International Women’s Day
Baroness Uddin Excerpts(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Baronesses for their work in this House and in their communities. I warm-heartedly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to this Chamber and look forward to hearing from her. I also want to acknowledge my mother’s strength and tenacity. Today, my sister, my daughter, my granddaughter and I stand tall because of her journey, courage and sacrifice.
In my contribution today, I wish to highlight the importance of protesting and marches. I have just returned from Bangladesh. I wish to pay homage to the women and men who rose to the call of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on 7 March 1971 for a free, independent nation. My mother led, walking in the streets of Bangladesh to demand freedom and justice from the then occupying Pakistani army. Bangladesh today is a thriving nation and fast-emerging economy. The UK Government are much loved and respected for their earliest recognition of its independence and their ongoing support.
The number of women who were raped and tortured at that time is estimated at over 300,000. The USA kept silent on that genocide and stood with the occupiers and barbaric genocidal army. To this day, that army has not been brought to justice or made accountable. It pains me to say that the US has continued its blinkered support to some nations. I find it heartbreaking that it has continued to show callous disregard for human rights and justice in nations where it provides weapons of war.
As a daughter born of that nation, and as a Londoner for more than 50 years, I have marched many times since, demanding an end to the war in Iraq, better NHS services and so on.
As noble Lords have noted, some progress has been made for women throughout the centuries. I draw the attention of the House to the first UK women’s liberation March, commencing on 6 March 1971, when over 4,000 women participated on the streets, demanding equal and universal rights for women. Today, this has evolved to become a 1 million-strong women’s rights movement, demanding the right to live in freedom from the fear of violence, rape, torture, sexual and physical abuse, and, of course, the universal right to participate in public life.
This coming Saturday, this global movement of 1 million women will rise and coalesce alongside hundreds of thousands of men and women of every background, creed, colour and faith, or none. They will stand in solidarity with all the oppressed, occupied and violated women of our world, and in opposition to the killing of women and children in their thousands. They will call for an immediate halt to the killing fields of Palestine, where 30,000 women, children and their families have been murdered, tens of thousands buried under tons of rubble, with bombs more horrific than Hiroshima, while 70,000 more have been injured, maimed or burned with phosphorus, or are starving—women and children—without water, basic food or medicine.
We must hold the perpetrators to account. Until that time, together with many hundreds of thousands, I shall march in peace and solidarity, giving voice to those who cannot. In honour of the Palestinian mothers, daughters and granddaughters who have been slaughtered, I will walk in the tradition of my country—this country—and shout out to demand that our Government must stop their support for the Israeli occupying force and its brutal warfare on the Palestinian people. The PM should rest assured that such marches will not stop until that slaughter stops.
We debate economic equality and justice while women in Palestine, Sudan, Congo, Nigeria, Eritrea, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan cannot truly comprehend freedom, justice or economic liberation. We have been the architects of so many global conflicts. We at home, in Europe and in the USA, cannot contemplate peace, pay gaps and boardroom equity while women continue to be murdered and raped, regarded as collateral and the dispensable property of wars.
Given what we are witnessing on our screens, millions of citizens no longer accept or believe that our arrogant Governments’ war objectives are to free and liberate nations and their women from the shackles of inhumanity, injustice and dictatorship. We have fallen so short of our own moral compass, becoming oblivious to one dictator who is currently slaughtering a whole people while citing freedom and peace.
We appear to have learned nothing from the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and, sadly, have become even more emboldened towards war. Once again, we are whispering peace despite the mass civilian killing fields of Rafah, the West Bank and Khan Younis. The IDF is roaming free, at will bombing to smithereens hospitals and schools, and thousands of women and children, doctors, nurses and journalists. Women have lost everything that they know as home. Women are holding babies torn to shreds.
What can citizens do but march? I pray that these marches will yield peace and justice. The cause of Palestine has been awakened in the hearts of all citizens throughout the nations, among thousands of ordinary men and women who understand the differences between self-defence and genocidal murder, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. We demand justice and peace.
I hope that these marchers will continue to oppose the actions of our Government, who are so complicit with Israel’s breaking of international laws and breaching the international norms of war. The PM standing and declaring war on protestors may provide temporary cover over his conscience. Allying them with extremist behaviour will do nothing to dissuade me, my neighbours, my children or my grandchildren from marching in the tradition of the Suffragettes, and for all those who march today for freedom and justice, as they have done for hundreds of years. Yes, to call for freedom and justice across all the rivers and the seas, and all the continents, until all women in all nations are free and triumph over occupation, oppression, wars and genocide.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House that while this is a wonderful debate, we have a six-minute advisory speaking time for a reason: so that we can hear the Minister properly later and finish at an appropriate time.
Cross-Government Cost Cutting
Baroness Uddin Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn (Con)
I take my noble friend’s point. The scope of government and what it is attempting to deliver has changed somewhat over that time, but whether the growth in Ministers has matched that scale of delivery is another question.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I cannot help but wonder what the damaging impact of the lost billions spent on poorly chosen PPE orders is, but will the noble Baroness’s department ensure that services for women fleeing domestic violence are ring-fenced and protected, as we have promised to do in this very Chamber many times?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the Home Office takes that into account. This Government have a strong record on protecting women who have had to flee violence; we brought forward the Domestic Abuse Act, among other things. Even when looking back to previous years, from 2010 onwards those budgets were protected.
Banking System
Baroness Uddin Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, I have spent much of the past five years in this Chamber legislating to improve the governance of the banks. We have passed several major pieces of legislation to make long overdue improvements in the ways in which the financial services sector is managed. For example, we have introduced too-big-to-fail processes of various sorts, the ring fence and the bail-in, as well as new standards for senior managers in banks. All of these things will improve the way in which banks are managed and a number of them were actively opposed, when they were in government, by the previous Administration.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on another aspect of banking and confidence, is the Minister aware that a number of well respected charities, particularly those working in developing countries, have had their bank accounts closed without any explanation or notice? Is he aware of that and, if so, has he had any representations from these groups? If not, will he accept a delegation of some of the groups affected disproportionately by this measure?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I have not had any representations, and of course I would be very happy to meet a delegation.
Economy: Women’s Incomes
Baroness Uddin Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
My Lords, as I said, one of the big elements in that overall figure is child benefit, which goes to women. It is paid to women in 98% of cases, but child benefit affects the whole family. Therefore, to include child benefit as a benefit for women, as it were, is completely misleading; it is a benefit for the whole household.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that members of the minority community who are also British citizens are tending to do worse in the pay structure? Is he also aware that about 75% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women are not a factor at all in the economic circumstances of Britain? How does that square with the so well supported and so beloved economic strategy of this Government?
Lord Newby
My Lords, we would like to see—as no doubt the noble Baroness would—a higher proportion of women from those communities being economically active. We are seeing that a much higher proportion of young women in those communities are economically active than their parents were. However, one of the positive things about the rise in the number of women in employment, which I mentioned earlier, is that there is now a higher proportion of women in the labour market than ever before. That is very much to the benefit of women overall.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Uddin Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, coming back to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, said earlier on forced marriage, I, too, am glad that the Government are taking this seriously and are trying to do something about this awful practice involving many victims whose lives are made miserable. At the same time I, too, wonder whether the measures that the Government are trying to take will be helpful or counterproductive, as I said at an earlier stage. As has been suggested by other noble Lords, I fear that by making forced marriage a criminal act, a lot of young people will not come forward to report it, so it could be pushed more under the carpet, rather than being dealt with.
Will the Minister shed some light on the background from which forced marriage comes? I share the view that it is not an issue from one particular community or faith. However, many noble Lords will know that most cases registered with the Forced Marriage Unit of the Home Office come from the Pakistani Muslim community. I speak from that community, as I belong to it and know what is happening. Does the Minister understand that one of the major factors in forced marriages is the clan system? The tribe system strongly exists within the Pakistani community in the UK, although we have been settled here for 40 or 50 years. In the tribes, sects, brathries, clans or castes—whatever name we use—people are divided into those groups and many of them do not want their sons or daughters to marry out of their clans, brathries or castes. This is where many forced marriages are taking place.
Does the Minister recognise that and what will the Government do about educating people to come out of the brathries system? I get invited to many community meetings and have spoken many times about this. I have written in the Urdu language, which I am able to do, in newspapers against this practice. For example, 15 years ago in my home town of Luton, there was a big community meeting where we discussed community issues. There were a couple of hundred people there, and I spoke on this issue. By the time I had finished, every leader of every clan or caste gave me a dirty look, as if to say, “How dare you?”. That is how strongly the caste system is built into some of these cultures. We need to educate them not only through the normal education channels but through the ethnic media, which has hardly been mentioned but which can play a positive role in educating people.
Then there is the film industry. I was watching a film on one of the satellite channels; many Pakistani-origin people watch dramas and films on these channels. In this film, a female was to be married to someone out of her caste. Another female tells her, “My dear, you will have to give up this idea”, and points to the cemetery outside their house, saying, “It is full of virgins”. They are the virgins who were not allowed to get married outside the caste. This is how strongly this is practised outside the UK and these films, when they are shown, have an impact on people’s lives and behaviour. We need to understand that as well, and maybe we need to educate our own people in how to look into it.
On the particular issue of the media, DfID is giving millions of pounds to media outlets operating in the UK and in Pakistan. I hope that some of that money will be used for programmes to educate on forced marriages by the media that are supported financially by DfID. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how he thinks he can prevent the criminalisation of forced marriage discouraging reporting. I strongly feel that that may happen and we need to look at it very carefully. I hope that he can satisfy us.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I stand somewhat hesitantly and ask for the House’s leniency, as I did not take part at Second Reading. I hope that the House will indulge me for a few minutes, as someone who chaired the initial work on forced marriage in 1998, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, instructed by the then Home Secretary. I was inspired by the comprehensive understanding of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland. I have no words of expertise to be able to relay the issues she laid before the House. I was also deeply inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Hussain. All those years ago, in 1998, such a speech would have been unthinkable from a Member of the House of Lords coming from the Pakistani community. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, also comes from the Pakistani community and, although he took a little pulling in on my sisterly part to bring him along to the discussions, when he did, he did so with vigour. We are standing on the shoulders of giants regarding much of the work that was done across the country.
We went across the country for 18 months, talking to various sections of the community: we left very few stones unturned, whether it was the Jewish community, the Irish community, the Scottish borders or the Welsh community. We did not leave any of the women’s organisations out of the debate. Out of it came the Forced Marriage Unit, which is very laudable, and the work it has subsequently done. I support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, because it is critical. All those years ago, women really wanted some protection and their consensus, which was right across the board, led to forced marriage protection orders. However, our report made it very clear that we proposed that this should have been done under the protection of domestic violence legislation and child protection legislation. Whether it is kidnapping or murder, we wanted to mainstream the issue of forced marriage into the criminal legislation. That did not happen at that point.
The women’s organisations listed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, have played a critical part in leading to the changes that have occurred and we have to acknowledge how much change there has been, led by community organisations, faith organisations and the women’s organisations themselves. If they are now saying that criminalisation will impact on the numbers of women and young people reporting, I suggest to the Committee that we take that very seriously. I have attended a number of meetings with these organisations, both here in the House and outside, and they have consistently asked that the Government recognise their work and expertise. They are saying that criminalisation will make it very difficult for them to work because, whatever we say about the amount of resources available outside, we have done very little since 1998 to empower those marginalised women economically and to address their welfare needs and their education. Women, in particular, will not be confident to come forward, whether it is to report violence against them or to report rape or forced marriage, unless we address the issue of their economic well being. I suggest that this added burden of criminalisation will be a very deep-seated aggravation, compounding the levels of pressure women face within the community. I hope that we will listen to some of the women’s organisations. I think that the amendment moved by the noble and learned Baroness is the right way to go about it and I hope that the Government will concede.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which looked at this issue, as with other issues in the Bill, and realised that there was a great deal of knowledge and experience in your Lordships’ House, some of which we have heard today. We came to the conclusion that we cautiously accepted the Government’s reasoning for the criminalisation of forced marriage, but we recommended, among other things, that the Crown Prosecution Service should develop a strategy on prosecutions over forced marriage and that, in developing such a strategy, there should be consultation with the relevant stakeholders. It was very much a cautious acceptance of the Government’s reasoning.
I appreciate that the noble and learned Baroness has put this down as a probing amendment rather than anything more and I accept it in that spirit. I counsel some caution, however, about having an offence which one commits if there is an aggravating feature in relation to another offence. It causes difficulties in sentencing in other cases in which this form of offence has been introduced. It seems to me, as I suggested in a brief intervention on the noble and learned Baroness, that it would be perfectly possible to have an offence of forced marriage and to have an offence if the context required it—a further offence, perhaps, in Section 20 or Section 18—of whatever other offence had been committed. However, I understand the spirit of the amendment and I look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Uddin
Does the noble Baroness accept that organisations such as the Newham Asian Women’s Project and Southall Black Sisters have a long and honourable history of campaigning against such violence? There is no way that they would want to associate themselves with what she is suggesting; that is, that they just want to see more education or protection because they want to save their communities from such allegations. They are very clear about this issue and that comes from their experience, which has been acquired from more than 30 years of protecting women.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
I accept what the noble Baroness says. I have worked in the past with Southall Black Sisters on domestic violence issues in the Turkish and Kurdish communities when I was setting up a women’s refuge for them. Indeed, I worked very closely with them; I know the work the women do and I pay tribute to them. However, I think that we need some sanctions in order to prevent this. I am sure that the same arguments were deployed in the debates on the proposal to criminalise FGM. Perhaps that is not a good example because there have been no convictions, but it is illegal. Whatever we may think about it—which is obviously for another debate—that sends out the message that FGM is wrong. If something is wrong, it should be against the law. I have listened carefully to the debate and I have thought long and hard about the issue. I have not come to this view over the past few days. It is something that I have considered for many years, and of course there needs to be far more education.
Let us look at the facts. No religion supports forced marriage and it is not a religious requirement. It is also a barrier to integration. These girls, when they behave in what is perceived to be too pro-western a fashion and perhaps are friendly with members of the opposite sex, are considered to have lax morals. The barriers then come up and the pressure starts. I go into schools and talk to girls whose families do not want them to move on into further education. They do not want them to go into further education because they then start to lose control. They think, “Oh, they will have boyfriends and get into relationships where they have sex before marriage”. That is when the oppression starts. It is a barrier to integration and goes against the opportunity for girls to reach their full potential. That is something I feel very strongly about. Moreover, it is a form of slavery and rape. I will be clear on this because that is what happens in many cases. It is about being held against your will in a marriage, which is slavery and rape, and I have no other form of words to describe it.
At the moment, many families feel that their young girls, particularly those under the age of 18, are their property. They belong to the family and the honour of the family rests on them, so the family feels that it has the right to impose its will. I shall quote what I think I might have said, and what one young girl who is a survivor and very much in favour of this legislation said to me: “I wish I had been able to say to my parents at the age of 14, ‘You can’t do this to me because it is illegal’”.