Violence against Women and Girls
Apsana Begum Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
Violence against women and girls is one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world. As an ongoing survivor of domestic abuse and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic abuse and violence, I know that it can affect women at all stages and in all aspects of their lives. As survivors, we are complex and multifaceted beings, and we are being let down, so I continue to advocate for the need for a multifaceted approach and a comprehensive and cross-departmental strategy that goes beyond criminal justice to social security, housing, employment, health and so on to address perpetrators and empower survivors. A whole-system approach is vital. In the time I have today, I will focus my remarks on the rights of survivors in the workplace.
On Second Reading of the Employment Rights Bill, I raised the point that domestic abuse could have an impact on an individual’s working life through unexplained absences, lateness and negatively impacted performance. For one in 10 survivors, the abuse continues in the workplace, often with their partner turning up at their workplace or stalking them outside their workplace, which is something I know first-hand. The statutory guidance of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 reminds us how pivotal the role of an employer can be.
Soon after the general election concluded, the APPG on domestic abuse and violence met and discussed how parliamentarians can advocate for the rights of survivors in the workplace. There are calls from organisations, campaigners and Members across the House in that regard, which I will raise now. First is the call for a right for victims of domestic abuse to take leave of absence from work and for regulations to be introduced to give effect to that right, including a minimum of 10 days of paid leave. Survivors may need to take time off work and may not be able to return to work immediately after escaping a perpetrator, for example. They may need time to seek emergency health or housing needs, attend court and so much more.
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that 10 days of paid leave for domestic abuse survivors is a provision available in Northern Ireland. Paid leave measures have also been implemented in other parts of the world, such as New Zealand, the Philippines and some states in the USA. I acknowledge that a handful of organisations in the UK provide paid leave for domestic abuse survivors, but many of us believe that right should be accessible to all survivors, no matter who they work for.
Many of us would also like to see protections for workers from adverse treatment if they are, or are suspected to be a person affected by domestic abuse. That surely must include protections from being dismissed to ensure a survivor’s long-term earning potential is not negatively impacted, as well as ensuring financial independence and freedom from economic abuse in many cases.
My final point on employment rights and domestic abuse survivors is about the work that organisations, campaigns, such as those led by the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, and trade unions have done to ensure that employers take all reasonable steps to prevent workers from experiencing domestic abuse. Those steps could include implementing domestic abuse policies in every workplace and ensuring that risk assessments are done for every worker who discloses domestic abuse. That would surely be a progressive next step forward in the struggle to eradicate violence against women and girls from all parts of our society.
The history of challenging violence against women and girls has always had pioneering activism and fighting for social change at its heart. Because of so many survivors around the world, I would never allow my voice to be silenced. The next step is to look at how we support survivors to make sure that no one has to experience abuse in the workplace.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
Apsana Begum Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
Democratic and press freedoms are fundamental to our rights. That is why many of us have been campaigning on changing the law to provide meaningful protection against SLAPPs, and I welcome the opportunity the debate offers in that regard. As the re-elected chair of the all-party group on domestic violence and abuse, I want to particularly raise the need to tackle the ability of abusers to weaponise litigation.
I am obliged to highlight a personal interest given my own experiences of lawfare being use against myself. The House will be aware that I was completely cleared and vindicated in Snaresbrook Crown court after what I and many in my constituency and around the UK viewed as vexatious litigation pursued with the purpose of shutting down my public participation as a democratically elected Member of Parliament and as a survivor of domestic abuse. In the end, the local council, where my ex-husband was a councillor at the time, spent more money trying to pursue me in the courts than the amount it alleged it was trying to recoup. I want to place on record that I have never received any recognition, never mind an apology, from the institution and people who did this to me.
Still to this day, I am seeking answers so that something like this cannot ever happen again, because the use of lawfare by abusers to pursue a current or ex-partner is increasingly coming to light. The most common proceedings we see are brought by those accused of sexual and/or domestic violence launching vexatious cases in relation to defamation, libel, misuse of private information, harassment, and press injunctions. However, they can also include the family courts, the criminal justice system and other areas of law. The purpose of these proceedings is to silence, intimidate, discredit and further disempower survivors.
Likewise, there is no doubt in my mind that there is clearly a bias in and pressure on media outlets when reporting on issues relating to domestic abuse and violence against women. To explain what I mean, I need to update the House on the extraordinary situation I continue to face. After I survived a full term as a Member of Parliament facing onslaught after onslaught, my ex-husband was finally expelled from the Labour party for his treatment of me at the beginning of this year. However, that did not stop the relentless attempts to unjustly remove me as an MP by a clique of his associates still in the Labour party. Having survived this, I then had the shock that he then stood against me at the general election as an independent with the stated aim of exposing “who I really was” and getting even with me. On election day itself, my security situation was so serious that I was literally bundled away from polling stations due to the risks. I remember the car he was in driving well over the speed limit past the polling station I was at, and my security support took it on themselves to increase their resources, all the way to the election count and even inside the building.
I am still reeling from what happened, and I am enormously proud of the positive and vibrant campaign I ran despite this situation. I am so moved that the people of Poplar and Limehouse have stood by me. But they are struck, as am I, by how lawfare has been used, albeit unsuccessfully, against me and how my ex-husband’s right to pursue me, including publicly slandering me, seems to be protected. When I continued to raise this with a range of authorities and people, seeking support, I was repeatedly given the impression that very little could be done. And where has this been reported in the media? It is not as though the safety of Members of Parliament has not been of public interest or indeed newsworthy lately. What is it about me that evokes this deadly silence in this regard, and why are women’s experiences of domestic abuse treated so differently?
It might seem strange to some that I raise this while advocating for press freedom, but this is clearly not press freedom, and of course it is obviously connected to the fear of litigious perpetrators and the law around defamation. Indeed, the National Union of Journalists is warning of the current threats to press freedom posed by the use of litigation or indeed the threat of litigation. I have even had contact with journalists from mainstream outlets investigating my situation, who I understand in some cases have even drafted full articles which were then blocked by their editors on what was referred to as “legal grounds.” Yet invariably no such care is taken when it comes to printing smears about me; and what a strange world we live in that accusing me of lying, and indeed all sorts, is not viewed as a damage to my reputation.
Further to this, the growing trend of journalists being targeted directly when receiving threats of legal action instils fear that deters any future journalistic content on an issue. Yet the free expression of survivors sharing their truth is, in my view a matter of public interest that outweighs the private interests and right to reputation of an abuser.
Preventing the misuse of litigation and the use of the law to silence survivors of domestic abuse and violence is central to freedom of speech. The United Nations and others have warned about gendered censorship taking place around the world and that there is clearly imbalance in the system between “his” right to reputation and, usually, “her” right to free speech. As Jennifer Robinson and Keina Yoshida, authors of “How Many More Women?”, succinctly put it:
“Legal change is possible. And fight back we must. Because if we don’t, how many more women will be silenced?”
It is vital that legislators consider this, so that certain types of public interest speech are not privileged over others. It is also vital if we aim to have a future free from perpetrators being able to abuse the courts and pursue litigation in this way, because supporting survivors in speaking out is crucial in envisaging a world where no one is forced to endure domestic abuse. Because at the core of the debate around SLAPPs are questions of democracy, accountability and justice. As I have set out in terms of my own situation, SLAPPs are being used to silence public participation and suppress the provision of information by activists, environmental campaigners, non-governmental organisations, whistleblowers, and even people posting negative product reviews online.
I would like to highlight another example raised with me by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Freelance journalist Tom Latchem was investigating a foster care home run by reality show star Ampika Pickston, the fiancée of billionaire owner of West Ham United, David Sullivan. Mr Latchem published a story with the outlet Byline Times about the home having its licence suspended by Ofsted due to reported serious safeguarding failings. I understand, however, that Mr Latchem believes he has been prevented from further reporting on the care home. He wanted in particular to be able to investigate an incident in which Ms Pickston allegedly took a child from the care home to her private residence, but was sent a letter by lawyers for Ms Pickston warning in essence that they would review any published material and if they considered anything to be defamatory or libellous they
“will advise our client to sue both the newspaper and any individual author or journalist for libel, seeking damages and costs”.
I am told that Ms Pickston’s lawyers said their communications with the journalist were “courteous and cordial” and did not prevent him from any reporting. Nevertheless, it will surely be understandable to the House that Mr Latchem feels he cannot afford to face down someone with such resources. It is obvious who loses out if accountability and transparency on the treatment of children in care homes are thwarted.
In conclusion, it is clear that we need a concrete action plan to stop abusive lawsuits silencing those who speak out in the public interest. We only have a hope of stamping out SLAPPs with a comprehensive and robust anti-SLAPP Bill. As such, it would be helpful to hear from the Government whether there is a realistic prospect of that appearing in the next King’s Speech or any other legislative vehicle in this Parliament.
Oral Answers to Questions
Apsana Begum Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Davies-Jones
As the hon. Lady will know, this Government were elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls over the course of a decade. Every single Department, including the Department for Education, will look at how we tackle misogyny in our schools, streets, homes and workplaces, online, and indeed everywhere. The Opposition have just elected a leader who has made rape jokes previously, but this is about leadership and taking things seriously, and that is exactly what this Government and I are doing. I urge the hon. Lady to write to the Home Office about the specific point that she has made.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
As a survivor of domestic abuse—indeed, having endured the experience of my ex-husband standing against me in the recent general election—I have personal and direct experience of the systemic bias against us. Does the Minister agree that we need a comprehensive approach that provides support and consideration at every stage of the criminal justice system; does she agree that that requires funding, not least for specialist support services; and does she agree that we need to address the legal aid crisis as well?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her bravery and for speaking out about her experiences as a victim-survivor, which has undoubtedly helped countless others. She is right that this will take every single Department across Government looking into how we stamp out violence against women and girls in our communities and society. She is also right about funding. We are currently looking through the funding we received at the Budget, and in due course I will be able to outline how we will support services. If she would like me to meet her to discuss this further, I shall be happy to do so.