Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He will know that the Government do a lot—more than any other European Government—to support refugees in conflict zones. With regards to Syria, for example, the British Government have so far allocated more than £2 billion.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Home Secretary says he wants to consider the private Members’ Bills, so is it not about time the Government brought forward a money resolution so that the Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill, can make progress and we can debate the Government’s amendments?

[Sajid Javid]

As I have said, this is an important and sensitive issue and we want to consider it carefully, but that means it should not be rushed. We should take the correct time necessary to consider the Bills.

Windrush

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

The hon. Gentleman is describing the results of this policy. The Government and the Home Office have to go after low-hanging fruit. They went after the Windrush generation, but they have been called out on that and they are embarrassed—hence all the shouting, the spurious points of order and the attempts to shut us up for calling them out.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making absolutely important points. This point about other vulnerable communities is hugely important, because more and more is coming to light. Does she agree that, in the light of the Windrush scandal, now is the opportunity for the UK Government to regularise the status of the Chagos islanders, who were forced off their land by the British state in the 1960s and 1970s? The second and third generations here are being denied British citizenship. This is an opportunity for the UK Government to put that injustice, along with so many others, right.

[Joanna Cherry]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier this week, and as I will be repeating this afternoon, what we need now is a root and branch review of the Prime Minister’s immigration policies, because they are not working—the Home Affairs Committee has heard evidence that they are not even working according to the Government’s internal tenets.

Home Office Removal Targets

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

We made changes in 2010 that were specifically to support families and children who might be at risk of being removed. For instance, we banned the detention of children outside of families, which had been taking place before 2010. So I believe we made some changes in 2010 and going forward, which really were trying to assist families and children, rather than the opposite.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Does the Home Secretary consider the Chagos islanders, who are in the UK because they were forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands by the British state, to be illegal migrants? Do any attempts to remove them count towards these targets?

[Amber Rudd]

I know the Chagos islands have a specific situation. I also know that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) will be bringing his British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill to the Chamber soon and I look forward to hearing the arguments on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I could not agree with my right hon. Friend more. It is not for me to comment on the individual decision. Nottinghamshire police force does a good job and it has difficult decisions to take, but when it takes such decisions, it must make sure that it takes the community with it, particularly on an issue as sensitive as community policing.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

T7. What is the point of visa priority services if they do not actually provide any kind of priority? Will the Home Secretary reply to the letter I sent her in August containing several examples of constituents paying through the nose for priority tier 2 or settlement visas but waiting far longer than the promised 10 to 15 days for any kind of response?

[Brandon Lewis]

We do have a priority system, and I outlined earlier the high levels of success we have in dealing with applications in the timeframes set out in our service level agreements. Obviously, some cases have complexities to them, which means that they will take longer, and we let individual applicants know that.

General Election Campaign: Abuse and Intimidation

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I warmly welcome the opportunity for this debate, which builds on the heavily subscribed debate in Westminster Hall on 12 July and makes up for the Chamber debate that was cancelled as a result of the general election and Dissolution.

Like Members and parties across the House, the Scottish National party is clear that abuse faced by political candidates, particularly women and those from black and minority ethnic and other minority groups, is intolerable, and that serious action must be taken to ensure that democratic participation is widened, not narrowed. Many candidates and aspiring candidates also face significant barriers to entering politics. Some of that was covered in yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on women’s participation in politics. We have to take action now to stamp out hate and abuse, otherwise we risk dissuading or further disfranchising many who have been historically under-represented.

I pay tribute to Members who have already spoken out or will speak out about their experiences and to unsuccessful candidates and non-returning Members who have had to endure unacceptable abuse. The first and perhaps most important lesson for us all is that abuse must be identified and called out as such. I want to look at some of the recent challenges, some of which we have heard about before, make some reflections on behalf of the SNP in Scotland and set out some of the steps that we can take to remedy and improve the situation.

We live in turbulent times. Across the world, we are seeing a rise in extremism—particularly on the right, with the emergence of the so-called alt right—and indeed outright fascism. We have seen rising electoral support for the National Front in France, for Golden Dawn in Greece and for Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, and there is a risk that hate language and a policy of division are becoming normalised. That must be countered, not encouraged, by strong and determined political leadership. We must work together to build a better public discourse that allows robust debate, while remaining respectful.

[Alison Thewliss]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do politicians need to take responsibility in this area, but the tabloid and other forms of media, which call people traitors and use other inflammatory language, need to be challenged?

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Yes, absolutely. We might even say that what is happening online is being replicated in some offline publications, or perhaps vice versa. The whole thing has to be toned down. As politicians, we have a role to play.

The sad reality is that the President of the United States won his election after a campaign built on playing to the worst side of people, playing up to Islamophobia, insulting the nation’s ethnic minorities and making totally unacceptable misogynistic comments, starting with but not limited to his opponent, the first woman ever to stand for President on a major-party ticket. Our first duty has to be to set an example for others, and that challenge is undoubtedly all the harder when the man supposed to be at the pinnacle of western democracy is acting as if he is at the nadir.

We have our own particular experiences in Scotland. In the 20 years since the devolution referendum, many of us have prided ourselves on being ahead of the curve, in terms of what the Scottish Parliament has achieved. It was a new Parliament with family-friendly hours, procedures far less impenetrable than we have in this place, innovations—at the time anyway—such as the public petitions committee, and of course election by proportional representation. All that helped to reinvigorate democracy and take it back to the people. The Scottish independence referendum, too, was an incredible exercise in popular political engagement. There were packed meeting halls, outdoor rallies and, yes, online debate. Some of that has been seen all over the world in recent years, and perhaps Scotland was part of it and helped to catalyse and inspire engagement elsewhere.

We have to accept, however, that there has been a downside. There has been abuse and harassment—particularly, but not limited to, online—of spokespeople, party leaders and high-profile campaigners. Many of the campaigners in the independence referendum were not traditional politicians, but were becoming politically active for the first time, and some of them have ended up Members of this House—and as of June, not all of them are on the SNP Benches. Many of them found the abuse and intimidation hurtful and difficult to deal with. Those who made it here are the ones who persevered, but undoubtedly many other campaigners did not, and that is a loss to our democracy.

While the debate that precedes a referendum is to a certain extent generalised, the debate that takes place during an election campaign focuses much more on individuals, leaders and candidates. It involves a level of personalisation, which means that policies and issues are sometimes obscured by the people and the personalities involved. It is a case of playing the man and not the ball, as the saying goes, although, of course, it is far too often a case of playing the woman and not the ball. The evidence we have heard so far today makes that very clear. During the general election campaign, I noticed snarky anonymous comments about me online, based largely on my political affiliation but occasionally on my lack of hair follicles, but that was nothing by comparison with what female candidates have had to go through; some have not been anywhere near as fortunate as me.

I pay particular tribute to my former colleague Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, who was my predecessor as the SNP board member of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. She is a significant loss to the House, although I have no doubt that we shall see her again in some shape or form. Amnesty International produced a briefing for the debate containing testimonies that are incredibly powerful; I recommend it to all Members and, indeed, anyone who is watching the debate. In a contribution to that briefing, Tasmina spoke of her experiences. She said:

“When I was elected in 2015 and even during my election campaign, I found myself at the other end of horrific levels of abuse. And the question is: why might that be? Is everyone receiving the same levels of abuse? Is it women? Is it because I’m Black Asian Minority Ethnic?”

She cited examples of people tweeting her home address and postcode—we heard about home addresses earlier—which led to the police having to patrol outside her house. She was advised to set up a safe room in her house. Surely all our houses should be safe from abuse and intimidation.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, what she did about this issue, and the horrific abuse that she had to put up with. I have experienced it myself, as a candidate and as a woman in the House of Commons. I also vividly recall going on television at the time of the EU referendum and disagreeing with Nigel Farage’s comments about whether voting for Brexit would mean women were more likely to be raped. Suddenly, on my Twitter timeline, I gained a horrifying insight into the Islamophobic abuse that other people receive. I sometimes thank my lucky stars that I receive the misogyny but am generally spared the racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism that I know other Members have to deal with. Is not part of the difficulty the fact that abuse is so often targeted and therefore invisible to the groups who are not receiving it?

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is why it is important to call out abuse in such circumstances, and to have debates of this kind. I congratulate the Government again on making available the time for it.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the targeting of the homes of Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh and others. I think I am right in saying that the addresses of candidates in elections to the Scottish Parliament do not appear on postal votes or on the ballot paper, and I wonder whether we should consider introducing the same arrangement for elections to this place.

[Patrick Grady]

I think a consensus is emerging on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) drew attention to the anomaly whereby, although one of our colleagues was able to anonymise their address on the ballot, their partner was standing for the council and therefore had to publish the address, which completely negated the arrangement.

[Vicky Ford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Patrick Grady]

I am a little bit conscious of others wishing to speak, but I will.

[Vicky Ford]

I just wanted to say something about anonymising addresses, or not making them public. When I stood for election, I did not make my address public, partly because of threats that I had received during my time working on international gun laws—threats from people who have guns. The difficulty was, however, that those who make themselves anonymous can be accused, politically, of trying to be anonymous when others are not. I suggest to the Minister that there should be one rule for all, so that the council and the election officers know where people are, but need not make the information public.

[Patrick Grady]

As I have said, I think a degree of consensus is emerging on that point. Perhaps the Minister will address it when he sums up the debate.

I want to stress what Tasmina had to go through. She was subjected to language that I will not repeat in the Chamber because it would be unparliamentary, although it is not unparliamentary when it comes from the President of the United States; let us put it like that. It is simply unacceptable. Tasmina and others in this House have stood their ground and called out the abuse, and continue to fight for what they believe in. That is an example of courageous leadership for others to follow, but it still takes that leap of faith—that act of courage. For someone in the early stages of considering a political career, who is unsure, the possibility of that abuse and intimidation might prove one hurdle too high.

What can be done? We welcome the review being conducted by the Committee on Standards in Public Life; I am pretty certain we are making a contribution to it, and we look forward to its report. We have to, as others have said, make sure that the police and the regulatory bodies have the powers and resources they need properly to investigate abuse and bring those responsible for criminal wrongdoing to justice. I echo the calls for the social media companies to up their game; they must get better at monitoring and acting on reports, and weeding out abusers early on, as several Members have pointed out. I also echo the Minister’s points about education, especially in schools, and making sure that good habits are formed early, and that there is an understanding of active citizenship and positive engagement with democracy, so that a new generation can come forward.

We have touched on some of the practical issues to do with keeping people’s personal circumstances secure, and addresses on the ballot paper. Finally, I want to emphasise that we have to lead by example. We have to win the debate. We have to make sure that our conduct—in this place, in our constituencies, and especially online—is exemplary. Of course we should engage in robust debate, but we should do so with good humour and with respect for the opinions held by our opponents, no matter how much we might disagree with them.

That any of us are standing here today, no matter what party we are from, is in some way a victory for democratic values and the principles of freedom of speech, but we must use that victory, whatever side we are from, carefully and responsibly. We are all passing through this Chamber; one day, all of us will lose or retire, and someone else will take our place. If we want to make sure we are replaced by the brightest and the best—by people who truly represent the full spectrum of diversity in our society, and who will continue to champion democracy and freedom of speech—we must live up to the highest standards ourselves. Hopefully, by these actions, we can ensure that democracy endures, and that the haters and abusers are not allowed to win.

Police Widows’ Pensions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Moon]

Everyone expects to be treated the same. People might face different stresses and strains within the police force, but the risk, ultimately, is that every day someone will be determined to take the life of a police officer. If an officer is lost to their family, and if they have made appropriate plans to protect their family, it is right that the state honours that commitment. We pay great tribute to families when they take on these roles and responsibilities, and we should maintain that commitment.

Changes have been made in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I commend those Administrations. In Scotland, the Government announced the same amendment to the pensions paid to the survivors of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty. I think those pensions have been reinstated and backdated to 1 October 2015.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. One of my constituents was affected by this issue, but the Scottish Government’s decision to reinstate the pensions has resolved that injustice for him. This is one area on which we are happy to express solidarity across the UK. Governments across the United Kingdom should be aiming for the highest possible standards, to pay respect to our officers killed in the line of duty.

[Mrs Moon]

As I have said, police officers face the same risks every day. They deserve the same pension rights, and their families deserve the same financial protection. Comparisons have already been made between police officers’ widows and widowers and their armed forces counterparts, with Ministers often seeking to differentiate between the two as a way of justifying the cessation of pension rights for police officers. However, as has already been commented on, the 2011 Hutton Report made it clear that

“there is a need to recognise the unique nature of the work the uniformed services (the armed forces, police and firefighters) undertake.”

They put themselves in harm’s way to protect us. Is it not now time for England and Wales to join the rest of the United Kingdom in ending this injustice? Will the Minister undertake to meet the campaign group? Many of them are here today and will be happy to discuss a way forward with the Minister.

I ask the Minister to end this incomprehensible, unfair and, quite honestly, blatant inequality. Let us give the families back the money they are due. All these men and women are asking for is a level playing field instead of a harsh financial penalty. For me, this boils down to a simple issue: we have to stop putting a price on love. The Government have to make sure that widows, widowers and their children have access to the pension rights that were put there to protect them in the future. By right and by legitimacy, they should have them.

Unaccompanied Children (Greece and Italy)

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law]

I thank the Minister for raising that point. That £28 million is to be saluted—it is very important—but it is not what we are discussing today. We are discussing the issue of refugees coming to this country.

According to UNICEF, more than 30,000 unaccompanied children fleeing war and persecution arrived by sea in Greece and Italy last year. Only eight of those children were transferred to the UK, where they had family links. Our country is quite simply failing to play our part in caring for those children.

It was only last year that we were told by the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, that “a specified number” of vulnerable refugee children would be given a home here under the Dubs amendment to immigration legislation. Lords Dubs, as we know, was himself rescued from Nazi persecution and brought to the UK in 1939 by Sir Nicholas Winton.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way: he is being very generous compared with the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), who spoke immediately before him. Does he agree that the Government’s refusal to live up to what people expected them to do when they accepted the Dubs amendment is a betrayal not only of the thousands of children who will not be able to come here, but of the many hundreds of thousands of our constituents who wrote to us, campaigned and signed petitions? They expected the Government to live up to the commitment for which they all campaigned.

[Chris Law]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and I agree with him completely. In fact, I received emails leading up to today’s debate that made exactly the same point.

It now emerges that we will take only 350 children, including the 200 who have already come over from Calais. We have been told by the Minister that the door is still open, but, to be frank, the impression is that it has been slammed shut. The UK Government have stooped to a new low, targeting the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, namely unaccompanied children.

Even the timing of ditching the Dubs scheme was appalling. The Home Secretary cynically ditched it on the eve of the most recent parliamentary recess. Lord Dubs condemned the move, saying that the bad news was buried

“while most eyes were focused on the Brexit debacle”.

In her statement, the Home Secretary claimed that the scheme created a “pull factor” for unaccompanied children to make perilous journeys to the UK and, therefore, increased the risk that they would fall into the hands of traffickers. That has been touched on several times today. She said:

“we do not want to incentivise perilous journeys to Europe”.—[Official Report, 9 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 637.]

Why would she say that? Why on earth would anyone think that we only have pull factors, when I have already described so many of the push factors? The real message that my constituents and constituents across the country are getting from this is, “Not in my back yard.” There is no evidence that there is a pull factor. In fact, relocation services that provide safe and legal routes to the UK for those seeking asylum disrupt the people traffickers, who seek to profit from smuggling desperate people across borders.

I urge the Minister not only to allow the Dubs scheme to continue, so that the UK receives at least 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees, but to increase the total number of refugees he intends to settle under the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement programme. I remind the House that Scotland is not full up. The Scottish Government have always said they are willing to take their fair share of refugees and have called on the UK Government time and again to increase their efforts to respond to this humanitarian crisis. That is a cross-party stance that has wide public support.

Unaccompanied Child Refugees

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I wonder how the hon. Lady would feel about the children who are in the camps in the region. They are not in France or Italy; they are the ones in the camps where the conditions are much, much worse. How would she feel about looking them in the eye?

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Is this not a shameful betrayal of not just the thousands of children being denied a secure future, but the tens of thousands of our constituents who signed petitions and wrote letters in support of the Dubs amendment? No one is suggesting that this country is not welcoming of refugees, but it increasingly appears that the Government are not.

[Amber Rudd]

I would urge the hon. Gentleman to correct any misunderstandings that anybody has. The fact is that we have stuck to the agreement in the Dubs amendment. We were obliged to put out a number, having consulted local authorities. Perhaps he would consider putting out a message to his constituents so that they are clear that the Government are stepping up their commitments, are taking 20,000 by 2020, and are looking after these children. We are proud of our response.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Patrick Grady Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

I have some theories, and I hope to come to those in due course, but at the end of the day a lack of political will holds these things back. The fact that so many Members are here on the Friday before we break for Christmas shows that many people recognise how critical this is.

As Members will see, this is a short and straightforward Bill that would require the Government to provide a clear timetable for ratification within four weeks of Royal Assent and require the Home Secretary to come to Parliament annually to report on our compliance with the convention. This would afford Members across the House better opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s record and plans for tackling violence against women. Ratification needs to be more than a tick-box exercise. It is a challenge for us all, as legislators and policymakers, to make sure that it works in practice to improve women’s lives. Strengthening parliamentary accountability would also improve our compliance with article 70 of the convention.

I want to turn to those areas where the UK is not yet fully compliant with the convention. The main sticking point appears to be article 44, which makes provision for countries to establish jurisdiction over an offence committed by one of their nationals outwith their territory. I am told by learned friends that extraterritorial jurisdiction can be a tricky legal area—parliamentary Clerks and civil servants visibly blanch when those magic words are spoken—but the UK already exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to dozens of serious offences in a wide range of areas, including in several relevant to the convention, such as forced marriage, trafficking, female genital mutilation and sexual offences against children. There are still a number of offences, however, including rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse, where it does not yet apply and where compliance would require changes to domestic law.

Moreover, some of those offences relate to areas of devolved responsibility in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so UK Ministers would need to work with Ministers in Holyrood and Stormont to secure the necessary legislative changes in the Scottish Parliament and Northern Irish Assembly, or agree legislative consent motions. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government have signalled their willingness to push this forward, and I have been heartened by the support for the convention and my Bill from Northern Irish MPs across the political spectrum.

I want us to be clear about the difference that ratification would make and why it matters. A few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) raised in Prime Minister’s Question Time the case of a constituent of his who—it is alleged—was raped by another British national outside the UK. If we had already ratified the Istanbul convention and integrated the provisions in article 44 into domestic legislation, the authorities here could have investigated and prosecuted that crime, and crimes like it.

Another example is that the women’s organisation the Southall Black Sisters has been working tirelessly to highlight the circumstances surrounding the death of Seeta Kaur, a UK citizen whose family believe was the victim of a so-called honour killing in India. The UK already has extraterritorial jurisdiction over the crime of murder, but the contested circumstances of Seeta’s death have made it difficult for her family to get the police here involved, even though they claim there is evidence that a serious crime was planned in the UK. Again, ratification of the convention would strengthen the law to provide unambiguous protection for those at risk of honour-based violence.

The Istanbul convention would offer significantly enhanced protection to women who spend time working overseas and those who work for airlines or on cruise ships. Many women travel abroad in the course of their professional lives, but if, for example, a colleague sexually assaults or rapes them in a country where the law is weak, they may have little or no redress. Workplace harassment policies are not designed to deal with criminal violence, nor should they be. We need to give our police and our courts the authority to hold UK nationals and habitual residents accountable for behaviour abroad that would constitute a serious crime at home.

We already exercise these powers in relation to child sex offences, but not sexual offences against adult women. We exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to terrorist offences, but not to those terrorised behind closed doors. It is important that we send a strong signal that crimes such as rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse committed by UK nationals will be taken seriously wherever they occur in the world. The key point is that the very existence of extraterritorial jurisdiction and the possibility of sanction will act as a powerful deterrent and help end the impunity with which some of the most violent perpetrators evade justice. These people should have nowhere to hide.

The Government need to take the Istanbul convention out of the bottom drawer, where it has been filed for far too long in a pile marked “too complicated, too difficult, too low a priority,” and we need to work together, across the House, across Departments and across the devolved Administrations to move things forward.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill. Does she agree that it is important that the UK ratifies the convention and shows global leadership on this issue? We heard in Westminster Hall recently that in South Sudan and its capital, Juba, over 70% of the female population have been subject to sexual assault. It is used as a weapon of war. That is completely unacceptable, and it is vital that the UK shows global leadership by ratifying the convention.

[Dr Whiteford]

My hon. Friend’s point is well made. The shocking statistics from that part of the world remind us of just how serious this issue is globally. His substantial point about leadership is also right. If a Parliament such as this one, where the rule of law is well established and our legislative processes are robust, finds this too difficult, how on earth can we ask other countries that do not have the same traditions of governance to do it? We need to step up and show some leadership globally.

UN International Day: Violence against Women

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and I congratulate her on leading this debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it in the first place.

Gender-based violence is a human rights violation—the hon. Lady is absolutely right—and it is something that women confront in every country across the globe. However, whichever side of the House we sit on, I think we can recognise and be proud of this Government’s record, and particularly the Prime Minister’s commitment to these issues. She has shown her commitment, on a very personal level, to ending violence against women—not just with warm words, but with very clear action. Ever since I have been an MP—and probably for as long as you have, Madam Deputy Speaker—she has shown that commitment, and we need more countries to have the sort of leadership we have in this country. I was reminded of that only yesterday when I spoke to my counterpart, Mehrezia Labidi, chair of the parliamentary women’s committee in Tunisia, who has been instrumental in pressing forward with a Bill on women’s rights and gender-based violence which would be ground-breaking legislation in the Arab world and deserves all our support.

I would like to echo the words of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston in paying tribute to the extraordinary work of organisations such as Women’s Aid, Refuge, ActionAid, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, and the Everyday Sexism Project. They are representative of the kind of civil society that we take for granted but does not always exist in other countries. One of our challenges is how we take forward that sort of learning into other countries around the world.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Miller]

Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I make some speedy progress? I do not want to incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] I know her well.

The Government’s record at home should be recognised across the House. Their violence against women strategy, which was delivered in March, means that in the UK we really do have a clear practical strategy in place, not only to support victims but to bring perpetrators to justice. New offences have gone hand in hand with work to change culture. It is this Prime Minister who put in place the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to tackle a crime that affects so many women. However, we still have 1.3 million women in this country who experienced domestic violence in the past year, and 400,000 who have been victims of sexual assault. The announcements made by my hon. Friend the Minister yesterday show that this Government are in no way complacent. Measures such as the new stalking and civil protection orders, and the provision of more funding for better local support services, show that this is under constant review.

We should also recognise the work that has been done in other parts of Government. The UK has advocated a stand-alone goal on gender equality as part of the sustainable development goals. The Women and Equalities Committee, which I chair, will look at this in detail, because we need to make sure that these commitments are being put into practice here at home. The Department for International Development has boosted the support to tackle violence against women by increasing by 60% its funding for work in Africa, particularly around the issues of female genital mutilation, and—

[Patrick Grady]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Miller]

I feel that I should now give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady).

[Patrick Grady]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and for the very substantial contribution that she is making. Does she agree that among the different things we can do, it is important that the Government ratify the Istanbul convention in order to show global leadership? Yesterday, in a Westminster Hall debate, we heard about the situation in South Sudan, where 70% of the women in the capital city of Juba have experienced sexual assault during the conflict in that country. It is absolutely horrific. We need to show global leadership by ratifying the convention.

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We have shown global leadership in signing the convention, but we are waiting to ratify it. Having been a Minister in the position of considering how we do so, I know that ministerial colleagues will be continuing to unpick the complexities of making sure that ratification is done in the right way.

I want finally to make two very swift points, because many right hon. and hon. Members want to come in on this debate. I make no bones about it: I am going to focus on two issues that really affect us here in the UK, because while it is right that we look out to the world, we have to look on our own back doorstep as well. One of the biggest challenges of our lives is the way in which we tackle the online world. We need to do more about this. Children now spend more time online than watching television. New and more inventive ways are being presented to us with regard to how perpetrators of violence against women and girls act. Forty-five per cent. of domestic violence survivors experience abuse online, and that abuse is really difficult to escape.

I welcome the legislation that this Government have introduced on online revenge pornography. I was pleased to work with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), when he was at the Ministry of Justice, on making sure that we have world-leading legislation in this area, and not only that but help and support for victims through the revenge pornography helpline. I welcome the new guidance that has been issued to schools on sexting. I also welcome the Digital Economy Bill, which, for the first time, starts to put in place laws that recognise that the online world is very different—that is, the laws about age verification for accessing pornography online.

However, we need to go further. I hope that the Law Commission is able to take forward its review of the law in this area. We need a clear legal liability on online media platforms to make sure that women are not abused online; a clear definition of “abuse”; a recognition of the drain on police resources that the current system creates; and perhaps a system of fines for the worst of these offenders. We should not be put off by the fact that this industry transcends international borders, but make sure that it is working for us in our country in the way we want it to work. I echo previous thoughts on the importance of having a proper code of practice, not just paying lip service, as it is at the moment, I am afraid.

The second area we need to focus on was mentioned by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston in relation to the excellent report produced by the Women and Equalities Committee on sexual harassment. It is excellent because of the wonderful work of the Clerks, not because of the likes of me and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), as much as we try very hard. I thank the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston for giving that report yet more publicity. As she knows from having read it, two out of three young women regularly experience sexual harassment and violence in schools; that develops into a situation where, according to the National Union of Students, 68% of students experience verbal, physical and sexual harassment on campuses; and those students then go on into the outside world, where 85% of women experience unwanted sexual attention. It is a cumulative problem that we must deal with.

While there are many things that we can be doing, the most important is making sure that we give young people the kind of knowledge they need to be able to navigate the world better—the knowledge they would get from having compulsory sex and relationship education delivered at school. We must not continue to tackle only the symptoms of the problem of violence against women; we have to tackle the root causes as well. We would no longer tolerate the sort of behaviour that some of us may have had to experience in the workplace 30 years ago, yet we insist that young people keep quiet, do not speak out, and do not get the support they need when they experience such behaviour in schools.

There is a great deal of support for change. I have heard it from the Dispatch Box from my hon. Friend the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities. I hope that in her response to the debate, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), will say that there is widespread support from Ministers across the board to update the guidance and ensure that it is fit for purpose, and to make sure that we listen to the 90% of parents who want compulsory sex and relationship education, and want it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I commend hon. Friends and colleagues for their incredibly powerful contributions. I congratulate the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on supporting this Backbench Business debate. It is absolutely necessary that we have such an important debate on the Floor of the House. It is through contributions such as that of the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson) and my friend from the Women and Equalities Committee, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), that we are able to give a voice to these important matters.

The UN initiative of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women serves to remind us of some of the worst human rights abuses imaginable. Violence against women persists in systematic abuse across the globe. I echo the sentiment of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston that women’s rights are human rights. Although large strides have been made in recent years, as we have already heard there is still a long way to go. More than 20 years after the UN General Assembly declaration on the elimination of violence against women, one in three women still experiences physical or sexual violence, mostly from an intimate partner.

Violence against women encompasses wide ranges of abuse, including domestic violence, sexual violence, female genital mutilation, honour killings and trafficking. These are abhorrent acts, and we all have a part to play in their eradication. In the words of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

“Break the silence. When you witness violence against women and girls, do not sit back. Act.”

I ask the Government to follow that command and act. We are in the middle of the UNiTE campaign’s 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, which runs from 25 November to 10 December.

[Patrick Grady]

The 16 days are being marked by all kinds of activity across the country and indeed, increasingly, around the world. The Maryhill women’s centre in my constituency does incredible work supporting women from all walks of life, especially those who have been affected by gender-based violence, and is having a series of events. Does my hon. Friend welcome the centre’s activities and those going on across the country?

[Angela Crawley]

I welcome every single effort across the UK to eradicate violence and to raise awareness of this important subject,

This year’s UNiTE 16 days of action seek to raise funds to resource the services that do vital work each and every day to end violence against women and girls, in response to a major shortfall in resources and tightening budgets; the campaign is doing all it can to raise awareness. Frameworks such as the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, which includes a specific target for ending violence against women, need adequate funding if they are to result in significant change. That new global development agenda was adopted and ratified by every UN member state this year. It aims to

“Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.”

Big projects are taking place worldwide. For example, the non-governmental organisation Physicians for Human Rights is working in Kenya and the Democratic Republic of the Congo with doctors, nurses, police, lawyers and judges to enhance access to justice for survivors of sexual violence, and UN Women is working in Ethiopia, Jordan and Myanmar to develop essential health and legal services for women subjected to violence. However, funding and support are also needed closer to home.

I take this opportunity to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on the rape clause campaign, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) on the white ribbon campaign, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) over many years on gender-based violence. I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to support her private Member’s Bill next week seeking to prevent and combat violence against women and girls, and asking the Government to ratify the Istanbul convention. I remind all Members that article 1 of that convention states:

“The purposes of this Convention are to… prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence …contribute to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women”

and girls in law and in practice. I also take this opportunity to commend the work of Dr Marsha Scott of Scottish Women’s Aid and all the staff of Women’s Aid South Lanarkshire for their work each and every day.

Turning to the domestic sphere, it could be argued that the UK Government place survivors of violence at risk through the operation of the child maintenance service. The service operates on a basis whereby the parent caring for children is charged a 4% collection fee for using it, amounting to an additional tax on a parent who has suffered domestic violence. There is an alternative: the caring parent can avoid the child maintenance tax by giving their bank details to the other parent directly, in what is known as a family-based arrangement. I have heard from constituents who are survivors of domestic violence who are too frightened to establish a family-based arrangement because of the legitimate fear that their abuser will be able to access their personal details or, where they have moved to a place of safety through fear that their life is in danger, to locate them.

What must the Government do to resolve that? They must consider the fact that women who have fled situations of domestic violence in certain circumstance are often pushed into poverty through having to flee their abuser. They could remove the additional 4% tax; and they could also issue clear guidance on ways in which women can get the tax removed, and provide clarity on the evidence required to make sure they are eligible for this removal. This should not be an arduous process. I am sure the Government would seek to amend it to ensure that it did not create problems.

It is all very well for the Government to encourage parents who have separated amicably to set up their own arrangement for paying child support as a cost-saving exercise, but a maintenance tax on victims of domestic violence is not a feasible option for domestic abuse survivors. Child support payments are often relied on as a way to establish a safe and independent life for domestic abuse survivors and their children, so to charge them puts the lives of the survivors and their children at risk. I hope the Minister will seek to address this issue and make a real commitment to these women, who are trying to put their lives back together and give their children a safe and happy childhood.

In Scotland, we are committed to tackling domestic violence. It is the priority of the Scottish Government. I recognise that the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackling domestic violence through legislation and in law is far ahead of the rest of the UK, but I am sure that the UK Government will commit to following in the steps of the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government are bringing forward a Bill to create a specific offence of domestic abuse. This will cover not only physical abuse but forms of psychological and coercive controlling behaviour that cannot easily be prosecuted under existing criminal law. This law will of course cover male and female perpetrators although, as the figures show, women are more often the victims of violence and they will benefit most from this protection in law. It will not only act as a deterrent, but make it clear that these sorts of behaviours are socially unacceptable.

The Government have a chance to make a statement and commit to ratifying the Istanbul convention, either today or next week by supporting the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. The Government have taken an approach to child maintenance which is ethically dubious and practically dangerous, and it must be addressed. Systematic violence in relationships must be tackled appropriately, and we must address the serious issue with the child maintenance service and survivors of domestic violence.

Every little girl deserves to grow up feeling safe and free from online abuse, stalking, violence, rape, sexual assault or the fear of being killed. These are criminal offences. Every little girl deserves to grow up feeling safe.