Sexual Violence in Conflict

Debate between Margot James and Fiona O'Donnell

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall show myself to be the mistress of self-discipline.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I am particularly glad that she referred to the war in Bosnia. Amnesty International’s report, “When everyone is silent”, was published last October and sets out for the Foreign Secretary—I am pleased that the International Development Secretary is also present—the scale of the challenge that we face in ensuring, first, that women feel able to come forward and tell their stories and, secondly, that justice will be done if they find the courage to do so.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing this debate, and I am sure she will not mind me mentioning that, although the Order Paper does not reflect it, there was cross-party support for it. She should not apologise for not talking much about violence against men, because I remember following her when she made her maiden speech in the Chamber in which she spoke with passion about a project in her constituency for men who were suffering domestic violence. Although the prevalence of men who suffer sexual violence in conflict zone is not as great, the stigma for them is considerable. They can even find themselves criminalised and imprisoned because they are deemed by the nation to have taken part in an immoral crime.

I am pleased to be speaking in this debate because I am a member of the International Development Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into violence against women and girls. I know that the Foreign Secretary said that it was important to realise that we are talking specifically about sexual violence in conflict zones, but we wanted to broaden our report to make it more general. I do not feel like we have had two separate debates this afternoon because every issue that was raised in the last debate affects our capacity to have an impact on sexual violence in conflict zones. If women are not supported by the justice system in their state or know that they will have to return to a community where they will be stigmatised, they will not come forward or seek justice.

I wrote to a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about a woman who was raped in Egypt. When the doctor was collecting the forensic evidence, he could not find the correct instruments and used a pair of scissors to try to take swabs. The woman said that that examination was worse than the rape. We need to be honest and admit that that is the situation in many countries. Although we want to support women, there is a lot of work to be done not just by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but by the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that women, girls, boys and men who are victims of sexual violence get the justice that they seek when they come forward.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s speech and his commitment. It is clear that he has real passion for this issue. However, I have some questions and hope that we can get a bit more detail about how he intends to achieve his aims. I am glad that he told the House that he will be working closely with DFID. I do not intend to be critical or to score party political points, but it is important that we are honest. What does he believe would be an indication of success? Does he have any numbers in mind or any particular areas that he wants to concentrate on? How is he working with DFID? It is important that the resources are given directly to projects in other countries that support women and girls who are the victims of sexual violence. It would be helpful to have more detail on how the two Departments are working together.

It is important, unpleasant as it is, for us to try to get inside the minds of the men who carry out these dreadful violent crimes. We must understand that when a soldier comes from a country where there is no respect for women and where women have no rights and are excluded in every way, it is much easier for them to take the final step of committing an act of sexual violence. That is why it is vital that the work with DFID continues. We must try to effect change in those countries. If we do not change the situation with regard to sexual violence against women and girls in peace and in conflict, at home and in developing countries, we will not achieve the laudable aims that the Foreign Secretary has set out.

[Margot James]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Without wishing to compromise the focus of the Foreign Secretary’s initiative, which I support wholeheartedly, as I am sure she does, I agree with her that women’s unequal status and the misogyny that exists in many societies are both a cause and a consequence of the sexual violence that we are discussing this afternoon.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I thank the hon. Lady. I would go even further and say that countries that have such an attitude toward women are far more likely to be involved in conflict in the first place.

Let us call today for a swift and just international response to sexual violence against women, girls, boys and men. We have to acknowledge that the most effective way for us to improve the lives of women and girls, so that they can live free from the fear of violence and its devastating effects, is to work to bring about change across a whole range of issues—education, training, employment, access to finance, health care and justice. Those are the ways in which we can protect women and make it possible for them to come forward and tell their stories, so that we can deliver justice and so that their daughters will have a different story to tell.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Margot James and Fiona O'Donnell

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I want to make some progress on the main subject of the debate, which is the freezing of tax allowances, but first let me make a couple of other points. Labour Members did not mention that the other thing that the Budget has rightly done is take many people out of tax altogether by increasing tax allowances. I believe that that has benefited up to 24 million.

All this must be seen in the context of deficit reduction. There have been exchanges across the Chamber about parties’ manifestos. I stood on a manifesto that was all about getting some sense back into the public finances and reducing the outrageous deficit that was bequeathed to the current Government. The Chancellor’s central strategy to deal with that deficit involves 80% of spending cuts and 20% of revenue raising. Given that the Opposition oppose virtually all the spending cuts, would reduce VAT, and are proposing not to freeze older people’s allowances, we can only conclude that they are not serious about reducing the deficit, and in that regard they are grossly out of step with public opinion.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will make the progress to which she referred and will begin to deal with the issue that represents the substance of today’s debate. May I ask her whether she made representations to the Chancellor before the Budget, asking him to freeze the age-related allowance?

[Margot James]

I did not make representations to the Chancellor on a matter as technical as the one that we are discussing. Having dealt with that point, I will now proceed to discuss the freezing of older people’s allowances.

I consider the term “granny tax”, coined by the media and exploited by the Labour party, to be very pejorative. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), it is also very inaccurate, as 60% of those who will be subject to the freeze are men. Moreover, this is not a new tax, although some sections of the media presented it as such. I do not see how the freezing of an allowance can possibly constitute a new tax.

It is unrealistic to suppose that older people should be immune from the need to contribute to reducing the deficit. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) made that point very eloquently. Let me add a statistic of my own: the number of people aged 65 and over is expected to rise by 65% in the next 25 years to 16.4 million. Some of the measures that were introduced so many decades ago to the benefit of older people simply cannot be sustained in the current period of rapid demographic change.