Council of Europe

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Vernon Coaker]

I think that it is really important that the Council of Europe has standards and says that it will not compromise on its principles. I also believe that it is extremely important to continue to talk and discuss with people. I agree absolutely with that, but not with saying, “We will not worry about that, on the basis that we want to keep talking to you.” We have to be tough and say, “This is what we believe,” but that does not mean it is impossible for us to continue to have dialogue with people even if we do not agree with them. That is what I think about Russia.

It is astonishing that even in Europe—this continent that holds itself up as an example to the rest of the world—there are still examples where we have to defend the principle of freedom of expression. It is astonishing that in some countries in Europe journalists have been imprisoned simply for criticising the Government of the day. It is hard to believe. When the Council of Europe was set up in 1949, would those who went to its first meeting believe that we would be here in 2018 and that there would still be people locked up for what they say or write? I do not believe that they would have. The Council of Europe says to the Governments of its member states that they cannot lock people up simply because they criticise a Government, however much they disagree with what has been written or said. It is a fundamental principle that people can organise, write and demonstrate peacefully for something they believe in. Here again, the Council of Europe is standing up and demanding that.

I do not want to speak for too long, because I know that others want to contribute, but I have a couple of further remarks to make. The challenges that the Council of Europe has faced and is facing should not hide its achievements. Sometimes it is criticised for being a talking shop. There is a lot to be said for talking shops. Where else would we bring that collection of countries together and force them to listen to opinions that they might not agree with?

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I apologise for my late arrival to the debate—I was detained by a constituency issue. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and making such a powerful speech. I am a very new member of the Council of Europe, so it is fantastic to hear. Does he agree that, given the current geopolitical situation and what we are facing in Syria, talking is one of the most important tools in our armoury?

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her apology—of course that is fine. I agree that it is about talking, but the Council of Europe also tries to help us understand. Ignorance is not bliss, and in order to solve the problems facing Europe and the world we have to try to understand what is going on. That does not mean that we abandon our principles; it means that we have to try to understand why people are doing what they are doing. I agree with her that that is really important.

The Council of Europe has helped to establish democracy and certain other principles. We should celebrate the fact that it is now a “death penalty-free zone”, as it puts it, which is of huge significance. One of the Council of Europe’s great achievements is the European convention on human rights and the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights. It is important for the country to recognise that, although we are leaving the EU, the European Court of Human Rights is not part of the EU. When we look at some of the cases that have been heard at the European Court of Human Rights, even those relating to our country, we see a body standing up for the universality of a principle and holding even Governments to account. That is not necessarily the most popular thing to say, but I fundamentally believe it. I make that argument in my constituency and tell people that we should celebrate the fact that we have human rights and bodies that stand up for them; we should not abhor them or use populist rhetoric.

Modern Slavery Act 2015

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Lord Coaker

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker]

I very much agree that there will be real challenges for the system in leaving Europol, Eurojust, and the other systems involved. As the debate progresses, we will have to ensure that if we do leave the European Union, as the hon. Lady says, we look to see how we replicate those systems within whatever deal is done. That is crucial for these victims. I totally agree with her point.

We have heard that each time survivors have left safe houses, they were made destitute again and targeted by traffickers. How destructive and destroying that is for the police, but also life-destroying for those survivors. We have to accept that the short-term system of support fails us all and we all need to look—the police, Government, all of us—at what more we do for victims. A refugee granted asylum receives five years of leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Surely if a person has been recognised as being enslaved, that should entitle them to some sort of similar provision, if not for five years.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing such an important issue to the House. He is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that our domestic justice system—particularly the UK justice system—is not set up to deal with these matters, and that the burden of proof is so high for a conviction that very often the person goes free? Leave to remain is dependent on a conviction when the two things should be absolutely separate.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is absolutely crucial. Often the victim is placed in an immigration situation where they are regarded as a victim of trafficking and yet have no certainty about their status in the UK. I know that the Minister is looking at that, but it is a real problem in the way that the system operates at the moment, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) points out.

The Work and Pensions Committee has made recommendations along these lines. Lord McColl’s private Member’s Bill, currently in the Lords, does the same. We cannot continue to lose so many survivors, many of them going back to the same traffickers. As Wilberforce himself said:

“You may choose to look the other way but you can never again say that you did not know.”

It is for us, as legislators, to say, “What are we actually going to do about this?” Survivors need time and assistance.

Draft Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 25th January 2017 General Committees

[Vernon Coaker]

I am interested in that, and it takes me to my next point. Legislation is crucial, and to be fair, with our support, the Government have brought it forward. We can argue about whether it should have come sooner, but we support it. The lack of enforcement is a problem, though, and I am disappointed about it. The Government recognise that there may be an issue with enforcement, because a review mechanism is included in regulation 16. They say they will carry out a review of the regulations and publish a report, which must look at whether the objectives have been achieved and so on. However, that report must be produced before the end of a “period of five years.”

The Minister may want to address this point in her closing remarks, but does she really think that we ought to wait five years before we see whether we are achieving our objectives, or does she believe, as I do, that five years is too long? We should say today that, although the regulations specify five years, we will look at the first published results and see whether something needs to be changed. Certainly after the publication of two sets of results it will be clear whether the objectives have been reached. It is important that she addresses that point.

May I say that it is a privilege to speak in a debate such as this? I do not mean this in any way as a flippant remark, but it is really important that men speak in these debates and demand better treatment of women and their rights, not just as something we ought to give them but as something that they should have as of right. That is important, and I know that colleagues on the Committee will have no issue with that.

I say this as a criticism of my own gender: we should be louder in speaking up on these issues. I will not digress from the subject the Committee is considering, but on domestic violence, sexual violence and other such issues, men should be louder in demanding the proper treatment and the proper rights for women in our society.

I thought it was good—other people may disagree—that there were an estimated 20,000 men on the “Women Against Trump” march in London at the weekend. I am sure there were many in other cities, too, and I think it was a good thing.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a passionate speech. I was on that march, and I marched alongside many men. I have to draw his attention to one particular placard that struck me, which read, “Men of quality do not fear equality”. Does he agree that that is a statement that all men should operate under?

[Vernon Coaker]

Men of quality do not fear equality—of course, I absolutely agree. It should not be a rare occurrence that I and other men turn up and speak in debates such as this. We should be make continual demands to support women across the country—and across parties—in trying to achieve more.

Labour has a proud record in trying to tackle inequality and promoting women’s rights; my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham drew attention to some of our achievements. We recognise that the regulations are an important step forward and we are pleased that the Government have finally come forward with them, but we will continue to highlight the issue and demand better for women in society.

I point out to the Minister something that I found interesting. When the House of Commons Library assessed and analysed the impact of savings to the Treasury over the past few years, it found that 86% of the impact of tax and benefit changes had been on women. Whatever the rights and wrongs of austerity and the economic policies that the Government are pursuing, that cannot be right. I say to the Minister, given her wider ministerial responsibilities, that that is not a political point; it is just a point that women in general—and men such as myself who support what women are campaigning for and trying to achieve—would say needs to be made.

Finally, I say to the Government that we are pleased that the regulations are being introduced. I am pleased about it as a man and as a member of a modern society. However, we must all try to inject a bit more urgency into this process, so that we are not here in a few years’ time debating why the pay gap has only gone down by half a percentage point rather than being eliminated, as it really should be.