Agenda item

A  review of Female Genital Mutilation  (FGM ) is planned using the ‘Scrutiny in Day’ methodology.  Officers have provided the attached report to set out current, and planned, initiatives to tackle FGM.

Rory Patterson, Director, Children’s Social Care and April Bald, Head of Service MASH, presented the report on FGM.

The following questions and issues were raised:

• A member commented that media reports of the work to tackle FGM in the inner London boroughs indicated that  Newham Council is doing particularly well .Officers said that one of Newham’s strengths is their outreach work. Southwark Council have recently recognised that to be effective more community engagement is needed because although statutory agencies are following protocols, there are low numbers of young women and families being engaged.
• How many women have undergone FGM? Officers responded that work is being done to collect data to get a more accurate baseline, which is important to establish. Midwifery services report that between 4-6% of woman giving birth have had some form of FGM.
• Has there been a conviction for FGM and how is the law being used? One FGM conviction was started on a doctor, but this was not successful. Civil Protection Orders are being utilised to prevent parents carrying out FGM on girls at risk. This is effective at preventing parents carrying this out, as it sends out a strong signal that this practice is  illegal and unacceptable.
• Officers commented that the model used to tackle Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) was being replicated to tackle FGM – in particular gathering data and disruption.
• If FGM happened to an older child would younger children be taken into care? Officers reported that older children, who have undergone FGM, have reported that younger siblings are at risk and as a result children have been taken into police protection, while an investigation was carried out. Children at risk are tracked.
• Border controls are giving out warning and protection packs, particularly during risk periods, such as holidays. Officers spoke about national work to develop a data base with a tracking system which can be used by different health and social care partners to identify children at risk. They spoke about FGM and safeguarding. Officer  said that partners are looking at sharing protocols that will be assessable be on universal services  There is local work to look at steps that can be taken to develop this if national guidance is delayed.
• A member suggested engaging with and tackling the older generations in communities where FGM is practiced, particularly grandmothers and aunties, who are often influential in perpetuating the practice.  The member asked how much energy is invested in communicating with older people and engaging them in a dialogue over the reasons they may have to justify the practice, for example health. He advocated engaging with the community and giving a message that FGM is not culturally appropriate for the 21st century. Officers commented that creating a space for honest dialogue around difficult subjects can be very useful in enabling behaviour change.
• Members asked if passports could be taken away from people who could carry out the practice, given it is a criminal matter? Officers advised that Civil Protection Orders are middle ground, which balance civil liberties with the need to safeguard children. They remarked that the children at risk are frequently from families with good parents, and the children are only at risk for FGM, rather than living in abusive homes, so there needs to be a proportionate response.

RESOLVED

A scrutiny in a day methodology will be employed, on September 15^th. Members will be consulted on the best time, after the meeting.

Officers will be invited to suggest who would be well placed to give evidence and contribute to the day.

Survivors, the faith community and BME groups will be approached to attend.

Embassy representatives form countries where the practice is common will be invited.