally, and that might be the case before the birth. That has to be delivered in a way that is sensitive to her needs. I think that Christina McKelvie made the point that it has to be non-stigmatising, non-judgmental and supportive. However, if you have suffered abuse yourself, it is not a defence against perpetrating that abuse against your child. While we are supporting the mother, we have to protect the child. Patricia Ferguson also talked about the BMA and its concerns about mand