Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill
Philip Davies ExcerptsFriday 24th February 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017 View all Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 February 2017 - (24 Feb 2017)
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Recommendations by GREVIO and the Committee of the Parties (No. 2)—
“Any recommendations or reports by GREVIO (that is the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence) or the Committee of the Parties (that is the Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention)) must be debated in Parliament before any Government response is given.”
New clause 11—Annual statistics—
“The Government must use its best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims in each country who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published annually.”
New clause 12—Quarterly statistics—
“The Government must use its best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published quarterly.”
New clause 14—Limitation on reservations concerning Article 44—
“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any declaration as provided for under paragraph 2 of Article 78 of the Convention that it will not establish jurisdiction under Article 44 when the offence established with the Convention is committed by a person who has her or his habitual residence in the United Kingdom.”
New clause 15—Territorial application—
“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any restriction on territorial application under Article 77 of the Convention.”
New clause 16—Victims of forced marriage—
“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any restriction on its right to take the necessary legislation or other measures referred to in Article 59.4.”
New clause 17—Compensation awarded to those who have sustained serious bodily injury or impairment of health—
“No ratification of the Convention shall be made by the United Kingdom unless at the time of depositing its instrument of ratification it declares that it reserves the right not to apply the provisions of Article 30 paragraph 2.”
New clause 18—Limitation on reservations concerning psychological violence and stalking—
“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any declaration as provided for under paragraph 3 of Article 78 that it reserves the right to provide for non-criminal sanctions for the behaviours referred to in Article 33 and Article 34.”
New clause 19—Reservations—
“Nothing in this Bill shall prevent the United Kingdom ratifying the Istanbul Convention with reservations as provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 78.”
New clause 20—Requirement to denounce of the Convention after five years—
“The United Kingdom Government shall denounce the Istanbul Convention no later than five years after it has ratified the Convention.”
Government amendment 1, leave out clause 1.
This amendment leaves out clause 1.
Amendment 56, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“without making any reservations under Article 78 of the Convention.”
Amendment 57, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, after “Convention” insert “without reservations”.
Government amendment 2, page 1, line 12, leave out “date by” and insert “timescale within”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on the timescale within which she expects the Istanbul Convention to be ratified, rather than the date.
Amendment 58, page 1, line 13, at end insert “without reservations.”
Amendment 24, page 1, line 14, leave out from “laid” to end of the subsection and insert “when reasonably practicable”.
Government amendment 3, page 1, line 14, leave out
“within four weeks of this Act receiving Royal Assent”
and insert
“as soon as reasonably practicable after this Act comes into force”.
This amendment changes the deadline for a report under clause 2 from four weeks from Royal Assent to as soon as reasonably practicable after commencement.
Amendment 22, page 1, line 14, leave out “four weeks” and insert “three years”.
Government amendment 4, page 1, line 16, leave out “Her Majesty’s Government” and insert “the Secretary of State”.
This amendment means the obligation to make a statement to Parliament will fall on the Secretary of State, rather than Her Majesty’s Government generally.
Amendment 59, page 1, line 17, after “Convention” insert “without reservations”.
Government amendment 5, page 1, line 17, leave out “it” and insert “the Secretary of State”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.
Government amendment 6, page 1, line 19, leave out “its” and insert “the”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.
Government amendment 7, page 1, line 20, leave out “the Convention will be” and insert—
“the Secretary of State would expect the Convention to be”.
This amendment means the Secretary of State will be required to make a statement detailing when she would expect the Istanbul Convention to be ratified, rather than when it will be so ratified.
Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 2, line 2, leave out “each year” and insert “biennially”.
Government amendment 8, page 2, line 2, after “each year” insert “until ratification”.
This amendment makes clear that the government will only have to report on progress towards ratification until ratification has taken place (see amendment 14).
Government amendment 9, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) if a report has been laid under section 2(1), any alteration in the timescale specified in that report in accordance with subsection (1)(b) and the reasons for its alteration;”.
This amendment is designed to avoid the implication that a report under clause 2 will necessarily have been issued before a report is required under clause 3.
Amendment 26, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment 27, page 2, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).
Government amendment 10, page 2, line 7, leave out “(before ratification)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Amendment 28, page 2, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).
Government amendment 11, page 2, line 10, leave out “(before ratification)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Government amendment 12, page 2, line 11, leave out “to” and insert “in”.
This amendment changes a reference to legislative proposals being brought forward “to” the devolved legislatures to legislative proposals being brought forward “in” the devolved legislatures - which is the usual formulation.
Amendment 29, page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (d).
Government amendment 13, page 2, line 14, leave out “(before ratification)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.
Government amendment 14, page 2, line 16, leave out paragraph (e).
This amendment removes the ongoing reporting obligation in clause 3(1)(e).
Amendment 49, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“and produce a breakdown of government spending on victims of violence and domestic violence for both men and women.”
Amendment 50, page 2, line 27, after “violence” insert—
“and provide statistics showing international comparison on levels of violence against women and men”.
Amendment 51, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“and to include the names of these organisations”.
Amendment 60, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(f) the costs to the Exchequer of the measures set out in subsection (1)(e).”
Amendment 52, page 2, line 32, leave out “annual” and insert “biennial”.
Amendment 53, page 2, line 32, leave out “1 November 2017” and insert “1 January 2020”.
Amendment 54, page 2, line 33, leave out “1 November each year” and insert—
“1 January every 2 years”.
Amendment 55, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, leave out from “Act” to end of subsection and insert—
“will not come into force until 90% of the signatories to the Convention have ratified it and there has been a proven reduction in violence against women in 75% of the countries who have ratified the Convention.”
Government amendment 15, page 2, line 37, leave out
“on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent”
and insert—
“at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
This amendment means the Act will be brought into force two months following Royal Assent, rather than immediately on Royal Assent.
Government amendment 16, in title, line 1, leave out
“Require the United Kingdom to ratify”
and insert—
“Make provision in connection with the ratification by the United Kingdom of”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
Government amendment 17, in title, line 3, leave out “; and for connected purposes”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.
Mr Speaker
Well, we shall see.
We begin with new clause 6—and I hope we can now begin with new clause 6—with which it will be convenient to consider the new clauses and amendments listed on the selection paper.
Philip Davies
I want to speak to new clause 6 and the other new clauses and amendments that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). We have quite a large group of amendments and new clauses to go through this morning. There are 11 new clauses—seven tabled by me, and four by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). On top of those, we have 36 amendments, most of which have actually been tabled by the Government, in cahoots, it is fair to say, with the Scottish National party and the promoter of the Bill. I will come to their amendments in a bit, because they seem to be trying to con the campaigners behind the Bill by pretending to support the Istanbul convention, at the same time as filleting the Bill to make sure it does not come into effect at all—but more of that later.
I have tabled 14 amendments, and my hon. Friend for Christchurch has tabled five, so we have 47 new clauses and amendments to consider this morning. I will try to do justice to them, and I will try to do that as quickly as I can, because I appreciate that other people will want to speak to them. However, a quick bit of arithmetic will tell hon. Members that if I spend only two minutes on each new clause and amendment, we will soon rattle past an hour and a half, so it is going to take some time to go through such a large group.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would—and I hope he will—support the Prime Minister’s commitment to ratify the Istanbul convention. Will he clarify that for me?
Philip Davies
It is fair to say that I have never been considered the Prime Minister’s official spokesman, and I am very grateful that the hon. Gentleman is elevating me to that lofty position. I suspect it is one I will never take up, so I might milk the opportunity for all it is worth now. The Prime Minister made it clear that she supports the Bill as it will be amended by the Government amendments, and I will explain why that is a long way from agreeing to the Istanbul convention. It strikes me that the Government amendments are all about trying not to ratify the convention.
Philip Davies
I hope they will.
Let me go through the group in order. New clause 6 refers to the recommendations by GREVIO—the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence—and the Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention), and would mean that those recommendations were not binding on the UK Government. The convention has a two-pillar monitoring system to ensure that all members live up to their commitments. [Interruption.]
It is interesting to note that nobody—particularly on the SNP Benches—wants to listen to the debate, which is surprising because it was exposed on Second Reading that they did not actually know what was in the Istanbul convention. You would think that they would have learned their lesson and would actually want, this time around, to learn what was in the convention—but apparently not. I am not entirely sure whether the position of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is on his knees and facing the wrong way, is in order during a speech, but it is certainly not normal behaviour from him. [Interruption.] He may not be listening, but he could at least give the impression that he is interested in knowing what is going on in the debate.
Philip Davies
He is not. We are very grateful to him for clarifying that he is not interested in the debate. There is no wonder the SNP is so authoritarian.
The Istanbul convention has a two-pillar monitoring system to ensure that all members live up to their commitments. The aim is
“to assess and improve the implementation of the Convention by Parties.”
We therefore have two groups: GREVIO, which is initially composed of 10 members and which will subsequently be enlarged to 15 members when the 25th country has ratified the convention, and a political body—the Committee of the Parties—which is composed of representatives of the parties to the Istanbul convention.
The last thing we need is another group from a supranational body that is set up to make it look as if that body is doing something on issues but that just becomes a talking shop. It is not the implementation of the Istanbul convention that will make any real difference to levels of violence generally—and certainly not to levels of violence against women—but harsher sentencing of perpetrators. The idea that having a group of experts pontificating about how well or badly something has been implemented will make any material difference to the levels of violence in the UK is for the birds.
GREVIO’s task is to monitor implementation, and it may adopt general recommendations on themes and concepts of the convention. The Committee of the Parties follows up on GREVIO reports and conclusions, and adopts recommendations to the parties concerned.
There are different procedures that these two bodies can use to monitor each country’s implementation, such as a country-by-country evaluation procedure whereby GREVIO considers evidence submitted by the relevant countries. Should it find the evidence insufficient, it has the power to organise country visits and fact-finding missions.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Is the UK represented on either or both of those bodies, and if so, who is our representative? Did my hon. Friend consult with such person or persons concerning the terms of his new clause before he tabled it?
Philip Davies
My right hon. Friend is usually much more up on these matters than I am, so I always bow to his superior knowledge, but my understanding is that we would get members on these bodies only once we had ratified the convention. If he knows differently, I am happy to allow him to correct me because, as I say, he is usually more right than I am on most matters.
Another procedure that GREVIO can adopt is a special inquiry procedure that can be implemented when there is reliable information indicating that action is required to prevent a serious, massive or persistent pattern of any acts of violence covered by the convention. In this instance, GREVIO can request urgent submission of a special report by the concerned country.
Obviously I do not believe that the Government should ratify the convention at all, but should we do so, I do not want these foreign supranational bodies to come over and start lecturing us about things when in fact we are usually doing an awful lot better than any other country in the world on such matters. We often see this with the United Nations. By ratifying the convention on the terms of this Bill, we will open ourselves up to visits, fact-finding missions and interference by a foreign body lecturing us about what we should be doing, and perhaps even instructing us that we should be doing this, that and the other.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we already have sufficient procedures and Committees within our own House of Commons to be able to monitor the actions of the Government on the Istanbul convention?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is rather sad if the House of Commons, and Parliament generally, thinks it is so poor at holding the Government to account on these things that it cannot do it itself and has to farm out the job to a foreign body. That would be a rather strange approach and from a Parliament that was lacking in self-confidence. The Women and Equalities Committee—I will not go into the issue of its name today—would be more than capable of holding the Government to account on the work they are doing on combating violence against women, and violence against men for that matter. We do not really need foreign politicians and foreign bureaucrats sticking their noses into what we are doing .
Sir Greg Knight
Is not my hon. Friend rather contradicting himself, because if we were to adopt the convention, it would not be a foreign body lecturing us, would it? It would be a body on which we had representation and were able to make our views known.
Philip Davies
I do not accept that. Having said that my right hon. Friend is virtually always right, I fear that this is one of the rare occasions when he is not. These things all sound wonderful when one signs up to them, but one does not necessarily understand the full implications of doing so. As an illustration of that, we might focus on the European convention on human rights. It would be very difficult for anybody to disagree with anything in that convention, but we did not realise at the time how it would grow and start to get ahead of itself, interpreting things in a way that could never have been envisaged and getting above its station. That creates all sorts of problems further down the line. In this context, my fear is not necessarily all about what is in the Istanbul convention, although I do have concerns about that—I am more concerned about the way in which a foreign body will interpret its role and start growing to a level that was never envisaged either in the convention or in the Bill. The votes for prisoners issue in relation to the European convention on human rights perfectly illustrates how these things can grow in a way that we never envisaged. I therefore do not accept the premise of my right hon. Friend’s intervention.
New clause 6 is absolutely essential to maintaining our sovereignty in the United Kingdom and to making sure that that is set out clearly in the Bill so that there is absolutely no doubt that we retain all sovereignty in these matters and in what we are implementing.
New clause 10 follows on from that. I would have hoped that the SNP and the campaigners for this Bill would very much welcome it, because it says:
“Any recommendations…by GREVIO…or the Committee of the Parties…must be debated in Parliament before any Government response is given.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North argued that Parliament should be in charge of these matters. If we sign up to this Bill as currently drafted, Parliament will be excluded from anything that goes on. Once we have ratified the convention and the Bill is passed, Parliament will suddenly become redundant. If a foreign organisation is producing reports saying that the Government are not meeting what they signed up to—if that is the view of GREVIO and the Committee of the Parties and they produce a report along those lines—then surely it is only right that the matter is debated in Parliament so that Parliament can have its say on whether it agrees before the Government respond to GREVIO and the Committee of the Parties.
I cannot see why anybody who is in favour of this Bill and is campaigning for it could possibly object to giving Parliament more scrutiny over the process and more power to hold the Government to account. If anybody who supports the Bill would like to intervene and tell me what objection they have to new clause 10, I would be very happy to hear it and try to deal with it. If people do not have any objections to it, they will obviously remain quiet and we can proceed on that basis—we can press it to a vote and hopefully get people’s endorsement. I will give people the opportunity again: if anybody has any objection to new clause 10, perhaps they could speak now. If they do not, we will press it to a Division and hopefully get full support for it. It looks as though we have that.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to the Government amendments in due course. The Government, in cahoots with the SNP in the cosy little deal that they have put together, have removed any post-ratification scrutiny of how the Government are doing. That is quite extraordinary, but no doubt the Government and the SNP will be able to answer for themselves in due course.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend says that the Government have removed it, but so far the Bill has not been amended at all. He will obviously ensure that any Government amendments are tested in this House, because it may well be that quite a lot of the people who were originally supporters of this Bill would not want to see it watered down in the way that the Government wish.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Far from watering down the Bill, he is seeking to strengthen it; I will come to his amendments and new clauses in due course. We have an important role to play in Parliament in making sure that any legislation is fit for purpose. We ought to test the will of the House on any attempts to hoodwink the public. People should know where each MP stands on watering down the convention and on whether Parliament should have any role post-ratification—or whether we should just ratify the convention and leave it at that.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way with regard to his new clause 10, but I wonder whether he has thought through the constitutional implications of allowing a vote in this House to have any formal standing when it is neither a statutory instrument nor primary legislation. Would that not risk bringing the courts into the proceedings in Parliament?
Philip Davies
I always bow to my hon. Friend’s superior knowledge of constitutional issues. I would never enter into a competition with him on that, because I would certainly lose. However, I do not think there is anything to fear from new clause 10. All it asks for is a debate on the report in Parliament before the Government give a response. It would not even necessarily make the Government beholden to the outcome of that debate, but it would at least ensure the Government were aware of the views of MPs before they responded.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. How would that be tested? If the Government decided not to have a debate in Parliament, it could not be taken to a judicial review, because the courts could not consider a proceeding in Parliament.
Philip Davies
There is plenty of evidence of Governments ignoring what Parliament has to say to them on a number of occasions, whether on appointments, Select Committees or whatever. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns and I always take them seriously. I will reflect on what others have to say in the debate; they may be able to persuade me that new clause 10 is not worth pursuing. However, I do not envisage the problems my hon. Friend envisages. I suppose we ought just to leave it at that and perhaps move on from there. My hon. Friend may well have the opportunity to have his say and explain in greater detail why new clause 10 should be resisted. I am sure the House will listen carefully to what he says, as will I. It would be a sad—and rare—state of affairs if I found myself voting in a different Lobby from my hon. Friend. New clause 10 should find favour with campaigners in favour of the Bill and the convention, because it gives Parliament more say over what happens post-ratification.
New clause 11 relates to annual statistics. This is very important. I have heard many assertions from campaigners that we must pass the Istanbul convention to eliminate violence against women, and that if we do not ratify it we will not have any reduction in violence against women. Campaigners say that if we pass the convention there will miraculously be no violence against women. New clause 11 requires the Government to use their
“best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims in each country who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published annually.”
The point of that is to allow us all to see for ourselves whether ratifying the Istanbul convention actually makes any difference at all to levels of violence against women and levels of domestic violence. At the moment, we do not really know too much about it.
In preparation for this debate, I tried to get figures on countries that have ratified the convention to ask them if they had seen a reduction in violence since ratification. We should want to test whether it will actually make any difference at all. Unfortunately, the House of Commons Library told me that it did not have any such figures and that these figures did not exist. So anybody who stands up today and says that passing the Istanbul convention will reduce levels of violence against women is doing so in the full knowledge that they have no evidence at all to support that claim—unless, of course, they have done what I did. In the absence of any House of Commons Library figures, I wrote to the ambassadors of all the countries who ratified the convention to ask whether they could supply me with any of the information.
I do not know whether anybody else in the House has actually bothered to find out whether ratifying the convention makes any difference to levels of violence against women. Perhaps anybody who has done so could intervene now and share that information with me. No, I did not think anybody would intervene. I did not think that anyone would actually have any idea of what they were talking about before they came here today, but of course someone coming in on a Friday and knowing what they were talking about before pontificating would be breaking a great tradition. I have done the work for them—again. I contacted the ambassadors of the countries that have ratified the convention and asked for their figures. I am sure everyone will be interested to know what has happened in those countries since ratification. I am sure the Minister will be delighted to know. Maybe the Minister does not know this either. It is quite extraordinary, really.
Sweden signed the convention in May 2011 and ratified it in July 2014. It came into force in November 2014, with reservations. I will come on to reservations later, because I know that is a subject my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch feels very strongly about. From the figures given to me by the Swedish ambassador, the total number of reported offences in 2013, before the convention was ratified in Sweden, was 39,580. When the convention came into force it was 42,217. In 2015, after ratification, it went up to 42,252. The preliminary figures for 2016 show another increase in violence, with reported offences at 43,179. The offences included in this category—I am very grateful to the Swedish ambassador for sending this very detailed information—are all forms of assault, murder and rape, including attempted rape, regardless of the victim’s age. In Sweden, therefore, ratification of the Istanbul convention has not made a blind bit of difference to levels of violence against women. In fact, all that has happened is that levels of violence have continued to increase. What do all those who claim that the convention is essential to reducing violence have to say about that? Absolutely nothing—that is what they have got to say about it.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I wonder whether there might be other factors involved. My hon. Friend will no doubt have heard the President of the United States expressing considerable concern about the dangers now arising in Sweden.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I do not intend to deviate too much from the matter in hand, but he raises an interesting point about what might be the driving force behind that. I think the point he is getting at is that he thinks the levels and nature of immigration into Sweden might have been a contributory factor—a point made by President Trump last week. There may well be truth in that. I do not know; I did not ask the ambassador for any assessment on that. All we do know is that ratifying the Istanbul convention has not led to a decrease in violence against women in Sweden, and so all the people claiming that that is what is going to happen might want to think again.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Is it possible that in a country that cares about a particular form of violence people might be more willing to report that violence, and so figures might go up rather than down?
Philip Davies
It is a no-fail measure, isn’t it? If the level of violence goes down, it is because of the Istanbul convention; if it goes up, it is because the Istanbul convention has helped levels of reporting. It cannot fail: whatever the figures it is a winner. I commend my hon. and learned Friend greatly for that line. She will almost certainly be made a Government Minister very soon. With such aplomb at the Dispatch Box with which to explain away any difficult figures in her Department, I suspect she will make a very fine Minister in short order.
My hon. and learned Friend may well be right. Unfortunately, the situation in Portugal is not quite the same as that in Sweden, so her thesis slightly falls down. Portugal ratified the convention a bit earlier than Sweden, since when the numbers have been like a rollercoaster: they have gone down, then up, then down again. I am not entirely sure how that can be explained away on the basis of increased awareness.
It is fair to say that, to any independent observer, the figures indicate that ratification does not make a blind bit of difference to levels of violence against women. I am very happy for other hon. Members to put their own gloss or spin on why the figures have gone up and down; I am just looking at them as someone who is interested in the statistics.
Nusrat Ghani
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to reported figures. Surely the point is that if women are aware that their voices will be heard and that support is available, they will come forward and report incidents of this hidden crime. Surely he can see that that is a positive thing.
Philip Davies
Of course I am in favour of people reporting crimes, but I am not entirely sure that we need to ratify the Istanbul convention for them to do so. We already encourage people to report crimes. If my hon. Friend wants to send a message today to every victim of violence that it is essential that they report that crime to the police, she is welcome to do so and I will endorse that message wholeheartedly. Any victim of any kind of violence, in any shape or form, irrespective of their gender, should report it to the police. It should be fully investigated and the perpetrator brought to justice and much more harshly punished than they currently are. Let that message ring out from the Chamber today, but we do not need to ratify the Istanbul convention for people to report that they have been the victim of a violent crime—we already have measures in place to deal with that.
The rollercoaster effect in Portugal that I described has also happened in Poland, which ratified the convention on 27 April 2015. It seems that the figures went up after it signed the convention, but that lately they have gone down.
There is no pattern to the figures in the countries whose ambassadors kindly sent me them, but it is important to put it on the record that they show that Sweden, Portugal and Poland clearly take the issue very seriously. I commend those countries for doing so and for laying bare their figures to me. In some cases the figures are good and in others they are not, but those countries have been open and transparent enough to share them with me so that I can share them with the House.
I worry about the countries that did not share their figures. I appreciate that I have no evidence to support this and that I am making an assertion that can be countered, but I fear and suspect that some countries did not supply me with the information because they are slightly embarrassed that the figures have gone in the wrong way since they ratified the convention. I could be wrong, but people can draw their own conclusions.
I have also seen figures from Albania and Austria. In Albania, they show an increase since ratification from 4,599 to 5,281. In Austria, the trend is the same. Its first annual report, which came out last September after the convention came into force in 2014, showed that the number of female victims of violent offences had increased from 37,546 to 37,677—so I think it is fair to say that we are not going to make a massive difference to levels of violence against women by ratifying the treaty.
After Austria ratified the Istanbul convention, the number of women murdered there went from 118 in 2014 to 165 in 2015. That seems quite a significant increase in murders against women a year after the country ratified the convention.
Philip Davies
I suspect that it is harder for a murder victim to report that crime—so clearly not. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that statistic cannot be explained away by increased reporting of crime. I think it is fair to say that murders are known to the public authorities.
Mr Chope
I commend my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 17. It is effectively a probing new clause trying to find out the Government’s policy on the issue. They say they wish to ratify the convention, but they have made no statement about whether, in ratifying, they wish to have reservations under the powers in the convention.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I hope that the Minister will make that clear. I have given up the hope that SNP Members know anything about what is in the Istanbul convention. They clearly have no idea. If they bothered to read it, they would know that it contains powers for Governments to reserve some areas—not sign up to them—but still ratify the convention. We have no idea, however, whether we are going to sign up to these things. Before Parliament agrees to something, we should at least know what we are signing up to. At the moment, we have no idea. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell us, before Third Reading, what the Government envisage us signing up to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right in one sense about the new clause being a probing measure to tease out from the Government which bits of the convention we will sign up to as part of ratification, but he does it a slight disservice. I am not entirely sure I agree that it is just a probing new clause. To describe it as such suggests that I do not particularly agree with it and am just seeking information, whereas I do agree with it, so I cannot agree with him.
If my hon. Friend was to make the same accusation about new clause 19, however, he might have a point. It states:
“Nothing in the Bill shall prevent the United Kingdom ratifying the Istanbul Convention with reservations as provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 78.”
In effect, that would allow the Government to ratify the convention with the maximum number of reservations allowed. It is important to highlight what reservations are allowed and therefore what would be covered by the new clause. The reservations apply to the following outline areas: compensation, which I have just covered on new clause 17, jurisdiction, statute of limitation, residence status and the right to provide for non-criminal sanctions for psychological violence and stalking.
I have talked about article 30 and compensation already. The new clause 19 would also allow the Government in effect to opt out of paragraphs (1)(e), (3) and (4) of article 44, on jurisdiction; article 55(1), as it relates to article 35, on minor offences and ex parte and ex officio proceedings; article 58, as it relates to articles 37 to 39, on the statute of limitation; and article 59, on residence status, especially in relation to spouses. Finally, article 78(3) declares that a state
“reserves the right to provide for non-criminal sanctions, instead of criminal sanctions, for the behaviours referred to in Articles 33 and 34”—
on psychological violence and stalking respectively.
There is a good case for saying that the UK Government and Parliament should be sovereign in all these areas and that where we can leave matters to the UK Government, Parliament and the UK courts, we should take that opportunity, mainly for the reason I outlined in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight): we have no idea necessarily how these things will develop over the years, so it is best to reserve as many rights as possible. That would be the most sensible strategy for the Government to adopt, because it would allow them to retain as much control as possible.
Mr Nuttall
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is plenty of precedent from around Europe for going down precisely this route in respect of what other countries have done as part of their ratification process?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, I was just about to come on to that. Of the 22 countries that have already signed and ratified the convention, 11 have done so with reservations attached, and a further four have signed it stating they want reservations too. It is clearly a reasonable approach for Governments to take—it is in the convention that countries can do it, so it must be an accepted approach. It is clearly a reasonable approach, as all countries, Governments and legal systems are different, and it is important that that be recognised as much as possible so that provisions can be to the taste of particular countries. I hope, therefore, that the Government will make it clear where we are with these reservations and what implications there might be. If they are seeking the maximum number of reservations, as I would advise them to do, perhaps the Minister can confirm that she has no objection to new clause 19, which would simply make that clear in the Bill and put the matter beyond any doubt and further debate.
Philip Davies
No, I do not. I was going to come to that later, but as my hon. Friend has raised it now, I should make it clear that I absolutely do not think that. In fact, colleagues will remember my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) waging a fantastic campaign trying to double the maximum sentence courts could impose on people convicted of stalking. I was a strong supporter of his 10-minute rule Bill that sought to do that, and I was pleased that the Government agreed to adopt that measure. That was fantastic.
I differ with my hon. Friend, however, in that I do not accept the premise that providing for reservations from the convention means that we necessarily always have to disagree with what is in those articles. It just means that we are free to do what we think is right, rather than having another body telling us its view of the matter. We can be trusted to do the right thing by victims of stalking, as the Government have already done. Not signing up to an article does not mean disagreeing with what is in it; it just means we want to retain sovereignty for our own country.
Mr Chope
Does my hon. Friend understand why, when the last Labour Government were negotiating the convention, they were prepared to allow other countries to have non-criminal sanctions in respect of stalking? Why were they prepared to allow a reservation of that nature, given that only a very limited number of reservations are allowed?
Philip Davies
That is a very good point. No doubt the Labour spokesman will be able to explain why Labour thinks it is absolutely fine for other countries to have non-criminal sanctions for stalking, and for psychological violence against women. The Labour Government obviously agreed to that being part of the convention, and people are happy for us to sign up to it on the basis that it is a gold standard for protecting women. Well, I hope people realise what is in this “gold standard for protecting women”. Those who campaign most vociferously seem to be the ones who have read the smallest amount of it. There is a direct correlation: the people who seem to be the most wound up about it are the ones who have read it the least. If some of them take the time to read it, they may be shocked to find what is in this “gold standard”.
I actually think that the UK can do a damn sight better than the Istanbul convention. I think that by signing up to it we will be levelling things downwards rather than levelling them upwards, which is what we should be seeking to do. If the Government want to do something useful around the world, they should be encouraging other countries to adopt the practices in which we engage in this country, rather than our agreeing to adopt their practices, which are much weaker when it comes to dealing with violent crime and, in particular, violence against women.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: Labour Members have a great deal to answer for in this debate. Perhaps they will be able to explain why they think that stalking and psychological violence against women should be subject to non-criminal sanctions in other countries, and perhaps the Bill’s promoter will be able to explain why she would adopt that policy as well. I suspect that it is not something that she tells people about very often when talking about the Istanbul convention.
New clause 20 provides for a requirement to denounce the convention after five years. In effect, it is a sunset clause—I think that more Bills should contain sunset clauses—enabling us to review whether or not the Istanbul convention has been a force for good in the United Kingdom. If everyone is so confident that ratification will indeed be a force for good, they have nothing to fear from a sunset clause, because it will become apparent that the ratification has been a great triumph, and we can all agree to put the provision back on to the statute book in time for it to continue. If, of course, the ratification proves to be a turkey, the Bill will fall, and we shall be able to start from scratch. We shall be able to introduce legislation that is much more sensible and effective. I have no idea why anyone might not support a sunset clause. It seems a very good safeguard, because it requires us to continue to focus on what a Bill is designed to achieve, and to ensure that that is what it is achieving.
Those are my new clauses. I shall now deal with the amendments—14 of the 36—that are tabled in my name. Amendment 22 relates to the report that subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament on the timetable for ratification of the convention. The subsection states that the report
“must be laid within four weeks of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”
What is required within four weeks is for the Secretary of State to set out
“the steps required to be taken to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul Convention; and…the date by which the Secretary of State would expect the United Kingdom to be able to ratify the Convention.”
I think that is a rather unrealistic timetable. No doubt the Secretary of State could rustle something up to hit that arbitrary four-week target, but I think it would be much more sensible for the report to be meaningful and accurate. Surely we should be aiming for that, rather than sticking to an artificial timetable.
I should love to know why the Bill specifies four weeks. Perhaps its promoter will be able to tell us. Why four weeks? Why not six weeks, or two weeks? What is so special about four weeks? I suspect that there is nothing special about it at all. I suspect that someone said, “We shall have to put in a figure. What shall we put in? Let’s go for four weeks, shall we?” I do not think that that is a sensible way of drafting legislation.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is effectively supporting one of the Government amendments, but may I present an alternative point of view? The Government have had since 2014 to draw up a list of the legislative requirements that will enable the convention to be ratified. The Bill was published on 29 June last year, and we still have not heard from them any indication of what they believe must be done in order to enable the United Kingdom to ratify it.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend seems to have made my point for me. I understand what he is saying: that the Government have had ample time in which to do this, and we should therefore be able to put to them a fixed time in the near future. My contrary point would be that, if after such a long time they still have not been able to do it, how on earth are we to expect them to do it all of a sudden within four weeks? That seems unrealistic to me. Surely the fact that the Government have not managed to do it in all those months suggests that they will not be able to do it in four weeks. My point is that the timetable is unrealistic.
Mr Chope
But it is not just four weeks, is it? One of the Government amendments says that the Act should not come into force until two months after Royal Assent, which means, effectively, that after Royal Assent the Government would have three months on top of all the time that they have had up until now.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is clearly right. I cannot disagree with anything that he has said. The points that he has made about Royal Assent are factual. However, I am not entirely sure that that timetable is achievable either, given the delay that we have already seen. My point is that, rather than rushing to meet an artificial target that they are clearly finding it difficult to meet, the Government should be left to set out those steps at a reasonable time.
My amendment 22 would extend the timetable from four weeks to three years, and I should like to think that everyone would agree that it allows the Government ample time to get their ducks in a row and their house in order. I should like to think that the Government would have no excuse for not sticking to that particular timetable. However, my hon. Friend thinks that that would let the Government off the hook too much. My amendment 24 replaces the four weeks with “when reasonably practicable”.
Mr Nuttall
As my hon. Friend will know, I support his “three years” amendment. Would not the other option leave the position open-ended? “Reasonably practicable” may mean “never”.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right, and I shall go into that in a bit more detail later. The Government really are selling people a pup. They, and the Scottish National party, are trying to get all the plaudits for putting their shoulders to the wheel to ensure that the Istanbul convention is ratified, but the “filleting” amendments are designed to do the exact opposite. My three-year amendment, as my hon. Friend puts it, may mean a long time in the waiting, but at least it will mean that there is a fixed deadline for the Government to meet. Amendment 24, which says that the report must be laid “when reasonably practicable”, mirrors the Government amendment. It is very similar. Obviously, great minds—mine and the Minister’s—think alike on the matter. However, I concede that the amendment allows for a never-ending timescale. Perhaps that is what the Government, and the SNP, have in mind. I do not know. I am perfectly relaxed about either measure—I will take soundings from colleagues as to which they think is the best. My general point is that the four-week target is never going to be achievable, particularly given all the other things that are going on for the Government at the moment.
Philip Davies
It seems to me that it is what it says on the tin:
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
It is when the Government are in a position to be able to do so. I know my hon. Friend has extensive experience of government, as a former Minister. That is a privilege that I do not have, and never will have, so it is not for me to say what it takes for the machinery of government to get itself into a position to do something, but I am sure that he trusts the Government to move as speedily as possible on these matters, given the Minister’s stated commitment to these things. I am sure he has nothing to worry about on that provision. The Minister tabled a similar amendment to mine, which is a rare thing in itself. Presumably, she may be able to answer his question. She may be able to explain what she had in mind when she tabled her amendment to satisfy him.
Amendment 25 is about the annual report that is required in clause 3. The clause says that the Secretary of State shall lay a report “each year”. I propose to change that to “biennially”. Every two years is perfectly adequate for that report; we do not need an annual one. If my hon. Friend gets his way, it will not need to be laid annually or biennially because the Government will have this done and dusted in no time anyway. Therefore, I am not sure why we need an annual report, to be honest. However, Members can explain why, if these things have to be done quickly, we need an annual report saying what steps need to be taken and when we are expected to ratify the convention. Presumably, the whole point was to have it done and dusted in no time at all, so I am not sure I understand the need for that provision.
Amendment 26 would delete
“any alteration in the date by which the United Kingdom expects to be able to ratify the Convention and the reasons for the alteration”.
I do not see any point in that provision. It seems to be superfluous to requirements.
I propose in amendments 27 and 28 to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) of clause 3, which are about pre-ratification reports. I cannot see the point of those provisions, including that on
“the administrative measures taken…to ratify the Istanbul Convention”,
and those on what has been done in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure, Mr Davies, you are not going to go down that route.
Philip Davies
My word, Mr Deputy Speaker! If we were to abolish Bills that were just about gesture politics, that would abolish private Member’s Bill Fridays altogether. However, that is a debate for another day. I do not want to be sidetracked down that line today.
Amendment 29 would delete paragraph (d). The provision says that the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on
“the measures to be taken and legislation required to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul Convention”.
Surely it is clear what legislation is required to enable the UK to ratify the convention. Why on earth do we need an annual report for the Government to tell us what legislation is required to ratify the convention?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am a bit worried. Time is going by and I know that you, Mr Davies, will want to hear some of the other speeches. I am sure that you will want to get towards the end of your speech. Mr Chope is trying to distract you permanently. We have to worry about that.
Philip Davies
I will try not to be distracted by my hon. Friend too many times. As I think you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been trying to crack on through my amendments, but there are 47 new clauses and amendments in this group and they take some wading through. However, I have been racing through them. I will leave the Minister to answer my hon. Friend’s point when she speaks.
Amendment 49 is about a report—we are still laying a report—about the measures taken by the Government to comply with the Istanbul convention to
“protect and assist victims of violence against women and domestic violence”.
At the end of that, my amendment would insert
“and produce a breakdown of government spending on victims of violence and domestic violence for both men and women.”
I do not see why anyone would want to oppose the Government having to produce a breakdown of how much they are spending on victims of violence and domestic violence, broken down by men and women. Men are nearly twice as likely as women to be the victim of a violent crime—1.3% of women interviewed for the crime survey reported being victims of violence in 2014-15, compared with 2.4% of men. When it comes to the most serious cases, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, women accounted for 36% of recorded homicide victims in 2015-16, whereas men accounted for 64%, yet so far the provisions we have here apply only to women. Therefore, it is important that the Government make clear what provisions they have for the victims of violent crime, whether they be men or women. I hope that the Government will agree to publish that information, and, if not, explain why they object to it so much.
Amendment 50 addresses the next bit of clause 3, which is about the report showing what the Government are doing to
“promote international co-operation against these forms of violence”.
At the end of all that, I have inserted that they should also
“provide statistics showing international comparison on levels of violence against women and men”.
I do not intend to repeat myself, but I spoke earlier about the information I have managed to acquire from different ambassadors. If we ask the Government to show what they are doing and then to show what other countries who have ratified the convention are doing, that will give us a good idea of how we are doing compared with other countries. Surely that is a meaningful comparison that we would want to look at. At the moment, the Government can offer us no meaningful comparisons to show how we are doing in comparison with other countries. I do not know why they would be afraid of doing that; surely they would want to make sure they were doing better than other countries. My amendment would give them the opportunity to do that and to highlight their record against that of other countries. Perhaps that would level everybody’s standards upwards, rather than them just being at the lowest possible common denominator.
Amendment 51 relates to the report on the measures the Government are taking in providing
“support and assistance to organisations and law enforcement agencies to co-operate in order to adopt an integrated approach to eliminating violence against women and domestic violence.”
At the end of that, I have added
“and to include the names of these organisations”.
It is important that the Government should make it clear, as part of this reporting strategy, what support and assistance they are giving and to which organisations they are giving that support. Then we can scrutinise whether or not they are the right organisations.
It might well be that there are other organisations out there—perhaps small organisations in local communities that the Government have not come across—that we can champion and say, “You don’t seem to be giving any money to these organisations. How about giving them a cut of the funding available?” I do not know what would be lost by the transparency of knowing which organisations the Government were funding.
Mr Nuttall
Does my hon. Friend see any irony in the fact that while he and I have proposed, in separate amendments, deleting clause 3(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), the Government have proposed deleting paragraph (e), which is the most substantive of all the paragraphs to this clause?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right, and what is happening here—if anybody bothers to notice—is that I am strengthening paragraph (e); I am trying to give the Government more requirements for reporting what they are doing post-ratification.
I will come to the Government amendment a bit later, but my hon. Friend is right to say that while I am, through these amendments, strengthening paragraph (e) and making sure that the Government have to give more information, the Government, with the SNP’s connivance, are making sure that there will be no reporting on any of these issues post-ratification of the Istanbul convention. Again, they will have to explain themselves on that, but I think that if we are going to ratify this convention, we should at least have some post-ratification knowledge of what on earth is happening and how well we are doing.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman does want to hear that, it might be helpful if he gets on and ends his speech, as I can then get some answers for him—and I would not want to distract him from hearing the answers.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful for that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will certainly be leaving plenty of time for the answers, but, as I have said, there are 47 new clauses and amendments here and I am going through them as quickly as possible.
Philip Davies
As ever, you are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker. There have been lots of interventions and I will try to resist the temptation to be as generous in taking them as I normally am—for a bit, at least.
Amendment 54 again addresses clause 3 and the reports on progress. The amendment says that the first annual report should be laid no later than 1 November 2017. That is interesting in itself, because what the Government are leaving in the Bill is all about before ratification, but I want to keep in post-ratification reports, and my amendments say that the first one should be from 2020 onwards—they should be done from 2020 and then every two years. That would be the effect of amendments 53 and 54.
Amendment 55 is my final amendment and it relates to when this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should come into force. The Bill says it should
“come into force on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent”,
and the Government have amended that, but I suggest it should
“not come into force until 90% of the signatories to the Convention have ratified it and there has been a proven reduction in violence against women in 75% of the countries who have ratified the Convention.”
It seems to me to be perfectly clear that we would want to ratify the convention only if it is actually shown to work. As I made clear earlier, we do not have the evidence at the moment to support that.
Those are my amendments, and I will now touch briefly on the other ones in the group, which I can race through fairly quickly, I hope. All of the new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are about making sure that the Government do not apply any of the reservations. I have explained why I think the Government should apply some reservations, however, and that is why I would reject new clauses 14, 15 and 16. If I might be so bold as to say so, I think my hon. Friend’s best attempt here is new clause 18 on psychological violence and stalking. It is inconceivable that those things would not come with a criminal sanction in the UK, so in that sense we have nothing to fear from signing up to that. It might be my hon. Friend’s argument that if we were to make it clear that we would sign up to that—that we would be happy to make sure they would always have a criminal sanction—it might encourage others to do the same. I do not know whether that would work, but I would not be averse to that, and if my hon. Friend were to push new clause 18 to a vote, I would be more sympathetic to that than I would be to his other new clauses, if that is helpful to him.
The Government amendments—which the SNP has endorsed, let us not forget that—are extraordinary. I have made it clear that I am opposed to this convention, but this cosy deal shows that they do not care too much about it either. They pretend—
Philip Davies
I am going to resist the temptation to give way to my hon. Friend for now, Mr Deputy Speaker, just to show that I always take notice of the Chair.
They are attempting to fillet this Bill without anybody noticing, claiming to be champions of the Istanbul convention while getting the Government off the hook of ever having to actually implement it. These amendments are all about making sure either that the Istanbul convention is never ratified or that its ratification is delayed as much as possible. Only SNP Members will know why on earth they have agreed to this. Only they will be able to explain that, or perhaps they are so embarrassed about it that they will not be willing to explain it at all. I hope they will have the guts to admit to what they have done.
Government new clause 1 would remove clause 1 and therefore would remove the ratification of the convention on violence against women, because clause 1 imposes a “duty” on the Government
“to take all reasonable steps as soon as reasonably practicable to enable the United Kingdom to become compliant with”
the Istanbul convention. The Government want to delete that. They want to leave out clause 1, yet clause 1 is the whole point of the Bill, in that it imposes a duty on the Government
“to take all reasonable steps as soon as reasonably practicable to enable the United Kingdom to become compliant”
with the convention. The Government want to remove that provision from the Bill, and the SNP is quite happy for them to do so. This is absolutely extraordinary stuff, Mr Deputy Speaker! You literally could not make it up.
Philip Davies
Do not worry, the House will hear it in all its glory. Government amendment 16—and, with it, Government amendment 17—is an absolute pearler. The Bill is so bad that not only are the Government taking out clause 1, which is the whole point of the Bill, but they are even changing the title because it is no longer applicable to what they are prepared to sign themselves up to—with SNP support.
The title says that this is:
“A Bill to require the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention); and for connected purposes.”
Everyone outside this place thinks that that is what we are debating today. They think this is a Bill to require the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul convention. Well, not any more. The Government and the SNP have caved in on what the Bill was supposed to be about, because now they are changing the title. The requirement on the United Kingdom to ratify the convention will no longer be in the Bill’s title if the Government and the SNP get their way. The Bill will just:
“Make provision in connection with the ratification by the United Kingdom of”.
In other words, “Let’s kick this one into the long grass. We’ll just have a few things that need to be done before we actually ratify the convention.” The Bill will no longer require the Government to ratify the Istanbul convention, and even “and for connected purposes” will be removed. Nothing that might actually help to ratify the Istanbul convention will be included in the Bill.
There we have it: a whole range of amendments. Some of my amendments are about transparency, and some would strengthen the measures expected of the Bill—people would certainly know what has to be reported on so that we can see what is happening in other countries. On the other hand, we have the Government amendments, supported by the SNP, that water down the Bill and even remove the requirement to ratify the Istanbul convention. The public outside need to know that they are being conned by people who claim to support ratification and who claim to be on the campaign group. The public have been sold a pup. At least some of us are honest about not liking this convention, which has to be a better way to operate than this rather shabby deal between the Government and the SNP.
I hope that we can test the will of the House on the weakening of the Bill, and we will see how we get on.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
In considering this group of amendments it is useful to consider the related document, the sixth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, session 2014-15, on violence against women and girls, which was published in February 2015 and called on the Government to ratify the Istanbul convention.
I am delighted that my Bill is back before the House on Report. I am extremely grateful to colleagues on both sides of the House—from nine parties—who support the Bill, and especially to those who have given up a valuable constituency Friday. I am particularly grateful to those who have been up all night with the by-elections. I can see quite a few folk who are a bit bleary eyed this morning. I thank everyone for being here.
Preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence is extremely relevant to people in every single constituency. We have a chance today to make a real difference to their lives and the lives of future generations. On Second Reading the Government intimated their intention to amend the Bill while supporting its intent and principles. Although the amendments were not forthcoming in Committee, they are before the House this morning, and I thank the Minister and her officials for working constructively with me and my staff to table amendments that meet the Government’s need for unambiguous and watertight legislation without watering down the substance of the Bill.
Dr Whiteford
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I will address scrutiny in a bit.
There are few issues that unite this House, but there is a compelling degree of unanimity on the need to ratify the Istanbul convention and the need to do more to prevent and combat gender-based violence, which is reflected in the cross-party support for the Bill and the willingness of Members from all parties to work together to achieve the progressive change that people in our communities want to see.
However, the hon. Member for Shipley has done me one favour with his amendments by giving me an opportunity that I might not otherwise have had on Report to clear up some fairly basic misunderstandings about the Istanbul convention—not least what it actually says and does—and some fundamental misconceptions about the gendered dynamics of sexual violence and domestic abuse.
First, clause 3 of article 4 of the Istanbul convention explicitly states that
“the provisions of this Convention by the Parties, in particular measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, gender, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, state of health, disability, marital status, migrant or refugee status, or other status.”
It is unambiguous: the Istanbul convention provisions apply to women, men, trans and non-binary people alike, and regardless of any other characteristic. It is comprehensive and clear.
Interestingly, an organisation such as Stay Brave, which advocates specifically for male, trans and non-binary victims of sexual and domestic violence, and which would not have in the past claimed adherence to any feminist agenda, supports the Istanbul convention and wants to see it ratified, because it recognises that the convention will help all victims. As its chief executive said in a blog published yesterday, it recognises that:
“The focus on ending violence against women is important, because it recognises the global pandemic of injustice. Gender inequality…creates a world where power, money and strength become motivators for systemic violence.”
The chief executive officer of another men’s organisation, David Bartlett of the White Ribbon Campaign, yesterday also urged all MPs who care about ending violence and promoting gender equality to vote in favour of the Bill today.
That is why the hon. Member for Shipley is simply wrong to suggest that this can ever be understood as a gender-neutral issue, and why the points he has made in the past about men being left out and this not being about them cannot be taken seriously. All of us are agreed that all sexual violence and all domestic violence is serious, regardless of the gender of the victim or of the perpetrator, and regardless of any other characteristic —end of.
Dr Whiteford
No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has more than enough air time. Everybody recognises that some men will experience gender violence and domestic violence, and that sometimes the perpetrator will be female, but in the real world in which we live the people who experience sexual and domestic violence are overwhelmingly female; women are disproportionately subjected to these forms of violence and abuses on a colossal scale—we cannot ignore that reality. The large majority of perpetrators, although by no means all, happen to be men; no credible, documented source of evidence anywhere in the world suggests otherwise. We do ourselves a huge disservice if we pretend that this is just another case of “the boys against the girls”—we are not in primary 4. It is a grave distortion of a terrible, systemic abuse of human rights to ignore the profound gender inequalities that drive and compound sexual violence and domestic abuse.
It is also important to say that some types of sexual violence are becoming more prevalent. Crime in Scotland is at a 40-year low, yet sexual offences are rising. That could be due to more people reporting what has happened to them, and in the wake of the exposure of the Savile review we know that there has certainly been a spike in the reporting of historic incidents. But I fear that this is also to do with a genuine increase in new types of gender-based violence, which are partly facilitated by this saturated world we live in of violent sexual imagery: the emergence of so-called “revenge porn”, which was not possible until the advent of smartphones; and things such as so-called “date rape” drugs being available. Those things were not problems 20 or 30 years ago but they have become prevalent problems now, and they are driving an increase in sexual assaults in particular. However, women’s inequality is still a key feature of every society in the world, and that is what is really underpinning gender-based violence.
Philip Davies
The Minister asked whether I would be minded to withdraw my amendment. For the benefit of the House, I would like to make it clear, through my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), that I will be very happy to withdraw my amendment and will not push any of my amendments to a vote.
Mr Chope
I am glad that my hon. Friend has been satisfied by the Minister’s response.
One reason that I have been interested in the subject for a long time is that I was present at the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe when this convention was first discussed. I remember vividly the representations that were made to me and my hon. Friend, the then Member for North Dorset, explaining that the United Kingdom Government really wanted the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to pass an amendment to the draft convention—as it then was—to enable a signatory party to the convention to have a reservation in respect of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The Foreign Office representative who lobbied us in Paris on that occasion— unfortunately, only half an hour before the decisions were to be taken—expected us to persuade everybody to accept an amendment from the United Kingdom Government at very short notice. The Government, through their Foreign Office representative, were very concerned then about the extraterritorial application of the convention, which is why they wanted to allow a participant party to have a reservation. In the end, the convention went through without that power being granted. Everybody who is suspicious about the length of time it is taking for the Government to get their act together on the issue needs to bear in mind that background—that in 2011, on the basis of a convention that had been negotiated by the previous Labour Government, the Government were concerned about the issue of extraterritorial application. We have not heard, even at this very late stage, anything from the Government precisely about what measures need to be brought in to satisfy those requirements before the convention can be ratified. It seems to me that we are owed something from the Government on that because the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and others have been pressing them to come up with a list of what is required.
Even the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), in her short contribution from the Opposition Front Bench, asked the Minister whether the forthcoming legislation on domestic violence, to which the Minister referred, would incorporate the necessary legislative requirements to enable the ratification of the Istanbul convention, but my hon. Friend—I do not think she is listening, which is a pity—was not even able to respond. That must surely cast doubt on how long it will be before the convention is actually ratified.
One of the Government amendments says that the Government do not want clause 2 implemented before clause 3. Therefore, no report may well have been made under clause 2 by the time we reach 1 November 2017 and the report on progress under clause 3. That seems to show an acceptance by the Government that they will not be in a position to ratify the convention for some considerable time. The strong feeling on both sides of the House is that people want the convention ratified, but the Government seem to be wriggling about when and how they will achieve that.
I have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses. I think I have a commitment from the Minister, in so far as one can tell, that when the convention is ratified, it will not be ratified with any reservations, and I am grateful to her for that. However, I still fear that the impression being given to the world outside is that we are passing today a Bill that will require the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe convention, when, in fact, it does no such thing, and that needs to be made absolutely clear.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I beg to move that the Question be now put.
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend highlights some of the valuable work that the Government have already been doing without ratifying the convention. Other countries may well want to look at the work of this country to see whether they could improve their procedures and adopt some of the things we have been doing. It is interesting that my hon. Friend highlights those points because, of course, all that has happened without ratifying the Istanbul convention.
Philip Davies
Is there anything that the Government could not do to help victims of domestic violence or to deal with violence against women until they have waited to ratify the Istanbul convention?
Mr Nuttall
The short answer is no; I cannot think of anything. I would be very interested if anyone else present could come up with any measure that we are prevented from introducing because we have not yet ratified the convention. In fact, as the previous intervention demonstrated, the Government have quite happily brought forward lots of proposals to tackle these matters already, and quite rightly. I have my own ideas about what we could do to try to tackle domestic violence, and I am interested in whether Opposition Members would support me. For example, we could start by saying that those who are convicted of domestic violence and sent to prison are required to serve the full length of their sentence, rather than being let out halfway through. If we are talking about sending signals, let us send the good signal that if someone commits an act of domestic violence and is sent to prison, they would have to serve the full length of their sentence. There are things we could do that I would be very much willing to support.
It is not even the final step when the report is finally tabled by the Secretary of State—
“as soon as reasonably practicable”—
and sets out the timetable. The final step comes afterwards. Even when the Secretary of State has finally determined that the United Kingdom is compliant with the Istanbul convention, a date by which the convention will be ratified does not have to be set. Following the amendments made, the Bill simply states that
“the Secretary of State would expect the Convention to be ratified”,
so another small delay is built in there. But then what happens? What is the purpose of the Bill then?
Previously, the purpose of the Bill would have been to report on progress every year until ratification and then, after ratification, to report on how the Government were doing. All the reporting after ratification has now been removed, and reports will be prepared only until ratification. There is no mechanism under this Bill—I stress under this Bill—to measure the various things set out in it, which the promoter must have thought were important at the time it was drafted. Those include measures to
“protect women against violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence”—
there is a long list.
Jamal al-Harith
Philip Davies Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Wallace
I have not come to the House to ask the hon. Gentleman to apologise for campaigning against Guantanamo Bay. My and the Government’s view is that the best place for these things to happen is in a court of law, with evidence presented. I sat on the Opposition Benches listening to a Labour Government constantly try to cut corners in terrorism legislation, trying to mix intelligence with evidence; the hon. Gentleman and I were probably in the same Division Lobby on the 90 days issue. It is my long-held experience that these things should be done in a court of law, through the rule of law, and with appropriate evidence. I have not come here to ask him to apologise; I pretty much agree with what he said.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I hope that those who celebrated the release from Guantanamo Bay of Jamal al-Harith will reflect on what he has done since his release.
Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), will the Minister say whether the Government are exploring any options to recover the compensation paid to the people from Guantanamo Bay? Taxpayers have been ripped off and terrorists have prospered from appalling activities. The public are rightly disgusted, and they want to know what the Government are trying to do to rectify the situation.
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I will go from here and make sure that any legally binding agreements are correctly monitored and that, where there is a breach, we recover any moneys we can.
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill
Philip Davies ExcerptsFriday 16th December 2016
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017 View all Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Phillips
I entirely agree. What we tend to do in this building is pave the way with great intentions and great legislation—we have some of the best legislation on domestic violence in the world—but then open an enormous door into an empty room. It is very difficult for our police forces to enforce certain issues. That is not because they do not have the legislative framework; it because of a whole series of other reasons.
We all have to work together, a bit like yesterday in the social care statement, in every conversation in this place about the NHS. We need to work together to make this happen. I hope those on the Conservative Benches do not take offence at what I am about to say, but in a spirit of total pragmatism I would dance with the devil to make women and children safer; I will do anything.
I came to this place to bang my fists on this side of the table, because I got sick of banging them on the other side. I know the Government care about this, and I know that if they were perhaps not distracted by other things the ratification of the Istanbul convention would probably have easily passed. I say to those on the Conservative Benches that the stumbling blocks over compulsory personal, social, health and economic education and talking to young people about consent and the ratification of the Istanbul convention are a real threat to what is not a bad record in this area; it is a pretty good record. But the record on the allocation of funding needs a lot of work—all the refuges in my constituency are threatened at present.
If I was not here and had not won my seat, I would today be surrounded by piles and piles of presents given by the local community to the refuge. My desk used to become like a fort, and we would have to organise parties to get the presents wrapped, in order to give out thousands and thousands of gifts to the women and children who lived in the refuge every year. We would always throw a party. It might not seem like it to those who have never worked in the field, but it was one of the happiest times of the year. One of the reasons it was so happy was that everybody—the chief executive of the organisation, the commissioner from the council, the cleaner in the refuge, the children in the refuge—rolled up their sleeves to achieve something together. We would all make the sausage rolls, and the women would be running in and out of their flats with plates of different food, so that we could all spend Christmas together knowing that there is a huge amount of solidarity in the world for victims of domestic violence.
One of the main underpinnings of the Istanbul convention is the idea that we all work together—that we need multiple agencies genuinely working together across the world to improve things for victims of domestic violence.
Jess Phillips
No. That was worth thinking about for a moment, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman is going to get his say.
I want to say some thank yous to the people who have meant that we are here today. Our colleagues from Scotland have done a fantastic job and, as usual, are all sat in the Chamber now en masse. I want again to say perhaps an uncharacteristic thank you to the Leader of the Opposition who has shown his commitment and worked with us to make sure the Labour party today will show its commitment for this, and specifically to Amy Watson in his office; it is always an exciting time in politics when we just spend all day on the phone ringing round to get people to a place. I also thank the unions who have been involved in lobbying Members to be here today, including UNISON, and the Muslim Council of Britain. I got lots of lobby emails; all of that is down to the hard work of the volunteer women of IC Change, who have done an amazing job on almost no resources. That shows me how brilliant and powerful women can be. They can achieve pretty much anything when they put their minds to it, and the fact that all of us are here today—on the last Friday before Christmas—is testimony to their immense work. I say a massive thank you to them.
All of us will wake up on Christmas morning stressed out. It is the only day when it is acceptable to drink from 6 am. On holiday, it is 12 o’clock, on Christmas day it is 6 o’clock; that is the rule my family live by. We will all be stressed and we will be wondering whether we have bought the right presents, and one of them will have gone missing. Things will be more stressful, especially for the womenfolk of this world, than they are particularly festive or cheerful, because things are tense on Christmas day.
I ask everybody in here to imagine that that tension is not just because we are not sure whether we have got the rights gifts for our auntie or whether everyone will have a chair or the children’s table is going to collapse like it did last year. Some people wake up on Christmas day and they will try not to say anything wrong; they will try not to put a foot wrong. They will make sure everything is perfect; they will have risk-assessed every single step they take throughout the day because on just this one day their children deserve not to have the monster that lives in their home erupt in their faces. On just this one day, their children deserve to have the peaceful day that all our children take for granted. For those people, all the stresses that we feel will be terror and control over everything they say and do in order to keep things safe. Ratifying this convention and sending them a message today would be the greatest gift that we could offer.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I commend the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) for introducing the Bill and for the typically excellent speech she made? She is one of the best performers in the House of Commons and she further enhanced her reputation with her speech today.
This is a Bill to:
“Require the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention); and for connected purposes.”
I do not expect to find much support in this House for some of what I want to put on the record today—that is normal, in my experience—but I expect that many people outside this House are more likely to agree. We have only to look at the EU referendum to see how out of touch this House is with majority opinion across the country.
This is a typical Friday Bill. It comes with a worthy sentiment; who could possibly be against trying to stop violence against women? The answer is nobody. I am not aware of anybody who wants to argue that people should be violent towards women and girls—of course they should not. The argument seems to be that, as long as someone supports the premise in the Bill’s title of “combating violence against women”, they must support the Bill, and that someone who opposes the Bill must be in favour of violence against women and children. That is the level of debate I would expect from the morons on Twitter, but I still live in hope that we might have better-quality debate than that in this House, although in my experience it does not actually get much better normally. I live in hope and will try again to have a sensible debate about these matters rather than the level of debate that we get used to on social media. I have a fundamental objection to the whole premise that we need to deal only with violence against women.
Philip Davies
Erm, no! It was worth thinking about for a few seconds. If the hon. Lady comes back to me later, I may well oblige her—I could not resist that temptation.
Sarah Champion
I really appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s tone and the fact that he recognises the seriousness of this matter. I must point out to him that there are two parts to the Bill: combating violence against women and domestic violence. It does not say whether the domestic violence is against men, women or children.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that, and I will come on to that. As she rightly said, and as I tried to illustrate at the start of my contribution, there are two separate elements to this Bill, and I want to do justice to both of them if I may.
To be honest, I cannot believe that this needs saying, but it is so discriminatory and sexist to say that we should be focusing only on violence against women. If this was the other way around, there would be an absolute outcry from people in this House, and rightly so. I do not take the view that violence against women and girls is somehow worse than violence against men and boys. As far as I am concerned, all violence is unacceptable, and all violence against the person should be punished by law. Both men and women are victims and both are perpetrators of these crimes. I believe in true equality, and want people to be treated equally whether they are a victim or a perpetrator of crime.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically passionate speech, but does he not want to acknowledge that, over the past 20 years, half of the victims of murder who were women were killed by family members, and only 6% of males who have been murdered were killed by family members? That is quite a significant discrepancy and it needs to be acknowledged in this House.
Philip Davies
I will come on to the discrepancy between the levels of violence against men and women in due course, because it is worth highlighting.
I believe in true equality and want people to be treated equally. At the moment, whether people like it or not, men are treated more harshly than women in the criminal justice system—that is certainly the case when it comes to sentencing. I know that that is an inconvenient truth for many people, but it is the truth nevertheless. On top of that—this is where it relates to my hon. Friend’s point—all the evidence shows that men are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women in this country.
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his graciousness—genuinely. When he started speaking, he said that a Member saying that they do not support this Bill does not mean that they support violence against women. He is absolutely right to say that it is not a zero-sum game, but does he agree that wanting a Bill that supports women does not mean that we do not want one that supports men? There is no use of the word “only” in this Bill. If he wishes to bring in a Bill about violence against men, I will gladly co-sponsor it with him.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. Perhaps then we can go back to the drawing board and make it clear that we want to introduce a Bill that targets men and women alike. If we do that, I would be delighted that both of us would be able to support it.
Dr Whiteford
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will read a bit from the Istanbul convention, to which I alluded in my speech. It says that
“measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, gender, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, state of health, disability, marital status, migrant or refugee status, or other status.”
That is article 4, clause 3, of the Istanbul convention.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. As I have said, we can go back to the drawing board and bring back a Bill that all of us can support. We have had four speeches so far, and I think I have heard only one passing reference to men. The whole thrust of this debate and argument, and the whole point of this Bill today, is simply about the unacceptability of violence against women. That is all we have heard so far. It is no good now trying to redraw the nature of the debate, because I am raising the point about true equality. If people really believe in equality in this House, let us go back to the drawing board and bring back a Bill that makes that clear.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Although it is true that article 4, which has just been quoted by the promoter of this Bill, says what she says it says, article 2 is the relevant article, because it sets out the scope of the convention. Paragraph 1 of article 2 quite clearly states:
“This Convention shall apply to all forms of violence against women.”
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will also come on to article 1, which makes it clear that discrimination against men is absolutely fine as far as the convention is concerned. It flies in the face of the impression that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan wants to give. There is an easy way to deal with this, as we all seem to be in agreement: we can go back to the drawing board and bring forward a Bill on which we can all agree.
Dr Mathias
In view of the fact that the Government have signalled that they will ratify this convention, is my hon. Friend saying that he does not want the Government to ratify it?
Philip Davies
I am against ratifying it, and I am trying to set out my reasons for my view. I want the Government to ratify something that targets all violence. During the course of my speech, I will test out Members’ commitment to stamping out violence—whether it be by men or women.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend arguing that there is no point in doing something that is a good thing, unless it solves all the problems of the world?
Philip Davies
If my hon. Friend is happy for a convention to make it explicitly clear that it is fine to discriminate against men—[Interruption.] I know that a lot of people are up in arms. I suspect that most of them have not even bothered to read all of the articles in the convention. If they want to, off the cuff, repeat to me article 1 of the convention in full—[Interruption.] No, I did not think that they could. They are just up in arms because of what I said at the start of my speech. They think, “It seems like a worthy sentiment, so we must support a worthy sentiment.” They have no substance for their view, but I am sure that if they want to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, and explain all the nuances of the different articles of this convention, you will humour them. I suspect that there is not much substance behind all the hollering, as usual, from our Scottish National party colleagues. I will try to help out my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) by explaining why I think that this convention should not be ratified. I am trying to make it clear that I believe in true equality rather than in this kind of equality that applies only to one gender.
My premise is that all the evidence shows that men are more likely to be victims of violent crime in this country than women.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that two women a week are killed. I do not know whether he has ever gone to a funeral of a woman who has died and seen the children there. I can assure him that I have, and it is a very uncomfortable experience.
Philip Davies
There are also funerals of men who have died. I am sure that that is just as uncomfortable an experience for their children. I am very sad that the hon. Lady does not recognise that, when a father dies, it is just as upsetting for the children as when a mother dies. I take issue with that premise.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
When the hon. Gentleman gives that crime statistic, is he trying to say that all those men have been made victims of crime because they are men? This Bill is about combating violence against women that is committed precisely because they are women and girls. That is not the case with the vast majority of crimes that he is talking about in those statistics.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman is going down an interesting route, as he is basically saying that, no matter the injuries a person sustains in a violent attack, all we should be concerned about is the motivation. If the motivation is not what the hon. Gentleman thinks—[Interruption.] That is fair enough. It seems to me, though, that if somebody comes up to a person because they hate them and beats them to a pulp, the nuance of why they hate that person is less important than the scale of the injuries they suffer and the need for the person who perpetrated the crime to be punished. The hon. Gentleman clearly has a different opinion on that. I am more interested in the violence and the punishment of the perpetrator.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. If we follow the logic of today’s debate, the Geneva convention should have applied only to men, as they were much more likely to be subjected to what it was intended to cover. I think that that would be nonsense, and I suspect that my hon. Friend and most people here think that it would be nonsense too, but it is amazing that when it falls on the other side, everyone is silent. That is the hypocrisy I want to expose today and I am going to press on and expose it.
To highlight the fact that men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime, I will quote the recent statistics from the Ministry of Justice on the representation of females and males in the criminal justice system. They confirm that men are nearly twice as likely to be the victim of violent crime than women. According to the crime survey of England and Wales, 1.3% of women interviewed reported being victims of violence compared with 2.4% of men. My point also applies to children. Again according to the crime survey for England and Wales, in 2015-16 a smaller proportion of girls than boys reported being victims of violence—4.2% of girls versus 7.7% of boys.
It is not just with violence generally that men do worse than women. When it comes to the most serious cases, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, in 2015-16 women accounted for 36% of recorded homicide victims while men were victims in 64% of cases. Clearly, on every possible level of crime, a man is more likely to be the victim than a woman.
Although we have not heard much, if anything, about this today, men are also victims of domestic violence. It is right that in two thirds of domestic violence incidents a woman is the victim, which is absolutely outrageous, but in a third of cases the victim is a man. It may well be that some people in this House think we should only be concerned about the two thirds who are women, but I do not. We should be concerned about all victims of domestic violence equally. They are all victims of domestic violence and we should consider them equally whenever we consider a response to it, not just the two thirds who happen to be women.
According to the Office for National Statistics report “Focus on Violent Crime and Sexual Offences”, which relates to the year ending March 2015 and which was released in February, the crime survey of England and Wales estimates that 8.2% of women and 4% of men reported experiencing any type of domestic abuse in the last year—that is all forms of abuse. That is equivalent to an estimated 1.3 million female victims and 600,000 male victims, all of whom, in my opinion, equally deserve our support. The ONS also confirms that 6.5% of women and 2.8% of men reported having experienced any type of partner abuse in the last year, equivalent to an estimated 1.1 million female victims and 500,000 male victims.
The Bill refers to preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Although the first part is relatively clear, the second bit, about domestic violence, is not so clear, because of the definition of domestic violence. Our definition of it includes non-violent components, so we need to be very careful when bandying around figures about domestic violence. That is inevitably the problem with a wide definition. It has the word “violence” in the title, and people then understandably assume it relates to physical violence, but that is not always necessarily the case and that can be quite confusing. We must also remember that domestic incidents include people in relationships, as well as those in family and other relationships that could be considered domestic in nature. What I am trying to say is that the notion that in every case of domestic violence or abuse the perpetrator is a big, burly wife-beater is just that—a notion, not fact.
I asked the House of Commons Library for some information on what is known as the Istanbul convention, which this Bill seeks to ratify. The Library said that it is a Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. It was adopted by the Council of Europe on 7 April 2011, was open for signature on 11 May 2011 at the 121st session of the Committee of Ministers in Istanbul, and entered into force on 1 August 2014. The UK signed the convention on 8 June 2012, but has not yet ratified it. Some countries have signed the convention, like the UK, and some have signed it and ratified it as well. I will not go through all the countries and give their positions on it, although it is very illuminating and relevant to the debate, but I do not want to test the patience of the House.
Some countries have signed the convention but not ratified it, like us. Sudan was mentioned as an illustration earlier. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) rightly highlighted, Germany has not ratified it. Nor has Iceland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Croatia and Cyprus. They are all members of the European Union, which is apparently such a fine institution that SNP Members are desperate for us to remain part of it, yet their wonderful partner countries have not bothered to ratify the convention either. There was no mention of that, strangely, in the speech made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. It is particularly interesting to note that Ireland only signed the convention on 5 November 2015, and has also not ratified it. Perhaps the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) might want to have a word with his friends in the Irish Republic to ask why they have not ratified it.
SNP Members were up in arms earlier about something that they never bothered to read and that they knew nothing about, but I will help them out, as I can tell them what article 1 says. It sets out five purposes, and the first is to
“protect women against all forms of violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence”.
The second is to
“contribute to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and promote substantive equality between women and men, including by empowering women”.
The third is to
“design a comprehensive framework, policies and measures for the protection of and assistance to all victims of violence against women and domestic violence”.
The fourth is to
“promote international co-operation with a view to eliminating violence against women and domestic violence”,
and the fifth is to
“provide support and assistance to organisations and law enforcement agencies to effectively co-operate in order to adopt an integrated approach to eliminating violence against women and domestic violence”.
Let us consider the first point. Of course we are all united in our opposition to any violence against women and girls. I will repeat that, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you do not mind, because I want to make it clear so that nobody misunderstands the terms of this debate. We are all united in our opposition to any violence against women and girls. I would be astounded if any of us were not. I pride myself on being one of the most hard-line Members on matters of law and order and sentencing, and I always find it rather strange that those who speak passionately about how we should have zero tolerance of violence against women and girls and violence against people—which I agree with—are often the same people who then argue that the perpetrators of violence should do anything but be sent to prison.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman has helpfully laid out the objectives of the Istanbul convention. Can he explain precisely what he sees as the downside of ratifying the convention, given all that it could do to achieve much greater focus and energy in the prevention of violence against women and girls, and for all those—whether male or female—who will be victims, particularly given the scale and nature of domestic violence?
Philip Davies
My hope is that, by the time I have finished speaking, the hon. Lady will be much wiser about why I wholly oppose the Bill.
Philip Davies
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he makes a good point. As I made clear, our definition of domestic violence is very different from that used in most other countries. However, there are other reasons, which I will come to, and article 1 contains something I fundamentally disagree with.
We are in the ridiculous situation where 66% of men convicted at Crown Court in England and Wales of violence against the person are sent to prison, compared with 37% of women. If we really want to send out a message—I heard a number of Opposition Members say that that was the purpose of the Bill—of zero tolerance of violence against the person, the first thing, and perhaps the main thing or even the only thing, we should do is press for much tougher sentences for people who are found guilty. One way to prevent and eliminate violence is to send people to prison for longer, because while they are in prison, they cannot perpetrate any violence against anybody in their households, or anywhere else for that matter.
The Labour party, which is apparently so concerned about violence against women and girls, actually introduced a law in a previous Parliament whereby somebody who is sent to prison for committing violence against a woman or a girl has, by law, to be released halfway through their prison sentence, whether or not it is considered that they will go straight back into the household they came from and commit the same crime again. By the law of the land, those people have to be released halfway through their sentence. The last Labour Government introduced that, so it is no good Labour Members coming here today and saying how committed they are to stopping violence against women and girls, when they are the ones who are responsible for these people being let back out on to the streets and back into their houses much sooner than the courts originally intended.
If people want to do something worth while to prevent violence against women and girls and against other people, let us all press for stronger prison sentences. Let us all press for people to spend more of their sentence in prison, rather than being released out on licence. How many people are up for that in the House today? They all go amazingly quiet, because when it comes down to it, they want to huff and puff about being tough on violence against women and girls. When it comes down to the actual thing that most of our constituents would recognise as being tough on violence against women and girls—tougher prison sentences—Opposition Members run away, because they do not like people being sent to prison.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very valid point. Does he not feel that there may be some correlation between the fact that the figures for violent crime are increasing and the fact that, as he has just pointed out, criminals know they will be let out halfway through their sentence?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not rocket science: the more criminals who are in prison, the fewer criminals are out on the street committing crimes. That is not really a massively difficult concept to grasp, although Opposition Members appear to be struggling with it. It is not that difficult to understand that if the people who commit these crimes are in prison, they cannot be committing these crimes. My hon. Friend must therefore surely be right in his suspicion.
The convention does not just cover violence, as article 1b mentions, and that is one of the reasons why I have a fundamental problem with the convention. Article 1b wants
“the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women”,
but I do not see how introducing a specific duty to eliminate all forms of discrimination against just women is not discriminatory in itself—I sometimes wish people could see the irony of their proposals. Surely, we should want to eliminate all forms of discrimination—full stop. Article 1b is, in effect, saying that discrimination against a man is okay because all we want to do is end discrimination against women. Well, it is not okay; no discrimination is okay. If this convention said, “Actually, what we want to do is end all forms of discrimination—full stop,” I would be the first to support it, but it does not say that. It talks about discrimination against women only. Surely, Members cannot support that form of discrimination. It flies in the face of everything we are supposed to believe in if we believe in true equality.
Then we have the phrase “including by empowering women”. This is obviously a legal document, and I am not entirely sure what the legal definition of that is supposed to be. We have some very respected people of the law in the Chamber today, and they may be able to help us out with the legal definition. I genuinely do not know, and I will bow to other people’s superior knowledge. The English dictionary definition of empowering is
“approving having qualities that give a person or a group of people the means to take more control of their lives and become stronger and more independent”,
and we are all in favour of that I would like to think.
Most concerning to me, however, is the fact that this whole strategy seems to be based on the premise that all this violence against women is committed by men. Why else would it link discrimination, stereotyping and violence? That certainly seems to be the thought of many of the people who are supporting the convention and the Bill. The impression people might be under is that the perpetrators of all these crimes against women are men. Indeed, on the website of one of the campaigns endorsing the Bill, women were holding up placards with the slogan:
“Together we can end male violence against women”.
So it would seem that they are not interested in ending all violence, regardless of whether the victim is male or female, or even in ending all violence against women.
Despite what people want to believe, violence against women is not caused only by men. Indeed, there is no evidence to support that underlying assumption. A letter I received from the Crown Prosecution Service said:
“We are unable to provide information on your specific requests of ‘the sex of both the defendant and the victim’... This is because we record the sex of the defendant and victim as separate statistics rather than as a joined statistic.”
So today’s Bill is based on an assumption that can quickly be proved wrong. We only have to look at the individual cases that come to our courts to see that there are plenty where violence has been committed by a female offender against a female victim. Let me just give a flavour of those cases.
How about the case of Samira Lupidi, who stabbed her two young daughters to death in a refuge in November last year? Lupidi had been placed in a refuge with the girls after she called the police to their house, claiming her partner had been violent. Speaking about Lupidi’s relationship with the father, the judge said:
“You reacted to this very difficult situation by saying ‘If I cannot have them’”—
the children—
“‘neither can he’… This is a crime which speaks of rage and I sentence you on the basis that you killed them in anger and out of a desire for revenge.”
A jury of six men and six women found her guilty of murder after only 90 minutes’ deliberation.
What about the case of Sadie Morris, a female paedophile who was sentenced to five years in jail after photographing herself abusing a three-year-old girl? The offences took place between 1 and 31 July 2013, with photographs involving one category A image—the most serious level—and one category B and one category C image. What about the case of a Romanian sex gang led by women who trafficked vulnerable women into Britain and forced them into prostitution? The gang raked in more than £15,000 a month and forced the prostitutes to deposit the cash across 14 separate bank accounts.
Ending male violence against women would not have prevented any of these cases, as the offenders were also female. Crime does not discriminate. We have to get real: instead of speaking of female victims of male perpetrators, we should speak of all victims, regardless of sex, and all offenders, regardless of sex. Why do so many Members find that so difficult to do?
There are many female perpetrators of violence against both men and women, according to official Ministry of Justice figures. Its report, “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2015”, says that violence against the person and theft were consistently the two offence groups with the highest number of arrests for both females and males. In fact, violence against the person accounted for 34% of all male arrests and 36% of all female arrests in the criminal justice system—we have not heard any of that in the speeches so far—while theft offences made up 21% of male arrests and 26% of female arrests.
Again, this is not restricted to women but also applies to girls. In 2015-16, violence against the person was the most common offence group for which juvenile females —10 to 17-year-olds—were arrested. In fact, 40% of arrests of girls aged 10 to 17 were for violence against the person. It is no good people shaking their heads; these are the facts—the official statistics—although they might be inconvenient. I am not surprised that Opposition Members have not heard about it; we never hear any of this in this place because we are so blinkered in only wanting to look one dimensionally at all these issues. I am not surprised that it has come as a shock to Opposition Members.
This is backed up by reports of cases such as that of Katie Neild, a 27-year-old mother of two who was rushed to hospital after a woman bit her and ripped a chunk out of her face, which left the victim with permanent scarring, even after an emergency skin graft. A case heard at my local court, Bradford Crown court, was that of a female who burgled a 79-year-old woman’s house in August last year. In her defence, the defendant’s barrister claimed that she would be extremely vulnerable in prison with a baby due in less than three months, despite her not being pregnant at the time of the burglary. However, Judge Thomas at Bradford Crown court—a fine man—said that his duty was to the pensioner whose life was so significantly affected that she had not left her home since.
This just gives a flavour of the vast array of cases where female offenders target female victims. The discriminatory underlay of this Bill is pointless and wrong, because not all victims are female and not all offenders are male. We should be bringing forward gender-neutral legislation that seeks to help all victims of crime—men and women—and to punish all offenders, men and women. Even in cases where people may assume that all violence is male on female, such as domestic violence, this is not so.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend has been referring to statistics from the United Kingdom. He may be aware of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, which issued a very big report on violence against women—an EU-wide survey—in which it found that 11% of non-heterosexual women in Europe have experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of other women.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for alerting me to that fact, of which I was unaware. I was just coming on to that point, because it seems that the figures are worse than that in the United Kingdom.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend clarify something? Is he saying that if this Bill were gender-neutral, he would support it?
Philip Davies
Yes, I am very much saying that—that is the thrust of my point. I absolutely would support the Bill if it were gender-neutral, but it clearly is not, and we need only read the convention to see that fact and to have heard the speeches we have heard so far today to realise that it has nothing to do with gender neutrality.
In 2008, Stonewall found that one in four lesbian and bisexual women have experienced domestic violence in a relationship, with 49.3% of bisexual women experiencing severe physical intimate violence. On abuse during childhood, the recent MOJ report, “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2015”, notes:
“The perpetrator of physical abuse against females was almost as equally likely to be the mother as the father (33% and 36% respectively).”
This is not as clear-cut as some Members would want us to believe, but the Bill supports the narrative that they want to keep talking about. What they say bears no relation to the facts, but it very much helps a narrative that they want people to take away. At some point, some of us have got to say, “No, we are not prepared to allow these distortions to continue. We are going to argue what the actual facts are, not what people would want the facts to be.”
If people do not want to listen to me—which I understand that they often do not, because I say things that they do not want to hear—perhaps they might have more sympathy for a marvellous lady called Erin Pizzey. In 1971, Erin Pizzey opened the world’s first women’s refuge in Chiswick specifically dealing with all victims of domestic violence. Perhaps because of her background, she has the credentials, which I am not afforded the luxury of being granted, to be given a hearing. She went to the United States at the invitation of the US Government and embarked on a Salvation Army-sponsored tour of 21 cities to help set up shelters for victims of domestic violence. She did the same when she moved to Italy, and she returned to England in 1997. More recently, in March 2007, she opened the first Arab refuge for victims of domestic violence in Bahrain. I hope that people may listen to her if they will not listen to me. In 2011, she said in a press release on the international day for the elimination of violence towards women:
“25th November 2011 is the international day for the elimination of violence towards women. Like everybody else who reads this statement I am of course totally in favour of the elimination of violence towards women but unlike the instigators of this event I believe that we should be eliminating violence against everyone and that includes men and children.
“I applaud the efforts of Viviane Reding who is the Vice-President and Commissioner responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, Cecile Grebolvel who is the Secretary General of European Women’s lobby and Mikael Gustatsson who is Chair of Parliamentary Women’s Rights and gender equality commission in their efforts to protect women but I am puzzled as to why this enormous empire of women with the huge self important titles manage to avoid any discussion of the effects of violence upon the family, fathers and children.
If we have any hope of tackling the tragic effects of domestic violence we have to face the facts that women can and are also guilty of violence against their partners. To concentrate only of women as victims is to deny the fact that children are also abused by their mothers. We can no longer afford to cover up the huge scandal that has existed for the last forty years where only men have been held up as perpetrators of all violence.
My hope is that sufficient political pressure will be brought to bear upon these women who sit in great positions of power to acknowledge that we do indeed need to make November 25th a day when we all agree internationally that there should be zero tolerance for violence against anyone and that we will all work to make the family a safe and harmonious place.”
I think that we should listen to that very carefully indeed. It sums up entirely my view on this issue. That is a woman who has far more credentials than many people in this place, having set up the world’s first women’s refuge.
In response to a parliamentary question asked by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), the Government said that they remain committed to ratifying the convention and set out what more needs to be done:
“The previous Government signed the Istanbul Convention to show the strong commitment it placed on tackling violence against women and girls and this Government remains committed to ratifying it… The UK already complies with the vast majority of the Convention’s articles but further amendments to domestic law, to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over a range of offences (as required by Article 44), are necessary before the Convention can be ratified. The Ministry of Justice is currently considering the approach to implementing the extra-territorial jurisdiction requirements in England and Wales and will seek to legislate when the approach is agreed and Parliamentary time allows.”
According to the Library, article 44 of the convention, on which the Government were placing great weight, states:
“Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with this Convention, when the offence is committed:
a in their territory; or
b on board a ship flying their flag; or
c on board an aircraft registered under their laws; or
d by one of their nationals; or
e by a person who has her or his habitual residence in their territory.”
Paragraph 2 states:
“Parties shall endeavour to take the necessary legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with this Convention where the offence is committed against one of their nationals or a person who has her or his habitual residence in their territory.”
Paragraph 3 states:
“For the prosecution of the offences established in accordance with Articles 36, 37, 38…and 39…of this Convention, Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that their jurisdiction is not subordinated to the condition that the acts are criminalised in the territory where they were committed.”
Paragraph 4 states:
“For the prosecution of the offences established in accordance with Articles 36, 37, 38 and 39 of this Convention, Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that their jurisdiction as regards points d and e of paragraph 1 is not subordinated to the condition that the prosecution can only be initiated following the reporting by the victim of the offence or the laying of information by the State of the place where the offence was committed.”
Paragraph 5 states:
“Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over the offences established in accordance with this Convention, in cases where an alleged perpetrator is present on their territory and they do not extradite her or him to another Party, solely on the basis of her or his nationality.”
Paragraph 6 states:
“When more than one Party claims jurisdiction over an alleged offence established in accordance with this Convention, the Parties involved shall, where appropriate, consult each other with a view to determining the most appropriate jurisdiction for prosecution.”
Paragraph 7 states that
“this Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised by a Party in accordance with its internal law.”
It is, apparently, because of article 44 that the Government are dragging their feet.
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. I think it worth also noting that article 36 refers to “Sexual violence, including rape”, article 37 refers to “Forced marriage”, article 38 refers to “Female genital mutilation”, and 39 refers to
“Forced abortion and forced sterilisation.”
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the subjects of those articles. It was probably remiss of me not to do so myself.
It seems that the Government are hanging their hat on article 44. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain more about the difficulties that they are experiencing in relation to it and the other articles mentioned in it, to which my hon. Friend has just referred.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am not sure that I can do as he asks, because this is a thorny issue. My hon. Friend has a great advantage over me, in that not only is he experienced in legal matters—which I certainly am not—but for many years he was a member of the Council of Europe. I hope that we may benefit from some of his expertise later, when he may, in passing, be able to answer his own question, which I am not able to do.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North tabled an early-day motion on this subject, which read:
“That this House notes that 8 June 2016 marks the fourth anniversary of the UK Government becoming a signatory to the Istanbul Convention on violence against women and girls; expresses disappointment that the Government, despite outlining their commitment to do so several times, has still failed to ratify this important convention; recognises that women still face a significant amount of inequality, with one in four women experiencing some form of domestic, sexual or psychological abuse during their lifetimes; further notes that ratifying the Istanbul Convention should ensure that a series of preventative policies will be introduced to help tackle and end violence against women, such as non-violent conflict resolution in relationships and the right to personal integrity being included in school curricula at all levels; congratulates the campaign group ICchange for their continuing work in applying pressure on the Government to ratify the convention; and calls on the Government to accede to this pressure and ensure ratification as soon as possible.”
There are a couple of interesting things to note about that motion. First, when I last looked it had 47 signatories, so despite the contention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that the House was unanimous in its support for her proposal, that unanimous support does not seem to have found its way there. Secondly, notwithstanding Members’ attempts to do a bit of back-tracking now, and to start saying that they care about violence against men as well—they offered no such views in the speeches we heard earlier— the EDM lets the cat out of the bag. Those Members do not care about violence against men. The EDM makes no mention of violence against men. It is all about violence against women. Let us not try to pretend now, at this late stage, that this is about gender neutrality; it is not, and people obviously know that it is not.
There is an awful lot to the convention—far more than I intend to go into today; I am sure Members will be relieved to hear that. Although I am sure that I would be deemed to be in order if I went into all of it, I want to hear from other speakers. Given that the Bill requires the ratification of the convention, however, it is all very relevant, and I want to put on record some of the key facts that it contains.
The Council of Europe’s website sets out the position. It says:
“In simple terms, preventing violence against women and domestic violence can save lives and reduce human suffering. Governments that agree to be bound by the Convention will have to do the following: train professionals in close contact with victims; regularly run awareness-raising campaigns; take steps to include issues such as gender equality and non-violent conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships in teaching material; set up treatment programmes for perpetrators of domestic violence and for sex offenders; work closely with NGOs; involve the media and the private sector in eradicating gender stereotypes and promoting mutual respect.”
That last bit sounds a bit like media censorship to me, but I am not entirely sure what the Council of Europe has in mind.
“Preventing violence against women and domestic violence should not be left to the state alone. In fact, the Convention calls on all members of society, in particular men and boys, to help reach its goal of creating a Europe free from all forms of violence against women and domestic violence. Violence against women is pervasive because misogynistic attitudes towards women persist. Each and every one of us can help challenge gender stereotypes, harmful traditional practices and discrimination against women. It is only by achieving real gender equality that violence against women can be prevented.”
It is clear that the convention goes well beyond trying to combat violence against women, and has a much wider remit than people would have us believe.
The website goes on to say:
“When preventive measures have failed and violence incidents have happened, it is important to provide victims and witnesses with protection and support. This means police intervention and protection as well as specialised support services such as shelters, telephone hotlines etc. It also means making sure that general social services understand the realities and concerns of victims of domestic violence and violence against women and support them accordingly in their quest to rebuild/resume their lives.
Some examples of measures set forth in the Convention include:
Granting the police the power to remove a perpetrator of domestic violence from his or her home: In situations of immediate danger, the police need to be able to guarantee the safety of the victim. In many instances this may mean ordering the perpetrator for a specified period of time to leave the family home and to stay away from the victim.
Ensuring access to adequate information…victims are usually traumatised and need easy access to clear and concise information on available services, in a language they understand.
Setting up easily accessible shelters in sufficient numbers and in an adequate geographical distribution: Victims come from a wide range of social realities. For instance, women from rural areas or disabled women need to have access to shelters as much as women from big cities.”
There is not one mention of a male victim of domestic violence. In a moment I shall say something about the supply of refuges for men and women, because I think it important to establish the extent to which the Government are fulfilling that requirement.
The website continues:
“Making available state-wide 24/7 telephone helplines free of charge: Specialised helplines for victims of violence against women and domestic violence can direct the victims to the services they need…
Setting-up easily accessible rape crisis or sexual violence referral centres: These centres provide immediate medical counselling, trauma care and forensic services and are extremely rare across Europe. It is important to make these services more widely available.
It should be borne in mind that it is not enough to set up protection structures and support services for victims. It is equally important to make sure victims are informed of their rights and know where and how to get help.”
I absolutely agree that victims should be better protected and have more of a voice in the justice system, but as far as I am concerned that applies to male victims as much as it does to female victims. When it comes to domestic violence, it is actually male victims who have the least support, not female ones.
An Office for National Statistics report from February 2016 on violent crime and sexual offences relating to the year ending March 2015 states:
“Overall, 27.1% of women and 13.2% of men had experienced any domestic abuse since the age of 16, equivalent to an estimated 4.5 million female victims and 2.2 million male victims.”
Those are shocking figures. New data from the ONS for the year ending March 2016 found that, of those who said that they had experienced domestic abuse, 1.2 million were female and 651,000 were male. As I established earlier, of every three victims of domestic abuse, two will be female and one will be male. Yet despite that split of two thirds and one third—we must all agree on that; they are the official figures and I have not heard anybody argue against them—there is absolutely no such funding split. Perhaps the Minister will explain why.
According to the Mankind Initiative:
“20 organisations offer refuge or safe house provision for male victims in the UK—a total of 82 spaces, of which 24 are dedicated to male DV victims only (the rest being for victims of either gender).”
Men have a chance of accessing only 82 spaces, only 24 of which—in the whole country—are guaranteed for them. The Mankind Initiative continues:
“For female victims, there are nearly 400 specialist domestic violence organisations providing refuge accommodation for women in the UK with c4,000 spaces for over 7,000 women and children.”
Two thirds of victims of domestic violence are women and a third are men, but there are 7,000 places in refuges for women and a maximum of 82 for men. How can that possibly be gender neutral or fair? I genuinely want to know why people think that that can possibly be fair, if we are genuinely interested in being gender neutral. Of course, we know that many people are not interested in being gender neutral.
It is interesting, too, that male victims are much less likely to come forward than female victims, which again suggests that it is male victims who need more encouragement. According to the Mankind Initiative:
“Male victims (29%) are over twice as likely than women (12%) to not tell anyone about the partner abuse they are suffering from. Only 10% of male victims will tell the police (26% women), only 23% will tell a person in an official position (43% women) and only 11% (23% women) will tell a health professional.”
On discussing sexual abuse during childhood, the recent Ministry of Justice report, “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2015”, states:
“12% of female victims and 25% of males told someone they knew personally about childhood sexual assault by rape or penetration (including attempts) at the time, usually a family member (18%). Only 10% of female victims told someone in an official position, with 8% reporting the abuse to the police. Only 2% of male victims reported the abuse to the police.”
Although sexual abuse is an absolutely huge issue among girls, with only 30% of victims telling anyone at all, it is also an issue among boys, but it is being massively under-reported, with only 27% of victims telling anyone, and only 2% telling the police.
The convention’s position on the prosecution of perpetrators is interesting, too. The Council of Europe says:
“The convention defines and criminalises the various forms of violence against women as well as domestic violence. This is one of the many achievements of the convention. To give effect to the convention, state parties will have to introduce a number of new offenses where they do not exist. These may include: psychological and physical violence, sexual violence and rape, stalking, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, forced abortion and forced sterilisation. In addition, state parties will need to ensure that culture, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ are not regarded as a justification for any of the above-listed courses of conduct.”
I am not sure how we deal with psychological violence, but most of those offences can have male victims, too. That does not include female genital mutilation, obviously, as that clearly relates only to females, and male circumcision is still considered to be legal. In the case of a forced abortion, which on the face of it is a female issue, if the person doing the forcing is not the father, there is potentially a father who is the victim of a lost child, so it is not just the woman who might suffer in that situation.
According to figures obtained by the Mankind Initiative:
“Of those that suffered partner abuse in 2014/15, a higher proportion of men suffered from force (37%) than women (29%). For emotional and psychological abuse the proportions were 61% and 63% respectively.”
There is not a fat lot in it, as it happens. There is almost exactly the same number of male victims of psychological abuse as female victims.
On the issue of psychological abuse of children, the recent MOJ reports states:
“Of those who experienced psychological abuse as a child, the perpetrator was most likely to have been the victim’s mother (40%) or father (35%). Women were more likely to have experienced this form of abuse from their mothers (42%) than fathers (33%), whereas men were equally likely to be abused by either parent.”
The matter of actual violence and injury is also interesting. The Mankind Initiative states:
“Of those that suffered from partner abuse in 2012/13, 29% of men and 23% of women suffered a physical injury, a higher proportion of men suffering severe bruising or bleeding (6%) and internal injuries or broken bones/teeth (2%) than women (4% and 1% respectively). 30% of men who suffer partner abuse have emotional and mental problems (47% women). Only 27% of men sought medical advice whilst 73% of women did.”
This Bill would ensure the ratification of a convention that does nothing to address domestic violence against men, just women.
I want briefly to mention the other offences that might, on the face of it, seem to apply only to women. Government figures show that one in every five victims of forced marriage is a man. In 2013, there were 234 cases of forced marriage in the UK where the victim was a man. On stalking, which many will no doubt assume involves a man stalking a woman, 2.4% of men and 4.9% of women experienced stalking in 2014-15. Again, of every three victims of stalking, two are women and one is a man.
The Council of Europe says:
“Once these new offenses have found their way into the national legal systems, there is no reason not to prosecute offenders. On the contrary, state parties will have to take a range of measures to ensure the effective investigation of any allegation of violence against women and domestic violence.”
It does not say that state parties will have to take a range of measures to ensure the effective investigation of violence against men. It seems to me that that does not matter to the Council of Europe. It goes on:
“This means that the law enforcement agencies will have to respond to calls for help, collect evidence and assess the risk of further violence to adequately protect the victim.
Furthermore, state parties will have to carry out judicial proceedings in a manner that respects the rights of victims at all stages of the proceedings and that avoid secondary victimisation.”
In February 2015, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report, “Violence against Women and Girls”, on the UK’s progress towards ratification of the convention. Again, the report is about violence against women and girls, with nothing about violence against men and boys. I do not know what anybody else thinks, but if the son of somebody in this House is the victim of violence, would they consider that to be less important than if their daughter was a victim of violence? I would like hon. Members to explain why they think violence against their sons would be less important. We may hear about that from other Members later, but we have not so far.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
That’s because you keep talking.
Philip Davies
I am glad that I am educating the hon. Gentleman, because he certainly knew nothing about article 1 of the convention before I highlighted it for him.
Chapter 8 of the report looked at ratification, and began by setting out what others had said about it. The International Development Committee has called on the Government to do more to address violence against women and girls within the UK. Again, it is about violence against women and girls. It states that
“the UK’s international leadership is weakened by its failure to address violence against women and girls within its own borders”.
Professor Kelly argued in evidence that, although the Government are undertaking good work abroad on violence against women and girls, more needs to be done in the UK:
“I think we have a hypocrisy about human rights. We talk about human rights internationally for others, and we are mealy-mouthed about it at home. If we could have a common discourse that, actually, this happens here, too—then I think we might be able to have a more constructive conversation about it.”
The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales said:
“Ratification would emphasise that the state has a positive duty in law to intervene in a proactive way to modify practices that result in harm, violence and degradation to women and girls. It would provide a further basis in law for those who wish to persuade the state to provide adequate and meaningful resources to construct an effective mechanism to protect women from gender violence and harm.”
Again, this is not gender-neutral. How can anyone argue that the convention is gender-neutral? There is no gender-neutral language anywhere in it for anyone to read. The report set out the background to the then Government’s position, which I do not want to go through in detail.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that he wants other Members to be able to get in, and I hope he will bear it in mind that we have a very long list of speakers.
Philip Davies
I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but there are certain things that I say that nobody else can be trusted to say. If we could rely on balanced contributions from other people, some of these things would not need saying, but they clearly do need saying, so—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman, because who knows what people are going to say? I have a very long list of speakers, and some of them may add to what he has said, although others may not. We may get to that part of the debate if he lets them in.
Philip Davies
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take that point on board. I assure you that others will not, not “may not” do so, but you make a good point. In that case—I think you will approve of this—rather than setting out the background to the Government’s position, I will leave it to the Minister to set out the Government’s position—
Philip Davies
I would like to think that the Minister has been suitably embarrassed about setting out the Government’s position, but I am looking forward to hearing him do so.
Philip Davies
I am sure the Minister will get the chance to do so.
It is worth noting that the Equality and Human Rights Commission acknowledges in its briefing that
“most of the Istanbul Convention obligations are implemented through UK legislation”,
and recent steps have been taken on many areas. For example, a prohibition on possession of rape pornography was introduced by section 37 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. This applies in England and Wales, and brings the offence of possession of extreme pornographic images more in line with that applicable in Scotland. A new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate or familial relationships was introduced by section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. An offence of forced marriage is now provided for in sections 121 and 122 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 was amended by section 73 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to include FGM protection orders, civil measures that can be applied for through a family court which provide a means of protecting actual or potential victims of FGM.
An email I received from the Muslim Council of Britain in support of the Bill quoted the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon:
“Violence against women continues to persist as one of the most heinous, systematic and prevalent human rights abuses in the world. It is a threat to all women, and an obstacle to all our efforts for development, peace, and gender equality in all societies… Let us take this issue with the deadly seriousness that it deserves”.
I do not understand how violence against women can be an obstacle to gender equality—I sometimes think I must be speaking in Swahili—because this would mean that all violence against women is committed by men, and as I have already said, that is patently not the case. Perhaps someone can explain to me how violence by women on women can be an obstacle to gender equality? In relation to making the Istanbul convention law, the Muslim Council of Britain goes on:
“This is indeed a unique opportunity in the UK so that we can show our support to women and girls who should be living free from any form of violence, and the fear of it.”
I agree with the sentiment, but I would agree more if it talked about everyone, not just women and girls.
The Fawcett Society has said:
“This new landmark treaty of the Council of Europe opens the path for creating a legal framework at pan-European level to protect women against all forms of violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence. It also establishes a monitoring body to evaluate implementation and progress.”
There will be more meddling from afar if we ratify this convention.
The Council of Europe provides details of the monitoring mechanisms that must be put in place if we ratify the convention. It says that there would be
“an independent expert body, the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO), which is initially composed of 10 members and will subsequently be enlarged to 15 members following the 25th ratification”,
and
“a political body, the Committee of the Parties, which is composed of representatives of the Parties to the Istanbul Convention. The task of GREVIO is to monitor the implementation of the Convention by the Parties.”
We will not do that in our own country; we will have an international body interfering and telling us how we are doing.
Mr Chope
Does my hon. Friend share my view that such a threat of interference is one reason why the German Government do not wish to ratify the convention? If that was the case, a lot of searching questions would be asked about their attitude to what happened in Cologne on new year’s eve last year.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend may well be right. I am loth to speak up for the German Government—I do not know what their motivation is—but that is entirely possible. It may well be unwelcome to have these meddling, interfering bodies telling us how we are doing when many of those people are doing far less in their own countries than we are doing in ours. We have seen that time and again with international bodies that are supposed to monitor what we are doing. They would be better off monitoring what they are doing in their own countries, rather than monitoring what we are doing in this country.
The Council of Europe also says:
“GREVIO may also adopt, where appropriate, general recommendations on themes and concepts of the Convention.”
This would be a living document, and would not just stick at where we are today. We have seen that with the European convention on human rights. It goes on:
“The Committee of the Parties follows up on GREVIO reports and conclusions and adopts recommendations to the Parties concerned.”
We would be signing up to an ever-moving feast. It adds:
“It is also responsible for the election of GREVIO members.”
There would be two forms of monitoring procedures: a country-by-country evaluation procedure, and a special inquiry procedure. A special inquiry procedure
“may be initiated by GREVIO when there is reliable information indicating that action is required to prevent a serious, massive or persistent pattern of any acts of violence covered by the Convention. In such a case, GREVIO may request the urgent submission of a special report by the Party concerned… After having been examined by GREVIO, the findings of the inquiry are transmitted to the Party concerned and, where appropriate, to the Committee of the Parties and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, together with any comments and recommendations.”
What an absolute bureaucratic nightmare we will get ourselves into if we ratify this convention.
We have seen how public confidence in the European convention on human rights has been undermined time after time by ridiculous findings and perverse rulings that could never have been intended at the time it was ratified. It is perfectly clear that this convention would end up in exactly the same way: an ever-moving feast, with the goalposts always being changed to suit some politically correct agenda. The Government would be hamstrung because they had ratified something, not really knowing what they were getting themselves into.
There is even a flowchart to explain what happens under the urgent inquiry procedures. I will not say any more about that, other than to note that agreeing to be party to things obviously has consequences, and the procedures to ensure that the obligations are met are clear for all to see. There are integrated policies that parties have to follow. Again, I would like the Minister to put some meat on how he sees the Government implementing those.
The Council of Europe states:
“An effective response to such violence requires concerted action by many different actors.”
These bodies would therefore be interfering in
“law enforcement agencies, the judiciary”—
even the judiciary is mentioned on the website. Some of the people who are today arguing for the convention are the same people who have been most robust in saying that people in this House should not interfere in the judiciary in our country and should respect the independence of the judiciary, yet clearly if we ratify the convention, as it says on the website, these bodies would look for actions from
“law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, NGOs, child protection agencies and other relevant partners”
that they deem should
“join forces on a particular case.”
What on earth would we be getting ourselves into by signing up to the convention? We can sort these things out for ourselves. We can pass any laws we want in this country to sort out any problems we deem it necessary to sort out. We do not have to sign up to some supranational, interfering, meddling body that wants to intervene, potentially, in the independence of our judiciary in order to sort out violence against people—even violence against women and girls.
I oppose the Bill because it would introduce unnecessary meddling from supranational bodies that we can quite do without to sort out problems that we can deal with perfectly well ourselves in our courts if we have the guts and the willpower to send perpetrators of violence and domestic violence to prison and keep them in prison. That is the best thing this House can do, but nobody on the Opposition Benches today seems to want to do it. They would sooner do some virtue signalling with this Bill.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend says that he is against the Bill, but at least we have a Bill. If it had not been for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) bringing forward the Bill, the House might never have been able to discuss this issue before the Government went ahead and ratified the convention.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I did at the start, I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan on bringing the Bill forward, because it is important that the public know the full implications of something with a worthy sounding title and a worthy sentiment behind it, and why some of us are opposed to these supranational bodies interfering in what we do in this country.
I am against the Bill for that reason and because we should have a convention that deals with all violence: violence against men as well as violence against women. Of course we oppose violence against women, but I for one equally oppose violence against men and boys. Having a strategy for one but not the other is just not acceptable to me. It really is as simple as that. I cannot understand for the life of me how political correctness has become so entrenched in this country that people here today can see nothing wrong with a whole policy on violence being based on just one sex, when, unbelievably, the evidence shows that it is the other sex who are more likely to be the victims of violent crime and when there are lots of male victims of domestic violence too. As I find myself saying all too often, you couldn’t make it up.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on introducing this Bill on such an important topic with a powerful opening speech.
The Government are absolutely committed to tackling violence against women and girls in all its forms. The coalition Government shared that commitment, and in 2012 signed the Istanbul convention to signal how seriously they took their responsibility for tackling violence against women and girls. This Government remain committed to ratifying the convention.
Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, I want to be very clear that the measures already in place in the United Kingdom protect women and girls from violence in nearly all cases, and comply with or go further than the convention requires. It is also worth taking note of the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who gave us all food for thought and made the very valid point that we have to remember that there is violence against men and boys, and male rape. That is equally unacceptable, but we are dealing today with a specific private Member’s Bill.
We know that some crimes disproportionately affect women and girls. The United Kingdom is leading the way internationally in efforts to tackle this issue in all its forms. In the last four years, we have undertaken a significant amount of work to ensure that victims are supported and perpetrators brought to justice and that we do all we can to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place.
Philip Davies
The Minister said that certain crimes disproportionately affect women and girls. There are more male victims of violent crime than female victims. Surely he will acknowledge that the Bill does not deal with one of the issues he refers to.
Brandon Lewis
First, I would say to Opposition Members that my hon. Friend has every right to contribute to this debate, so murmuring from a sedentary position when he wants to intervene and make a point that backs up the powerful speech he made is inappropriate and misses the point of having a debate in the House. Obviously, domestic abuse and domestic sexual abuse predominantly affect women, although I acknowledge that in terms of crime across the country, particularly violent crime, men do suffer, and my hon. Friend is right that we should be equally intolerant of that and that sentences should reflect the fact.
We have introduced new laws to ensure that perpetrators of violence against women and girls face the consequences of their actions, including the criminalisation of forced marriage, two new stalking offences and a new offence of domestic abuse covering controlling and coercive behaviour. We have also introduced new tools to protect victims and prevent those crimes from happening. We now have two new civil orders to manage sex offenders. Domestic violence protection orders have been rolled out nationally, and we have introduced the domestic violence disclosure scheme, known as Clare’s law, which allows women to check whether their partner has a violent history. We have also raised awareness among the public and professionals, including through our acclaimed teenage relationship abuse campaign, which encourages teens to rethink their views of violence, abuse, controlling behaviour and consent, as well as new statutory guidance on forced marriage, female genital mutilation and domestic abuse.
Driving a culture of change in the police’s response is also important, and we have been working on that, including by ensuring that the recommendations from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s review of domestic abuse are acted upon; all forces have now published domestic abuse actions plans. We also have a range of activities to tackle so-called honour-based violence, including significantly strengthening the law on female genital mutilation and forced marriage, introducing female genital mutilation protection orders and a new mandatory reporting duty, and launching the Home Office’s unit specifically looking at female genital mutilation.
While the nature of these crimes is often gendered, many of them affect both men and women, and I recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley rightly pointed out, that men and boys can also be victims of domestic and sexual violence; and they too deserve support and protection. All our policies are applied fairly and equitably to all perpetrators and victims of crime, irrespective of gender, and I recognise that male victims may need more specific support. As he rightly outlined, some of the reaction on Twitter, for example, highlights why sometimes male victims might need specific support to feel the confidence to come forward, as more and more women now do.
That is why the Home Office funds the men’s advice line, which provides support to male victims of domestic violence, as well as Galop, which provides information and support to members of the LGBT community affected by violence and abuse. We are also providing central Government funding to support victims, including refugees, through the provision of rape centres, national helplines, independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, as well as services to support victims of female genital mutilation and forced marriage and those seeking to exit prostitution. We are also providing funding to support new early intervention models developed by our partners in the sector.
In taking forward this work, the UK is already fully compliant with the vast majority of the convention, which requires signatories to ensure four key things: first, that legal measures are in place to address violence against women and girls; secondly, that there is appropriate support for victims; thirdly, that professionals understand the issues; and fourthly, that there is Government oversight. So we are making progress. More and more victims have the confidence to come forward, while police referrals, prosecutions and convictions for offences are all at their highest ever levels, but we are not, and cannot be, complacent. On 8 March, we published our new cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy, which sets out our ambition that by the end of this Parliament no victim of abuse is turned away from the support they need.
That strategy is underpinned by increasing the funding by £18 million for tackling violence against women and girls between now and 2020. This includes protecting the funding for rape support centres; £1 million for national helplines; a two-year fund for refugees; and a new £15 million violence against women and girls transformation fund to promote the very early prevention and intervention that has been outlined. This dedicated funding is supported by funding for innovative programmes provided through the police transformation fund and the police innovation fund. There is the troubled families programme and further funding through the tampon tax.
In addition, we published last week a national statement of expectations, which sets out the action that local areas should take to ensure that victims get the support they deserve. We published guidance for local commissioners and announced that we would introduce a new stalking protection order to allow the police and the courts to intervene early to keep victims safe and to stop stranger stalking before it escalates. We made available a range of additional resources on domestic abuse, including updated guidance on the domestic violence disclosure scheme. We want to see this new funding and the new tools that we have introduced used to aid, promote and embed the best local practice, and ensure that early intervention and prevention become the norm.
The measures we have introduced since 2012 have helped to strengthen our compliance with the Istanbul convention. As I have said, in nearly all cases, we comply with, or even go further than, the convention itself requires. Although some have suggested that the UK’s not ratifying the convention signals a lack of commitment to tackling the issue internationally, I should stress that we, as a country, have played a leading role in ending these crimes overseas.
We should be proud of the international leadership we have shown at the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict and at the 2014 girl summit to end female genital mutilation and forced marriage. The Department for International Development runs a £35 million programme to tackle FGM, and a £36 million programme to end child, early and indeed forced marriage. It is also helping many countries to take more effective action to tackle violence against women and girls. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has increased its programme resources to tackle these issues by more than 60% in recent years, and its spending on these projects has increased by £2.6 million since 2015.
As I say, we are absolutely committed to ratifying the convention, but before we do that, we must ensure that we are fully compliant with it. We have already taken one of the legislative steps necessary to ratify it by criminalising forced marriage as required by article 37. Members have referred to specific articles, so let me deal with one that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley rightly pointed out.
Further amendments to domestic law are necessary to comply with the extra-territorial jurisdiction requirements, which are in article 44 of the convention. Article 44 requires the United Kingdom to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over these offences established in accordance with the convention when committed abroad by UK nationals. We already have extra-territorial jurisdiction over some of the offences covered by the convention, including the common-law offence of murder, sexual offences against children, forced marriage and female genital mutilation. However, we need to amend domestic law to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over a range of other offences—in England and Wales, as well as in Scotland and Northern Ireland—before we are fully compliant and able to ratify the convention.
As a general rule, Government policy on the jurisdiction of our courts is that criminal offending is best dealt with by the criminal justice system of the state in whose territory the offence occurred. Exceptionally, taking extra-territorial jurisdiction is necessary to address serious crimes committed overseas as a matter of domestic policy or as part of an international consensus in which we participate. Any extension, moreover, has an impact on the criminal justice agencies—courts, prisons—including potentially increased demands on their resources. We need to ensure that we are able to consider carefully the extent to which it is necessary to take extra-territorial jurisdiction for compliance with the convention.
Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Metropolitan Police
Philip Davies Excerpts(7 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As we have heard, many police forces are getting to grips with changing their culture and making sure that vulnerable people and those at risk of any kind of hidden crime can be confident that they can come forward and will be protected—that is part of the inquiry’s work—but he is right that it is shocking to think that vulnerable people did not get the protection they required from the Metropolitan police, that officers did not have the training they needed and that nobody in a senior position really took ownership of the issue. That has to change. The Metropolitan police has to take on that culture change, and other police forces also need to think about doing so.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to describe the report as shocking. Are there any actions that he believes the Government and Parliament need to take as a result?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point and asks an important question. I must say that, from the conversations we have had with the Mayor’s office—the Home Secretary and I have had conversations with the Mayor and the deputy Mayor—I am confident that the work they want to do will hold the Metropolitan police to account and lead to change. There is a meeting that the public can attend at City Hall on Monday.
I know that the deputy Mayor is determined to bring together experts from around the country—Simon Bailey, the NPCC lead, as well as the College of Policing lead—to work with the new Metropolitan police lead, Martin Hewitt, and I think that that is right. From the Government’s point of view, it is right for us to do what we can, and the Home Secretary has commissioned HMIC to carry out inspections quarterly and to report publicly on them so that the people of London can hold the Metropolitan police to account and support the Mayor in that work.
Police Officer Safety
Philip Davies Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin). I think I speak for the whole House when I say that that was a truly outstanding maiden speech, and done in the best traditions of the House. Thinking back to my maiden speech, I wish could have made it as well and as competently as that.
I also ought to say that the hon. Lady showed a massive amount of dignity in the election campaign she fought—not just in the campaign itself, but particularly at the count, when she faced some deeply unpleasant barracking during her speech, which she should not have had to experience. She should probably get used to that in this place, but she certainly should not have had to put up with it then.
Having listened to the hon. Lady’s speech, it is fair to say that Jo Cox could not have hoped for a better successor, and I am sure the people of Batley and Spen feel that they could not have hoped for a better successor to Jo Cox. She clearly is going to be a rising star on the Labour Benches, and somebody the Conservative party will have to watch out for in years to come. I commend her on an excellent first speech.
This is a very important subject for me. I asked for a debate on assaults on police officers in business questions a few months ago, and on the back of that I wrote an article on the issue for the Yorkshire Post. Therefore, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has done a fantastic amount of work on the issue—I commend her wholeheartedly—has persuaded her party to have a debate on it, and I commend the Labour party for that.
I have to say right from the outset that I am rather sad that the Government have tabled an amendment to the Labour party motion; it seems to be rather splitting hairs, if I may say so. This was an opportunity for the House to speak as one on police assaults. I welcome the fact that the Government have committed not to cut police funding any further, but I do not really see why they could not have supported the motion. Therefore, if we do divide on this issue, I will happily vote for the Labour party motion, because I cannot see anything in it with which I disagree.
I should also say at the start that I actually voted against any cuts to the police budget every year when cuts were proposed, because I believe that the first duty of the Government is to protect the public, and the police budget was not the budget the Government should have been cutting. I therefore endorse everything that the Labour party has said on this issue.
Like the hon. Member for Halifax, I have spent an awful lot of days going out with West Yorkshire police—about 60 or 70 since I first got elected. I have the greatest respect for the officers and the sacrifices they make on a daily basis keeping us safe. One of the most serious consequences of being a police officer is the threat of personal injury, or actual injury, and occasionally worse, in the line of duty.
As has been mentioned, the recording of assaults is not necessarily uniform, and is clearly a bit haphazard. The charging procedure also makes it difficult to follow through on the number of assaults that there actually are. An assault on a police officer will be charged as an assault on a police officer only if it meets certain criteria; otherwise, it could be charged as another violence against the person offence, even though the facts show that the victim was a police officer.
I put in a freedom of information request about two months ago to the Metropolitan police, which showed that there have been broadly 2,000 assaults on police officers in the Metropolitan police area every year for the last three years. When we take those in which injury occurred, there seems to have been an increase from 536 in 2013 to a worrying 869 in 2015, and that is just in London. The figures also show that the most serious incidents—wounding or grievous bodily harm—have increased from 81 in 2013 to 211 in 2015. I have been trying to establish the relevant number in West Yorkshire but have not had as much joy. I have also been wondering whether there should be a specific offence of assaulting a police officer that would cover all assaults and not just some. The name of the offence could encapsulate all offences against police officers. This would certainly make identifying the numbers involved easier, so at least we would know the true picture.
Crucial in this is sentencing. My biggest concern is that while we want to get the numbers right, it is also very important to make sure that the sentencing of such offenders matches the seriousness of the offence. I called for a debate on this not long ago. Again, having one offence could help, but whatever happens, we need tougher sentences. The sentencing guidelines relating to assaulting a police officer were amended a few years ago. We should all be concerned about those guidelines. At the time, I was told that someone who committed an assault on a police officer that involved a punch to the stomach that winded the officer, where there was an attempt to evade arrest, and where the individual had previous convictions, could in theory be punished only with a fine. I was concerned about that then and I am concerned about it now.
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend and I have spent probably 10 years calling for tougher sentences and often being rubbished and criticised by Members in various parts of this House. Is he surprised that so many people are now calling for tougher sentences and saying that prison works and offers a deterrent?
Philip Davies
I am delighted that people are calling for more people to be sent to prison. I have been arguing that case for an awfully long time, and I am delighted that I seem to be getting some traction on it.
The problem with the sentencing guidelines is just the tip of the iceberg. I have asked parliamentary questions about this for a while, and have been shocked to find out that only one in seven criminals convicted of an assault on a police constable in the execution of their duty received a prison sentence at all. In the latest year shown in the figures, 7,829 assaults on police officers were recorded as being dealt with in our courts where the offender pleaded guilty or was found guilty, and yet only 1,002 of the offenders were actually sent to prison. That is completely and utterly unacceptable.
Other parliamentary questions I have asked revealed that someone with an astonishing 36 previous convictions for assaulting a police officer managed to avoid being sent to prison for a further assault on a police officer.
Philip Davies
I am going to press on, if my hon. Friends do not mind, because other people want to speak and I want to crack on.
This kind of soft, lily-livered approach to sentencing is simply not on. I want to mention a recent example of a case before Bradford Crown court that was not charged as an assault against a PC because of the nature of the incident. It demonstrates the problem that we have. The hon. Member for Halifax mentioned this issue, but I want to emphasise it. Sergeant Andrew Heald, who was arresting a criminal who had an armful of previous convictions and was out of prison on licence, had acid thrown in his face and feared that he had been blinded or disfigured. I cannot imagine how frightening that must have been for that police officer doing his job of protecting the public. The sentence handed down to the lowlife who threw the acid in Sergeant Heald’s face was 20 months for the attack and a further 10 months for the offence for which he was trying to arrest him.
I want to be clear that this derisory sentence was not the fault of the judge, as having looked carefully at the sentencing guidelines, it is obvious that he had acted to the best of his ability given the constraints that the guidelines placed on him. This meant that because he was out on licence, this thug, who should not even have been out of prison in the first place, will serve just 10 months in prison for this vicious attack on a police officer doing his job. There should be a clearly defined additional sentence for anyone who attacks our police officers, and generally the sentences need to be much more severe. The police put their lives at risk to protect us, and the least we can do in this place is to make sure that the law better protects them.
I have also been looking at the use of Tasers by the police. It seems to me that Tasers are currently underused and that if more police had them they might be better able to prevent assaults on themselves in the first place. According to my recent FOI request, just 13% of police officers in West Yorkshire are authorised to carry a Taser. If the police want to carry a Taser to better protect themselves, we should make sure that that is facilitated.
The motion touches on police numbers. As I have made clear, I have voted against cuts to the police budget every year they have been proposed. This should be a priority for the police. If the Government had to save money—which they did—they would have been far better off cutting the overseas aid budget, which lines the pockets of corrupt politicians around the world than cutting the police budget when the first duty of the Government is to protect the public. The fact is that police officer numbers in West Yorkshire have fallen from 5,817 in May 2010 to 4,552 today. That is just not good enough or at all helpful. We need more police officers.
In conclusion, every attack on an officer should always act as a reminder of the bravery of our police and the price that they sometimes pay to protect us. It is only right that the Government and Parliament totally support them in return. Clearly, establishing how many police officers are assaulted is helpful, but toughening up the sentences of those who attack the police as they do their duty is the best thing that this House could do, and this debate is a very good start. For those reasons, I support the Labour motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
This has been a lively debate on an important subject of great concern to us all. I have listened with great care to the thoughtful speeches made by Members on both sides of the House. Sadly, there is so little time for me to speak that I will not be able to address all the questions, but I will write to Members with answers.
I am sure that you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there has been one absolutely stand-out speech this afternoon, and that was the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin). We will never forget the contribution that Jo made; she was, indeed, a small woman with a big kick. I am sure that the people of Batley and Spen will be extremely well represented by the hon. Lady, as we have seen from her speech today. I join her in paying great respect to West Yorkshire police for how they have dealt with an incredibly difficult time for her community and the broader community of West Yorkshire.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for persuading her colleagues to secure this important debate and for enabling us all to highlight this important issue. Like the hon. Lady and many Members we have heard this afternoon, I have spent time on the beat with officers in my constituency. My sister was a police officer, and my nephew—I am proud of him—is now serving our community as a special. I know at first hand of the dedication of police officers, keeping us safe, day in, day out, all around our country.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for his long and distinguished service as a special, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies) for his more than 30 years of service as a police officer. I congratulate him on his recent election to the Home Affairs Committee, where I am sure that he will do an excellent job.
This afternoon, there have been calls for more and stronger sentencing. We agree that sentences must be tough. Although sentences are a matter for the courts, I want to assure all Members that sentencing guidelines already provide for assault on a police officer to be treated more severely. Assaults on police officers resulting in injuries will often result in a charge of actual bodily harm or an even more serious offence. In these cases, the fact that the victim is a police officer delivering this vital service is taken into account.
An assault can be treated more severely if the court so chooses, and there are offences relating specifically to police officers even where there is no physical harm. Right at the other end of the spectrum, in the most serious cases where an individual is convicted of the murder of a police officer in the course of his duty, a whole-life order will now be the sentencing starting point, thanks to the provisions introduced by the Government in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
As the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service stated, the Government will continue to provide the Sentencing Council with data and evidence on assaults on police officers as it reviews its guidelines. We must make sure that any assault on a police officer is treated with the gravity it deserves. As he said, we will continue to work with ministerial colleagues across the Government, such as the Solicitor General, to ensure that individuals are appropriately prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Philip Davies
It has been agreed right across the House that sentencing for assaults on police officers is not sufficient. Would it not be a good idea for the Minister to send a transcript of this debate to Lord Justice Treacy, the chairman of the Sentencing Council, to ask him, on the back of this debate, to look once again at these guidelines to make sure that they are more appropriate?
Sarah Newton
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will make sure that members of the Sentencing Council read the record of this debate and fully understand the strong feelings in this House about having really tough sentences for these absolutely appalling and totally unacceptable offences.
I will touch briefly on the issue of equipment to support police officers because that was raised by a number of Members. I want to underline the fact that the Home Office supports chief constables in their operational decisions. This includes the funding of research on and guidance about equipment that might be helpful, including body cameras and spit hoods. I am sure we all agree, however, that the police must maintain their operational independence. It is not for the Home Office to run the police from Marsham Street. Chief constables and police and crime commissioners are accountable to the local communities they serve.
Orgreave
Philip Davies Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman will know full well from the meeting with campaigners that he came to, and I was also at, that we were very clear, as the Home Secretary has been throughout the process, that she would make a decision by the end of October and would take into account a wide range of factors. She considered a number of factors when making her decision. She reviewed a wide range of documents, carefully considered the arguments contained in the campaign’s submission and spoke to the campaign leaders and supporters, as she did yesterday, when she personally spoke to Barbara Jackson and to the right hon. Gentleman, among others, and I spoke to the police and crime commissioner.
The right hon. Gentleman commented on the links with Hillsborough. I know he will be aware that work is still ongoing on Hillsborough, with the Independent Police Complaints Commission still looking at the issues, and there could still be criminal proceedings.
When the right hon. Gentleman looks at the decision he should remember that, as the Home Secretary rightly pointed out yesterday, we fully appreciate that we disagree on this, but that does not mean that the Home Secretary’s decision is wrong.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I very much support the Home Secretary’s decision. Unlike most of the people bleating on the Labour Benches, I actually lived in South Yorkshire in a mining community during the time of the miners strike and saw at first hand the bullying and intimidation from the miners that went on. People who did not contribute to the strike fund had their windows done in.
These people were trying to bring down the democratically elected Government of the time. They lost, and they need to get over it. Anyone only has to look at the TV pictures—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I recognise that this is a subject that arouses very strong feeling, but the House knows me well enough by now to know that I will facilitate the fullest possible questioning on the matter from Members in all parts of the House. However, I ought to be able to say without fear of contradiction that the hon. Member for Shipley will be heard.
Philip Davies
People only have to look at the TV footage of the event to see the violence that the miners were carrying out against police officers. Will the Minister explain why, if this matter is so important to Labour Members, in the 13 years they were in government they did absolutely nothing about it?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an impassioned point. I would not for a moment want to put words in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) from the Dispatch Box. I am sure he will be able to explain the actions he took or did not take during that period. For us, this has not been a political decision. The Home Secretary said yesterday that it is about looking at what is right in terms of the wider public interest and in the light of the substantial changes to and reforms of the police service there have been. All of us, across the House, should get behind the continued driving through of future reforms of the police service through the Policing and Crime Bill.
Child Refugees: Age Checks
Philip Davies Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Immigration if he will make a statement on what age checks are being carried out on child refugees to ensure they are children.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling this urgent question, which enables us to put the Government’s position on the record.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we work closely with the French authorities to ensure that the cases applying to come to the UK qualify under Dublin, including in terms of conducting an age assessment where necessary. All individuals are referred to the UK authorities by France terre d’asile—the FTDA, which is a non-governmental organisation—and are then interviewed by French and UK officials. Where credible and clear documentary evidence of age is not available—the pace at which these children have fled situations of war and persecution means that many do not have any definitive documentary evidence—then we will use criteria, including physical appearance and demeanour, to assess age as part of the interview process.
My officials are working in difficult circumstances in Calais to ensure that vulnerable children are safeguarded. There has been significant media coverage over the last week questioning the appearance of those admitted to the UK. I think we would all agree that teenagers’ appearances vary widely, and my officials and all the agencies working in these difficult circumstances have the safety and welfare of the young people in mind.
This week has also reopened the old debate about the value of dental X-rays and medical tests to determine an individual’s age. A significant number of experts have spoken out against such checks. The British Dental Association has described them as “inaccurate, inappropriate and unethical”. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has said that the margin of error can sometimes be as much as five years either side with medical tests and Doctors of the World UK has called the idea “unethical and unnecessary”. That is why the Home Office does not use dental X-rays to confirm the ages of those seeking asylum in the UK. The House should also note that, legally, we cannot force anyone to undergo such a check. That is why officials are trained to assess age. I want to be clear that where we believe someone is clearly over 18, they will be refused. Indeed, the information I have today suggests that around 10% of cases referred to us on this basis are being refused in France.
We have made significant progress to bring to the UK those children with family members. We are absolutely determined to get those children here, but I would call on all Members of the House, the media and the public to respect the privacy of these vulnerable young people.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration, for that statement.
Surely it cannot be necessary to explain why it is important that child refugees are actually children. We agreed to take in child refugees, so surely it is not too much to ask that the Government ensure that they are children. But clearly this is not the case: people only have to see the pictures of the so-called child refugees to see that many of them are not children. The Home Office has admitted that two thirds of people claiming to be child refugees are shown to be not children. Even the charities have had to accept this, trying to explain that people who are clearly older were translators, only to be told that they were not translators at all, but were claiming to be child refugees. A large number of my constituents have contacted me to say how angry they are that we are being taken for fools and taken for a ride, and that our generosity is being abused. Does the Minister not understand that unless a grip is taken on this, it will do irreparable damage to public confidence in the asylum system?
The Minister has said that carrying out dental checks would be not only unethical but unreliable. However, the Government’s own website, in the UK Visas and Immigration section on “Assessing age”, under “Dental age assessments or x-ray reports”, says:
“In some instances, applicants will submit reports from dental consultants based on a detailed assessment of dental development. The margin of error in determining age through this process is approximately plus or minus 2 years”,
and prays in aid the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. It continues:
“This means there will be cases where such reports should be given considerable weight—for example because the applicant’s claimed age is within the possible range.”
The Home Office is already saying on its website that dental checks should be given considerable weight. How on earth can they be unreliable and unethical in this case, when they are being touted on the Government’s website as sensible? What checks are being made by the Government?
Finally, if somebody claims to be 14, do we just accept it and send them to a local school, with all the obvious safeguarding issues that would be involved if they were adults? The Government owe the British public and genuine child refugees a promise to get a grip on this situation.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend needs to be aware that both the Dublin regulation and section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016—the so-called Dubs amendment—define children as those under the age of 18. Indeed, a large number of those in the camps are both male and 16 or 17-year-olds, and we have never tried to mislead anyone about that particular fact.
The criterion being used at this stage for the Dublin children is family connections in the UK. Those children are our priority and they are the ones we have seen being brought across this week. Further children will be brought across, and some of that initial assessment will enable further work to be done, including fingerprinting. If there are cases where, for example, the person concerned has been brought to the attention of a European immigration authority or has applied for a visa somewhere in the world to come to the UK, we will be able to have further information, so that work is being done.
The age issue can arise because of Home Office concerns about the claimed age or because the individual does not accept the initial assessment process. Where there is doubt, the individual will be referred to a local authority children’s services department for a careful, case-law compliant age assessment and will be treated as a child while the outcome is awaited. Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that they safeguard and promote the welfare of children under section 11 of the Children Act 2004, regardless of their immigration status or nationality. This safeguards the individual who is required to undergo an age assessment and safeguards children already in the care population from the presence of an adult being placed in the same living accommodation.
Calais Jungle
Philip Davies Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her question. She asked about the numbers under the Dubs amendment, which was agreed in May, and I can tell her that we have taken more than 50 in process. They are largely from Greece, because that was the area deemed to have the highest differential in terms of the children’s vulnerability compared with the UK. We are now focused much more on trying to get these children from the Calais camps, and for the past three weeks the French have been working with us on identifying them.
The hon. and learned Lady asked for details about numbers and plans for bringing children to the UK. I would say to her and to the House in all honesty and humility that we have to be careful about how much information we share publicly about those numbers and plans, because it is not always in the best interests of the children for the criminal gangs involved in trafficking them to have information about what the plans are, how many children will be taken—[Interruption.] Saying “Come on” does a disservice to the Government and to our intentions to look after those children. Simply adopting a high moral tone as if total disclosure were the answer is wrong, and I ask right hon. and hon. Members to work with us on this. I am happy to be completely frank and talk about the issue, but we do not think that public disclosure of this is in the best interest of the more vulnerable children.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Why do genuine refugees need to come from France to the UK to be looked after properly? Why cannot France process people’s asylum applications? What is so terrible about refugees living in France? Why do they have to come to the UK? Can the Home Secretary explain why these people are so desperate to get out of a safe country—France—into the United Kingdom, because I suspect that if we tried to palm off our refugees on another EU country the Opposition would be apoplectic?
Amber Rudd
I am always grateful for a question from my hon. Friend, and on this matter we have a legal obligation under the Dublin arrangements whereby children who have demonstrated that they have family over here are entitled to come here, but that process goes through the host French Government, so they have to apply for that right in France. As for additional children whom we wish to take, that battle has been fought in the Dubs amendment, and we intend to act on it.
Removal of Foreign National Offenders and EU Prisoners
Philip Davies Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs May
Again, my hon. Friend has specifically raised the concerns of his constituents on that issue, and my answer is that being within the European Union, and having the single prisoner transfer framework decision and various other tools, makes us safer. There is uncertainty and delay in having to negotiate bilateral arrangements—indeed, nobody knows whether it will be possible to negotiate bilateral arrangements that are of equal benefit to the British public as those that we have as members of the EU.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Despite the Home Secretary’s tough talk, the figures are stark. Since 2002-03, the number of EU prisoners in our prisons has trebled. As an illustration, the number of Polish prisoners has gone up from 46 to 983, and the number of Romanian prisoners has increased from 50 to 635. Over the past three years, the Metropolitan police have arrested 100,000 EU nationals and charged more than 30,000 with an offence. The Home Secretary is clearly failing to stop EU criminals coming into the UK, and failing to deport them. Is the only conclusion to be drawn that the free movement of people means the free movement of criminals into the UK?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend may not be surprised to hear that I draw different conclusions. It is obviously important that we are able to deal with those who try to cross our borders and have a record of criminality, and we must have access to information that enables us to make decisions about such people. That is why access to SIS II, and other systems that allow us to check criminal records, is so important.
Brain Family: Deportation
Philip Davies Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Brokenshire
I have met the hon. Gentleman to discuss this case previously. He says that I should show compassion and humanity, but he will know that I have already exercised discretion not once but twice in this case on the basis of representations he has made on the family’s behalf. I obviously listened carefully to what he said, and I look forward to meeting him later to hear more about the details that he has relayed to the House this morning and to reflect further on his representations.
I want to correct slightly some of the facts that the hon. Gentleman has presented. He said that the family came here under the fresh talent scheme, which closed in 2008 and was replaced by the post-study work scheme under tier 1. The latter scheme was closed by the coalition Government and that announcement was made on 21 March 2011. From the information that I have, the Brain family arrived in the UK on 14 June 2011. There are clear issues to consider about post-study work opportunities and moving from the tier 4 study route into tier 2. I was pleased to note in the latest figures that I have seen that around 6,000 people did that in the last year for which information is available.
It is important that the Scottish Government continue to play their part in creating an enterprise economy, using their powers to create jobs and opportunities for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and to provide a route for people who study at our universities to get graduate-level employment. The previous arrangements simply did not work. They allowed abuse to take place and resulted in people moving into low-skilled employment, not reflecting the education that they obtained. However, I wish to reflect further on the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made to me today, and I look forward to meeting him later.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
There is nobody more passionate about having a robust immigration policy than me, but I just wonder whether the Minister would agree that this may be a case where the Government are being too harsh on people from outside the European Union, as a direct consequence of having free movement of people from within the European Union.
James Brokenshire
I say to my hon. Friend that when dealing with issues of migration it is important that we take steps both outside Europe, where the majority of net migration continues to come from, and inside Europe. Therefore, our approach is to look at this in both ways, but, as I have indicated, I will certainly reflect on the further representations that are made to me.