The next item of business is a debate on motion 3761, in the name of Angela Constance, on the prevention and eradication of female genital mutilation and all other forms of so-called honour-based violence. Can I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now? I call on Angela Constance to speak to and move the motion up to 12 minutes, please, cabinet secretary. On behalf of the Scottish Government, I'm pleased to open the debate on this very important matter. Today, ahead of international day for zero tolerance to FGM, which is Monday, the 6th of February, we collectively have the opportunity to add our voices to those around the world opposing female genital mutilation. This global day, which has been marked by our Parliament for a number of years, provides people all over the world with an opportunity to take a stand against a practice that has absolutely no place in society, yet unfortunately still affects far too many communities across the globe. Female genital mutilation, as with any form of so-called honour-based violence, is a specific form of gender-based violence and an abuse of human rights. World Health Organization figures tell us that 200 million women and girls globally are affected by FGM, and this is systematic of the inequality that women and girls all over the world experience because of their gender. Our strategy Equally Safe recognises that so-called honour-based violence, regardless of what form it may take and, like all forms of gender-based violence, is pure and simply about power and control. It embeds the understanding in the law of the land and gives the police and our prosecutors the powers to tackle it. Practices such as FGM and forced marriage are manifestations of that imbalance of power. I am glad that the UK Government has recognised that by finally supporting at the end of last year the private member's bill, which was brought forward by Dr Ailey Whiteford MP, calling for the UK Government to ratify the Istanbul Convention. An issue that I support and highlighted in this chamber at the end of last year when we all marked the 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls. Although the UK Government signed a convention nearly five years ago, as we all know, it has yet to be ratified. The convention states the need to fully address violence against women in all its forms and to take measures to prevent it, protect its victims and prosecute perpetrators. I hope that by supporting Dr Whiteford's bill the UK Government is signalling now momentum for ratification of the Istanbul Convention and that it will work with the Scottish Government and indeed others to overcome the last few obstacles and not yet again kick this important issue into the long grass. As the bill now enters its committee stage, I hope that the UK Government really sees the opportunity to take forward this important issue. However, I compliment the UK Government on the good work that it has done with respect to FGM and I am pleased to say that we will be supporting the amendment in the name of Annie Wells. Tackling FGM and indeed all other forms of violence against women under the guise of culture or religion, so-called honour-based violence, requires a response that extends protections to those at risk and which holds those who choose to perpetuate this abuse to account. Not that long ago, few people had even heard of female genital mutilation or forced marriage. Now we have legislation to protect people from honour-based violence and a national action plan to prevent and eradicate female genital mutilation. The plan, which runs until 2020, sets out an agreed range of actions and associated activities to be taken forward by the Scottish Government and its partners in communities, the third sector and the public sector to prevent and ultimately eradicate FGM. Actions from the plan are being taken forward under the guidance of a multi-agency national implementation group who will monitor progress over its lifespan and give a sharp focus to the practical approach that we can take to realise our ambitions on this agenda. There are no quick fixes to tackling FGM and honour-based violence. It is a complex and often hidden issue and there is no single solution to ending it. With that in mind, our approach to preventing and eradicating these practices has been informed by collaboration. Collaboration with faith leaders and community activists who are uniquely placed to be at the very heart of work to effect significant social, cultural and attitudinal change and, as such, I am very pleased to support the amendment that was tabled by Mary Fee today also. It is also crucial that we collaborate with organisations and agencies across the statutory and third sector who are working to help us to understand the background to these practices. For example, we have recently published research on understanding forced marriage in Scotland. The research that is commissioned by the Scottish Government outlines nine recommendations and forms part of our on-going work in bringing together key agencies to protect those who are affected by forced marriage. I want to put in record my thanks to the authors of this in-depth, insightful and very useful research. What is clear is that survivors identified the excellent support they receive from third sector agencies who are providing first class trusted support. The research has also very helpfully identified the barriers to accessing and receiving the right support and intervention at the right time, so we must seek to increase the confidence of those who need assistance and also the confidence and capacity of those who need to provide assistance. We will be working in partnership with the multi-agency forced marriage network, which is facilitated by the Scottish Government to look at how we take forward the recommendations from this research. It is this type of collaboration that can support our aims, whether it is with enforced marriage, FGM or with the wider eradication of violence against women. As part of a week of activity to mark the international day of zero tolerance to female genital mutilation, I am proud to be attending the Kenya Women in Scotland Association's national conference here in Edinburgh on Saturday, and I will also be meeting with Waverly Care next week. Both of those organisations are respected for their work in tackling FGM and their key partners in their work to eradicate it. It is this joined up approach that will help to ensure that what we do, not only to protect those at risk from harm but what we do to try and end this practice is informed by co-operation, conversation and a collective will to bring about change. I would like to turn briefly to legislation. No doubt many of you in the chamber will be aware that FGM has been unlawful in Scotland for over 30 years with the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. The Female Genital Mutilation Scotland Act 2005 then re-enacted the act and extended protection by making a criminal offence to have FGM carried out either in Scotland or abroad by giving those offences extra territorial powers. The Scottish Government worked very collaboratively with the UK Government to close a loophole in the Prohibition of FGM Act 2005 to extend the reach of the extra territorial offences in that act to habitual as well as permanent UK residents. That was achieved by means of a legislative consent motion in the Serious Crime Act 2015. The Serious Crime Act also contains a number of provisions relating to FGM and have come into force in England and Wales. We have looked very closely at each of them and have taken a thoughtful and considerate approach to the best way forward for Scotland to ensure that what we choose to do is informed by the best information we have. The Scottish Government consulted across the statutory and third sectors and across sections of potentially affected communities to gather their views on those provisions. We are now considering the feedback from that engagement and we now look to how we will take this forward in Scotland. I would also like to briefly address the issue of prosecutions. Much continues to be made of the fact, understandably, that, although FGM has been legal for over 30 years, there has not been a single prosecution in Scotland nor in any other part of the UK. FGM, by its very nature, is a hidden issue, one that may be underreported, an issue where those affected may not be able to come forward or indeed share their concerns. That is why our work with communities is so important in giving people both the understanding and the confidence to discuss, challenge and report the practice. At the launch of Scotland's national action plan on 40 February 2016, speakers from the statutory sector and from potentially affected communities all made the point that the law needs to protect those at risk and ensure those who perpetuate the abuse are held to account. However, they were equally clear that prosecution should be part of an overall response that includes protection for those at risk and the provision of services for those affected. Nevertheless, let me be clear that, although there have been no prosecutions in Scotland, every referral or child welfare concern made to the police relating to concerns that girls were at risk of having FGM performed on them have been fully investigated by Police Scotland, and no criminality has been found. However, of course, we have to remain ever vigilant. In closing, Presiding Officer, I would like to reiterate this Government's commitment to preventing and eradicating FGM, so-called honour-based violence, and all other forms of violence against women and girls. Our approach continues to be one of working closely with all our partners, to which I would like to pay tribute to here today. It is the commitment of professionals across the third and statutory sector who protect those at risk and who respond to the damage that FGM causes, which enables many women and girls to live their lives free from harm or to rebuild their lives when harm is identified. It is also the commitment of the many unrecognised individuals working within affected communities who give so freely of their time and talents to raise awareness and to challenge the practice. The desire driving determination to ridder society of forms of violence against women and girls in whatever form they may take must unite this Parliament and together with our stakeholders, we can all help to end it. Thank you very much, and I move the motion in my name. I now call Annie Wells to speak to and move amendment 3761.1. Ms Wells, up to eight minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There can be no justification for female genital mutilation or FGM, and I welcome the Scottish Government's efforts at home as well as the UK Government's efforts abroad to tackle this awful crime. I also want to take the opportunity, as the cabinet secretary did, to raise awareness today of international day of zero tolerance for FGM next Monday. FGM, which involves the full or partial removal of young girls' genitals, has no health benefits, and although it carried out for a number of reasons in many cases, it is done solely to improve a daughter's marriage prospects. It stems from a deep rooted inequality between the sexes and can only be seen as a violation of the rights of women and girls, no matter their cultural background. The ramifications can be massive both physically and psychologically. Often commonly performed by people with no medical training and without proper consideration for hygiene, complications can include severe bleeding, problems urinating, cysts, infections and infertility, as well as complications in childbirth and an increased risk of newborn deaths. In 2015, a survivor of the crime now living in Glasgow spoke bravely about her experience to a local newspaper in order to raise awareness of FGM. Forced to undergo the procedure at the age of just four in her home country, Gambia, she spoke of being locked in a house with 50 to 60 girls as young as three months.  Worldwide, Dunesaf estimates that at least 200 million girls and women have been subjected to the practice of FGM across 30 countries. I am pleased that the UKIE has been a key player internationally in trying to tackle it. The Department for International Development has allocated £184 million to a number of programmes that tackle gender violence issues such as FGM, forced marriages and female infanticide. It has allocated £35 million specifically to reduce FGM by 30 per cent in 17 countries across Africa. As we all know, however, this practice also takes place behind closed doors at homes across the UK. In the UK, Government figures estimate that 170,000 women and girls have undergone this procedure. In Scotland, it is understood that nearly 3,000 girls were born to mothers, born in FGM practice in countries. I commend the work that the Scottish Government has done on the issue. The 2005 FGM act, which updated Scottish legislation, increased the maximum penalty for the crime to 14 years. It also made it illegal for family members to take girls abroad to carry out this practice. Last year, Scotland's national approach plan to prevent and eradicate FGM went a long way in informing the preventative educational measures that needed to raise awareness of FGM. Letters and presentations raised awareness among teachers and healthcare professionals and Police Scotland produced internal guidance for officers dealing with honour-based violence at the measures that were among the measures. The Scottish Government also allocates money to a number of programmes and organisations relating to improving women's rights as part of its violence against women and girls' budgets. I will support a consensual approach to issues such as FGM and other forms of honour-based violence. It is important that we get this right for every girl at risk in Scotland, and that we work together to build on the efforts and initiatives of the past. It would be wrong with me, however, not to raise some of the points that I see as important to this issue, to look at what is happening down south and at least bring to the debate the initiatives that are taking place in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I welcome the cabinet secretary's input regarding the report that the Scottish Government received and that he will look into that. That is the mandatory reporting of FGM cases in females 18 and under by doctors, nurses and education professionals, as well as FGM protection orders. In December 2014, the Scottish Refugee Council published its report on tackling FGM in Scotland, a report commissioned by the Scottish Government, which I made reference to earlier that the cabinet secretary is going to review. Among its suggestions were the reporting of FGM cases with statutory bodies, as well as the need to send out a strong criminal justice message. Court protection orders, as we see in the rest of the UK, mean that potential victims can be protected, for example, by the mandatory surrendering of a passport so that families are not able to travel abroad. The UK Government has been actively encouraging all agencies, including local authorities, social work, police forces and schools to make use of them. The mandatory reporting of incidents of FGM for females 18 and under by healthcare professionals and teachers has meant that the statistics are now more reliable when it comes to estimating the number of those affected. Issues of underreporting, of course, exist, which is why measures such as anonymity for victims at risk of being identified are so important. Collectively, it is important that we all question the lack of successful FGM-related prosecutions, both in Scotland and the rest of the UK, that have taken place since becoming illegal in 1985. We know that there has been none in fact. However, I welcome that all reports of the crime are being fully investigated by Police Scotland, as rightly so. Comments have been made in the past over families travelling to the UK to have the procedure done due to a perceived leniency. There is room for us to be tougher on this awful crime. I would like to end today by noting just some of the efforts made locally in Glasgow to tackle FGM and other forms of honour-based violence. Rape crisis in Glasgow's Ruby project, for example, supports victims of sexual violence, including those who have suffered FGM. I would also like to thank the Scottish Government for bringing this vitally important issue to the chamber today and for the renewed focus on tackling FGM. We must work together to build on efforts of the past to prevent this abuse from occurring in the first place, to support those who fall victim to honour-based violence, and to ensure that busc criminal sanctions are in place for those who commit the abuse. I move the amendment to my name. I call Mary Fee to speak to and move amendment 3761.2, Ms Fee, up to seven minutes, please. I start by thanking the equalities minister for her motion today, highlighting the important work to tackle an end female genital mutilation and so-called honour-based violence and bringing it to the chamber to allow us to debate it. Speaking on behalf of Scottish Labour, I am happy to confirm that we will support both the Government's motion and the Conservative amendment today. I would ask for support for our amendment, one that may be small in detail yet is hugely significant to meet our shared ambitions. It is with regret and sadness that we require this debate and that we need to have an international day of zero tolerance for female genital mutilation. Regret and sadness, knowing that medieval, barbaric and horrific acts of violence and mutilation are still carried out in the 21st century, primarily against young women and children. There will be few countries, if any, in the world that will not be affected in some way by female genital mutilation or honour-based violence. It is right that, as a Parliament, we help in the global fight to shine a light on those behaviours and to raise awareness of the dangers of violence and cruelty in the hope of eradicating FGM and honour-based violence. I am sure that, across the chamber, there would have been anger when reading the Economist article on agonising choice from June last year, which called for a new approach, one that supports minor forms of FGM. The offer tried to argue that allowing minor forms that cause no long-lasting harm is better than being butchered in a backroom by a village elder. Accepting this proposal would be a backward step and send the wrong message that abuse and mutilation of a child through FGM is somehow acceptable. Campaign groups across the UK were right to quickly condemn the article. Unfortunately, the Guardian went on to report that it gave ammunition to supporters and practitioners of FGM that some in the west are on their side. Scottish Labour and I are sure that members from across this chamber will never give those ideas the time of day. Instead, we will continue to stand on the side of the women, the girls and the families who are affected by FGM to bring an end to this barbarity. The World Health Organization estimates that over 125 million women and girls are affected by FGM. Incidences of FGM tend to be concentrated in pockets of the Middle East across Central Africa and increasingly in South Asia. Inspiration and tackling FGM can be taken from the work of NGOs and communities across the world. The work of safe Kenya is an illuminating example of that. Female genital mutilation is illegal in Kenya but is still widely practised in rural areas across the country as a right of passage. Safe Kenya has taken a community-based approach to tackling this gender-based violence, with three projects that are aimed at changing the cultural practices that normalise FGM. In the Louisa Hills in Kenya, before safe Kenya started working in the region, the rate of FGM was 98 per cent. By promoting an alternative right of passage, that rate has now dropped by 20 per cent. The practice of FGM and honour-based violence is driven by the deep-rooted, unequal power relationship between men and women across the globe. Education is key to tackling FGM and honour-based violence. A grassroots approach aimed at altering cultural views on FGM may be a slow process but it is a necessary one and an effective means in the fight to eradicate FGM across the globe. It is important to educate young boys and men that FGM is an extremely dangerous procedure, which is not a religious requirement. It is not a prerequisite for marriage and it is not a right of passage ritual. It is quite simply an unnecessary barbaric act, which violates women and girls' human rights. It is estimated that 24,000 people living in Scotland were born in FGM practising countries and that 12 women in the UK each year lose their lives to honour killings. All women and girls in communities with the length and breadth of Scotland must feel safe, respected and equal. It is the duty of this Parliament to make that ambition a priority. Although we must continue to support the victims of FGM in Scotland, we must also contribute to the global campaign to eradicate the practice of FGM. The UN International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation is a prime opportunity for the global community to use the power of their collective voice and show their strength in condemning the barbaric act of FGM. In closing, I repeat our support for both the Government motion and the Conservative amendment and ask that we recognise the role that faith leaders, well respected by their communities, can play in eradicating FGM and honour-based violence. The Scottish Government action plan is an important aspect of their commitment to end FGM in a generation. I am happy to work with the cabinet secretary and the minister taking that plan forward. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. We now move to the open contributions. I remind members who wish to speak to make sure that they have pressed their buttons. I am trying hard not to stare at the people who have them. I have a wee bit time in hand to allow for interventions. I call on Ruth Maguire to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in such an important debate as we look ahead to 6 February as the international day of zero tolerance for female genital mutilation. FGM is a reprehensible and completely unacceptable illegal practice that no child should have to suffer. However, if it is easy to condemn, it is less easy to eradicate. As has been mentioned, according to UNICEF, at least 200 million girls have been subjected to the practice of FGM across 30 countries, but the exact numbers remain unknown. It is found in 28 African countries and also in South East Asia and the Middle East. It is also found in Europe and elsewhere among communities originating from those parts of the world. Here, FGM is seen in some ethnic groups that have migrated to this country. As the cabinet secretary said in opening, FGM is a complex, sensitive and often hidden issue to which there is no easy fix. It is rooted in what are to many of us alien and quite appalling traditions. When it comes to engaging with FGM practicing communities, there are often language as well as cultural barriers to contend with. Working towards its prevention and eradication thus demands working sensitively and with many different sectors. It also means working with and within the communities directly affected. It is the only way to truly eradicate FGM is to eradicate the damaging attitudes and cultural traditions that underpin it. I strongly welcome the national action plan published last year and its recognition of the scale of the challenges involved, as well as its realistic and robust objectives and its commitment to working with partners across the statutory and third sectors from Police Scotland to Scottish Women's Aid. I also welcome the commitment to work with those directly involved, because it is in the communities itself that the problem exists and where it must ultimately be solved. If FGM is to be eradicated in Scotland, long-term social, cultural and attitudinal change must be our goal. For however wrong and appalling we find it, as long as FGM is accepted, is considered to be important or necessary to some communities, it will be an issue. The national action plan to tackle FGM is inextricable from the wider equally safe strategy for preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls. This is because FGM, at its most fundamental, is an extreme form of violence against girls and women and is rooted in gender inequality and discrimination. It is the extreme end of a vast and varied spectrum of the objectification of girls and women, which ultimately results in abuse of their bodies. Although the horrors of FGM may be an alien practice to many of us here, it would be foolish to think that this is a problem for others. We are not immune from the discrimination against and objectification of women and girls in our culture, which are rooted just in the same gender inequality and damaging attitudes and cultural norms here. Far from it, it is endemic, and it manifests itself daily in our newspapers, on the television, on the street, in the playground and even, Presiding Officer, as we saw recently in chambers of Parliament sometimes. It is everywhere and on a scale that can feel pretty overwhelming. Similarly, though the starting point is more extreme, the fundamental aims and objectives of the action plan to tackle FGM are the same as those of the equally safe strategy. In Scotland, where women and girls live free from abuse and the attitudes that help perpetrate it and where women and girls feel safe, respected and equal, where women are empowered and enjoy equality of opportunity, particularly with regard to resources, where positive gender roles are promoted and where people understand what healthy and positive relationships are. For this reason, we all have a role to play in tackling FGM, as we can and must all play our part in tackling the wider inequality that underpins it. Providing good services for victims and survivors is crucial, but we also have to start recognising the context in which this violence is taking place. A culture where everyday sexism and the objectification of women is the norm, is conducive to violence and must be challenged if we are to make a lasting difference to the lives of women and girls. We can start making that difference by all agreeing to not tolerate any objectification of women in our own or in any other culture. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We have no slaves in Scotland and mothers cannot sell their barns, so decided the Court of Session in Edinburgh almost exactly 330 years ago, on 13 January 1687, in the case of Reid against Scott of Hardin and his lady. For those interested in references for quotes, that is found in the case report in Morrison's dictionary at 14545. The case was about a lassie who was used by a travelling showman as a performing gymnast until she fled and was given refuge by a couple. He raised an action in the court claiming that he had bought the girl from her mother and she must be returned. The court refused to countenance that argument. What relevance is something from hundreds of years ago today? Sadly, this and other problems, such as the one that we are talking about, are still with us. A few days ago, I attended the Tumbling Lassie seminar hosted by the Faculty of Advocates, which had a number of eminent speakers, including Alison DiRolo, Solicitor General for Scotland. The seminar was held to raise awareness of modern-day slavery and human trafficking, which, sadly, some think is entirely behind us. That issue is a real one, as we know from recent police investigations in Scotland. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and the price of freedom, the constant review of the current state of affairs. Otherwise, we might have no need for politicians. The practice of female genital mutilation, as has already been said, has been illegal in Scotland since 1985, but we still know little about the numbers of people here who have been affected by it or who may be at risk.  It has been reported this week that Scottish Government research shows that 191 girls and women were forced into marriages in Scotland between 2011 and 2014, 10 per cent of whom were between 2014 and 2016. Another issue that is, sadly, still with us today, and, as has already been said, because of the underground nature of these crimes, research into that is difficult. However, it is imperative that we know more about this. Scotland's national action plan to tackle FGM recognises the lack of available data on which communities in Scotland might be likely to be directly affected by the issue. The first annual statistical information was published for England in July 2016. Corresponding data for Scotland is needed to understand what allocation of resources need to be put into dealing with the issue and stopping it here. I have a question that is, will the Scottish Government be following the actions of the UK Government in that regard? I simply pose that as a question in the context of this debate. It may be a more important issue going forward in Scotland than we have been aware of, given changes in ethnic diversity over the last decade. We need to know more about the potential for FGM and other so-called honour-based violence acts taking place here in Scotland, what we can do to prevent it, and how we can seek to help the victims and deal with the consequences. The amendment by my colleague Annie Wells recognises the work that the UK Government has been undertaking internationally to reduce the occurrence of FGM allocating £35 million, as has been commented on, to action to tackle that on the African continent. Note should also be taken of the legislation in England and Wales in the Serious Crime Act 2015, which may be relevant to inform the Scottish situation. For example, the mandatory duty for professionals to report cases of FGM to the police if they believe it has occurred, for which they are given statutory guidance to assist them. A further question is, will the Scottish Government consider taking similar steps? Does it have plans to do so in the future and what will be the timescale on which we hear about such action being taken? Those are horrendous crimes that inflict physical and psychological pain on victims, and perpetrators need to know that it is unacceptable in Scotland, the wider UK, and indeed around the world. On that basis, I am happy to support the motion and the amendment. FGM is a sanitised term that allows us to talk about female genital mutilation without dealing with each of those three words. Mutilation of young women leaves scars, both physical and mental, and that lasts a lifetime for victims and also for the communities that practice it. Let's be clear. FGM involves performing quote-unquote surgery on the genitals of young women and girls. Those procedures can involve cutting off parts of the labia and clitoris, or otherwise sewing and stitching up the vulva or vaginal opening. Those procedures offer zero medical benefits. All the guarantee is pain and suffering. However, those procedures are performed by families who believe that FGM must be carried out. They believe that it is the right thing to do, and they believe that FGM is a key to maintaining respectability and standing in their community, and often for the young girls and girls they see as a right of passage from childhood to becoming a woman. In reality, however, FGM is used to ensure that a woman is culturally acceptable, upholding family honour and tradition, and ensures that she is seen as suitable for her permitted role as a wife. By damaging her genitals, a community can damage her ability to have sexual relationships and can ensure that sex, instead of being a natural part of human expression, is painful and unpalatable for her. It is, in its essence, a way of controlling a woman's sexual behaviour. The young women who experience this violence suffer in painful and perhaps more obvious physical ways, difficulty in urinating sexual problems, problems in childbirth and wounds that become unaffected and can lead to further complications. However, what about other wounds that are inflicted? Post-traumatic stress disorder among survivors of FGM are at the same levels as those who have been subjected to childhood abuse. Research has shown that anger, pain and sadness continue through later life for those women, and that on-going chronic stress, anxiety disorders and sleep problems are common in survivors. A number of studies have touched on the impact of the survivor, but I also want to consider the impact that being part of this abuse has on the community as a whole. How many mothers who themselves have experienced FGM come to decide on FGM for their own daughters? Violence affects not only the victims but the perpetrators too. Frequently, those who arrange or are complicit in inflicting FGM on children experience FGM themselves. It begets a cycle of abuse where mutilation is the norm and the pain and suffering that is caused is less important than being seen to fit in. FGM, as a way of policing of women's bodies, is a double crime. It is inflicted on young women, and then those young women themselves go on to become party to inflicting it on the next generation. However, how many of those are true choices, free of coercion and influence from their wider group? When we tackle FGM, as we should, we should also remember the full cost that we are asking young women to pay when they share what has happened to them. We are asking them not only to admit what has been done to them, to discuss their bodies with strangers and people outside their community, but we are also asking them to admit that their community, their family, has been party to it. When we acknowledge a crime by extension, those who have committed it are criminals. For young women who have experienced FGM, it contributes to the huge burden of emotional and psychological damage that they already carry from the abuse. Although those crimes are carried out to ensure honour, there is nothing honourable in violence and abuse. Under reporting of FGM is strongly suspected and this ties with other forms of abuse, where fear and issues of love, loyalty, propriety are entwined to create an emotional net that prevents women from speaking out about what has been done to them. We need to empower women to talk openly about those threats and experiences, especially those who are at risk or those in communities who we know have girls who are at risk of FGM. That is especially true, given that studies have shown that women who have experienced FGM tend to develop psychological conditions, which make them withdrawn, uncommunicative or distrustful. The women whose voices we need to hear the most are those who are most likely to be silenced by their experience. Committing FGM is a crime and I am proud that the Scottish Government has been forthright in condemning it and I am heartened to hear so many around this chamber today do so too. We need to consent female genital mutilation to history and we will do this by ensuring that the crime is policed but also through joined up thinking around public services and support for the women affected. The Scottish Refugee Council has identified that 24,000 people born in an FGM practice in country are living in Scotland with nearly 9,000 of those in Glasgow. Any small community of this size will need support to adjust to life here in this country that has been more developed and has proactive public services. We must reach out and engage with all communities, but especially so where there is the potential for FGM. We must communicate to women, young and old, that genital mutilation is wrong and that whatever the practices of the past it is not acceptable in Scotland. We must also seek to amplify the voices of women in those communities who are already standing up against FGM and empower young women to support each other in their communities. I welcome that projects such as the Kenyon Women in Scotland Association and Rape Crisis Glasgow's FGM, survivor support service, are benefiting from funding from the Scottish Government to drive the equality agenda in 2016-17. I welcome all steps that the Government takes to tackle all forms of violence that seek to control women's bodies and police women's behaviour under the corrosive banner of honour. Thank you, Ms Faulkey. I call Pauline McNeill to be followed by John Finnie. Child marriage and honour killings are just two elements of the wider systematic sub-education exploitation and domination of women and girls around the world. As we've heard, Scotland is not free of it. Previous Labour Governments have legislated on it and the Scottish Government is being commended for leading on it today. Women's kind will not be free until we have made more significant progress to worse protecting women and girls from the horrors of FGM forced marriage, very often forced into marriage when they are children and the so-called honour-based violence, which is murder and violence, just the same. Child marriage is often physically violent and, in many cases, is tantamount to rape. Jaswinder Sangeira, who is founder of the charity Carman Irvana, said, emotional blackmail is huge in these cases.  Lots of young people are faced with that horrible choice. That charity receives 850 calls a month mostly from victims. So we know that children are forced into marriages and having children when they themselves are as young as 13 or 14. I've hardly had time to become adults themselves. As we've heard from others, the so-called honour-based killing, just to go through what is meant by it, is an unwritten code known as honour. Girls are raised to believe that their purpose in life is to uphold the honour of the family. If they bring so-called dishonour, they pay the price of that with their own lives. Many women have come to the UK from other countries to escape that violence. Some have not. Honour killing takes place in order to erase the dishonour. The majority of honour killings are girls and women, but men can be victims too. Usually the perpetrators are men, but, importantly, family members can be actively and passively involved in these killings. The majority of reported killings have been carried out by family members. That is what is meant by honour-based killing. 29 cases in the UK so far between 2010 and 2014 have been recorded. The UK police reported over 28,000 cases of honour-based violence, including abduction, mutilation, acid attacks, beatings and murder. Gordon Lindhurst pointed out that there are 191 cases of forced marriage in Scotland just over the past four years, but we need more data on that. However, just to focus for a minute on the international picture, one in three girls in the developing world are said to be married before they reach the age of 18. A staggering 700 million women alive today were married as children. If there is no reduction in child marriage, the global number of child brides will reach £1.2 billion by the year 2050. Countries with the highest number of child brides include Niger at 76 per cent, which is the highest proportion, but in absolute numbers India has the highest proportion with 26.5 million child brides. Research from the Women's Refugee Commission says that Epes, Opia, Lebanon and Uganda child marriage is seen as a way of protecting girls or alleviating hardship caused by conflict. It appears that we need to add into the picture that the current humanitarian crisis in areas of conflicts is working to increase child marriage and forced marriage. The practices that we have heard are found to be cultural, but whatever it is, it is pervasive discrimination and violence against women and girls. Early marriage forces girls into adulthood and frequently motherhood before they are even emotionally or physically matured themselves. I have heard young women talk about how they do not feel equipped to look after their babies and they fear that something will happen to their babies because they are not really old and mature enough themselves to protect the life that they have just given. It profoundly affects a girl's life not only by substantially lowering her educational prospects but also causing health complications and harming her psychological wellbeing. We know that causality runs both ways. Child marriage reduces educational attainment and converts the girls with less access to quality education are much more likely to marry early. In conclusion, we must have a harsh message in our criminal law against all of those crimes. We must make sure that we have reviewed our law to cover all the aspects of so-called honour-based violence to include not just the perpetrators but any family member or anyone who is involved in the premeditated murder of any man or woman or girl. Culture can be no excuse for violence and deep-rooted discrimination, but there is so much work to be done and there is a lot of work to be done internationally and we should never forget that towards global progress for all women and for all girls. Thank you, Ms McNeill. I call John Finnie, with Paul Ballack Cole-Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, as part of a number of small groups in the Justice Committee, indeed with my colleague Mary Fee, we took evidence from small groups from an individual explaining a lifetime—this is a gentleman's 50s—a lifetime or a childhood of abuse. The previous session, similarly, indeed with yourself, chairing the event, took evidence from victims of domestic violence in private and heard the harrowing details that they had gone through. Likewise, in the previous session, the Equal Opportunities Committee did three evidence sessions, some in private, about the issue of female gentle mutilation and heard very harrowing testimonies from individuals. It is important to say that those testimonies took place, obviously, in private with appropriate support and safeguards. I, for one, am full of admiration for those individuals and the information and the strength that they have shown to come forward and inform us, as lawmakers, on what are complex issues, and there is no issue more complex than that. Of course, the answer is not laws, and it is for that reason that we have the national action plan on prevention and eradication of FGM. Clearly, it is not an issue for Parliament, as many have said. For that reason, it is certainly that we support the Labour amendment and see the key role that community leaders play. It is not lost in many of us that these community leaders will be men. The power that is an intrinsic element of the sub-scene practice is a power that rises with men, and that is gender-based violence. I am amazed that the ability humans have to abuse each other is very much linked to abuse of power, as many others have said. A coercive power, too. The phrase honour-based violence has to say that I have difficulty, as Ms McNeill, the previous speaker, had, with that terminology. I do not quite get that at all. Similarly, victims of female genital mutilation—to them, the overwhelming majority of that term means nothing. There are many euphemisms that have been used with young girls and young women. They are told that they are going to a party, that they are going to a holiday. They have been tricked by their family, by a community, and that in itself is a huge breach of trust that resonates for a lifetime. I acknowledge that there are cultural pressures, but let us be quite clear how those cultural pressures manifest themselves. They manifest themselves in a child being attacked, sexually assaulted, mutilated, restrained and detained often for days. I think that the very worrying thing is the psychological effect, which I think is unmeasurable that that has, and a dignity that has been stolen. I will not rehearse the various medical issues, but the reproductive issues, I think, again are significant and many lifetime medical issues as a consequence of this. The equal opportunities—excuse me—legacy paper from the last session talked about problems that could have been avoided if staff had been trained. Again, there are issues. That is not a criticism. There are issues about that. Cultural sensitivities, some women appearing at medical practices, accompanied by a male, and the challenges people will understand that there are. However, we have to get on with those cultural sensitivities. I do not want a mono culture for Scotland. I think that Scotland grows from the growing diversity of our culture, and we need to deal with that. There is nothing to do with an attack on any individual culture. It is entirely in line with the United Nations approach, which sees the utmost protection afforded to all females and a maximum support for those who seek to end this abhorrent practice. It is not easy. I would cite some examples where there have been sizable changes in reporting the practice that has followed that in the courts. Domestic violence has seen a wholesale change in approach from police practices in court and the support that is there.  Although there is a way to go on all those issues, we can see that those things never happen straight away, but progress can be made. What is clear is that education is vital, and that education is again challenging communities where men have often undue sway. Training is very important in raising awareness, particularly with health professionals. The BMA, and I am grateful to it for its briefing paper, talks about those who are at risk and the assistance that it gave to identifying that. Likewise, the education authorities are understanding that people are perhaps returning to countries where the previous generation came from and understanding the potential, particularly at key moments in a young girl's life. I commend the professionals who have been involved in that. I commend the volunteers, as many others have, who are unsung. They are unsung for a very particular reason, many of them. That is because, regrettably, to be effective, they must remain anonymous. I think that it is important that we have the internationalities. This is an international issue. We will be supporting the Conservative Party amendment and taking a deep breath. I commend the UK Government on its support on the issue. The reality is that there is an action plan. It is, as others have said, tied and equally saved. That is about equality. That is about gender race violence. We must have zero tolerance. As the BMA says, we must break the generational cycle of FGM. Deputy Presiding Officer, I start with the declaration of interest that, before I came to this place, I sat on the ministerial task force on violence against women and girls that was delivering equally safe the strategy on that subject. I rise to offer the full throw to support of these benches to the Government's excellent motion and the amendments that we have before us tonight. I welcome the consensual and respectful tone of today's debate. This is a subject that clearly unites the chamber. I always welcome an opportunity to speak in such debates. However, the fact that we even have to debate this in 2017 is an indictment of our global strive towards modernity and the empowerment of women. It is a symptom of the mountain that we still have to climb in this regard and in tackling this most gendered of all natures of violence. That three million girls and young women are each year subjected to acts of barbarism and mutilation in the name of culture and tradition is a humanitarian outrage. It is an atrocity of eye-watering proportions. Legislators often walk very carefully through the cultures and traditions of other societies. We have to uphold diversity and we have to respect it. However, where there are practices involved in it, which are dangerous, abhorrent and cruel, we have to have a willingness to take that head on. I am very glad to see colleagues of all parties do so eloquently in this debate. As we have heard many times in this excellent debate, particularly in the words of Ruth Maguire, Clare Haughey and John Finnie just a minute ago, that this may be an act of cultural acceptance or a rite of passage. There is nothing to do with religion or faith, nowhere in scripture or in sacred texts or the words of prophets or atrocities like this laid out as articles of faith or commandment. Some communities have sought to ascribe a causal relationship between the two, but we must be in no doubt, Presiding Officer, that over the centuries this grotesque practice has been performed. It is driven solely by the sexual jealousy and inadequacy of men. The very nature of FTM and honour-based violence, Presiding Officer, is fundamentally gendered in its nature, but its solution is not. We as parliamentarians of all genders have a duty to call out abuse, whether it is the cutting of girls, whether it is the beating of sisters or wives and say with such resounding unity that such behaviour is criminal, it is obscene and it has no place in our society. Together, we have made great strides in this agenda and I absolutely commend the Scottish Government on its ambitious national action plan. It has our full support. It is a vital step in our collective response and rightly elevates this through a preeminence of new heights in our national consciousness. It sets out a blueprint for national and local government, the third sector, the police, schools and communities to work together to raise awareness, share best practice on things like reporting. We need to learn from the lived experience of victims by listening to those who would otherwise struggle to be heard in the first place. We can build interventions around the stories that they tell us. I would have been helped or kept safe if this had happened or if this intervention had been available. Those are the stories that we need to hear. Right out of the traps, we need to fostering girls and young women an understanding of their rights enshrined in our culture and in our laws. We need to build awareness and victimhood amongst those who may not even be aware that they are victims and foster safe spaces for them to disclose what has happened to them. In our society, we have to recognise that there are still frontiers where we have to answer the needs of equality for women and look at attitudes in our boardrooms over maternity rights and equal pay. All of those are areas of commonplace discrimination that add to a wider narrative that is still ages old and which, ultimately, if unchecked, feed the very worst aspects of the barbarism and cruelty that we are discussing this afternoon. I am heartily glad that this action plan is so grounded in a rights-based approach, rooting policy both in prevention and in awareness raising, firmly in article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Child, which calls for the prohibition of all traditional practices that are prejudicial to the health and the wellbeing of women. John Finnie said that we do not need laws for this. I would take issue with that because I have stated many times in this place and outside that it is my belief that we shall only make rights real with the full incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Child into Scots law. Only then will children have access to justice and redress when rights of any kind are violated. In turn, that has a societal effect of making rights real because when systemically we are forced to consider implications for children's rights, we naturally foster a rights-based approach to public policy and only by so I will take from John Finnie. John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the member for taking the intervention. If that is how it came over, that is not exclusive. We can pass all the laws we want. It is going to be more than that. It is going to be about education primarily. Mr Cole-Hamilton. I thank John Finnie for the intervention. I often also recognise his contribution and our shared goals in this area and I welcome that intervention. But only by incorporating will we actually see a rights-based approach to public policy. Only by doing so can we ensure that we protect women and girls within our shores and by extension offer an example to the world of how rights matter. Our silent indignation on this matter is a futility that we can no longer afford or indulge. We need to protect and empower to bring justice to the guilty and to the complicit. Gareth Scott King said that struggle is a never-ending process, that freedom is never really one. You earn it and win it with every generation, but in this bloody tradition no generation has really ever seen freedom or satisfaction prevail. I think that it's time that we let ours be the first. Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. Paul Tom Arthur is followed by Miles Briggs. Mr Arthur, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to have the opportunity to participate in this afternoon's debate ahead of international day of zero tolerance for female genefro mutilation on 6 February. I welcome the motion by the Government and the opportunity to discuss the national action plan to prevent aniradicate FGM, both of which, in their tone and detail, show the correct approach to what is a challenging and complex issue. I think that it is only fair to acknowledge and welcome the amendments. I am particularly in the name of Annie Wells and I am sure that Alex Cole-Hamilton will join me in this. I am indirectly recognising the work of Lynne Baronist-Ferrstone, who is a parliamentary undersecretary for international development, announced the funding referred to by Ms Wells' motion at the UN commission for the status of women in March 2013. One thing that I would be highlighting is that this programme is set to end next year, and I hope that Annie Wells will work with her colleague Priti Patel, the UK Secretary of State for international development, to build on the existing work and to encourage her colleagues to continue to work with them to support Ailey Whiteford's private members bill, calling for the UK Government to ratify the Istanbul convention. I think that it is also only fair to acknowledge an amendment in the name of Mary Fee, which highlights the need outlined in the national action plan for working with communities to break the cycle of violence. I would also like to acknowledge many of the other speakers in this debate, which are Cole-Hamilton, Claire Hawking in particular, for their excellent contributions and the overall tenor of the debate. The Government's motion acknowledges that a preventative approach—a preventative, supportive and legislative approach—is crucial to tackling preventing and eradicating FGM. On all three of those aspects, we are making progress. In terms of legislation, it was only in 1985—the year that I was born—that FGM was made illegal in Scotland through the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act. Although the date of that legislation is relatively recent, it is indicative of the progress that is made that the term female circumcision is rightfully no longer in common use and is probably far less known nowadays than the term FGM. That is reflected in the more recent 2005 Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Scotland Act and the further strengthening of legislation that of course has since occurred as well with the Serious Crime Act 2015. I also want to highlight that legislative progress has also been made in tackling forced marriage, which, like FGM, can be associated with honour-based violence. The Forced Marriage Protection and Justice Act 2011 provides a specific civil remedy for those who are threatened with forced marriage and those who are already in such a marriage. Forced marriage in Scotland was recently criminalised in section 122 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. Crucially, that act states that a person committing an offence is committing an offence if he or she uses violence threats or any other form of coercion for the purpose of causing another person to enter into a marriage and be a believer or ought to be reasonable to believe that their conduct may cause another person to enter into a marriage without free and full consent. I highlight this because the terms used in that act are important because they recognise the various and complex ways in which people can be pressured into forced marriages. For any officer, it is clear that we have made progress in legislation on both forced marriage and FGM and I am encouraged by the work that is already under way or imminent as set out in the national action plan, which constitutes the preventative and supportive aspects of the approach to tackling FGM. Measures that are undertaken by the Scottish Government include issuing communications to police, education bodies and the NHS. Also, in 2014, the national guidance for child protection was updated to include a specific section that provides advice on how to respond if there are concerns that the child may have been subject to or may be at risk from FGM. Of course, there is now a standing operating procedure in place of Police Scotland. FGM is perhaps the most overt manifestation of the patriarchy's attempts to dominate, control and possess women.  Those attitudes also evince themselves through sexual discrimination in the workplace and in the gender pay gap, as well as in the societal pressures and expectations that are placed upon girls and women regarding their bodies, their achievements and their role in society. While Government, Parliament, community leaders and partner organisations all have an important role to play, sustained progress will only be achieved when individual men address and abandon their own paleolithic attitudes. Writing in the mid-19th century, William Thomson said, as your bondage has chained down man to ignorance and vices of despotism, so will your liberation reward him with knowledge, with freedom and happiness. Presiding Officer, liberty, knowledge, freedom and happiness are the rights of all human beings. Gender inequality denies those rights to one half of the population and gives the other the illusion of it. We all have a duty to work towards a society where we can all enjoy the same rights and opportunities. Achieving that will not be easy. Max Weber remarked that politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective, but he went on to say that we would not have attained the possible unless time and again we had reached out for the impossible. That advocating FGM will, as made clear in the national action plan, be challenging and complex. However, it is a challenge that I have every confidence that this Government, this Parliament and this country will rise to. In doing so, we will have taken another step towards creating a truly equal society. Thank you, Mr Arthur. I call Miles Briggs. We are followed by Kenneth Gibson. Mr Gibson will be the last speaker in the open debate. Mr Briggs. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Like others, I welcome today's debate and the significant degree of consensus that has been demonstrated around the chamber today, and maybe that really goes to emphasise the importance of this issue. I would also like to congratulate the cabinet secretary for the work that she has undertaken specifically in this area. I think that it is crucial that we unite as a Parliament to send out a message that we will not tolerate FGM and honour-based violence in Scotland. Those are crimes that must be tackled using provisions available, and as has already been mentioned today in the debate, it is of real concern that today there have been yet no successful prosecutions for FGM. I think that today's debate has also demonstrated that this is a subject where the Scottish and UK Governments must work closely together if we are to make progress towards eradicating FGM. I want to put on record my strong support for Prime Minister Theresa May and the significant work that she undertook personally on FGM, and indeed on forced marriages during her time as Home Secretary. In addition to criminalising forced marriage, she strengthened laws on FGM, including the mandatory reporting duty, which means that health and social care professionals have illegal duty to report known cases of FGM in under 18-year-olds to the police. She also set up innovative national FGM prevention programmes, issued new guidance to raise awareness of FGM amongst police officers, as well as instructing Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabilities to carry out an inspection of police and their response to honour-based violence with a real focus on FGM and forced marriage. I welcome the positive engagement and on-going partnership approach, which Scotland's national plan to prevent and eradicate FGM is achieving, as well as the equally safe strategy. I hope that the Scottish Government will continually assess the effectiveness of the work that has been undertaken across the UK and other Governments across the world, both in terms of legislation and the prevention and consideration of what more can be done to support people in Scotland. The former Foreign Secretary William Hague also undertook a great deal of excellent work on the specific issue of trying to tackle FGM abroad, and we should remember the efforts that he undertook in that area. My colleague Annie Wells is right to note the continuing international development and support from the UK Government in her amendment. The Prime Minister has said in relation to FGM that legislation alone is not enough. We must do more to prevent those harmful practices ever happening in the first place. We must raise awareness, challenge social norms and protect those at risk. I agree. Sometimes this will mean ensuring that political or cultural sensitivities are not used in an excuse to prevent and uncover abuse. While that might be challenging, we must make it clear that there can be no soft touch approach and the laws of this country apply to everyone living here in every section of our society. I agree with the Scottish Government's motion on this that communities and individuals affected must be at the heart of work done on FGM and on a based violence. Increasingly, the concern is that FGM is being undertaken on young women outside of the UK. In many cases, girls and young women are taken to countries under the pretense that they may be going on holiday or to visit family members in other countries. Ahead of today's debate, I watched again the excellent documentary The Cut, which was made in 2009 by campaigner, filmmaker and writer Linda Mae Callestine. She helped to spread worldwide awareness of the issue around FGM. It is worth reflecting, as has already been said, the actual scale of the issue internationally when you consider that FGM affects around 200 million women across our world. Traditions are very strong in many cultures. Sadly, the cultural myths behind this 5,000-year-old African tradition have not been addressed by religious community and official leaders in many countries around the world, and we all have the responsibility to try to address that. Today's debate has demonstrated the need to focus work and resources towards at-risk individuals and communities to help to educate community leaders on the long-lasting damage, as well as on-going emotional distress that FGM can cause. I commend the work of local organisations in my region, such as Shackty Women's Aid and Scottish Women's Aid, which have really important work to do and have a really important role to play in that area. Shackty Women's Aid is an important source of information and advice for women from ethnic minority communities across Lothian and offers a safe refuge for those at risk. I encourage any constituent who fears that they may be at risk of facing FGM or know someone, including young girls, to contact Scottish Women's Aid to seek support in total confidence. It is important that all elected representatives raise awareness of the support services that exist and help to get that message out to the ethnic minority communities that represent across our regions and constituencies. This is an important debate, and the Scottish Conservatives will happily work with the Scottish Government and parties across the chamber to help to achieve the societal, cultural and attitudinal changes that we need in order for FGM and honour-based violence to be eliminated in Scotland. In doing so, we urge ministers to work closely with the UK Government and community organisations at all levels to ensure that the legal and criminal justice systems are appropriately supported to punish and deter the perpetrators of those apparent practices. I want to close by repeating the words of Linda May Calisthen. The topic is not pretty. We are talking about long-term suffering and death. Despite the disgust that we feel at the very thought of it, we should not look away. Young girls who are unable to defend themselves are the victims. They suffer in silence. We can help them by giving them a voice and making this voice heard across the world. Support the victims even more by demanding that female genital mutilation must stop. Unlike many problems that are facing our world, there is a lack of resources in much of the world and much needs to be done, but here the answer lays very simply in a solution of not doing something anymore. FGM simply needs to stop. I give my support to those words and to the amendment in my colleague Annie Wells's name. Before I move to the last speaker, Ms Lennon, I think that you know that you have got extra time up to eight minutes. You said to Oliver Mundell that you have got up to nine minutes to close, so you get a little bit of extra time. I will call Kenneth Gibson, who is the last speaker in the open debate before we move to closing speeches. Do you know where that takes you if you are not in and you have been in the debate? A cup of tea in your hand. I, too, welcome this debate, giving valuable time in the chamber to an issue that so many of us have long been deeply concerned about. It is 16 years since I submitted a motion on so-called honour-based violence and support of United Nations resolution 5556, and more than 15 years since I first lodged a motion condemning female genital mutilation, and, as well as shocking and distressing all those years later, that is still an issue that is faced by countless women and young girls across the globe. In my 2001 motion, I said that FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women as it represents an attempt to control women's sexuality and subordinate their status in society. That point stands as strongly as ever today, and it is something that we must bear in mind as we move forward to eradicate FGM. In a further motion, I set to Parliament in 2012 regarding international day for the elimination of violence against women, I said that society is left all the more impoverished when it allows violence in any form tender, any girl or woman from realising her full potential. Some five years later, this is a message that I am sure resonates deeply with all of us here in the chamber, and FGM, without a doubt, is a form of violence that usually threatens so many women's lives. It is thought that, as we have heard from many contributors, that some 200 million women worldwide have been impacted by FGM at some point in their lives. In every single year yet another three million girls become at risk of this appalling procedure. Those numbers are so staggering that they are hard to comprehend. The sheer cruelty of FGM can, combined with those figures, make this an issue that is extremely difficult to come to terms with, but it is vital that we do not shy away from this important issue. It is only by facing it that we can take action and move towards a safer and fairer place for women and girls all over the world. Perhaps one of the most shocking aspects of the issue is that it could occur here in the United Kingdom, with suggestions that the most common internal girl took through this horrifying process is between seven and nine years old. Girls forced through this dangerous and traumatising process, wherever it occurs, are then left to deal with lifelong consequences. Of course, there are many immediate dangers with mutilation such as hemorrhage and infection, particularly when the process is done in unsafe and unsterile conditions, often without even anesthesia for the young girls going through this. However, in the long term, there are many health risks and problems that these girls will go on to face for the rest of their lives in terms of their mental health. I am particularly concerned about the lack of research and information that is available about the psychological and psychosexual impact that FGM can have. It seems obvious that there are many long-term psychological consequences due to this childhood trauma. As FGM is most likely inflicted by close family members of these young girls, issues of trust and confidence in their family is likely to be something that they will have to deal with for the rest of their lives, how can you trust anyone, no matter how close, who is inflicted such appalling violence upon you? Mental health issues, including psychosis, anxiety and depression, have been widespreadly reported. There is much to be done to provide for women who have been through the trauma of FGM. We need to understand as best we can in order to offer young girls the support that they so very much need, and indeed women, as they grow older. I do not think that this is something that shall ever go away for those who have suffered it. It cannot go away, and I am not talking physically, I am talking psychologically. There is some long way to go over the last 15 years. Key steps have been taken with here in Scotland and further afield across the world to improve the lives of women who have suffered this torture and to prevent it from happening to others. Here in Scotland, FGM has been unlawful since 1985, and further legislation over the years has continued to improve our society's approach to this matter. That was particularly strengthened in the Serious Crime Act 2015, and the Scottish Government has worked to improve the lives of potential victims since my first motion, way back in 2001. I am proud to be of a country that is taking progress around important steps towards eradicating gender-based violence. In June of last year, the Scottish Government announced £20.3 million of funding to tackle discrimination across Scotland. That was divided between 224 projects across a variety of groups and ordered help families, communities and individuals to address discrimination and inequality. Specifically in my constituency, that included North Ayrshire's Women's Aid, based in Solcoats, which carries out invaluable work to help protect and support women who are vulnerable, and it may include women who have suffered the atrocities of FGM. For many women who have suffered from this horrific torture, there may be feelings of shame or fear to speak out about the terror that they have been through. Often those women face intense pressure from within their cultural group, but there are many factors that can hold women back from speaking out and looking for the support that they so desperately need. They often fear that the stigma could be attached to them if such an issue was raised and so suffer in silence for much, or even perhaps their entire lives. It is therefore imperative that for the international day of zero tolerance for female gender mutilation, we take this opportunity to make clear to all those of every age and background that have been through such horrific torture that they can find a safe place here in Scotland. We are a country of inclusivity and acceptance. It is vital that we continue to do everything possible both here in the chamber and as a nation to work towards an even safer place for women to come forward and live their lives in peace and safety. Thank you very much, Mr Gibson. Before I move to closing speeches, I note that Gordon Lindhurst is not present for summing up and closing speeches. I am tired of saying this. I say that the Presiding Officers are taking a note of offenders and we have ways of dealing with them. You might just find out that you are not going to get to speak in a debate. We have that within our power. So somebody will convey that to Mr Lindhurst. Perhaps somebody should have warned him in advance that this will happen because we are absolutely furious that this is continuing to happen. It is a disrespect to colleagues, a disrespect to Parliament and certainly a disrespect to the chair and it is not going to continue. After that, and I am smiling at you, Ms Lindhurst, would you like to close for Labour, please? Up to eight minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I want to begin by joining with colleagues from right across the chamber in welcoming the opportunity to recognise the international day of zero tolerance for female genital mutilation and to reiterate Scottish Labour's full support for the Scottish Government's motion and indeed the national action plan. To put on record my recognition of the cabinet secretary's strong leadership in this area, and it is important that we have women in our Parliament but it is equally important that we have feminists in our Parliament and I think from right across the chamber, male and female, we have certainly seen that in action today. Female genital mutilation is unquestionably a complete violation of the rights of women and girls across the world. As the cabinet secretary said in her opening remarks, it has no place in society and, as Ruth Maguire touched on, it is the most extreme act on a spectrum of gender-based violence. Ruth Maguire also said that it is easy to condemn FGM but it is less easy to eradicate. I think that we all take the point that we all have a responsibility to call out whether we see it as low-level sexism misogyny and I think that we are all horrified about the way that Tismina Akhmed-Shake was treated in the House of Commons when she was barked at and that humiliation towards women when they are in places of power and have a position and have a voice, we have to call that out and I'm glad that people across the political spectrum did so. We've heard today that female genital mutilation has no health benefits to women and girls and the briefing that we've had from the BMA is very important and it says that there should be no acceptance of medicalisation of it. There isn't any mild form of FGM, it is barbaric and it is mutilation. I think that Claire Hawkey touched on some of the real physical trauma and also the psychological trauma that is involved. We're talking about little girls in Scotland, the age group most at risk are children aged between seven and nine when the summer holidays can be the point where their childhood is robbed forever. Annie Wells also touched on that psychological aspect in her opening remarks. There is absolutely no place for this in our society but the difficult part about this is that we don't really know the extent of it because it is such a hidden secret practice. One of the things that struck me from today is the fact that we know that the girls are not just victims at the point that this barbaric practice has carried out, it's the cycle that continues and indeed we've touched on that today about survivors then becoming the perpetrators themselves. A book that I was reading over the Christmas recess, The War on Women, by the late Sue Lloyd Roberts. The first chapter is The Cruelest Cuts and it's absolutely relevant to what we are discussing today. It's so disturbing but I just wanted to touch on one of the experiences. It's a mother in the Gambia and she's been involved in holding down her daughter when FGM is being carried out on her. The mum is about to become the cutter in the village due to another family member moving on from that role and she talks about can you imagine holding down your five-year-old daughter and they are cutting her and she is screaming and calling out mum and mum is the one holding down your legs and there is nothing mum can do. I was shaking my head and tears were coming to my eyes and I said to my mind that whatever happens I will never do this, I will never do the cutting but I keep it to myself. This is when I regretted having a doctor. I mean it is just so tragic and others have talked about honoured base violence, honoured base killings. I think putting these words together today has been difficult for people to get that out because if ever there was an oxymoron I think that is it. It's very overwhelming because we've talked about how complex this is and how difficult it is and we can't just solve it by legislation alone. It needs cultural change so I think that's why the national action plan is so important. International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM is an opportunity for Scotland to highlight the actions that we can take to make sure that we all do what we can to ensure that children in this country are protected from a practice that expert tell us will cause them to suffer serious and long-term physical and mental health problems. I'm very grateful to the support across the chamber for the amendment in Mary Fee's name because I think that we do recognise that it's not a problem that women can solve alone. We need men in communities and we need leaders in communities to take that responsibility. I'm very proud today that across the chamber we are united and we recognise that we do have to work together. As I said at the very beginning we do welcome the work by the Scottish Government on this issue and the action plan. We also commend Annie Mills for her amendment because we do recognise that the contribution that the UK Government has made in trying to combat this problem internationally is an issue that absolutely requires cross-party and indeed international cooperation. There have been so many fantastic contributions from colleagues today. I don't want to miss anyone out. John Finnie was very powerful when he said that this is about power, power that lies with men and again touching on the importance of community leaders. I think that it is important that we have had so many men speaking in the debate today. Kenneth Gibson has enlightened me because I wasn't aware of Kenneth Gibson's previous motions and it is quite scary to think that those motions date back to 16 years ago, but that tells us that this is something that our Scottish Parliament has been advocating for for a very long time. However, it is important that we do not give up and that we keep going on those issues. I realise that I have been given a bit extra time, but in terms of closing up we realise that it is very important to bring people to justice for this. We do understand that prevention is absolutely something that we are all committed to, but it would send a very strong message if we were able to bring forward prosecutions because people deserve to be punished for the abuse that has been carried out to the most vulnerable people in our society. I would like to thank all colleagues who have made contributions today. This is not something that is going to go away and perhaps another 16 years time someone will be bringing forward a motion, but it is in days like today when this Parliament unites to say not in our name whether it is in Scotland, in the rest of the UK or anywhere in the world that this is barbaric. It is an absolute violation of human rights and the Scottish Parliament will not stand for it. Deputy Presiding Officer, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to close this debate for the Scottish Conservatives today. We can all agree that it has been an extremely moving and powerful debate with very strong contributions from right across the chamber. I am particularly grateful to Mary Fee for her contribution. I think that she and Monica Lennon are both absolutely right in emphasising the importance of avoiding some kind of situation where we could medicalise FGM. I think that that would be truly unacceptable and a retrograde step, as the British Medical Association itself has said in its briefing for today's debate. I also think that Ruth Maguire was right to re-emphasise the importance of community-based solutions, and that is something that I will talk further on in my own contribution. I was also pleased with Gordon Lindhurst's attempt to draw us again to the harsh reality that lots of those issues are not new, but I was left taking some hope out of his remarks, because, when we look back at our history, we have made significant strides forward when it comes to the rights of women here in Scotland. While that job is far from complete, I think that it is important to recognise that, with a combined effort, real progress can be made. That takes me neatly on to Tom Arthur's contribution. I think that we are getting used to his powerful trademark style, but he is right to bring together some of the other issues around gender inequality and recognising that female genital mutilation cannot be tackled in isolation and that, across our society, we make sure that, in every aspect of their life, women's rights are fully fulfilled and that it does empower people to take forward and challenge the abuse that they have been subjected to. I also welcome Kenneth Gibson's long-standing commitment to the issue, which, like others, I have become aware of during today's debate. I was also very interested to hear the focus that he placed on some of the mental health and psychological aspects of the crime, because, again, I think that it can be very easy from looking at it on a sort of brief basis to somehow think that this is purely about physical harm, and it is very clear that that is not the case. I thought that Miles Briggs, my colleague, was also right to highlight the importance of having the correct support services in place, particularly when it comes to challenging the lifelong harm that FGM causes. In her remarks, Monica Lennon was also right to emphasise the importance of securing prosecution. Across the whole of the United Kingdom, if we could see just one person brought to justice for this crime, then we would see an awful lot more people come forward. I think that that would have tremendous symbolic importance. I think that all those contributions and the motion itself and the amendments before us today do go a long way to send out a strong and unified message that female genital mutilation is abhorrent, unacceptable and has no place in our society ahead of the international day of zero tolerance on 6 February. That said, I have got to be honest enough to admit that, as a 27-year-old male preparing for this debate and researching some of the issues around the topic, I have not found it easy either to fully come to terms with the horror of those practices instilling victims and survivors, but also in understanding the cultural practices surrounding female genital mutilation. That is the real challenge that we cannot afford to lose sight of. Just because something is alien to us, because it is not a problem that we have encountered first-hand, does not mean that it is forgivable to stand by and watch while those practices continue. Not only in countries abroad but here in Scotland, in shadowy places behind closed doors, victims are left isolated and do not feel that they can come forward. I think that we have got to be willing to stand up, as many colleagues have pointed out, to the cultural challenges and not be afraid to stand up and call out breaches of human rights no matter how sensitive we can sometimes feel to the beliefs of others that are just wrong. However, I agree with John Finnie and some other members that law alone is not enough. That is why we on those benches welcome the efforts and support that the Scottish Government has been putting together of drawing together the national action plan and focusing on a multifaceted and interagency response that brings together all aspects of public life. Not only that, I think that the motion recognises that in order to truly prevent and eradicate female genital mutilation, we do need to look to communities and individuals who are directly affected in order to break down the barriers, change attitudes over the longer term and ensure that people are willing to talk about what is a very difficult, intimate and deeply disturbing and upsetting subject. However, in doing that, we cannot leave it to those communities alone. I do welcome, as many members have done very graciously across the chamber, the efforts of the UK Government internationally on all our behalf to try and tackle some of those cultural issues at their root rather than waiting until events have taken place. I think that we all need to reflect on that and look to see what more we can do to promote education and change people's minds. However, in closing, I feel that we have heard many statistics, many examples of where this practice is on-going and some of the legal challenges that we face. However, I do not feel that I would be doing this subject justice if I did not outline some of the testimony of those who have been personally affected. In preparation for today, I was truly moved by the words of a Somali girl who actually wanted to be cut. She said that, and I quote, I had absolutely no idea that this was wrong. I thought that it was completely normal. It was a rite of passage, like something wonderful was about to happen to you. From a young age, you were told that girls who weren't cut were promiscuous. If you weren't cut, you were isolated.  It was a big deal, something that I really wanted to happen to me. That in itself tells you how difficult an area this is and just what a challenge we have ahead of us if we are going to see female genital mutilation eradicated. We have a plan of action now. The challenge is going to be delivering on it. I think that there is the willingness across the chamber to take the issue on, but it cannot just be a debate that we have here and then forget about or place to one side. We really need to keep a continual focus on the national action plan and make sure that it delivers and that it meets the changing challenges. We, on this side of the chamber, fully support the Scottish Government in its efforts on the subject and recognise and need to do more, both here in Scotland and globally. Thank you, Ms Wendell. I now call Angela Constance to close with the Government Cabinet Secretary for 59, please, for their bouts. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this debate this afternoon. As Alec Cole-Hamilton says, this has been a consensual and respectful debate and there has been a recognition across the political divide that, on this matter, there is a real collective endeavour required. I also thank Monica Lennon for her solidarity with her colleague in front, Hasmina Ahmed Alshake. That is much appreciated. It is always encouraging to hear the commitment that exists across the chamber to tackle female gentle mutilation and so-called honour-based violence and supporting survivors of those practices, both at home and abroad. John Swinney rightly said that it is important that we debate international issues in this place. I enjoyed listening to Oliver Wendell's summation. He gave a reflectionary, honest account of his own reflections and how we all, at a personal level, need to contemplate change. It is the change that we make as individuals that leads to bigger political organisational change. He is absolutely right. It is now about how we turn debate into delivery and how we turn words into deeds. My own personal reflection over and above the fact—I am quite shocked that I am 19 years older than Mr Wendell—is that I get the strong feeling of having listened to Mr Wendell on a number of occasions now in this chamber that there is a feminist in him that is just bursting to get out. Annie Wells started today's debate again with some very personal reflections and spoke very eloquently about the impact of FGM on the health, mentally and physically on women and the lifelong scars, the lifelong consequences of such barbaric action. She spoke about the difficulties and the challenges associated with the form of violence in terms of it being behind closed doors. I want to reassure Annie Wells, Gordon Lindhurst and Miles Briggs, who raised concerns about how there cannot be a soft touch approach in Scotland. Where we are right now, we are looking very closely at the English and Welsh legislation, the Serious Crime Act. There were six provisions in that act. One of those provisions has already been implemented, subject to the LCM that I mentioned in my opening remarks. Most of the provisions in principle could come to an agreement and see how they could have an impact in Scotland. I want to be direct and honest with you. There is one or two provisions in the Serious Crime Act that we need to look at very closely and in a very detailed manner, and one of those is around the mandatory report and requirement on doctors and on nurses. We are looking, listening and learning from the experience in England and Wales, because there has been some controversy and difficulties in and around data and a bit of a pushback in terms of mandatory report in south of the border. As I said, we are given all provisions full and serious considerations, but I felt that, in terms of transparency, it was important to highlight to Parliament that there are one or two provisions that we are currently struggling with, but that does not mean that it will not be given full examination and that Parliament will be given its place. Mary Fee rightly said how we need to shine a light on this violence and cruelty, and be absolutely clear about it and call it out for what it is, that this is the abuse and mutilation of children, and it is quite simply wrong. Unlike others, she spoke of the importance of education, not just in terms of women and girls, but also in terms of boys and men, and echoed the comments made by Alex Cole-Hamilton and John Finnie about how it is really important that so many men participated in this debate today. Ruth Maguire, as always, was insightful and thoughtful, spoke about the objectification of women at home and abroad and how that wider inequality underpins everyday sexism that creates a culture that is conducive to violence. Gordon Lindhurst, since he has been mentioned so much in dispatches, as often did he give a very... Not always happily, I think. Well, he gave a very unique historical perspective, and at one point I did wonder where he was going with his contribution, but he did of course make some very important points in and around modern day slavery and the challenge and the issues with human trafficking. If I can say to him, and indeed Miles Briggs, that we invest over £700,000 in specialist agencies in the third sector, for example, Shachty Women's Aid, who can give that very specialist and trusted support. Claire Hockey spoke about the cycle of abuse and also about the barriers to reporting and the barriers to seeking assistance and how we need to overcome that. John Finnie and Monica Lennon made a very important point that ran throughout the debate in terms of our discomfort with the phrase honour-based violence. I know that yesterday the Conservative MP, Nurse Ratgani, brought forward a private member's bill calling for a new domestic violence bill to stop using the term honour killing. I quote when she said yesterday that language matters and the use of term honour to describe a violent criminal act sometimes committed against a man, but more often against a woman can be explained only as a means of self-justification for the perpetrator. It diminishes the victim and provides a convenient excuse for what in our society should accurately and simply be called out for the murder, rape, abuse and enslavement that it is. That summarises how we all collectively felt today in the chamber. Femio genital mutilation, along with other forms of so-called honour-based violence, demonstrates that, even in the 21st century, women are deprived of their most basic human rights just because of their gender. Our approach to tackling this imbalance of power is grounded in our gendered analysis of violence against women and girls. It is an approach that recognises the complexity and the sensitivity that is required to make a real difference to the lives of women and girls. Our approach does not just focus on one area, it recognises the need to work in partnership to protect those at risk and to hold those who perpetrate this abuse to account. We recognise very much that communities have to be part of the solution, and that was a point that was made time and time again during the debate. Our approach places communities firmly at the heart of what we are doing. Without engaging communities—whether it is men, women and girls—on so-called honour-based violence, and empowering those affected to make their own choices while staying safe, we will not get anywhere. It is only by learning from experts and ensuring that what we do is informed by the best level of community engagement that we can hope to achieve our objective of seeing a Scotland where FGM, forced marriage and all forums of honour-based violence have been consigned to history. We do not underestimate how difficult it is for someone from a practice in community to come forward. If it was easy, more people would indeed be coming forward, and there may already have been prosecutions. However, as we know, looking at this complex issue through a narrow lens can obscure the bigger picture that is preventing this from happening. That makes our work to raise awareness among communities to bring about attitudinal change to encourage reporting of FGM by women, girls and men all the more important. Although there have been no prosecutions in Scotland, let me be absolutely clear that anyone aware of FGM taking place has a legal and a moral duty to report it. There is absolutely never any excuse for violence against women and girls, no matter how it is described. Those at risk will be protected, and those who choose to perpetuate those practices will rightly face the consequences for their actions. Standing up to FGM and all other forums of violence against women is much more than about numbers. It is actually about the rights—the human rights—of women and girls at home and abroad. We know that we need to work together with each other, but more importantly we need to work with communities and front-line services. It is important that whatever we do has to be the right approach for Scotland. It is my hope that the work that we are taking forward with our partners will help not only to prevent honour-based violence, but to inform a response to the damaging consequences where it has occurred. Importantly, it should also help affected communities to resist it and to understand that there is no good reason for women and girls to experience the harm that it brings. I want to take this opportunity to thank once again all our partners in all sectors who have worked so well in partnership with the Government. It is their commitment and expertise that is absolutely crucial. By acting together, we can make our contribution to the global aim to end FGM, along with other forms of so-called honour-based violence, and all forms of violence against women and girls is a reality. I have absolutely no doubt, Presiding Officer, that in this Parliament we have a desire to see FGM and violence against women and girls and all its forms are consigned to history. I want to thank everybody who has participated in the debate this afternoon. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes this afternoon's debate. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 3780, in the name of Jovis Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak what is now. I call on Jovis Patrick to move motion 3780. No member has asked to speak against the motion. I will put the question to the chamber. The question is that we agree motion 3780 in the name of Jovis Patrick. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 3778 in the name of Jovis Patrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable at stage 1 for the Air Departure Tax Scotland Bill. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak what is now. I call on Jovis Patrick to move motion 3778. I will put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 3778 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motions, and I would ask Jovis Patrick to move motion 3779 on the variation of standing orders. We will put a decision time to which we now come. The first question of the four is that amendment 3761.1 in the name of Annie Wells, who seeks to amend motion 3761 in the name of Angela Constance, on the prevention and eradication of female genital mutilation and all other forms of so-called honour-based violence be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 3761.2 in the name of Mary Fee, who seeks to amend the motion in the name of Angela Constance, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 3761 in the name of Angela Constance, as amended, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 3779 in the name of Jovis Patrick on the variation of standing orders be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes the decision time. We now come to members' business in the name of Sandra White. We will take a few moments to change seats.


Horseman Elementary in Bemidji got off to a somewhat rough start to begin the school year today after a main water line ruptured. At about 10.30 this morning, school officials noticed a problem as they turned off the main source of water. Portable potties and waters were delivered to the school, crews were out trying to locate the damage to assess the repairs. It's not known how this will affect the remainder of the school week at this point. So we'll be sure to employ that Sky Alert system as well. We're hoping that we know something by about five, six o'clock tonight, hopefully no later than nine o'clock tonight so that we can let parents know kind of tonight what our plan is for tomorrow. And parents were notified through the Sky Alert system lunch was not interrupted for the students. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.