(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI feel every moment of disappointment that the hon. Lady feels about the failures over the years. I recall working in a service during the coalition Government, when we had to cut our child rape service and get the money from the Big Lottery Fund, because the state, in an era of austerity under that Government, took away the funding that we had used for a child rape counselling service. There are many, many years to reset. We have to change decades—not decades, actually, but millennia—of the expectation that women are just meant to expect this violence.
I could have made a document that, like all the documents that went before, did not do that reset. The delay—I am going to do something rare for a Government Minister—is my fault. It is entirely my fault because, with every iteration, the strategy was not ambitious enough. I could have done it more quickly, and then it would not have been as good. I apologise that the hon. Lady has to wait till Christmas, but there have been decades of failure. The metrics that we will be measured against and the plans for how they will be measured will all be released on Thursday. The hon. Lady will be able to hold me to account. I will not be dragged kicking and screaming; she is welcome to come into my office at any point and have a meeting with me.
It is important to acknowledge that there have been delays, as the Minister has said, but it is also important that the next strategy is comprehensive and has multi-departmental and cross-departmental working embedded within it. Will the Minister, who was formerly an active member of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, of which I am the chair, meet jointly with us and the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse in the first week back from recess, so that we can discuss the strategy in detail and how it can be successfully implemented?
I absolutely will do that. I commit to that here and will make sure that is noted down, because the strategy is not the end and it does not have all the answers. It is something that will have to be changed and worked on, and it will take everybody to do it. It is a fundamental shift. I absolutely commit to doing that. Just to say, I have always worked alongside my hon. Friend, and Members of Parliament who reach out to me and want to work together on this issue are always welcome.
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls in London.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. Violence against women and girls remains one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world. The statistics are stark and frightening: according to Refuge, there were more than 159,000 reports of domestic abuse crimes in Greater London in 2024 alone, and globally almost one in three women have been subjected to physical or sexual intimate partner violence at least once in their life. As an ongoing survivor of domestic abuse, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I know that it can affect women at all stages and in all aspects of their life. It damages health and wellbeing and undermines democratic freedom and our pursuit of equality. Urgent and immediate action is overdue.
Survivors are complex and multifaceted beings, and we are being let down by systems, structures, institutions and processes. Today, I aim to set out why there continues to be a need for a multifaceted approach and for a strategy that is both comprehensive and cross-departmental, going beyond criminal justice to social security, employment, housing and so on, to address perpetrators while empowering survivors. The Minister has been deeply committed to this area, and I will continue to engage constructively with her work, including through the work of the APPG on domestic violence and abuse, in the interests of victims and survivors in London and far beyond. This debate aims to further our mutual interests and our commitments to survivors, regionally and nationally, in anticipation of the upcoming new VAWG strategy, which I understand may be published very soon.
Parts of my speech, like much of my work over the past year, will be about responses to this problem beyond the criminal justice system, but I want to be clear that there can be no question but that the criminal justice system woefully lets down survivors. I continue to be concerned about perpetrators being released too early from prison, as well as the abysmal prosecution and conviction rates. The lack of independent and high-quality legal advice for survivors is concerning, as is the lack of available legal aid funding. That sits alongside the postcode lottery of who is able to receive support from an independent domestic or sexual violence advocate. The importance of funding, to enable frontline workers to help survivors navigate the complexity of the criminal justice system and access lifesaving legal advice, cannot be overstated.
Distrust of the police continues to be at an all-time high. Not dealing properly with abusers in their own ranks undermines trust. The Casey review, in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard, was a damning indictment of the Metropolitan Police Service: it found the force to be institutionally sexist, racist and homophobic. This is also reflected in the abhorrent behaviour shown in the recent “Panorama” documentary. Survivors in London simply need to be given the confidence to come forward and report abuse when it occurs, without the fear of not being believed or the prospect of facing penalising consequences themselves.
During last year’s debate, I spoke about the London Victims’ Commissioner’s stalking review, which found that 45% of stalking victims withdrew from the justice process and a further 41% saw no further police action on their complaints. The review evidenced the disastrous consequences of the confusion and lack of awareness among police and prosecutors: that police continue to treat incidents as single events, meaning that stalking goes unrecognised and patterns of behaviour are not properly understood.
In my own experience, the current stalking legislation allows stalkers to be colluded with and encourages repeat behaviour, punishing victims who resist and reject their stalker’s behaviour. As the review detailed, the phenomenon of “moving forward” or “threat management” strategies is well recognised in research, but is in practice too often weaponised against victims, who are blamed for not being the “perfect” victim. I know this all too well. I was pleased to learn that the Home Office is now carrying out a review on stalking legislation. It is my hope that the outcome will be to pivot stalking investigations and prosecutions towards a suspect-focused lens that does not place the onus on the victim to prove that their stalker has achieved their aim.
As of November last year, domestic abuse protection orders had been piloted by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice in parts of south London, including Croydon, Bromley and Sutton, and in Greater Manchester, with the intention of providing victims with the option of being protected from non-physical abuse and controlling or coercive behaviour, with immediate protection following an incident of abuse. This is a civil order that can span different courts, as I understand it. It would be helpful to understand whether the Minister believes that that has been a success, and whether there is any intention of a wider and more permanent roll-out.
It is imperative to end impunity by holding perpetrators accountable, with support and consideration at every stage of the criminal justice system. Not only do the law and the court systems let us down, but they are even being used by our abusers, including through stalking by way of the courts—in other words, lawfare. It is striking that my and other women’s experiences of vexatious litigation continue to be commonplace in the court system, including in family courts, where some of the gravest injustices and harms are reproduced.
The momentous decision to remove the dangerous presumption that all parents, even abusive ones, should have involvement in their children’s lives is therefore incredibly welcome. I have no doubt that hon. Members will be discussing that in this week’s Backbench Business debate, but I highlight it today because I note that it was made possible through cross-departmental working between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I look forward to seeing the process of placing it on the statute book.
Just as the impact of violence against women and girls is vast and far-reaching, so must the solution be. As I have mentioned, a whole-system approach is vital. Indeed, I understand that the upcoming VAWG strategy aims to distinguish itself from VAWG strategies of previous Governments in that way.
Since last year, I have been campaigning for greater protections for survivors in the workplace. Unexplained absences, lateness and negative impacts on performance can feature in an individual’s working life. For many survivors, abuse continues in the workplace: often, their partner turns up at the workplace or stalks them outside it—something I know at first hand. For some, the workplace is the only safe environment to seek help. In debates on the Employment Rights Bill, I called for measures such as flexible working, paid leave and domestic abuse policies in every workplace, like many other hon. Members in this House. I know that that continues to gain support across the House and in the other place.
I believe that being a member of a trade union is the best way for workers to ensure that their rights are upheld. That is certainly the case for survivors. Indeed, many trade unions have been pioneers in this area, such as USDAW, which has ensured alternative payment arrangements, and facilitated one-off payments and flexible working in a number of retail stores across the UK. That is just one example of the work being done by trade unions. The End Not Defend campaign, led by trade unions, trade union activists and workers, is also seeking to bring sexual harassment at work within the scope of the Health and Safety Executive. I reflect on the statutory guidance for the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which reminds us how pivotal the role of an employer can be. Strengthening survivors’ rights at work is the crucial next step towards realising the commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
Safe and affordable housing, including social homes, for women and girls escaping is an urgent necessity, and protection from eviction for survivors is essential, including in London. Domestic abuse is a housing issue. There is a reason that my ex-husband and his supporters continue to focus on my living arrangements and regularly try to use the media, and even spur on the far right, in this regard after all these years of attempting to pursue a vexatious case against me about my housing. I want to be clear that I will not be hounded out of my home.
There is no doubt about it: the funding crisis for domestic abuse services and other support continues to be catastrophic. Ringfenced investment for refuge provision would recognise refuges as specialist, trauma-informed services and would reflect the expertise required to deliver them. I understand that there is a London-wide grassroots support fund for specialist “by and for” services. Funding is ringfenced for specialist services, but I believe that it must fully recognise that many “by and for” services, such as Southall Black Sisters, are well established and experienced at working with a range of communities across intersectionalities. They should never be left at risk of losing funding.
The cost of living crisis is exacerbating economic and financial abuse, with low incomes, rising poverty and soaring rents leaving people feeling trapped in a relationship even when they need to leave. It is therefore no coincidence that the ongoing violence against women and girls crisis comes after more than a decade of attacks on social security. I have never been more alarmed at the risk at which women and girls are being placed by the proposed cuts to welfare. It is well evidenced that they are more reliant on social security and public services, which means that they are more severely impacted when public services and social security nets are cut. I am particularly alarmed by the cuts to disabled people’s benefits, including the health component of universal credit, given that disabled women are twice as likely to experience abuse. That is why it is crucial for disabled people to be the sharpest focus of investment, not cuts.
The current political climate has created a toxic and dangerous atmosphere for migrant women, with immigration status and the fear of deportation being used as control tactics by perpetrators. I am therefore reiterating my calls for a firewall between all public services and the Home Office, so that every survivor can report abuse and so that perpetrators cannot evade justice by weaponising immigration status in order to silence, abuse and control. That is something for which the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, I and many others have long campaigned—and, yes, it also remains a matter of urgency that the no recourse to public funds rule be scrapped and that there be an end to the hostile environment.
Globally, we know that violence against women and girls continues to be exacerbated by conflicts. In Haiti, women continue to face gang violence, including pervasive sexual violence. In Sudan, the continued reports of mass rapes are incredibly horrific. In Gaza, women and girls are being killed, starved and expected to survive with absolutely nothing, so tackling violence against women and girls must include a ceasefire and stopping all UK arms being sent to Israel or anywhere else to kill women.
At home, we must acknowledge that in London and beyond, targeting refugees and anti-migrant scaremongering will not benefit the majority of people. Traumatising already traumatised people, including women seeking asylum in the UK because of violence that they are fleeing, will set back the progress being made to eliminate violence from our society. Most importantly of all, it will harm the very victims and survivors who need support. Systemic discrimination is making it harder for individuals to seek help. Fears of discrimination or bias, such as racism, Islamophobia, homophobia or transphobia, are exacerbated by instances of people being denied assistance and access to public frontline services.
When speaking about my own experiences, I have been particularly anxious not to participate in perpetuating tired, racist tropes against Muslims, because we all need to be clear that that does nothing to empower women and girls. Rather, racism is a driver and facilitator of abuse, leading to the voices and lives of ethnic minority women being overlooked and devalued. It is so fundamental that the VAWG strategy is actively anti-racist. I am pleased that a definition of honour-based abuse is now being committed to, and that the Home Office is working with “by and for” services to develop the definition accordingly.
It is impossible to cover all the types of violence against women and girls in the time I have today, but I have tried to set out examples to illustrate that violence against women and girls is not a side or separate issue. At its core, it is a question of equality and of the type of world we want to live in. It is intrinsically connected to structural discrimination, exploitation and the intersection of different oppressions, so it requires joined-up thinking and bold and brave initiatives. That is what I hope the next VAWG strategy will have at its heart.
Several hon. Members rose—
I thank the Minister for her comments and her commitments. I look forward to the much-anticipated VAWG strategy—hopefully as a nice gift for everyone to read over Christmas—and to working constructively with her in the interests of all survivors, regardless of their backgrounds.
I am very grateful for all the contributions today, which touched on not only a wide range of issues but the various local contexts. It is all very valuable and I hope that, over the next 16 days and beyond, we can all speak to our colleagues and make sure we are speaking to everyone in our areas about how we can continue to engage in the 16 days of activities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls in London.
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberAll the measures in the asylum policy statement are compliant with the Windsor framework.
Deporting families after they have resettled here because their country is deemed safe is simply wrong. Will the Home Secretary tell us how the Government determine what a safe country is? Will she publish the criteria? She mentioned the DRC; is she really saying that it is a safe country? Will she publish all existing returns agreements, so that Members of this House, and indeed the British public, can properly scrutinise them? I have done the reading, and that is not in the detail.
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
My constituents voted for me to continue to oppose austerity, defend our local services, support survivors of violence and press for urgent immigration reform that centres migrant rights and ensures legal protection, survivor support and dignity in accommodation. That is why we have been alarmed by campaigns that target asylum seekers who are confined in hotels, including campaigns outside the Britannia hotel in my constituency. Some of those campaigns claim it is a five-star hotel with a swimming pool, which I know is definitely not the case.
Anti-racist campaigners have reported co-ordinated efforts to intimidate communities with flag raising, anti-migrant chants, aggressive interventions in local debates, and even the filming of asylum seekers being transported to hotels. Charities and specialist organisations are warning that such campaigns are leading to the dehumanising of asylum seekers and cultivating climates of fear and division.
Asylum seekers are men, women and children exercising their right to seek asylum after being forced to flee wars and persecution. I am very proud of our long history as a refuge for immigrant communities. Poplar and Limehouse is a place where people fleeing persecution, seeking work or simply looking for a new start have found a home and built communities. In Poplar and Limehouse, we know that it is not refugees and migrants, but austerity measures that have weakened local infrastructure and public services, leaving communities struggling with high costs and underfunded support—a situation that the far right frequently and unjustly blames on migrants and asylum seekers, despite repeated evidence to the contrary.
What is that evidence to the contrary? Let me touch on a few examples. First, the UK’s current system forces asylum seekers to wait for over a year before they can apply for the right to work, and even then they are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list. Many survive on just less than £7 per day. That contrasts sharply with other European nations such as France, Spain and Germany, where asylum seekers gain the right to work after three to six months.
Just last year, research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that lifting the asylum seekers work ban could reduce Government expenditure by £6.7 billion annually. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill retains harmful policies, including expanded powers of detention. An amendment to lift the work ban was tabled, but it was defeated, despite cross-party support. Asylum seekers must be able to work unconditionally; that would surely support integration, mental health and the overall economy.
Secondly, the UK lacks accessible safe routes for refugees, forcing many to make perilous journeys. In February this year a report by the all-party parliamentary group on refugees found current routes to be “inaccessible and inadequate”. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill itself introduces counter-terror-style powers to criminalise smuggling networks that risk prosecuting refugees. Campaigners have labelled it an “anti-refugee” Bill. Surely we need an expansion of safe routes, the establishment of emergency visa schemes and the repeal of deterrent-based policies.
Finally, the “Restoring control over the immigration system” White Paper, which proposes extending the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years, is creating uncertainty for migrants, while the immigration health surcharge unfairly targets migrant workers. People cannot access public funds anyway, but targeting them through the immigration health charge as well makes it essentially a punitive tax on people who are essential workers. We need to abolish the charge, reduce visa restrictions for care workers and reject the White Paper’s punitive measures as a whole.
The UK really must be aware of the need to uphold its moral and legal obligations to protect refugees and prioritise humanity over hostility in the immigration system. From ending indefinite detention to creating safe routes, we need policies that reflect our values of dignity and compassion. That is why I will continue to push back against toxic narratives and stand up for solidarity, truth and the rights of all who live here.
That commitment is in line with the traditions of solidarity in the east end of London, where we see diversity as a strength and all our communities include migrants from all around the world—where Jewish communities and allies opposed fascists at the battle of Cable street in 1936; where the murder of Altab Ali brought people out on the streets; where the Bangladeshi community led the anti-fascist mobilisation in the 1970s and where the communities on the Isle of Dogs defeated the division, intolerance and hate spread by the British National party in the 1990s.
We know that hardship can be overcome collectively. That is why, as we look back on our rich history of welcoming refugees and migrants, we look to our present, fully aware that the far right is planning to target our area once again this week, on Saturday 25 October, amid a rise in racist, Islamophobic and antisemitic attacks—and where just a couple of years ago more than 700 people were evacuated from the East London Mosque, London Muslim Centre and nearby schools following a bomb threat. We will stand together in defiance on Saturday and we will say, “¡No pasarán! They shall not pass!”
Sarah Pochin
No, I am going to continue; I have given way once. Anyone who has come to this country illegally will never be entitled to claim asylum here again.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberLet me assure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House that we are discussing these matters closely with the Community Security Trust and other representatives of the Jewish community. The Prime Minister and I will have more to say in the coming days about the medium-term picture on security and funding for places of worship in our country. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we take this very seriously. I know he will agree that, in the long term, we need not only simply to provide protective security but to know with confidence that all our communities can go about their business without having to go through a security cordon before they do so.
Eighty-nine years ago this month, the British Union of Fascists, led by Oswald Mosley, tried to march through the largely Jewish east end of London. They were marched off by people of Jewish, Irish and working-class backgrounds in what became known as the battle of Cable Street, uniting in protest against antisemitism. Following this month’s horrific antisemitic attack, and amid a surge in the far right’s targeting of minorities and the attack at Peacehaven mosque, does the Home Secretary agree with me that we must tirelessly oppose fascism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism, and also protect the hard-worn democratic right to protest, which was crucial to defeating fascists in Cable Street in my area in a historic act of solidarity and unity in British history?
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberUnfortunately, the Conservative Front Benchers want us to go back to the position that we inherited from the previous Government. Their freeze on asylum decisions would have left us with tens of thousands more people in asylum hotels. We will end asylum hotels over the course of this Parliament, not simply by moving people to different kinds of accommodation—that is an important point—but by reducing the overall size of the asylum system. The previous Government’s policies were doing the opposite and increasing it. If we do not reduce the overall size of the asylum system, we will never solve the problem, or rebuild the confidence of people across the UK.
In the east end of London, we have a proud history of welcoming refugees and migrants, many of them fleeing war and persecution, but over recent years and months, the political and media establishment has been complicit in the normalisation of Islamophobia and anti-migrant rhetoric. Over the summer, there have been campaigns to target asylum seekers outside hotels, and people have resorted to violent aggression, including yesterday in my constituency. That is putting all of us at risk. What exactly will the Home Secretary do to ensure that asylum seekers, refugees, migrants and all those who live in my constituency are safe from attempts—including those organised by the far right—to create fear and division in our area?
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. Violence against women and girls is one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world. The statistics are stark and frightening: globally, almost one in three women has been subjected to physical or sexual intimate partner violence at least once in their life. As an ongoing survivor of domestic abuse and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I know that it can affect women at all stages and in all aspects of their lives. It damages health and wellbeing, and undermines our democratic freedom and pursuit of equality.
The phrase “tackling violence against women and girls” is now frequently used, but there is often a gap—a vast gulf, even—between the good intentions professed in this place and the reality of our lives. Urgent and immediate action is overdue. As survivors, we are complex and multifaceted beings, and we are being let down. I therefore aim to set out why there is a need for a multifaceted approach. To address perpetrators and empower survivors, we need a comprehensive and cross-departmental strategy that goes beyond criminal justice to social security, housing, employment and health. I place on record my recognition of the Minister’s work in this area, and I know that she has indicated her commitment to rolling out a plan in the new year. I welcome the opportunity to continue to engage constructively with her in the interests of survivors everywhere, and today’s debate aims to be a part of furthering that common interest.
Although much of my speech will be about responses to the problem beyond the criminal justice system, there can be no question that the system woefully lets down survivors. There are abysmal prosecution and conviction rates, with perpetrators being released too early from prison. There is a crisis in legal aid and a lack of independent legal advice for survivors, and it is estimated that the majority of women in prison and under community supervision have experienced domestic abuse.
Mistrust of the police is at an all-time high. Obviously, not dealing properly with abusers in their own ranks undermines trust. As Women’s Aid continues to emphasise, policing reforms are urgently needed to rebuild public faith in the institution that is supposed to protect us, but the Government’s announcements so far do not address the scale of the problem.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Constituents have made me aware of problems when the family courts have not understood that they can be used to perpetuate the abuse of the violent partner. Does the hon. Member agree that we need greater understanding in the family court system so that people fleeing violence do not see that abuse continue?
I agree with the hon. Lady that every parliamentarian could understand the situation in the family courts better. The law is often used and misused by perpetrators to further the suffering of their victims.
I draw Members’ attention to the recent work of the Home Affairs Committee on rape investigations, prosecutions and non-contact sexual offences, which highlights the need to ensure that victims feel confident in reporting offences knowing that they will be supported and taken seriously. Likewise, the London Victims’ Commissioner’s recent stalking review makes a number of stark findings on both victims’ experiences and the response that they receive. Its evidence of the disastrous consequences of the confusion and lack of awareness among police and prosecutors is also profound. For example, police continue to treat incidents as single events, meaning that stalking goes unrecognised and patterns of behaviour are not properly understood.
Ending impunity by holding perpetrators accountable and establishing zero-tolerance of violence against women and girls is imperative. That requires providing support and consideration at every stage of the criminal justice system, yet not only do the law and court systems let us down, they can even be used by our abusers. I will not say much more about that today as last Thursday there was an opportunity to address my and other women’s experiences of lawfare in that regard. However, just as the impact of violence against women and girls is vast and far-reaching, so must be the solution. A whole-system approach is therefore vital.
On Second Reading of the Employment Rights Bill, I said that domestic abuse can have an impact on an individual’s working life: unexplained absences, lateness and a negative impact on performance. For about one in 10 survivors, abuse continues in the workplace, often because their partner is turning up there, is stalking them outside it or is an employee there. The statutory guidance in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 reminds us how pivotal the role of an employer can be by providing, for example, flexible working or paid leave. It is undisputedly the case that being a member of a trade union is the best way for workers to ensure their rights, and that is certainly the case for survivors.
The cost of living crisis is especially dangerous for those faced with a choice that is no choice, really: remaining in an unsafe environment or facing destitution or homelessness. Lower incomes, rising poverty and soaring rents mean that people feel trapped in a relationship even when they need to leave. Safe and affordable housing, including social homes, for women and girls who are escaping is an urgent necessity, and protection from eviction for survivors is absolutely essential. In fact, domestic abuse is by its very nature a housing issue, with perpetrators often creating a context of fear and curtailed freedom, usually within or in association with the home. There is a reason that my ex-husband and his supporters are still so focused on my living arrangements and regularly try to use the media in that regard all these years after the vexatious case pursued against me about my housing arrangements.
It is no coincidence that the current crisis of violence against women and girls comes after 14 years of attacks on social security. Women are more vulnerable to poverty because they are more likely to have lower incomes and wealth and to have caring responsibilities. That leaves them more reliant on social security and public services and means that they are impacted more severely when public services and social security are cut. Disabled women are twice as likely to experience abuse, which is why it is crucial that disabled people receive the support that they need.
The Women’s Budget Group has argued that economic violence has disregarded the needs of women, reduced the already inadequate services that they rely on and deprioritised their safety and wellbeing. Oxfam’s publication “The Assault of Austerity” argued that the most common austerity measures have been shown to precipitate both direct and indirect forms of violence against women and girls. There is no doubt that the funding crisis for domestic abuse services and other support continues to be catastrophic. Women are dying every day while support services continue to be cut. Refuges, community-based services and specialist support on a broad range of needs are critical, and the funding of such services can literally be the difference between life and death, hope and despair, and imprisonment and empowerment.
It is a matter of urgency that the no recourse to public funds rule is scrapped and that there is an end to the hostile environment. The current political climate has created a toxic, dangerous atmosphere for migrant women. Immigration status and the fear of deportation are used as control tactics by perpetrators. That is why there needs to be a firewall between all public services and the Home Office so that every survivor can report abuse and perpetrators cannot evade justice by weaponising immigration status in order to silence, abuse and control. Migrant women, including those who are pregnant, are being detained in immigration detention centres as I speak, despite centres such as Yarl’s Wood being the subject of considerable political and media attention due to the high-profile allegations of sexual abuse and mistreatment over the years.
Globally, violence against women and girls continues to be exacerbated by conflicts. In Haiti, women face gang violence, including pervasive sexual violence, and the reports of mass rapes in Sudan are horrific. In Gaza, women and girls are being bombarded, killed and starved, so tackling violence against them must include a ceasefire and an end to all UK arms being sent to Israel or anywhere else where they are used to kill women.
It is important to understand that violence against women and girls can affect individuals from all backgrounds, but sadly society does not treat all survivors equally. The power and control that abusers wield to perpetrate abuse can interact with a range of experiences of oppression, and systemic discrimination can make it harder for individuals to seek help.
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Following White Ribbon Day, and during Islamophobia Awareness Month, we must address the unique challenges faced by Muslim women, who often experience a triple whammy of gender-based violence, Islamophobia and discrimination. Those intersecting issues can prevent women from seeking help. Will she join me in stressing to the Government that services should be equipped to address those barriers and challenge the harmful stereotypes that perpetuate violence and discrimination?
I completely agree, and I greatly value my hon. Friend’s raising that issue during Islamophobia Awareness Month.
Fears of discrimination or bias, such as racism, homophobia or transphobia, are exacerbated by incidents in which people have been denied assistance and access to services. Black and Asian survivors are more likely to mistrust the police. Although black and Asian people are over-policed for certain crimes, domestic abuse tends to be under-policed in minority communities because of so-called cultural sensitivity. When speaking out about my experiences, I have been particularly anxious not to perpetuate tired racist tropes about Muslims. We need to be clear that that does nothing to empower women. Rather, racism is a driver and facilitator of abuse, causing the voices and lives of ethnic minority women to be overlooked and devalued. It is fundamental that any violence against women and girls strategy is actively anti-racist.
It is impossible to cover all the types of violence against women and girls in the time that I have today. Nevertheless, I have tried to set out examples to illustrate that violence against women and girls is not a side issue or separate; at its core, it is about inequality and the type of world we live in. It is intrinsically connected to structural discrimination, exploitation and the intersection of different oppressions. As such, it requires joined-up thinking and bold and brave initiatives.
As hon. Members are aware, this week began with the UN’s 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. I want to take a moment to draw out the term “activism”, because the history of challenging violence against women and girls has always had pioneering activism and the fight for social change at its heart. The movement has been driven by the bravery of so many who have spoken out and organised, despite the challenges they faced. It is that that keeps me going. Because of those activists and survivors from around the world, I will never, ever allow my voice to be silenced. Human rights are fundamental. Ultimately, tackling violence against women and girls is about the hope of a future in which everyone is able to live freely in dignity, with joy and pride.
Several hon. Members rose—
I thank the Minister for her comments today and her ongoing work in this area, and reiterate my commitment to work with her constructively in the interests of survivors everywhere. I am most grateful for all 20 contributions on a range of topics. They have provided insight from all over the UK, including Northern Ireland, mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and emphasised the scale of the problem and its wide-ranging impacts. This week and next, as we raise awareness through events in Parliament, events in our constituencies and debates such as this one, it is important that we do so with a sense of sadness at the loss and tragedy and anger at the injustice, but I hope we also have resolve and hope for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls.
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberThe hon. Member is right that in this country, we have always had people come together and work together to tackle problems and debate issues. The people responsible for this violence and these attacks, including on our police officers, do not speak for the United Kingdom—they really do not. They do not speak for any part of the UK, and we should never let them do so.
For too long, Muslims have been scapegoated for the failings of the political and economic system by the same type of politics that led to the hostile environment for migrants. Can the Home Secretary outline the steps that she will take to ensure that any measures that arise from the rapid review of extremism do not perpetuate or extend harm to the very communities—Muslims and migrants—who have been the primary target of the far right’s violence?