Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, laid before the House on 17 May.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the International Agreements Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this take-note debate, I say first on a personal level how welcome it is, as we will hear shortly from the Government, for the Government to praise and table for ratification anything containing the word “Europe”, in particular something emanating from the Council of Europe.

There cannot be a single Brit, let alone Member of your Lordships’ House, who does not feel justifiably proud of the role our country played in the creation and work of the Council of Europe in promoting human rights across a continent previously divided by wars and the denial of human rights. I always feel a particular affinity with the council, because it was created in the year of my birth—although I think it has aged rather better than I have—and because of my father’s role as, literally, a foot soldier in the war, the outcome of which led to the determination never again to allow basic human rights to be trampled by the very state whose purpose should be to protect all its citizens. It is for this reason—besides keeping an eye on rogue states—that an international body is needed, since, sadly, we cannot always rely on Governments to respect this most fundamental duty. It is thus right that Russia has, since March, been removed from the Council of Europe.

I also say, on my behalf and not on behalf of the committee, which has not discussed this, how wrong it is for this Government to introduce legislation, a so-called Bill of Rights, that would actually diminish rights and potentially breach our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Claiming to be above the law of civilised nations not just threatens our citizens but harms our standing on the world stage.

But that was a personal statement. I turn to the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. First, I thank the members of the committee for their work on this. Two of them—the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—will speak shortly. I pay particular tribute to our legal adviser, Alex Horne, and our very able and capable clerk, Jennifer Martin-Kohlmorgen, who happens to be in the Room today, albeit wearing another hat. We are delighted that she is here and for all the work she does for our committee.

I will say two things on the convention: one very positive and one rather more negative, I am afraid. I will start on the positive. We are delighted that, 10 years on from the very month when the Government signed the convention, they have finally tabled it for ratification—not a moment too soon. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Gale, who has done probably more than anyone else in the House to keep pressure on the Government to make this move. It was she who sponsored what became the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017, requiring the Government to keep returning to explain why they had failed to ratify the deal. Perhaps, as someone who has known my noble friend Lady Gale for many a long year, I should have warned the Government never to take her on. Whenever she wants something, believe me, she gets it.

The reason why she pushed for earlier ratification was because the convention is good for women. It is about preventing violence, protecting women via training, safe custody or similar, prosecuting perpetrators, supporting victims and eliminating discrimination. What is not to like?

The International Agreements Committee welcomes ratification, even though it is a little late. But—it is a big but, and the negative that I must raise—the committee is deeply concerned about the reservation that the Government have added, to the detriment, as we see it, of the rights of migrant women. The exception the Government want affects a particular group of vulnerable victims of domestic abuse: those whose immigration status relies on that of their partner, in cases where it is the partner who is the perpetrator. These women have no independent right to reside here, and are thus faced with an unenviable choice: stay with the perpetrator—“Sleeping with the Enemy” is the film that comes to mind—and be able to remain in the country, or leave the perpetrator and lose her residency status. That is a choice that no woman should have to make; it is one the convention says she should not have to make, but our Government are opting out of the provision which would grant such victims the ability to get residency rights in certain circumstances.

The Government have given no reason for this opt-out. Indeed, they are close to misleading the House by saying that they are opting out because they are awaiting the results of a pilot, due this week, on the provision of support for migrant women victims. Although access to, for example, a refuge, might be important, what is much more important—and affects many more people—is that they could have to leave the country and perhaps leave their children, because leaving their partner means that they lose their right to live here.

As we know, it is only a minority of domestic abuse victims who need a refuge; many will simply move away from their partner to friends, family or to rent somewhere themselves. But for this group of abused women, even if they have the friends, family or resources to leave their partner, they risk deportation for the very act of leaving. This reinforces the power of the perpetrator and increases the risk faced by migrant victims. It flies in the face of the advice and expertise of the specialist led-by-and-for black and minority women’s organisations. More than 80 such organisations wrote to the Home Secretary about denying Article 59 protection, which would otherwise require the UK to grant residence to victims whose immigration status depended on their abusive partner, in certain circumstances.

The reservation flies in the face of the spirit of the convention, which is based on the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The opt-out cannot be right. Not only have the Government failed to explain why this protection is not needed for this group of victims but they have given no indication of when they will review or lift the reservation, or on what grounds they would refuse to lift it. We welcome the Minister filling this unenviable position at very short notice. I hope that he will have had time to find some good reasons to give the Committee when he comes to reply.

I raise one further point about the Government’s second reservation, or opt-out. The convention states that signatories may not apply a dual criminality requirement for certain offences, including sexual violence, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and forced abortion and sterilisation. However, the Government are entering a reservation which would retain the dual criminality requirement for sexual violence, forced abortion and sterilisation. The Explanatory Memorandum gives no explanation as to why these should remain subject to dual criminality, beyond the statement, which does not really make sense, that they tend to be crimes elsewhere. Again, could the Minister explain why the Government have selected these particular issues for such a carve-out?

I stress that, for the moment, we welcome that the Government signed this ground-breaking convention and that it is now being brought before us for ratification. However, we are at a loss as to why the Government should further lower their standing in the international community with this reservation, which is, of course, known to all the signatories. It will be very evident that they are failing to stand up for a particular group of migrant women suffering domestic violence. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the other speakers for what has been an invaluable debate. I started by looking at the formation of the Council of Europe in 1949. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, promptly moved us forward to 1973, the influence that Britain was able to have over Turkey at the time and the role that this country has played in standard setting and expectations. This is why the Minister will understand that our feelings about the reservation perhaps go even wider than the specifics of it—to the signal it sends out. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked whether we really want to align ourselves with Turkey. She said that we are not reaching the gold standard, and that is something to which we surely all aspire.

One of the most valuable things said by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, is that this is everyone’s business. It is often thought that these issues are women’s business. They are not; they are everyone’s, internationally as well as across the genders. They are internationally important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, at a time when women’s rights are being rolled back in all parts of the world. What we say is particularly important in the message it gives.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, recalls my noble friend Lady Gale always asking, “When are you going to ratify?”. As I think he probably hinted, she will now continue by asking, “When are you going to erase these reservations?”. The Minister said that this is no longer in the Act that my noble friend managed to get through the House, but I promise she will continue.

I was slightly confused by the Minister’s response on the treatment of migrant women leaving the abusing partner on whom they depend for their residence status. I was trying to follow it closely. If it was as he said, I see no reason for the reservation because we seem to be doing it. I will have to look very carefully at that. We may need an exchange of correspondence between his department and our committee. If it was so good, you would not need the reservation, basically, which means it is probably not quite as good as he said. Therefore, we will have to live with the question that my noble friend Lord Coaker raised: what are migrant women going to do? What would we advise them—go back to their abuser and be able to stay here, or leave and risk deportation? The jury is still out; maybe we can exchange correspondence to clarify that point.

For the moment, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and our committee, again, for the work it has done, as well as our advisers. We are delighted with the ratification. Do not let what we have said about our worries disguise the fact that this is important. For all the reasons that my noble friend Lord Coaker and others gave, this is an important signal. Let us hope that we can trumpet the good bits, albeit still pressing on the others.

Motion agreed.