Forced marriage is an abuse of fundamental rights and a form of domestic violence which cannot be justified on religious or cultural grounds. So said Baroness Scotland of Asthal, the Home Office minister, when she began examining ways to strengthen the law against a practice that condemns many young British women to lives of abuse, misery and virtual slavery. Her eventual answer — that extra training for professionals will suffice — has come as a devastating disappointment to many in the communities affected. This is hardly the “clear message that intimidating young people into matrimony is unacceptable” that Lady Scotland had aimed to send.

The Government has explained its reluctance to introduce a specific law against forced marriage as follows: it would drive the practice underground and may lead to more teenage girls being spirited abroad; existing laws against child abduction, kidnap and false imprisonment are sufficient; and the fear that victims will become isolated and afraid to report their parents. Such arguments are dangerously misplaced.

First, forced marriages, as opposed to arranged marriages consented to by bride and groom, already occur by their nature underground. Their victims are cut off, held under virtual house arrest; only the incredibly brave can make their cries for help heard. Secondly, existing laws may cover some cases. But it is all too easy to conceive of examples where coercion, threats and intimidation fall short of criminal offences but convince an unwilling bride that she has no choice. Thirdly, victims are already scared out of their wits. Is reporting their family for a specific offence of forced marriage really going to be harder than reporting them for assault or false imprisonment?

Part of the unspoken reluctance of ministers involves cultural sensitivity. This, of course, has to be carefully weighed. But the balance should be against inaction. Forced marriage is not sanctioned by Islam, Hinduism or Sikhism. Tolerance of difference is a virtue, yet it becomes culpable indifference when it appears blind to suffering, at which point it also gives ammunition to the intolerant. It slights no one, or the concept of multiculturalism, to state that all people in Britain enjoy certain rights that span all communities.

The point of a law against forced marriage is that it would enshrine a woman’s right to say “no”, sending a powerful message that Britain regards all young women, regardless of their origin, as individuals and not possessions. It would make parents think twice before taking their daughter on a “holiday” to the subcontinent.

The grotesque practice of “honour killings” against a female family member who refuses a chosen husband is already covered by existing murder law. The path to an honour killing, though, begins with the idea that forced marriage is somehow acceptable. By studying the issue yet recommending little action, the Government risks giving the same impression. It should think again or risk appearing morally blind.