James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

I thank the Deputies for their contributions and note that there is broad support overall for the Bill.

As indicated earlier, the main purpose of the Bill is to prohibit FGM along with providing for related offences, some of which apply to certain extra-territorial jurisdictions. Having a specific Bill prohibiting this practice will bring legal clarity and certainty to the issue and, I hope, act as a powerful deterrent for practising communities. Equally, it sends a loud message that although FGM is already illegal in this country, we take it extremely seriously and do not intend to tolerate it in any form, whether it is carried out here or on our citizens or residents outside this country.

In drafting the Bill, my officials have been able to learn from international experience in this field and call upon experts to ensure the proposals are evidence-based and in line with best practice. Indeed, as I have said on many occasions, the hallmark of our health policy is that it will be evidence-based.

Deputy Ó Caoláin stated that FGM was likely to already constitute a crime under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. However, this Bill brings indisputable clarity to the issue. I agree with the Deputies that sensitivity and appropriate language must be used in dealing with this issue. For the purpose of the legislation we decided to adopt the language used by the WHO as being the most appropriate for this purpose.

With regard to the number of women living in Ireland who have undergone FGM, the number quoted in the AkiDwA study of 3,183 is the most up-to-date available. However, enhancement of data collection and application is a key pillar of the HSE national inter-cultural health strategy, and efforts regarding the roll-out of ethnic identifiers into core data sets are ongoing in pilot projects in the Rotunda Hospital and Temple Street Children's University Hospital. They provide encouraging figures on the progress being made in collecting this information.

Some of the Deputies raised the issue of dual criminality and the fact that in the UK a person can be prosecuted for carrying out female genital mutilation on children removed from the State, whether the practice is legal or illegal in the country in question. Our difficulty in this regard is that we have a Constitution.

The issue of permanent bodily harm is a complex one that posed some challenges. While the Government was clear that FGM in all its forms must be criminalised, it was not our intention to criminalise certain forms of genital piercing and cosmetic surgery for aesthetic purposes. In our deliberations we were conscious that the rights of all women living in Ireland had to be balanced and therefore the Government decided to use the broad WHO definition of what constitutes FGM, which includes type IV FGM. This category subsumes all other practices not included in types I, II and III and usually refers to pricking, piercing, incising, scraping or cauterisation. This decision was made to ensure that all forms of FGM are covered by the Bill.

An exemption was added to protect freedom of choice with regard to cosmetic and other procedures that do not violate women's human rights. This approach was chosen following extensive consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Under this exemption, no offence is committed if an act of FGM is committed against a woman of 18 years or over where no permanent bodily harm is done. That is a key point. The term "harm" is defined in jurisprudence as an interference with the health or comfort of an individual. However, if no consent was given for this act it would still constitute assault and be covered by the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

This issue has also been considered in some detail by my officials and by the Attorney General's office. Following a further review and additional advice sought from the Attorney General, the current provision of dual criminality stands. However, Ireland is involved in a draft Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women. Under the terms of this convention, the practice of FGM is condemned and it provides there should not be a dual criminality requirement. The removal of dual criminality from FGM legislation could be re-visited if the convention is ratified.

Many countries in which FGM is commonly practised have criminalised it. However, enforcement is lacking for a variety of reasons including the force of tradition and lack of resources. As of 2009, a total of 20 African countries enacted laws criminalising FGM.

The reason why the UK's Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 does not include a dual criminality requirement is that its government is not bound by the requirements of a constitution that demands it. This Bill, however, does provide offences that relate to removing a girl or woman from the State for the purposes of doing FGM to her and this section mitigates the need for the dual criminality requirement.

The Health Service Executive is awaiting the enactment of the Bill to progress with the printing of information leaflets on FGM. Moreover, the HSE has engaged in significant steps to raise awareness and train health and social care professionals in this area by progressing the health related objectives of the national action plan against female genital mutilation over the past several years.

I thank Deputies for their contributions on Second Stage. If Members feel their issues were not addressed comprehensively, we can revisit them on Committee Stage. I thank Members for their co-operation and broad support for this important initiative for protecting the well-being of women.

See this speech in context