16/12/2016 House of Commons

Order. Order. The point of order. Thank you. During this wins De

Guzman opposition debate looking at the impact of the Government's

Autumn Statement on women the right honourable member for South West

Herefordshire, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. For Hertfordshire.

I do apologise. This parish and undermined the work of the House of

Commons library. I hope you will agree that the house, celebrity

heart of parliament, it is nonpolitical and non-biased and

presents research for everyone to use. In the same debate he went on

to discredit the research of the women's budget group, an independent

network of economists and academics. Whilst I recognise that all research

methodologies should be open to robust scrutiny and discussion,

there is a pattern emerging around the gender impact analysis made by

the House of Commons library of successive budgets and Autumn

statements. The Treasury appears to undermine the work of the library by

calling into question the integrity of their work and objecting at their

analysis yet the Treasury have continually refused to carry out

their own gender impact analysis of their own economic policies. As is

prescribed in the qualities act. Can you advise me please and how best to

proceed with this matter to ensure the Minister either retracts his

statement, makes an effort to actually engage with the library to

discuss and understand their methodologies or apologises to the

library and the women's budget group on denying being smug for

undermining their sterling research. I fear she invest me with powers

which I possess. If any member feels he or she has made an incorrect

statement in the house it is open to that member to correct it and it

should indeed be corrected, but where there are matters of debate

and argument I do not think it is appropriate for me to intrude.

Suffice it to say that I think the honourable lady has found her

selfish and -- salvation and no doubt done what she thinks is right

by the fine employees of the library by raising this point of order,

which is now on the record and which, I trust, will be seen by the

very library staff whom come if I may say so, without excessive pun,

she has just championed. It's like open mike. Point of order,

Mr Mike Weir. The question is that the host is it in private. As many

of that opinion is AI and the country no? -- and on the contrary

and over and I think the nose have it. Order. The clock will proceed to

reach the orders of the day. -- the clerk will proceed. Preventing and

combating violence against women and domestic violence, ratification of

Convention Bill, second reading. Doctor Amy Whiteford. Thank you Mr

Speaker. I beg to move the preventing and combating violence

against women and domestic violence ratification of Convention Bill Vina

read a second time. Mr Speaker, the UK signed the Council of Europe

Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and

domestic violence back in June 2012 but has yet to ratify it. Istanbul

convention as it better-known is a unique, ground-breaking

international legal instrument that enshrines in law the basic human

rights of women and girls to live lives free of violence and the fear

of violence and crucially it provides a comprehensive set of

mechanisms to achieve those aims. The provisions of the convention

into preventing violence against women, protect the victims and

survivors of abuse, price skip arbitrators and told them to account

for their actions and commits governments to providing not only

properly resourced support services through strategic policy framework,

it commits governments to robust monitoring, data collection and

public scrutiny. It is a formidable package of measures which are

Scottish women's it has described as quite simply the best piece of

international policy and practice for eliminating violence against

women that exists, setting minimum standards for Government responses

to victims and survivors of gender-based violence, it is a

blueprint for how we move from small change at the margins to a system

that is designed to end domestic violence and abuse against women. We

badly need a step change in efforts to limit violence against women.

Three women are killed by their partner or X every week in England

and Wales alone. In the last year according to the crime survey for

England and Wales, 1.2 million women were victims of domestic violence,

in Scotland last year over 58,000 incidents of domestic violence were

reported to police and across the UK as a whole police recorded over 87

and a half thousand rapes and over 400,000 sexual assaults. Given that

many come possible in most incidents of sexual assault and rape go

unreported, we must not underestimate the scale of the

challenge we face. We are living in an environment where gender-based

violence is so grisly -- pervasive and normalised that we hardly notice

how much we put up with. Last week you in parliament we heard harrowing

accounts from the members for Edinburgh West, Eastleigh and badly

in Spain who so courageously spoke out about their own dreadful a spear

insists. But one in three women experiences domestic abuse or sexual

violence in their lifetime. One in three. That is recognised to

probably be a conservative estimate. Even those who avoid personal attack

are living in a world saturated with images of glorified sexual violence,

with a toxic public discourse where both singing -- boasting of sexual

assault is refrained as the locker room talk. The people who are raped

or so are frequently shamed or blamed. And in some cases

irreparably harmed. It reflects all of us, restricts where we go, what

we were what we dare to say out loud. In my view we must name

violence against women for what it is: The most pervasive and systemic

Yemen right abuse in the world today. Affecting women in every

street, town and every city in every country around the world. -- said

Sister Dimmick -- systemic human rights abuse. It also compounds

gender inequality. Those who are committed to pushing the issue up

the political agenda have our work cut out for us and should also

acknowledge that what although it apparently affects women it also

affects men, non-binary people and especially children, girls and boys.

We also must understand that violence against women is neither

natural nor inevitable. We can prevent and challenge it and we can

hold the perpetrators to account. Those who have the privilege of

shipping and influencing legislation must acknowledge our

responsibilities, but our shoulders to the wheel and make the mission of

gender-based violence a political priority. The elimination. I'm

grateful to the honourable lady that I congratulate her on the bill which

I support. She mentioned children. Of course is she aware that

extraordinary something like a of domestic violence against women

start during pregnancy and something like more than three quarters of

cases involving children being safeguarded or taken into care,

domestic violence is the single biggest element. It is a huge

challenge for our society. I'm grateful for the honourable

gentleman for his point. Many people are shocked when they hear those

statistics for the first time, that so much domestic abuse begins when

women are probably at their most vulnerable during pregnancy, when

they are a position where they are bringing new life into the world and

yet don't have the protection they should expect from the fathers,

often come of their children. He makes an important point and I'm

grateful for his support for the bill today. I want to take a bit of

time this morning to set out why Istanbul convention is so important.

It offers such a powerful vehicle for tackling gender-based violence

and why the UK must pirate eyes it's ratification. -- must prioritise. It

dimensions and recognises dimensions and recognises

gender-based violence often crosses state borders. States that have

ratified the Istanbul convention committed to promoting and

protecting the right of all their citizens to live free from violence

in the public and private sphere. They commit to working to end

discrimination and promote equality between women and men and they

commit to working within a coordinated, strategic, accountable

and adequately resourced framework of policy and practice. The

convention is broad in scope, covering aspects of criminal law,

civil law, migration will and sets out a minimum standards for the

protection of survivors, access to services and requires signatories to

work to prevent violence and bring about attitudinal change. It is

closely addresses some of the most common manifestations of violence

against women, physical and psychological abuse, stocking,

sexual and violent -- sexual violence including rape, so-called

honour crimes and female genital origination. It is not exhaustive

but it recognises the differentiated risks facing women depending on

circumstances was a winner women from all backgrounds are affected by

the types of violence, all income groups, ages all businesses ease and

cultures and religions and all political persuasions. We also know

poorer women are more exposed to risk and for example, disabled women

are more likely to experience abuse than able-bodied women. We know

refugees and asylum seekers are especially vulnerable. In this

respect we see gender into quality -- inequality compounding and cut

across other forms of disadvantage and the commission addresses these

and other forms of discrimination. Several weeks ago I had a

conversation with Doctor Lisa Gormly at the London School of economics,

one of the UK plus leading experts on Istanbul convention and she

surprised me by emphasising the key part of the convention is Article

7-11 because at first glance, let me read at some headings. Comments of

an equality policies financial resources, non-governmental

organisations and civil society, coordinating body, data collection

and research. It is pretty dry stuff.

It is these provisions which will turn a good critical analysis of

violence against women and a collection of useful case studies

into a strategic and dynamic vehicle for ongoing change. It is these

provisions which will allow us to learn from the experience of others

in terms of what works, and will allow us to think strategically

about how we provide support to women at different levels of

government, local, regional and international. It is these

provisions which will help get funding for women at a time when

austerity cuts to local government budgets and voluntary sector funding

are placing these lifeline services in jeopardy. Of course, I give way.

I obviously support the right honourable lady. When she talks

about women's refuge shelters, which are now under the hammer, and have

been closed down in many cases...? The honourable gentleman makes a

vital point. But I think one of the reasons why it is important that we

do ratify the Istanbul convention is because it gives protection to these

services in law for the first time in a coordinated way. So you will

not have one local authority cutting services while another maintains it.

Also it forces governments across the piece to think strategically and

think about how they go about providing services in a coordinated

way, not a piecemeal way. I think that is one of the most important

thing is that this convention will do. It will also make government at

every level think twice before it pulls the funding from the voluntary

organisation which is delivering the lifeline services to women who are

living with domestic violence or trying to flee from it. Mr Speaker,

we are already seeing the impact of the Istanbul convention. The UK

Government and many non-governmental organisations are actively involved

-- have been actively involved in the development of the convention. I

think it is evident that the Istanbul convention process has

already been a powerful impetus to modernising domestic legislation in

a number of relevant areas. I do think it is important to acknowledge

the steps the Government has taken in recent years to pave the way for

ratification, most notably the new legislation on forced marriage,

modern slavery, stopping female genital mutilation, so-called

revenge porn and controlling coercive behaviour, all of which

prepared the UK for compliance. We have seen similar legislative

progress in Scotland, most crucially, the Equally Safe strategy

and the forthcoming domestic violence legislation which is

currently out for consultation. In this respect I think the Istanbul

convention is already driving change. But, Mr Speaker, we need to

finish the job. Having signed the Istanbul convention in June 2012,

the UK has still to ratify the treaty. I will give way to the

honourable lady. I thank the honourable member for giving way and

I thank her for her private members' bill, which is doing a very

important job this morning in the House. I wrote to the Government

this year about the ratification of the convention, and the reply I

received in February said, we will seek to legislate when the approach

is agreed and Parliamentary time allows. Will she agree with me that

this does not show the right approach to the urgency of this

issue? I agree entirely with the honourable lady that this is an

extremely urgent issue. I don't think anyone can use the excuse of

Parliamentary time any more, given the way that business has been

collapsing early in recent weeks. I think there is plenty of

Parliamentary time. What we need is political will. I hope that my bill

will be a step along that road to give us the opportunity to examine

this in more detail and to push the Government to follow up words with

actions in that regard. The Government has consistently said

that it wants to ratify the convention and that it intends to

ratify the convention, but we have reached a hiatus. The process has

stalled, and the Istanbul convention has now been languishing on the back

burner for more than 4.5 years - that's far more than convention is

usually take to ratify. Bill before the House today is an attempt to

shift that logjam and give the Government the impetus it needs to

take the final steps needed to bring the UK into compliance. I will give

way. I've, too, congratulate her on her bill. It is a vitally important

matter. Could she say what she thinks it is which is actually

holding the Government back from taking these steps to ratify it? I

do have some theories about that, and I hope to come onto those in due

course. But at the end of the day it is political will which holds these

things back, and I think the fact that so many people are here on the

Friday before Christmas shows that many people recognise that this is

an absolutely crucial issue. As members will see from the bill

before us today, it is quite a straightforward bill which would

require the Government to bring forward a clear timetable for

ratification within four weeks of the bill receiving royal assent. It

would place a requirement on the Home Secretary to come to Parliament

on an annual basis and report on our compliance with the Istanbul

convention. This would give members across the House the opportunity

just go to nice the Government's record on compliance and tackling

violence against women. Ratification of this treaty is to be much more

than a tick box exercise. It is a challenge for all of us legislators

and policymakers to make sure it is working in practice, to improve

women's lives. Strengthening Parliament would also improve our

compliance with Article 70 of the Istanbul convention. Mr Speaker, I

want to turn to those areas where the UK is not yes, fully compliant

with the Istanbul convention. The main sticking point appears to be

article 44 of the convention, which makes provision for countries to

establish jurisdiction over an offence committed by one of their

nationals out with their territory. I am told by Learned Friend is that

extraterritorial jurisdiction can be a tricky legal area, and

Parliamentary clerks and civil servants visibly blanched when you

say those magic words. 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 Istanbul convention,

such as forced marriage, trafficking, female genital

mutilation and sexual offences against children. However, there are

still a number of offences, including rape, sexual assault and

domestic abuse, where it does not yes, applied and where compliance

would require changes to domestic law. Moreover, some of these

offences relate to areas of devolved responsibility in Scotland and

Northern Ireland. So UK ministers would also need to work with

ministers in Holyrood and Stormont to secure the necessary legislative

changes in the Scottish Parliament and northern Irish Assembly or

agreed registered of consent motion is. I am pleased to say that the

Scottish Government has signalled its willingness to push this

forward, and I've been heartened by the support for this ten convention,

and my bill, from Northern Ireland MPs across this political spectrum.

I want to be clear what difference this convention would make and why

it matters. A few weeks ago, the honourable member for Calder Valley

raised at PMQs 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 Convention and integrated the provisions set out in

article 44 into domestic legislation, the authorities here

could have investigated and prosecuted that crime and crimes

like it. Another example, one women's organisation has been

working tirelessly to highlight the circumstances surrounding the death

of 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 contestant circumstances of her

death in this case have made it difficult for her family to get the

police here involved, even though they claim there is evidence that

serious crime was planned in the UK. Genk ratification of the Istanbul

convention would strengthen the law to provide unambiguous protection

for those at risk of honour -based violence. The Istanbul convention

would also offer significantly enhanced protection to women who

spend time working overseas, those who work for our lines or on push

its. Many women travel abroad in the course of their professional lives,

but if for example a colleague sexually assaults or rapes you in a

country where the law is weak, you may have little or no redress.

Workplace harassment policy is not designed to deal with criminal

violence, nor should it be. We need to give our police and courts the

authority to hold UK nationals accountable for their behaviour

abroad, which would constitute a serious crime at home. We already

exercise these powers in relation to child sexual offences, but not for

sexual offences against adult women. We exercise extraterritorial

jurisdiction in relation to terrorist offences, but not for

those who are terrorised behind closed doors. It is important that

we stay and a strong signal that crimes like rape, -- that we send a

strong signal that crimes like rape and sexual abuse, committed by UK

nationals, will be taken seriously wherever they occur in the world.

The key point is the very existence of extraterritorial jurisdiction,

the possibility of sanction, will act as a powerful deterrent and help

end the impunity with which some of the most violent perpetrators have

evaded justice. These people should have nowhere to hide. The Government

needs to take the Istanbul convention out of the bottom drawer,

where it has been filed for far too long in a folder marked, too

complicated, too difficult, too low a priority. And we need to work

together across this House and across covenant departments and the

devolved administrations to move things forward. I will give way. I

thank my honourable for for giving way. I want to congratulate her on

bringing forward this bill. Does she agree it is important that the

ratification goes through the show that the UK is showing global

leadership on this issue? We heard Westminster hall, 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 vitally

important that the UK shows global leadership by ratifying the

convention? I think the honourable gentleman's point is very well made.

And those were shocking statistics which come from that part of the

world, reminding us how serious this issue is at a global level. The

point about leadership I think is also right. Of parliaments like this

one, where the rule of law is well established, where our legislative

recess is robust, finds this too difficult to do, how on earth can we

ask other countries where they do not have the same traditions of

governance to be following our example? I think we do need to set

up and -- sit up and show some leadership at a global level. Is it

not also the case, as with other private members' bill is in This

Place, that it is the message that we send out? This has languished for

4.5 years, which sends out the message that violence against women

is not important. And then we wonder why women do not report attacks or

intimidation in their own home? My honourable friend makes another very

good point. We know that these crimes are terribly underreported.

Some of the organisations that work with victims and survivors estimate

that as much as 90% of the women who use their services have not actually

reported the crimes to the police. So, yes, we need to let people know

that it is safe to speak up and there will be support available.

Until we do that, I don't think we will see people coming forward in

the kinds of numbers that we know the problem demands. I will give way

to the honourable gentleman. You don't have to go as far away as

Sudan to see examples of countries which do not intend to rectify this

convention. One can look, for example, to Germany. On New Year's

Eve last year there was the most appalling violence against women,

but Germany has not even signed, let alone ratified, this convention. I

am really very surprised at the honourable gentleman thinking we

should be following the example of Germany in this, actually! Anyway, I

will leave that. Mr Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to thank

very sincerely honourable members from all parties who have made the

effort to be here today, giving up the last constituency Friday before

Christmas, and in some cases clashing with long-standing diary

commitments. MPs from all parties and sides have signalled their

support, and I want in particular to thank the honourable members for

Birmingham Yardley, Rotherham and Basingstoke for their advice and

help. And ministers who have been willing to meet with me for

discussions ahead of the bill. I'm hopeful that a united voice from

Parliament today can bring ratification significantly closer. I

also want to acknowledge a number of women whose expertise on the

Istanbul convention I have relied upon. I have been lucky to have a

formidably erudite human rights advisers from all parts of the UK. I

would like to thank Lisa Gormley, Marsha Scott, Hilary Fisher, Gemma

Linfield, Chris McCann eight... I would like to thank all of those for

all of their invaluable insights. I also want to thank my brilliant

assistant, Nathan Sparling, whose work has been amazing. I also want

to pay special tribute to the women behind the change campaign for their

relentless determination to get the Istanbul convention on the statute

book. They have been purely inspiring. They run the campaign in

their spare time on a voluntary basis, coordinating with

professional and nonprofessional women's organisations and campaign

groups all over the UK. They have been doing an incredible, who is I

know that they will not give up until they have achieved their goal.

Ratification is not an end in itself, it must be a platform for

ongoing process. Often the critics of processes that are ongoing but

pointed treaty is a piece of paper and setting a and duties in

international law does not necessarily give them a perfect and

sometimes that is demonstrate the true but we must not let that happen

here because although the Istanbul conviction Dott commissioners are

solid base camp we still have a mountain to climb and we must render

the scale of the problem. We must use this convention to measure

progress and bank of the games. We must use its robust monitoring data

collection and reporting mechanisms to drive sustained reductions in

violence over the medium and longer terms. The dynamic nature of the key

articles of the stand the convention will be crucial to developing the

policies and services that will deliver progress and deliver the

changes in attitudes and behaviour that will end the scourge of

gender-based violence. Lastly, I also believe the ratification of the

Istanbul convention is important because of its symbolism and the

message it sends to women everywhere about our dignity, our rights to

equality and our rights to live equality and our rights to live

lives free of sexual and domestic violence. The powerful symbolism of

the convention matters because it reinforces the confidence of women

in ourselves and in the moral force of our long struggle for equality. I

believe passionately that we can end violence against women, no one says

it is easy or will happen overnight but ratification takes us a big step

closer and ask members to my bill today. Order. The question is that

the bill be now read a second time. Thank you. May I congratulate the

member from Banff and Buchan on securing this very important debate

and you have my absolute and full support. This Istanbul convention is

historic, as the member has said. It is the first international treaty

that defines violence against women, a legal definition. So a violation

of human rights and a form of discrimination against women. I

believe this is absolutely the right time for this Government to ratify

the convention. It is overdue but the convention. It is overdue but

this is a historic time, our Prime Minister is a woman. And a Home

Secretary is a woman. And we have a woman bringing in this bill. This

would be a good time for us to bring this forward. I also do applaud the

Government that the Government four years ago did sign up to this

convention. The member for Tehran from us did say this month that our

Government is complying and she said with every single aspect of the

convention. I do applaud that this Government does have

extraterritorial jurisdiction over female genital mutilation and forced

marriage. Things about which I have spoken previously. But why ratifying

this convention is important for my constituents is so that the

Government is aligned with what is going on at the ground level in all

constituencies. I'm sure. In my constituency of Twickenham there is

amazing work being done but it was only as a local councillor and now

as a member of Parliament in my area that I realised how appalling the

challenges are. It is a huge challenge for our society and it is

a huge challenge for Twickenham. On average the police have called out

in my borough to three times every night for domestic violence. Indeed,

one a few months back when I spend a Saturday night and Sunday morning

should put the police I was horrified even though I knew the

statistics because that afternoon I had been knocking on doors down one

of our produced streets in Twickenham, I spoke to many people

that Saturday. Yet that night I was in the police van because there had

been a serious incident of domestic violence. And I didn't know how I

spoken that afternoon to the victim? I spoken that afternoon to somebody

who committed violence? Because there was absolutely no way I would

have known that in that afternoon. What I've realised is that it is

almost every street we knock on doors as MPs, we might be meeting

somebody who is either a victim or perpetrator of that crime. In a

moment, thank you. I'll so had a meeting in my constituency with

police, with charities, with GLA, to speak about the situation in our

area and what we can do and it was chilling to hear from one of the

police officers when he said "For my borough we are more unsafe in our

own homes then we are on the streets". I will give way. I thank

the honourable lady forgiving way. And while it is totally recognised

that women from poorer backgrounds will see more of these cases

captured in the data, is it not the case that within the circles of

society that are better off and more middle-class there is actually a

greater pressure on women to not report and working as a doctor I met

many patients, many women beaten below the neck so that it would not

show and yet covered in bruises and still coming out with "It's my

fault" I shouldn't have done this, I shouldn't have done that. We must

not be misled to think this is not an issue among the better off. I

think we'll find the data will show it is in country and every street,

in every household. My concern for London is that in my area we are not

aware of it going on in the homes because we are not hearing what is

going on in our neighbour's comes as much. What I find in token, the good

Samaritans are everywhere. If there has been a incident and thankfully a

very rare incident of violence on the streets, immediately half a

dozen people are there. If someone has had a fall or seizure or heart

attack, the streets in Twickenham, it doesn't happen often but every

time I've been there, half a dozen people immediately are there and

what is amazing is when that has happened the next day someone will

contact me because then I to track me down and asked me how was that

person, is that personal right? We know in community the good

Samaritans are looking out for each other but the good Samaritans, there

aren't half a dozen people when domestic violence has happened in

homes and that is where we need people to know in my area, all of

the UK, the 24-hour helpline. 08082000247 People are reaching out.

To ratify the convention we align with what is going on in our

constituency at the ground level and about 60 years ago there were about

60,000 women I believe who Martin Pretorius had that wonderful phrase

meaning "You strike a woman, you strike of rock full to." I think our

convention is the equivalent of that and this is the time I support this

bill. Thank you, yesterday the culture secretary agreed to come

back to the dispatch box where it is to be revealed that there was a

further security breach at the national lottery. In the last few

minutes the gambling commission have published a document where they say

it was more likely than not that a fraudulent prize claim had been made

and paid out. There is potentially a great lotto robbery. Cannot have

been fined ?3 million and have been found in breach of their three

pieces of their license. Can I ask if you've had and request from a

minister to make an urgent statement to the house so they can guarantee

to millions of lottery players in the UK that the game is safe. I'm

grateful to the honourable gentleman first point of order. The short

answer is no. I received no indication that the Minister has any

plan to come to the chamber today. But I have known the honourable

gentleman a long time. He is nothing if not persistent woodpecker. And

that is a compliment. So my very strong point is that the honourable

gentleman will be in his place on Monday and using such devices as are

available to him to try and secure the presence of a minister to answer

on this important matter. Meanwhile on this important matter. Meanwhile

I hope the honourable gentleman has an enjoyable and moderately restful

weekend. Jess Phillips. Thank you. I want to say a huge thank you to the

member for Banff for bringing this debate today, this bill. It is long

signing of the Istanbul convention signing of the Istanbul convention

that we are here today to try and push Government to ratify. What I

want to say, potentially uncharacteristically, I intend to

say a few uncharacteristic things, is that I know how much the

Government cares about this issue. Long before I was in this place I

worked very closely with some of the Home Office officials, some of whom

I know you today to work on these things. I have been working with the

Home Office under the then Home Secretary now Prime Minister for

years and I have never seen anything to lead me to believe that anything

but commitment to improving legislation in the area of domestic

violence and sexual violence. In practical terms, when things have to

be delivered and that costs money and that falls to the DC LG, things

did tend to break down but in legislative terms the Modern Slavery

Bill, the act against coercive control, all of these things let me

know that regardless of all of the things that divide us and, my gosh,

I could speak, I could talk out of debate about how many things there

are that divide us, but I like to sleep at night and was raised

properly. So I will give way. And grateful to the honourable lady

forgiving way. Males are on record my support for this and for what she

is saying, but would she agrees is not just enough to pass legislation,

but also to enforce it and that has also been somewhat lacking over the

last few years? I agree entirely that enforcement. What we tend to do

in this building is paved the way with great intentions and great

legislation. We're some of the best legislation with bright to domestic

violence in the world, however, but what we tend to do is open an

enormous door into an empty room and it is very difficult for our police

forces to enforce on certain issues. It is not because they don't have

the legislative framework, it is for a series of other reasons and we all

have to work together. Like yesterday and social care statement,

in every conversation in this place about the NHS. We will just the work

together to make this happen and in this moment of total pragmatism, the

benches opposite do not take offence at what I'm about to say but I would

dance with the Devil to make women and children safer. I would do

anything. The reason I came to this building was to bang my fists on

this side of the table because I got sick of banging them on the other.

And I know that the Government care about this, I know that if perhaps

they weren't distracted with other things, the ratification of the

Istanbul convention probably would have passed really easily and what I

would say to those on the benches opposite is that the stumbling

blocks over compulsory PHS a and speaking to young people about

consent and eradication of the Istanbul make a real threat to what

is not a bad record in this area. It is a pretty good record and

when we allocate funding it is a when we allocate funding it is a

pretty good record. It needs a lot of work. Sorry. All the refugees are

threatened and Magaz agency just now. I meant to say it was a bad

record. If I wasn't here and hasn't got my seat I would be, today,

surrounded by piles and piles of presents and gifts that would have

been given by the local community to refuge. My desk used to become like

a fort and we would have to have parties, actual parties, organised

to get the presents wrapped in order to give out thousands and thousands

of presents to the women and children who lived in refuge every

children who lived in refuge every year.

We would always throw a party and it would be, it might not seem like it,

one of the happiest times of the year. One of the reasons it was so

happy, no matter if you were the chief executive, if you were a

cleaner in the refuge, one of the children in the refuge, everybody

rolled up their sleeves to achieve something together. We would all

make the sausage rolls, the women would be running in and out of their

flats with different plates of food so we could all spend Christmas

together knowing there is a huge amount of solidarity in the world

for victims of domestic violence. And I know the Istanbul convention,

one of the main underpinning of it, is the idea we all work together. Is

that we need multiple agencies genuinely working together across

the world to improve things for victims of domestic violence. No. It

was worth thinking about, but I am sure the honourable gentleman is

going to get his say. I want very much to stand here and say some

funky as to the people who have meant that we are here today. Not

only our colleagues from Scotland, who have done a fantastic job, and

their usual en masse, all sat there together in their block. I would

like to say some uncharacteristic thanks potentially to the Leader of

the Opposition, who has certainly shown his commitment to this and

work with us to make sure the Labour Party today will show its commitment

to this and to Amy Watson specifically, in his office, it is

always exciting in politics when you spend all day on the phone ringing

round people to get them to a place. I would like to thank the unions who

have been involved in trying to lobby members to be here today.

Unison, I kept getting lobbying e-mails from the Muslim Council UK,

also unison lobbied me. It is all down to the hard work of the women,

the volunteer women from I See Change, with almost no

resources, which shows how brilliant and powerful women can be. They can

achieve pretty much anything when they put their minds to it. And

everybody here today, on the last Friday before Christmas, is a

would like to say a massive thank would like to say a massive thank

you to them. What I will finish by saying is, all of us will wake up on

Christmas morning and we will be stressed out, it is the only day

when it is acceptable to drink from six o'clock in the morning! On

holiday it is 12 o'clock, on Christmas it is six o'clock, it is

the rule my family live by. We will all be stressed, wondering if we

have got the right things and there will be a present that has gone

missing and things will be more stressful, especially for the

womenfolk of this world. Things are tens on Christmas Day. I ask

everybody in here to imagine that tension isn't just because you are

not sure whether you've got the right gifts for your family, or so

and so will have a chair of the children's table will collapse like

it did last year. Some people wake up on Christmas Day and they will

try not to say anything wrong. They will try not to put a foot wrong and

try and make sure everything is perfect. They will have risk

assessed every step they take throughout the day because just this

one day, their children deserve not to have the monster that lives in

their home, erupted in their faces. Just this one day, their children

deserve to have the peaceful day that all of our children have taken

for granted. And so, all of the stresses we will feel, for those

people will be terror and control over every single thing they say and

do in order to keep things safe. If we ratify this convention, and if we

send them a message today, that will be the greatest gift we could offer.

It is a pleasure to speak on this Friday and take part in this debate

and follow, I am tempted to say my honourable friend, I know I am not

supposed to, but the honourable lady, the member for Birmingham who

I know speaks with such passion and expertise on the area of domestic

violence. I would like to congratulate the honourable member

for Bamford for bringing forward this important bill today. I was

lucky, I had put this date in my diary. I have a private members bill

which is third on the list. I would like to see and hope as many people

coming in to support mine. We will see how the day goes. That aside,

this is a hugely important bill and it is a pleasure to be able to speak

to it. It is an historic opportunity to tackle domestic abuse and

violence against women and girls. It is a shame parliament wasn't sitting

last Friday, which members here will know, it was the penalty but they 16

days of activism following the elimination of violence against

women and girls day. Bid would have been an even more appropriate day,

if I could say that, but are determined by the day is the House

is sitting. It is shocking that in this day and age, on average, two

women are killed by their partner or ex-on every beginning and and Wales.

27.1% have experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16. Last year

there were an estimated 4.5 million female victims of domestic abuse

between the ages of 16 and 59. When I was preparing to speak today, it

did make me reflect and think, I recalled a time as a child, my

sister and I wear at home with my mum and there was a lady from the

village who came and knocked on our door, who was trying to escape

domestic violence. She spent the afternoon, her and her two boys in

our House with my mum and my sister. The House of Commons is a strange

place, but from time to time it does bring back memories and makes you

reflect on your own experience and how you felt at the time. I know I

have digressed a little bit, but the statistics I have referred to, they

shocking. This isn't the whole picture. This largely hidden crime

in many ways, is difficult to accurately quantify. Women, as we

have heard, don't often are always report, disclosed occurrences of

domestic abuse to the police for many reasons. If this bill is

successful today, and I hope it will be, will require the government to

ratify the Council of Europe Istanbul convention as soon as

possible. In addition to the measures the government has put in

place, including committing 80 million for violence against women

and girls services, I believe this bill will help to end violence

against women and girls. I want to turn briefly to the convention

itself. Between 2006 and 2008, the Council of Europe campaign task

force looking at violence against women concluded existing legislation

to prevent and combat all kinds of violence against women, was not

being enforced. Services the victims were scared and under forced and

there was disparity between member states. This task force recommended

the council user convention in preventing and combating violence,

and this recommendation led to the drafting and publication of the

Istanbul convention. I think it is only right we recognise the UK

played a significant role in producing this, and on the 8th of

June 2012, the UK coalition government signed the convention.

Since signing that convention, the UK has made significant progress

towards ratification. There has been legislation on forced marriage,

female genital mutilation, coercive control, and most recently,

stalking. In fact, in most respects, the measures already in place in the

UK to protect women and girls comply with, or in some cases, go further

than the Convention requires. It is the final amendments to domestic law

to take out to the territorial jurisdiction over a range of

offences has caused some delay in the ratification. I was pleased to

read, and I hope the Minister will expand on this in his closing

remarks, there has been contact with counterparts in the devolved

administrations on who legislative changes should extend to Scotland

and Northern Ireland. I am glad this bill has made it onto the floor of

the House today. Allowing Parliament time to debate it and let us hope

this leads to ratification and therefore giving all women and girls

the legal guarantee for the right to live lives free from both violence

and the fear of violence, that they deserve. This is such an important

issue that one affects so many women. On the one hand you could

argue why does it needs a Private members Bill to do something and we

know the government has committed already to ratifying the convention,

and has given many examples and Indic engines Billy McClure

indications to go beyond the requirements of that. All that

aside, this is an historic day and unimportant private members Bill and

it is a chance for us all in this House to come together and show our

support on what is such a very, very important issue. The best way to end

via violence against women is to prevent it happening in the first

place. Changing prejudices, attitudes and gender stereotypes.

Whether this is through further training professionals and engineers

to help people recognise and challenge forms of violence, prevent

victimisation and emphasis on the need to cooperate with other

agencies. I believe ensuring children are taught a quality at an

early age is vital. Intervention and treatment programmes are working as

well as they possibly can. I recall visiting a refuge a number of years

ago in the North East. I was absolutely staggered to meet with

some of the women and the children there. To gain a deeper

understanding that domestic violence has no social boundaries, no age

boundaries and sadly, it cuts right across all classes and all areas of

society. For those women and girls who the preventative measures have

failed and victims of violence, there has to be the best protection

and support that could possibly be offered. Support and understanding

from government agencies, the police and health services, many of whom do

terrific work already. Specific measures include ensuring victims

have access to adequate information and in a language they can

understand, that shelters are established and inadequate

geographical distribution and are easily accessible Rape Crisis and

sexual violence centres are available to those who need them. I

want to touch on the persecution, prosecution rather of perpetrators.

One of the biggest achievements of the convention is the range of

measures, procedures and best practices for investigating and

prosecuting violence against women. The convention ensures victims

should be protected at all stages of investigation, through emergency

barring orders whether police can remove the perpetrator of domestic

violence from the home and threw restraining and protection orders.

These orders must be available immediately and allow subsequent

legal proceedings and most importantly, issued without

prejudicing the rights of defendants to a fair trial. Mr Speaker, I

wanted to talk a little bit today about violence against women and

girls abroad. Unfortunately, as we have heard, this is not an issue

that is confined to the UK or to Europe. Through my work on the

International Development Select Committee and as co-chair of the

APPG on sustainable development goals, I have seen and heard

examples of women and girls, not just the UK but throughout the

world. Sexual violence is one of the characteristics of the ongoing

insurgency in north-east Nigeria and earlier in the year, along with my

colleague on the committee, the member for East Kilbride,

Strathaven, I hope I have got that right... We met with campaigners

from the Bring Back Our Girls Campaign who campaign and highlight

the issues around the missing she got girls. It is 978 days since they

were abducted and still there are 196 missing. This is a campaign that

cannot be pushed to the sidelines. It is one of those moving events and

certainly one of the most memorable, sadly, parts of the visit earlier in

the year. Looking back at 2014, the then Foreign Secretary, hosted the

first global summit to end sexual violence in conflict. With a special

envoy. This was our largest gathering ever brought together with

1700 delegates and 123 country delegations including 79 ministers.

This summit included radical steps to tackle impunity for using rape as

a weapon of war and beginning to change global attitudes to these

crimes. Changing attitudes to these crimes and towards equality in

general must surely be the best way violence against women that will be

brought to an end. Similarly, the UK in 2005 successfully advocated for a

stand-alone goal on gender equality as part of sustainable development

goal and the establishment of dedicated targets within the goals

for all countries for ending all forms of violence against women and

girls. It is only with measures like this that we can hope to bring an

end to the suffering of women worldwide. I do think that it's only

fair to draw attention to some of the good work Government and the

Pama International development is doing throughout the world to help

end violence against women and girls. Running is accessible

programme a number of them regarding FGM, this programme has helped 15

countries have a policy framework for action plan to paint FGM. The

Secretary of State for National development has Dems Jurjus her

commitment to important work recently, committing 2.75 million to

her UN trust fund to end violence begets Dimmock against women as

supporting worldwide organisations to tackle gender based violence,

ticking the Kepler total contribution to ?11 million. They

are global and universal and it is right and proper that we recognise

that today I feel in this important date. And recognise there is still a

long way to go but lots of workers or been done with regards to it and

achieving gender equality and empowering women and girls. Turning

back to the reason we are all here today and I'm conscious I'm been

hopefully indulgent of your time, I'm looking at the clock, last year

there were over 100,000 prosecutions for domestic abuse. The fact that

more victims are having the confidence to come forward and

report violence shows, I hope, we are moving in the right direction.

and ratifying the Istanbul and ratifying the Istanbul

convention is one way of achieving that. I close by ending with

recognition of the work of the Government has done already in line

with the Istanbul convention and I believe they should be applauded. I

will support the bill today to help ensure violence against women.

Violence against a woman centred because she is a woman becomes a

thing of the past. Thank you. I intend to try and be relatively

brief this morning. I start by congratulating my honourable friend

force during this very important private members debate and for the

consensus she has built to look to drive this forward which will

hopefully by the end of today see this bill moving forward to the next

stage. Very early in my own election campaign of 2015 this issue was

brought to me by a number of campaigners in Midlothian it was

even raised as a question and one of the hustings that took place in that

campaign. Luckily by that point I had at least a limited grasp of what

the Istanbul convention was, sadly not all of those on the panel that

night did. I think the journey we've taken even since that point and the

awareness that has been raised across countless members by the

tireless campaigners already mentioned through my honourable

friend shows the real strength of feeling and I think of genuine

changing and attitude we are starting to see coming through but

we must do more, which is why it is so important we see the passing of

this bill today and in my own constituency made and it is lovely

and pleasant woman boss McKay to have been campaigning on this issue

for a number of years have told me they see the ratification of the

Istanbul convention as the most commented strategy for addressing

violence against women and girls and therefore an opportunity to bring

unprecedented positive change for women and girls. I think we can all

agree we need to do more. I wanted to perhaps in my brief contribution

here look to some of the other issues we see around this and

actually, the role that we as men can play in trying to address and

change attitudes because we all want to see an end to violence against

women but it is that attitudinal change and actually, when we seems,

nation and some of the comments we see online being made, I think there

is a very important role for all of us, perhaps especially the men

amongst us, to challenge the attitudes of other men when we see

that type of abuse taking place online and I have to say, in this

point I would pay particular praise my honourable friend from

Renfrewshire North who is doing a huge amount of work in tackling this

in a number of different avenues. I'm sure we will hear from you

honourable friend shortly. But I cannot let this session pass without

putting on record my and I'm sure my colleagues' feelings for support

forward he is doing. Such an important role. We have a

opportunity to leaders in our own communities, to change the abbot

shoes that are attitudes and dig at standard change the best reserve we

can influence young people today and change their attitude before it's

too late then we can really get that shift change in attitude that will

eventually see us taking the steps to eradicate violence against women.

There is no need for any violence against women to take place. We need

to everything we possibly can to stamp it out at every opportunity

and to not stand by and watch, whether it be violence or simply an

offensive comment online. All of us have a responsibility to make a

stand and do what we can to make sure you make these changes and in

doing so I think if it has to first step today in supporting this bill.

-- a fantastic first step. Can I commend the honourable lady for

bringing forward this particular bill and also typically for the

excellent speech she made. She is one of the best performers in the

House of Commons in my opinion and further enhanced reputation with her

speech today. This is a bill to require the UK to ratify the Council

of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against

women. And domestic violence. The stand-up convention and for

connected purposes. I don't expect to find much support in this house

for some of what I want to put on the record today, although that is

normal in my experience. I is that many people outside of this house

are more likely to agree and we only have to look at the EU referendum to

see how out of touch this house is with the majority opinion across the

country. This is a typical Friday bill if I might be able to say that.

It is basically coming was a worthy sentiment, who can possibly be

against trying to stop violence against women? Nobly I'm aware of,

I'm not aware of anyone who wants to argue that people should be violent

towards women and girls. Because the title of the bill has about

combating violence against women then as long as you support that

perished there it is presumed you must support this particular bill.

Therefore if you oppose this billion must be in favour as it follows of

violence against women and children. That is the kind of level of debate

I would expect from the morons on Twitter but I still live in hope

that we might actually have better quality debate than that in this

house, although my experience is it doesn't actually get much better

normally. I live in hope and hope we can have a sensible debate about

these matters rather than the level of debate that we get used to on

social media. I have a fundamental objection to the premise we only

need to deal with violence against women. I can't... No. It was worth

thinking about for a few seconds. I'm sure the honourable lady would

appreciate it. If she comes back later on my well -- I may well

oblige her. I've really do appreciate the tone he is taking in

recognising the seriousness but I would point out to him that there

are two parts to the title, combating violence against women and

domestic violence, it doesn't say if the domestic violence is against

men, women or children. I'm grateful to the honourable lady for

highlighting that but I'm going to come onto that because I she rightly

said an outright in the -- illustrate are two separate elements

to this and I want to do both of them justice if I may. I can't

really believe this needs saying, to be honest, but I think it is so

discriminatory and sexist. To say we should all be focusing on violence

against women. And if this was the other way around there would be an

absolute outcry from people in this house, and rightly so. I don't take

the view that violence against women and girls is somehow worse than

violence against men and boys. As far as I'm concerned, all violence

is unacceptable and all violence against a person should be punished

by law. Both men and women are victims and both are perpetrators of

these crimes. I believe in true equality and want people to be

treated equally as victims and perpetrators of crimes. He is making

a characteristic of passionate speech but you would not want to

acknowledge that over the last 20 years half of the victims of murder

are women from family members, only 6% of males who have been murdered

from family members. It is a significant discrepancy that must be

acknowledged in this house. I will come onto the discrepancy between

male and female, the levels of violence against men and the levels

of violence against women intercourse if I made because it is

a point that is very much worth highlighting. I believe in true

equality and want people to be treated equally, at the moment

whether people like it or not, men are treated more harshly than women

in the criminal justice system, certainly when it comes to

sentencing, and another at an inconvenient truth for many people

but it is the truth about them ayes nevertheless. On top of that, this

is where it released my friend's point, all the evidence shows that

men are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women in this

country. I thank him for his graciousness, genuinely. I think

when he studied speaking he said that to say you not supporting this

bill doesn't mean you support violence against women is right to

say it is not a 0-sum game but also I wonder if he agrees with me that

wanting a bill that would support women doesn't mean you don't want

one that supports men. There is no use of the word only in this bill

and if he wishes to bring a bill about violence against men I will

gladly co-sponsored with him. I'm grateful to the honourable lady

opposite, perhaps we can go back to the drawing board with this

particular bill we wanted but which targets men and women alike and we

go back to the drawing board and did -- introduce such a bill and would

be delighted both of us will be able to support it. I give way. If he

will allow me to be a bit from Istanbul convention which I did

allude to in my speech, it says here that measures to protect the rights

of victims shall be secured without discrimination on any grounds such

as sex, gender, race, colour, rather languid, religion, political or

other opinion, national or social origin, as addition national

minority, property breath, sexual orientation, gender identity, age,

state of health, disability, marital status or other status. That is in

article four clause three of the Istanbul convention. In grateful to

the honourable lady and we can go back to the drawing board and bring

back a bill that all of us can support because nothing I've heard

from any of the speakers so far, I think we've had four speeches so

far, one passing reference to men and the entire thrust of this debate

and argument and the point of this bill today was simply about the

acceptability of violence against women, is we've heard so far. It is

no good attending to redraw the nature of the debate because I am

raising the point about true equality. If that is what people who

really believe in this house, let's go back to the drawing board and

bring back a bill that makes that clear on the face of the bill.

Article two is the relevant article because it sets out what the scope

of the convention is. Paragraph one clearly states this convention shall

apply to all forms of violence against women. My honourable friend

is absolutely right and I will also come on to article one, which makes

it clear discriminating against men is fine, as far as the convention is

concerned. I will come onto that later in my speech which will fly in

the face of the speech the honourable lady opposite gave. We

all seem to be in agreement from what I have heard so far, we can go

back to the drawing board and bring a bill through that we all agree

with. In view of the fact the government has signalled it will

ratify this convention, does my honourable friend not want the

government to ratify this convention? I am against this and

I'm trying to set out the reasons. What I want them to do is ratify

something that targets all violence. I will come onto that in a second

and I will test out, during the course of my speech, honourable

members' commitment to stamping out violence whether it be by men... I

will give way. Izzy arguing there is no point doing something that is a

good thing unless it solves all the problems of the world? If my

honourable friend is happy for a convention to make it explicitly

clear it is fine to discriminate against men... I know lots of people

are up in arms, I suspect most of them haven't even bothered to read

the different articles in the convention. If they want to,

off-the-cuff, repeat to me back Article one of the convention in

full... No, I didn't think they could, they are just up in arms

because of what I said at the start of my speech. It seems like a worthy

sentiments so we must support it. They have no substance. It they want

to discuss all but difficult nuances of this convention, I am sure you

will humour them but there is not much substance from the hollering,

as usual from our SNP colleagues. I will explain why I think this should

not be passed today and should not be ratified. I am trying to make it

clear I believe in true quality, rather than this kind of a quality

that only applies to one gender. My premise is, all the evidence shows

men are more likely to be victims of violent crime in this country than

women. I just want to quote... I will give way. I am sure he is aware

I think it is two women a week are killed and I don't think if he has

ever gone to a funeral of a woman who has been killed and seeing the

children there. I can assure him, I have and it is a very uncomfortable

experience. There are also funerals of men who have died and that is

just as uncomfortable for their children as well. I am sucked the

honourable lady doesn't recognise that when a father dies it is just

as upsetting for the children as when the mother dies. I will give

way. When he gives that crime statistic, is he trying to say all

those men have been made victims of crime because they are men? What

this bill is about is combating violence against women that is

committed precisely because they are women. That is not the case with the

vast majority of the crimes he is talking about in those statistics.

The honourable gentleman is going down and interesting route by

basically saying no matter what the injuries you sustain in a violent

attack, all we should be concerned about is what the motivation of that

attack was. If the motivation isn't as what the honourable gentleman

things, that is very low. If somebody comes up to you because

they hate you and beat you up, it seems to me the actual nuance of why

they hate you is less important than the scale of the injury you have

suffered and the need for that person who perpetrated the crime to

be punished. He clearly has a different opinion than me. I am more

interested in the violence and the punishment of the perpetrator who

commits that violence. If I might be allowed... I will give way. In the

preamble to this convention, there is a reference to the Geneva

Convention of 1949. The Geneva Convention is gender neutral,

despite the fact that probably most of the victims of breaches of the

Geneva Convention are actually meant. My honourable friend makes a

valid point. Perhaps if we follow the logic of today's debate, the

Geneva Convention should only apply to men, because they were much more

likely to be the subject of what was intended at the time. That would be

an answer is, I'm my honourable friend thinks it is an nonsense. It

is amazing when it falls on the other side, everyone is silent about

that particular issue. This is the hypocrisy I want to expose today. I

am going to press on and expose it. To highlight the fact most men are

likely to be the victims of a violent crime I will quote the

recent statistic on the representation on females and males

in the criminal justice system. They confirm men are twice as likely to

be the victim of violent crime than women. According to the crime survey

of England and Wales, 1.3% of women interviewed were reported to be

victims of violence, compared with 2.4% of men. My point also applies

to children. Again, according to the crime survey for England and Wales,

in 2015, 16 a smaller proportion of girls than boys reported being

victims of violence. 4.2% of girls versus 4.72% of boys. It is not just

violence generally when men do worse. When it comes to the most

serious of cases, according to the crime survey of England and Wales,

in 2015, 16, women accounted for 36% of recorded homicide victims while

men were victims in 64% of cases. Clearly, on every possible level of

victims of crime, a man is more likely to be the victim of it than a

woman. Men are also, we haven't heard much of it today, men are also

victims of domestic violence. It is right to thirds of domestic violence

incidents, the women is the victim, which is absolutely outrageous. But,

in a third of cases, the victim is a man. It may be some people in this

House think the people we should only be concerned about are the two

thirds who are women. I don't, we should be concerned about all

victims of domestic violence equally. All of them are victim of

domestic violence and we should consider them equally when we look

as a response to it, not just the two thirds that happen to be women.

According to the Office for National Statistics report, which is a focus

on violent crime and sexual offences which relates to the year ending

2015, the crime survey of England and Wales estimates 2.8% of women

and 4% of men reported experience any type of domestic abuse in the

last year and that is all forms of abuse. This is the equivalent of an

estimated 1.3 million female victims and 600,000 male victims. All of

whom, in my opinion, equally deserve our support. They also confirm

specifically for partner abuse, 6.5% of women and 2.8% of men reported

having experienced any type of partner abuse in the last year,

equivalent to an estimated 1.3 million female victims and 500,000

male victims. This bill refers to preventing and combating violence

against women and domestic violence. Whilst the first part is relatively

clear, the second bit about domestic violence is not so. This is because

of the definition of domestic violence. Our definition of domestic

violence including nonviolent components, so we need to be careful

when banding around figures about domestic violence. This is

inevitably the problem with a wide definition. It has the word violence

in the title on people understandably assume it relates to

physical violence, but this is not always necessarily the case and back

can be quite confusing. We also need to remember domestic incidents

include people in relationships as well as families and other

relationships that could be considered domestic in nature. What

I'm trying to say, the notion in every case of domestic violence or

abuse, the perpetrator is a big, burly wife-beater is that, and

ocean, but it is not actually factual. I asked the House of

Commons library for some information on what is known as the Istanbul

convention, which this bill seeks to ratify. They said it is a council to

prevent violence against women and domestic violence. It was adopted by

the Council of Europe on the Council of Europe on the 2011 and was open

to signature on the 121st session at the committee of ministers. The UK

signed the Convention on the 8th of June 2012, but has not yet ratified

it. Some countries have signed the convention, like the UK and some

have signed the convention and ratified it as well. I won't go

through all the countries and give their positions on it, although it

is very illuminating and relevant to the debate, but I don't want to test

the patience of the House. But some of the countries who have signed the

convention but not ratified it like us, we heard sedan mentioned as an

illustration. As my honourable friend highlighted, Germany haven't

ratified it, neither have Iceland 's, Greece, Lithuania, Croatia and

Cyprus. All of those members of the European Union, Mr Deputy Speaker,

which is such a fine institution the members of the SNP are desperate for

us to remain part of it but they're wonderful partner countries have

ratified it, but there was no mention of that either in the

honourable lady's speech. It is interesting to know I learned only

signed the Convention on the 5th of November 2015 and they too haven't

yet ratified it. Perhaps the honourable member for Foyle might

want to have a word with his friends in the Irish Republic to ask them

why they have not ratified it either. Article one of the

convention says its purpose is to help the honourable members at the

SNP who were up in arms about something they hadn't bothered to

read. But I can tell them what it says in article one of the

convention. It says there are five purposes. The first is to protect

women against all forms of violence and prevent prosecution and

eliminate violence against women and domestic violence. The second is to

contribute to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against

women and promote substantive equality between women and men,

including by empowering men. The third is to design a framework,

policies and measures for the protection of and assistance to all

victims of violence and women and domestic violence. The board is to

promote international cooperation and fifth, to provide support and

assistance to organisations and law enforcement agencies to effectively

cooperate in order to adopt and integrated approach to eliminate

violence against women and domestic violence. We look at the first

point, we are united in our position against any violence against women

and girls. I want to make this clear so nobody has misunderstood in the

terms of this debate, we are all united in our opposition to any

violence against women and girls. I would be astounded if any of us were

not. Yet I pride myself on being known as one of the most hard-line

members when it comes to matters of law and order and sentencing. I

always find it strange that those who speak passionately about how we

should have zero tolerance on violence against women and girls and

violence against people, which I agree with, are often the same

people who then argue the perpetrators of violence should do

anything but be sent to prison. We are in a ridiculous situation... Yes

I will. I thank the honourable member for giving way. He has

helpfully laid out some of the objects of the Istanbul convention.

Could he explain as what he sees as the downside of ratifying the East

stumble convention and all it could do to achieve a greater focus and

energy on the prevention of violence against women and girls and also

those who will be victims, whether they are male or female,

particularly when we're looking at the scale and nature of domestic

violence? My hope is by the time I have finished speaking, the

honourable lady will be much wiser as to why I oppose this particular

bill. Yes of course. Can I suggest one answer to the intervention? Our

own legislation in this country has a broader definition of domestic

violence than the definition contained in this convention. My

honourable friend is right. As I made it clear, our definition of

domestic violence is very different to that definition used in most

other countries. My honourable friend makes a very good point.

There are other reasons which I will come onto and Article one contains

within it, something I fundamentally disagree with.

We are in a ridiculous situation where people convicted of Crown

Court of violence against a person in England and Wales we have a

situation where city 6% of men convicted of a violence against a

person sent to prison -- 66% of men compared to 36% of women are sent to

prison for the same offences. If we really want to send out a message,

and I think that was what the purpose of this bill was, I heard a

number of occasions from members opposite comment we really want to

send out a message of zero tolerance about violence against a person, the

first thing we ought to do and perhaps the main thing, maybe the

only thing we ought to do, is praise for much tougher sentences for

people found guilty of it. What are the ways of preventing and managing

violence? It is send them to prison for longer because Welton prison

they will not perpetrate any balance against anyone else in their

household or anywhere else. -- any violence. The Labour Party, who

apparently are so concerned about this issue of violence against women

and violence against girls actually introduce a law in the last

parliament whereby someone who is sent to prison for committing

violence against a woman, for committing balance against a girl,

has to be, by a long, released halfway through their prison

sentence whether or not it is considered they will go straight

back into the household from where they came and commit the same crime

again. They still have to be released halfway through their

sentence by the law of the land and the last Labour Government

introduced that doesn't it is no good saying how committed they are

stopping violence against women and girls when they are the ones who are

largely people back out onto the streets and back into their houses

that sooner than the courts originally intended. If people want

to do something worthwhile to prevent violence against the people

and violence against women and girls let's all pray for stronger prison

sentences, Asfordby borders and -- spent more of their sentence in

prison. How many people are up for that in the house today? They all go

amazingly quiet because they don't really but when it comes down to do

want a half and half about being tough on violence against women and

girls but when it comes down to the actual thing that most of our

constituents would recognise would show being tough on violence against

women and girls and tougher prison sentences, they all run away because

they don't like people being sent to prison. I'm grateful, I think my

honourable friend is making a valid point but does he not feel there

might be some correlation between the fact that the figures for

violent crime are increasing and the fact that as my honourable friend

just pointed out, criminals know they'll be let out halfway through

their sentence. My honourable friend is right, this is not rocket

science, the more criminals in prison, the less criminals out on

the streets committing crimes. It is not really massively difficult

concept to grasp. Although it appears to be, the members opposite

are struggling. It is not that difficult understand that if people

who commit these crimes are in prison they cannot be committing

those crimes. My honourable friend must therefore surely be right in

his suspicion. This convention does not cover violence as article be

mentions. This is one of the things I have a fundamental problem with in

this particular convention. One be says it wants to see the elimination

of all forms of discrimination against women. Yet I do not see how

introducing a specific duty to eliminate all forms of

discrimination against just women, I don't see how that is not the a

victory itself. I suppose we should people could see the irony of the

Apostles. Surely will wish you just want a low rate of four is of

discrimination. He is in effect saying article one B is that if it

is discrimination against a man it is OK because we want to do is end

this commission against women. It isn't OK. No discrimination is OK.

So if this convention starts again and says what we want to do is end

all forms of discrimination I will be the first to support it. It does

not say that, it says all discover nation against women only. That

surely come on people in this house cannot support that form of

discrimination in itself was the butterflies in the face of

everything that we are supposed to believe in if we believe in true

equality. Then we have the phrase "Including by empowering women". I'm

not entirely sure, this is obviously a legal document, not sure with the

legal definition of that is supposed to be. We have some very respected

people of the law in the chamber today, perhaps they might be able to

help us out with what the legal definitions are, I genuinely don't

know and I will bow to other people bus makes superior knowledge. The

English dictionary definition is as proving qualities that to give up

personal group of people to give people more control of their lives

and become stronger and more independent. We are all active that

I would like to think. What is most concerning to me is that this whole

strategy seems to be based on the premise that all this violence

against women is committed by men. Otherwise why else would it be

linking discrimination, stereotyping and violence together. Certainly

these are the thoughts of many people supporting this convention

and the bill today. The impression people might be the perpetrators of

these crimes are men, indeed on the website of one of the campaign

cosmic endorsing this bill today at a rally women were holding placards

with the slogan together we can end male violence against women. So it

would seem they are not interested in ending violence regardless of

whether victim is male or female, or even permit would seem, they're

interested in ending violence against women. Because despite what

people want to believe all violence against women is not only cost by

men. Indeed there is no evidence to support the underlying assumption to

this is in a letter I received from the Crown Prosecution Service of

this issue, they said to me we are unable to provide information on

your specific requests of the sex of both the defendant and the victim

because we record the sex of the defendant and a victim as separate

statistics rather than other joint statistic so the premise of the bill

is based on an assumption and one that can quickly be proved wrong. We

only have to look at the individual cases that come to our ports to see

there are plenty of cases where violence has been committed by a

female offender to a female victim. Let me give a flavour of those cases

I refer to. How about the case of semi-written a PDA, who stabbed her

two young doctors to death in a refuge in November last year. She

had been placed in a refuge with the girls after she called the police to

their house claiming her partner had been violent. Speaking about her

relationship with the father, the judge said "You reacted to this very

difficult situation by saying "If I cannot have them, the children,

neither can he". This is a crime that speaks of rage and are you on

the basis that you killed them in anger and out of a desire for

revenge. A jury of six men and six women found guilty of murder after

only 90 minutes of deliberation. What about the case of Sadie Morris,

female paedophile? Was sentenced to five years in jail after

photographing herself abusing a three-year-old girl. If -- the

offences took place in July 2013 the photographs involving one category a

image, the most serious level, one B and one C. Or even the case of a

Romanian sex gang led by women who are trafficked vulnerable women into

Britain and forced them into prostitution. The gang raised more

than ?15,000 month and forced the prostitutes to deposit the cash cost

14 separate bank accounts. Ending male violence against women would

not have prevented any of these cases as the offenders were all so

female. Crime does not come and eight, Mr Deputy Speaker, and we

have to get real and instead of speaking of female victims of male

perpetrators we should speak of all victims regardless of sex and all

offenders regardless of sex. What is difficult about that? Why do so many

people in this house find so difficult to do? There are many

female perpetrators of violence against both men and women,

according to official Ministry of Justice figures. In their report on

statistics on women and the criminal justice system 2015, violence

against the person and theft were consistently the two offence grips

with the highest or of arrests for both females and males. In fact,

people may not know this, but violence against the person account

for 34% of all male arrests and it is accounted for 36% of female

arrests in the current justice system, we haven't heard any of that

in the speeches so far today! While theft offence is made up 21% of male

arrests and 26% of female arrests, again, that is not restricted to

women but also applies to girls. In 2015-16 valves at -- of violence

against the person was the most common offence group for which

juvenile females were arrested, 10-17 -year-olds, 40% of arrests of

girls aged 10-17 was for violence against the person. People shaking

their heads, these are the official statistics. It might be

inconvenient, I'm not surprised the lady hasn't heard about it, you

never hear any of this because we are so blinkered and only want to

look one-dimensional lake at all of those issues. I'm not surprised it's

come as a shock to people opposite. Reports such as the one of Katie

Nield, 27-year-old woman of two was rushed to hospital after a woman bit

her and ripped a chunk out of her face indicate this. This has left

the bit that meant beating with permanent scarring even after being

rushed to hospital for an emergency skin graft or even a chase at my

local court. That's the case of a female who burgle a 79-year-old

woman's house in August last year. In her defence the defendant's

barrister claimed she would be extreme the vulnerable in prison

with a baby due in less than three months. Despite her love being

pregnant at the time of the burglary. However, Judge Thomas says

he is -- is a duty was to the pensioner whose life was so

significant effect it has a significantly affected yet not left

her home. This is just a flavour of the vast array of cases where female

offenders target female victims and so the discriminatory underlay of

today's Bill is pointless and wrong because not all victims are female

and not all offenders are male. We should bring forward neutral

legislation that seeks to help all victims of crime, men and women and

to punish all offenders, both men and women. Even in cases where

people measure violence is male or female this is not the case such as

domestic violence. I honourable friend has been referring to

statistics from the UK, he may be aware of the fundamental rights

agency of the EU which issued a very big report on violence against

women, an EU wide survey and in that survey they found that 11% of

non-heterosexual women in Europe have experienced physical or sexual

violence at the hands of other women. I'm literally coming on to

that very point because the figures it seems worse than that in the UK

but I am grateful to my honourable friend to alerting me to that fact

which I was unaware of. I'll give me -- give which I honourable friend.

Is he saying that if this bill was gender neutral he would support it?

I'm very much saying that, that is the thrust of my point. Absolutely

would support this if this were a gender neutral Bill and it clearly

is not. You only have to read the convention to see that isn't the

case and heard the speeches we've heard so far today to realise this

is nothing to do with gender neutrality. In 2008 Stonewall found

that one in for lesbian and bisexual women have experienced domestic

violence in a relationship with 49.3% of bisexual women experiencing

severe physical intimate violence and every Saint report on statistics

of women in a coma justice system 2050 on the issue of abuse during

childhood and physical abuse the perpetrator of physical abuse

against females was almost as likely equally to be the mother as the

father. 33% and 36% respectively. This is not as clear-cut as

individuals would have people want us to glean but this bill supports

the narrative that they want to keep speaking about, if there is no

relations -- it bears no religion to the facts but held the narrative

they want people to run away with and at some point some of us

actually have to say, no, we are not perish to allow these distortions to

continue, we will argue what the actual facts are, not what people

want them to be. If people don't want to listen to me which I

understand often they don't because I say things they don't want to

hear, perhaps they might have more sympathy for a marvellous lady

called Erin Bezy. Rpetrator Specifically dealing with

victims of domestic violence so perhaps she has the credentials I am

not afforded the luxury of being granted a hearing, maybe because of

her background she will be. She went to the United States at the

invitation of the US Government, and embarked on a Salvation Army

response sported tour help set us shelters for victims of domestic

violence, she did the same in Italy and returned to England in 1997 and

more recently in March 2007 she opened the first Arab refuge for

victims of domestic violence in Bahrain. I hope people may listen to

Erin Pizzey if they won't listen to me. This is what she said. She said

on a press release on international day for the elimination of violence

for women. She said like everybody else who reads this statement, I am

of course totally in favour of the ehim fashion of violence towards

women. But unlike the instigators I believe we should be eliminating

violence against everyone, that includes men and children. I applaud

the efforts of Vivian ring the Vice President and commissioner

responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenships, the

Secretary-General of European women's lobby and the chair of

Parliamentary women's rights and gender quality commission, but I am

puzzled as to why this enormous empire of women work the huge self

important titles manage to avoid discussion of the effects of

violence upon the family, fathers and children, if we have any hope of

tackling the tragic events we have to face the fact women can and are

also guilty of violence against their partners. To concentrate of

women as victim, is to deny the fact that children are also abused by

their mothers, we can no longer afford to cover up the huge scandal

that existed for the last 40 years where only men have been held up as

persons of all violence. My hope is that sufficient political pressure

will be brought to bear upon these women, who sit in positions of

power, to acknowledge we do indeed need to make November 25th a day

when we agree there should be zero tolerance for violence against

anyone, and that we will work to make the family a safe and

harmonious place. I think that that is something that we should listen

very carefully to o indeed. That sums up my view on this particular

issue, and that, as I say, -- say is a woman ho has more credentials than

many people in this place, having set up the first women's refuge. In

response to a Parliamentary question, asked by the honourable

member for Paisley, the Government said it remain committed to

ratifying the convention and set out what more needs to be done. The

previous Government signalled the Istanbul convention to show the

strong commitment it plays on tackling violence against women and

girls and this Government, they said, remains committed to ratted

fewing it. At the UK complies with the vast majority of the articles

but further amendments to come to stick law to take jurisdiction over

a range of offence, as required by article 444, are necessary before

the convention can be ratified. We are currently considering, they say,

the approach to implements the requirements in England and Wales,

and will seek to legislate when the approach is agreed and Parliamentary

time allow, accuse coring to the House of Commons library article 44

the Government place great weight on referred to there, states that

parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to

establish jurisdiction over any offence established when the offence

is committed. In their territory, or onboard a ship flying their flag, or

onboard an aircraft registered under their laws or by one of their

nationals, or by a person who has her or his resident in their

territory. Two, says that parties shall endeavour to take the

necessary or other measures to establish jurisdiction over any

offence established in accordance with this convention where the

offences committed against one of their nationals or a person who has

his or her residence in their territory, for the prosecution of

the offences established in accordance with articles 36, 37, 38,

and 39, parties shall take the necessary legislative or other

measures to ensure their jurisdiction is not sobrd Nated to

the condition the acts are criminalised in the territory where

they were committed, for the prosecution of the offence as

established in accordance with the articles 36-39 parties shall take

the necessary measures to ensure their jurisdiction as regards points

D and E is not subordinated to the condition that the prosecution could

only be initiated following the reporting by the victim of the

offence, or where the offence was committed. Parties shall take the

necessary measures to establish jurisdiction over the offences

established in accordance with this convention in cases where an alleged

perpetrator is present, or their territory and they do not extradite

her or him to another party, solely on the basis of his or her

nationality. And then when one more than one party claims juries Dick

should be over an alleged offence, the parties involved shall where