24/02/2017

:00:15. > :00:25.Order, order. The House do now is sit in private, Mr Speaker. The

:00:26. > :00:41.question is that the House do now sit in private. Say aye. Say no. The

:00:42. > :00:45.ayeshave it. On Wednesday morning there were four

:00:46. > :00:49.bills for the remaining stages on the order paper. But on Thursday

:00:50. > :00:53.morning, a fifth one appeared on the order paper, the Kew Gardens still

:00:54. > :00:59.remains in stages, which only completed its committee stage on

:01:00. > :01:02.Wednesday. I must say, I don't attach any blame here to the

:01:03. > :01:05.honourable gentleman for Bridgwater, and I don't have any particular

:01:06. > :01:10.issue with the bills. But my particular issue is a point of

:01:11. > :01:13.principle but amendments or private members bills on Friday have to be

:01:14. > :01:17.tabled by the end of play on Tuesday. And yet this bill didn't

:01:18. > :01:21.appear on the order paper until Thursday morning after it had

:01:22. > :01:24.completed its committee stage on Thursday, therefore giving people no

:01:25. > :01:28.opportunity to table any amendments if they so wish. I just wondered

:01:29. > :01:35.what your view was on this and whether or not this should be the

:01:36. > :01:41.state of affairs. I noticed that the Kew Gardens Bill

:01:42. > :01:47.had appeared on the order paper yesterday morning. And I'd tabled

:01:48. > :01:50.some amendments to it. But obviously those amendments are star

:01:51. > :01:57.amendments, because I tabled in the first opportunity. -- starred

:01:58. > :02:00.amendments. Unless there is a rolling to the contrary, it would be

:02:01. > :02:07.possible to debate those amendments. -- a ruling to the contrary. I was

:02:08. > :02:13.told that although it was the convention that a member of this

:02:14. > :02:18.house should not put down a bill for report stage at the third reading if

:02:19. > :02:21.that Bill had only come out of committee on the Wednesday, rather

:02:22. > :02:24.than the Tuesday of that week, which is certainly the practice that was

:02:25. > :02:30.adopted by my honourable friend when he brought forward the homelessness

:02:31. > :02:33.bill, which I have the privilege of sharing in committee, it was quite

:02:34. > :02:39.clear that that Bill would not be put forward for report stage unless

:02:40. > :02:43.I had been a clear period in which amendments could be put down. I just

:02:44. > :02:48.wonder whether you can rule on this, and if the bill is heard today,

:02:49. > :02:54.whether it will be possible to discuss the amendments to it. The

:02:55. > :02:57.short answer is it will be possible. As is probably obvious to the

:02:58. > :03:03.honourable gentleman and the honourable member for Shipley, this

:03:04. > :03:09.is the first I had heard of the disquiet of the two honourable

:03:10. > :03:14.members. And of the timing of this bill coming forward. The rationale

:03:15. > :03:19.for that, I am advised, is that there are few Fridays left and that

:03:20. > :03:22.the honourable gentleman, the member for Bridgwater, is keen to make

:03:23. > :03:28.progress with his bills. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that, what I

:03:29. > :03:32.can say to the honourable member for Christchurch and to the honourable

:03:33. > :03:36.gentleman for Shipley, is that there will be an opportunity for new

:03:37. > :03:40.clauses and amendments to be considered. Moreover, beyond those

:03:41. > :03:45.that have been tabled, if there is concern that there was not a proper

:03:46. > :03:49.period in conformity with usual practice for the tabling of

:03:50. > :03:52.amendments, and the honourable gentleman feel disadvantaged by

:03:53. > :03:58.that, it is open to the chair to allow manuscript amendments. So I

:03:59. > :04:06.hope that even if the honourable members are not pleased about the

:04:07. > :04:11.sequence of events, they are reassured that such opportunities as

:04:12. > :04:16.they might speak on those matters will be there for them they will

:04:17. > :04:24.have an opportunity to deploy their vocal chords and their intellects. I

:04:25. > :04:27.think I've given a full explanation. On the point of manuscript

:04:28. > :04:34.amendment, if a member has noted that there has been a small

:04:35. > :04:37.typographical error on the amendments that have been filed for

:04:38. > :04:47.a bill that has already been tabled for debate today, is it in order to

:04:48. > :04:50.try and bring forward manuscript amendments for the order paper on

:04:51. > :04:55.debate, and would be chair be prepared to consider? The chair will

:04:56. > :05:01.certainly be happy to consider that will stop I make no commitments, it

:05:02. > :05:05.will depend on the case, but I am certainly open to that. I hope that

:05:06. > :05:10.the point of order appetite has been satisfied at least for now. The

:05:11. > :05:15.clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. Preventing and

:05:16. > :05:18.combating violence against women and domestic violence.

:05:19. > :05:23.Ratification of Convention bill. Not amended in public Bill committee to

:05:24. > :05:28.be considered. Thank you, we begin with new clause six with which it

:05:29. > :05:32.will be convenient to consider the new clauses and amendments as listed

:05:33. > :05:39.on the selection paper also Mr Philip Davies. Thank you, very much.

:05:40. > :05:49.Point of order. I did wish to -- I don't wish to try your patience, Mr

:05:50. > :05:54.Speaker... Lap I wonder if you could advise the House about the

:05:55. > :06:00.explanatory statements that are associated with amendments?

:06:01. > :06:04.Particularly explanatory statements associated with government

:06:05. > :06:10.amendments. If you look at page nine of the Amendment paper, Mr Speaker,

:06:11. > :06:13.you'll see in relation to amendment for, the members explanatory

:06:14. > :06:18.statement says that this means in obligation to make a statement to

:06:19. > :06:22.parliament will fall on the Secretary of State, rather than Her

:06:23. > :06:25.Majesty's government generally. But in fact the amendment goes much

:06:26. > :06:31.further than that. Because what it would also do is it would change the

:06:32. > :06:38.role of the Government in determining whether or not they were

:06:39. > :06:44.ratification did, and that would substitute the Government putting

:06:45. > :06:48.the Secretary of State in place. The explanatory statement is not a full

:06:49. > :06:54.and accurate statement of the effects of the amendment.

:06:55. > :07:00.In response to that though the point of order, I am not responsible for

:07:01. > :07:05.the content of government explanatory statement. Moreover,

:07:06. > :07:12.well, the Government Whip says from a secondary position that a shame. I

:07:13. > :07:17.have a sufficient burden, which I am very happy to see to discharge to

:07:18. > :07:18.the best of my ability. But responsibility for government

:07:19. > :07:24.explanatory statement is not part of that burden. Moreover, if I can

:07:25. > :07:28.bring a glimpse to the eye and a Sprint EV step of the honourable

:07:29. > :07:35.gentleman, it might be my observation that he, too, is not

:07:36. > :07:39.responsible for the content of government explanatory statements.

:07:40. > :07:43.They are intended to help the House and facilitate debate, but they

:07:44. > :07:46.enjoy no formal status whatsoever. So I don't think that the honourable

:07:47. > :07:50.gentleman should be troubled by the matter. There may be something on

:07:51. > :07:58.which he may wish to expand on a later stage. We shall see. "Not

:07:59. > :08:06.really," says the honourable member for Google. We will see. We begin

:08:07. > :08:09.with new clause, with which it will be convenient to consider new

:08:10. > :08:16.clauses as listed. Thank you. I beg to move new clause six and other new

:08:17. > :08:23.clauses and amendments which stand in my name and in the name of my

:08:24. > :08:26.honourable friend for Bury North. We actually have quite a large group of

:08:27. > :08:34.new clauses and amendments to go through this morning. There are, in

:08:35. > :08:39.total, 11 new clauses in this group of amendments. Seven that have been

:08:40. > :08:43.tabled by me. Four that have been tabled by my honourable friend for

:08:44. > :08:47.Christchurch. On top of those 11 new clauses, we have 36 further

:08:48. > :08:52.amendments in this group. The highest member of these amendments

:08:53. > :08:57.have been tabled by the Government. In cahoots, I think it's fair to

:08:58. > :09:02.say, Mr Speaker, with the SNP and the proposer of the bill. I will

:09:03. > :09:06.come onto that amendments in a bit, because it seems to me that they're

:09:07. > :09:12.trying to corner the campaigners who are behind this bill by pretending

:09:13. > :09:16.to support the Istanbul convention, at the same time as splitting the

:09:17. > :09:22.bill to try and make sure they doesn't come into effect at all.

:09:23. > :09:29.More on that later. There are 14 further amendments that I've tabled.

:09:30. > :09:32.And five from my honourable friend for Christchurch. So we have 47

:09:33. > :09:39.combined new causes and amendments to consider this morning. -- new

:09:40. > :09:43.clauses. I will try to do justice to these amendments, Mr Speaker, and I

:09:44. > :09:46.will try and do it as quickly as I can, because we appreciate that

:09:47. > :09:52.other people will want to speak on these amendments, too. But I think a

:09:53. > :09:58.quick bit of arithmetic will tell you that if I only spent... I will

:09:59. > :10:02.in a second. If I only spent two minutes on each new clause, we would

:10:03. > :10:06.soon rattle past 1.5 hours. I appreciate that it's going to take

:10:07. > :10:10.some time to go through such a group of amendments that are so large in

:10:11. > :10:15.number. I give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way.

:10:16. > :10:19.I would have thought supporting the Prime Minister's commitment to

:10:20. > :10:25.ratify the Istanbul convention. Can he clarify that for me? I think it's

:10:26. > :10:30.fair to say that I've never been considered the Prime Minister's

:10:31. > :10:34.official spokesperson. I'm very grateful that the honourable

:10:35. > :10:38.gentleman has elevated me to that lofty position. I suspect it's one

:10:39. > :10:45.that will never come about. I might note the opportunity for all it's

:10:46. > :10:47.worth now -- I might look the opportunity for all that is

:10:48. > :10:52.worthwhile. The Prime Minister has made clear that she has supported

:10:53. > :10:54.the bill. I will come onto explaining why that is a long way

:10:55. > :11:07.away from agreeing. I've made it clear in the second

:11:08. > :11:15.reading, I don't agree with the Istanbul convention because it is

:11:16. > :11:18.discriminatory. But at least I'm upfront and honest about it in

:11:19. > :11:24.saying I oppose the bill and I seek to stop the bill from going forward.

:11:25. > :11:27.I think that's a bit more appropriate than pretending you

:11:28. > :11:31.support something but actually quietly trying to develop something

:11:32. > :11:37.to make sure it doesn't come into place. But other people and explain

:11:38. > :11:42.their motivations when they get the opportunity to speak, including

:11:43. > :11:50.hopefully the promoter of the bill. I hope they will get an opportunity.

:11:51. > :11:56.So anyway, going through these in order, I will start with new clause

:11:57. > :12:05.six. New clause six refers to the recommendations by the committee.

:12:06. > :12:10.Any recommendable... At the moment, we have the Council of Europe's

:12:11. > :12:16.group of Oxford experts on violence against women. And the committee of

:12:17. > :12:22.parties. That is the committee of the parties to Council Europe in

:12:23. > :12:26.combating violence against women and domestic violence Istanbul

:12:27. > :12:33.convention. My amendment, my new clause six, Mr Speaker, would mean

:12:34. > :12:42.those recommendations given by the committee and the parties would not

:12:43. > :12:46.be binding on the UK Government. Has a two pellet monitoring system that

:12:47. > :12:51.accompanies it. Ensuring all members are living up to their commitments.

:12:52. > :12:57.It is interesting to note that nobody on the SNP bench once listen

:12:58. > :13:00.to the debate. Which is uprising because it was exposing the second

:13:01. > :13:04.reading they didn't know what was in the convention when it came to it.

:13:05. > :13:07.You would think they've learned their lesson and want to learn about

:13:08. > :13:13.what was the Istanbul convention this time around, but apparently

:13:14. > :13:17.not. I'm not entirely whether the kneeling position of the honourable

:13:18. > :13:26.gentleman opposite is in order during a speech, his position on his

:13:27. > :13:31.knees facing the wrong way. I am not sure if it is an order, but it is

:13:32. > :13:37.certainly not normal. It is not normal behaviour from the honourable

:13:38. > :13:40.gentleman. He may not be listing, but he could at least give the

:13:41. > :13:47.impression he's interested in what is going on in the debate. He's not.

:13:48. > :13:52.We are very to him he is not interested in the debate. There is

:13:53. > :13:56.no wonder the SNP are so authoritarian. The Istanbul

:13:57. > :14:00.convention has a two pillar monitoring system that accompanies

:14:01. > :14:07.it, making sure all members are living up to their commitments. The

:14:08. > :14:13.aim of this, is to it assessed implementation of the convention by

:14:14. > :14:18.the parties. We have these two groups, composer of ten members and

:14:19. > :14:23.bully subsequently enlarged to 50 members following the 25th country

:14:24. > :14:27.to ratify it. And a political body, the committee of the parties,

:14:28. > :14:32.composed of representatives of the party of the Istanbul convention.

:14:33. > :14:38.Now, it seems to me that the last thing we need here is another group

:14:39. > :14:43.from a supranational body, set up to luck, to make it look like they're

:14:44. > :14:47.doing something on issues, but it just becomes a talking shop, were

:14:48. > :14:50.actually it is not the implementation of the Istanbul

:14:51. > :14:56.convention which will make any real difference to levels of violence

:14:57. > :14:59.generally, and said the levels of violence against woman, it is

:15:00. > :15:04.harsher sentencing, perpetrators who will make a big deference. The idea

:15:05. > :15:09.that having these group of experts pontificating about how well above

:15:10. > :15:14.the survey has been implicated will make any difference to the levels of

:15:15. > :15:20.violence in the UK is for the birds. But the task is to monitor the

:15:21. > :15:24.implementation and they may adopt general recommendations on themes

:15:25. > :15:28.and the concept of the convention, the committee of the parties follows

:15:29. > :15:33.up on their report and conclusions, and adopt recommendations of the

:15:34. > :15:38.parties concerned. There are different procedures that these two

:15:39. > :15:42.bodies can use to monitor each country's fermentation, such as a

:15:43. > :15:45.country by country evaluation procedure, where they considered as

:15:46. > :15:49.evidence submitted by the relevant countries. However, should they find

:15:50. > :15:53.his evidence is insufficient, they have the power to organise country

:15:54. > :16:00.visits and fact-finding missions in the countries concerned. I will give

:16:01. > :16:04.way. I'm grateful to him, can he tell us whether the UK is

:16:05. > :16:10.represented on either or both of these two bodies? And if it is, who

:16:11. > :16:13.is our representative? Has he consulted with such persons

:16:14. > :16:21.concerning the terms of his new clause before he tabled it? As far

:16:22. > :16:25.as I'm aware, Mr Speaker, from my reading of the situation, my right

:16:26. > :16:29.honourable friend issues do much more up on these matters, so I will

:16:30. > :16:33.bow to his superior knowledge, but my understanding is until we

:16:34. > :16:39.actually ratified the convention, that we don't get any members on

:16:40. > :16:43.these bodies. So we will only get members on these bodies once we've

:16:44. > :16:47.actually ratified the convention, that's my understanding. If he knows

:16:48. > :16:52.definitely, I'm very happy to allow him to correct me because as I say,

:16:53. > :16:58.the duty after more right than I am on those matters. But that's my

:16:59. > :17:03.understanding. Another procedure they can adopt as a special enquiry

:17:04. > :17:05.procedure which can be implemented when there is reliable information

:17:06. > :17:10.indicating action is required to prevent a serious, massive or

:17:11. > :17:16.persistent pattern of any acts of violence covered by the convention.

:17:17. > :17:22.They can request urgent a special report by the concerned country.

:17:23. > :17:27.Now, although this is a concern to me, Mr Speaker, because I don't

:17:28. > :17:33.believe the government should ratify the convention at all, but what I do

:17:34. > :17:38.want to see happen should we do ratify, what I want to see is for

:17:39. > :17:44.these foreign supranational bodies to come over. As we often see from

:17:45. > :17:48.the UN, start lecturing, when the factors we are doing things an awful

:17:49. > :17:54.lot better than anyone else in the world on these matters. We see this

:17:55. > :17:57.often with United Nations, and it seems to me by ratifying the

:17:58. > :18:01.convention upon the terms of this bill, we will be open ourselves up

:18:02. > :18:08.to some visits and fact-finding missions and interfering by a

:18:09. > :18:12.foreign body, lecturing us about what we should do and instructed us

:18:13. > :18:20.that we should be doing this, that and the other. Does he agree we

:18:21. > :18:26.already have sufficient procedures and committees within our own House

:18:27. > :18:32.of Commons to be able to monitor the actions of the government on the

:18:33. > :18:35.Istanbul convention? I think you are right, it is rather sad if the House

:18:36. > :18:39.of Commons and Parliament generally things it is so poor at holding the

:18:40. > :18:43.government to account these things and it can't do itself and has the

:18:44. > :18:50.form of the Johns to a foreign body. It seems to me a rather strange

:18:51. > :18:58.approach -- farm of the jobs. Of course, we do have the women and

:18:59. > :19:03.equality side committee, which strikes me... We won't go into the

:19:04. > :19:08.issue of the name of that, but that select committee will be more than

:19:09. > :19:12.capable of holding the government to account on the work they're doing on

:19:13. > :19:17.combating violence against women and violence against men for that

:19:18. > :19:19.matter, so I don't really see we need a foreign politicians and

:19:20. > :19:27.bureaucrats sticking their nose into what are doing. I will give way.

:19:28. > :19:32.Isn't he contradicting himself, because if we were to adapt the

:19:33. > :19:34.convention, it would be a foreign body lecturing us, it would be a

:19:35. > :19:40.body upon which we have representation and were able to make

:19:41. > :19:45.our views known? I don't accept that, Mr Speaker. After having said

:19:46. > :19:48.my right honourable friend is fishy always right, I fear on this

:19:49. > :19:55.occasion this is one of the rare occasions he is not -- is always

:19:56. > :19:58.right. These things sound wonderful when you sign up to them, but you

:19:59. > :20:04.don't understand the full implications of doing so. Just to

:20:05. > :20:09.give an illustration of that, perhaps we might focus on the

:20:10. > :20:12.European Convention on human rights. Where if anybody actually looks at

:20:13. > :20:16.the convention itself and looks at the rights that are contained within

:20:17. > :20:20.it, it is difficult for anyone to disagree with anything contained

:20:21. > :20:25.within it. But what we didn't realise at the time was how it would

:20:26. > :20:28.grow and how it would start to get ahead of itself and start

:20:29. > :20:39.interpreting things in a way that could never have been envisaged and

:20:40. > :20:42.start getting above the station, not create all sorts of problems further

:20:43. > :20:44.down the line. And my dear here, Mrs vigour, isn't necessarily always

:20:45. > :20:47.about what is in the convention, although I do have concerns, but for

:20:48. > :20:51.the purpose of this new clause, I'm more concerned about the way a

:20:52. > :20:56.foreign body will interpret their role. Growing to a level that was

:20:57. > :21:01.never envisaged either in the convention or by Bill itself, and I

:21:02. > :21:04.think the votes for prisoners in European convention on human rights

:21:05. > :21:11.in how these things can grow to a way we never, ever envisage, so I

:21:12. > :21:16.don't accept the premise of my right honourable friend's intervention. I

:21:17. > :21:20.think new clause six is essential to maintain our sovereignty in the UK

:21:21. > :21:26.and make sure to set out clearly on the face of the bill so it is in no

:21:27. > :21:29.doubt we retain all sovereignty in these matters and the in the

:21:30. > :21:39.implementation of what we are doing. That is news clause six. New clause

:21:40. > :21:45.ten, Mr Speaker, follows on from that. I would have hoped the SNP and

:21:46. > :21:51.the campaigners for this particular piece of legislation would very much

:21:52. > :21:58.welcome my new clause ten. Because new clause ten says that any

:21:59. > :22:02.recommendations made by the company, and the committee of the parties,

:22:03. > :22:09.must be debated in Parliament before any government responds. As my right

:22:10. > :22:13.honourable friend was arguing that Parliament should be in charge of

:22:14. > :22:19.these matters, it seems to me we've got a situation if we sign up to

:22:20. > :22:23.this, Parliament will be excluded from anything that goes on at once

:22:24. > :22:26.we've ratified the Convention on the bill is passed, Parliament will all

:22:27. > :22:32.of a sudden become redundant. It seems to me that if a foreign

:22:33. > :22:35.organisation is actually saying, producing reports saying the

:22:36. > :22:41.government is not actually meeting what it signed up to, that is the

:22:42. > :22:47.view of the committee of the parties and they produce a report, surely it

:22:48. > :22:50.is only right that matter is debated in Parliament so Parliament can have

:22:51. > :22:55.its say on whether or not it agrees with that before the government

:22:56. > :22:59.response back to them and the committee of the parties. I can't

:23:00. > :23:02.really see why anybody he was in favour of this bill and is

:23:03. > :23:06.campaigning for this bill could possibly object to giving Parliament

:23:07. > :23:10.more scrutiny over the process and actually give them more power to

:23:11. > :23:20.hold the government to account, perhaps of anybody who supports the

:23:21. > :23:23.bill would now like to intervene and tell me what objection they have two

:23:24. > :23:26.new clause ten, and very happy to hear it and try deal with it. If

:23:27. > :23:29.people don't have any objections, they will remain quiet and we will

:23:30. > :23:34.proceed on that basis, and we can't post new clause ten to and hopefully

:23:35. > :23:38.get people's endorsements. I will give the opportunity again, Mrs

:23:39. > :23:43.Peter, if anybody has any objections to new clause ten, if they can speak

:23:44. > :23:49.about -- Mr Speaker. We will hopefully... It looks like we have

:23:50. > :23:52.full support, I will give way. It is a slightly different point. Does my

:23:53. > :24:02.right honourable friend accept the bill as currently drafted in clause

:24:03. > :24:05.3180 does include some provision for Parliamentary scrutiny? But the

:24:06. > :24:13.government amendment number 14 is seeking to remove even that a

:24:14. > :24:17.modicum of scrutiny. He is right, I will come onto the government

:24:18. > :24:23.amendments in due course. In passing, I would say my right

:24:24. > :24:29.honourable friend is writes, the government 's, in cahoots with the

:24:30. > :24:37.SNP, I must stress this, their cosy little deal, have actually removes

:24:38. > :24:41.any post ratification, scrutiny of how the government is doing, which

:24:42. > :24:44.seems to be quite extraordinary. But no doubt the government and the SNP

:24:45. > :24:48.will be able to answer for themselves in due course. He says

:24:49. > :24:54.they have removed, but at the moment the bill has not been amended at

:24:55. > :24:57.all. My honourable friend ensures that any government amendments are

:24:58. > :25:01.tested in this House, because it may well be a lot of the people who were

:25:02. > :25:04.supporters of this bill will not want to see it watered down on the

:25:05. > :25:12.way the government wishes. My honourable friend is right. I no far

:25:13. > :25:17.from watering down the Bill, my honourable friend is seeking to

:25:18. > :25:23.strengthen the bill, and I will come to his amendments and a new clauses

:25:24. > :25:27.in due course. I certainly think we have an important role to play in

:25:28. > :25:35.Parliament in making sure any legislation is fit for purpose. And

:25:36. > :25:38.he's right, any attempts to try to hoodwink the public, we ought to

:25:39. > :25:44.test will on the House and so people know where MP stands on watering

:25:45. > :25:49.down the convention and on whether or not Parliament should have any

:25:50. > :25:52.role post-ratification or whether we should ratify the Istanbul

:25:53. > :25:56.convention and leave it as that. I will give way. I'm grateful to my

:25:57. > :26:00.honourable friend the giving way in regard to new clause ten. I wonder

:26:01. > :26:05.whether he's fought for the constitutional implications of

:26:06. > :26:10.allowing a boot in this House to have any formal standing when it is

:26:11. > :26:19.not a primary legislation, and wouldn't that risk

:26:20. > :26:25.I will always bow to the superior knowledge on constitutional issues.

:26:26. > :26:28.I'm certainly not going to enter into a competition with him because

:26:29. > :26:34.I would certainly lose by competition. But I don't really

:26:35. > :26:39.think that new clause ten, there is anything to fear particularly from

:26:40. > :26:44.it because all it asks for is for a debate on the report to take place

:26:45. > :26:50.in Parliament before the Government gives a response. It wouldn't

:26:51. > :26:54.necessarily even make the Government beholden to the outcome of that

:26:55. > :26:57.debate. But at least it would make sure that the Government is aware of

:26:58. > :27:01.the views of members of Parliament before they actually responded.

:27:02. > :27:07.Thank you for giving way again. But how would that be tested? Because if

:27:08. > :27:11.the Government decided not to have a debate in parliament, it couldn't be

:27:12. > :27:16.taken to a judicial review because the courts could not consider a

:27:17. > :27:20.proceeding in Parliament. I think there's plenty of evidence of

:27:21. > :27:24.governments ignoring what Parliament has to say to it. I have to say on a

:27:25. > :27:32.number of occasions, whether it be on appointments, elect committees,

:27:33. > :27:36.or whatever, -- select committees, I appreciate my honourable friend's

:27:37. > :27:39.concern, and obviously I will always take them seriously. During the

:27:40. > :27:44.course of the rest of the debate I will reflect on what other people

:27:45. > :27:47.have to say and they may be able to persuade me that new clause ten

:27:48. > :27:52.isn't worth pursuing. But I don't envision is the problem is that my

:27:53. > :27:55.honourable friend does envisions. I suppose, Mr Speaker, we ought to

:27:56. > :28:01.just leave it at that. And perhaps move on from there. But my

:28:02. > :28:04.honourable friend will get his opportunity to have his say and

:28:05. > :28:09.explain in greater detail why new clause ten should be resisted. I'm

:28:10. > :28:12.sure that as ever the House will listen carefully to what he says, as

:28:13. > :28:17.will I, because it will be a sad fate of affairs if I found myself in

:28:18. > :28:22.a different voting lobby to my honourable friend. It would be a sad

:28:23. > :28:25.and rare state of affairs defy myself in that situation. I think

:28:26. > :28:35.that new clause ten should find favour with people because it gives

:28:36. > :28:40.Parliament more say over what is happening post-ratification. As for

:28:41. > :28:45.new clause 11, Mr Speaker, this is about annual statistics. I think

:28:46. > :28:51.this is very important because I've heard lots of assertions from

:28:52. > :28:53.campaigners that we must pass the Istanbul convention in order to

:28:54. > :29:13.eliminate violence against women. It seems that the campaign will have

:29:14. > :29:23.no violence against women. My new clause when

:29:24. > :29:30.in each country who have ratified the Istanbul convention to make them

:29:31. > :29:37.publicly available and publish them annually. The point of this is so we

:29:38. > :29:39.can actually all see for ourselves whether or not ratifying the

:29:40. > :29:45.Istanbul convention actually makes any difference at all levels of

:29:46. > :29:49.violence against women and levels of domestic violence. At the moment, we

:29:50. > :29:57.don't really know too much about it. And in preparation this debate, I

:29:58. > :30:00.tried to get figures on those countries who have already ratified

:30:01. > :30:06.the convention to ask if they had seen a reduction in violence since

:30:07. > :30:13.the ratification. It's seems to me that we need to test whether or not

:30:14. > :30:15.it makes any difference at all. Unfortunately, the House of Commons

:30:16. > :30:19.Library told me that they did not have any such figures, that these

:30:20. > :30:25.figures did not exist. Anybody who stands up today and says that

:30:26. > :30:30.passing the Istanbul Convention will reduce levels of violence against

:30:31. > :30:34.women are actually standing up and saying that they have no evidence at

:30:35. > :30:38.all to support that claim. Unless, of course, they've done what I did.

:30:39. > :30:41.What I did if I wrote to the What I did if I wrote to the

:30:42. > :30:47.ambassadors of all the countries who have ratified the convention to ask

:30:48. > :30:52.if they could supply any of this information to me in the absence of

:30:53. > :30:54.the House of Commons Library. I don't know if anybody else in the

:30:55. > :30:59.House had bothered to find out whether or not ratifying the

:31:00. > :31:05.convention makes any difference at all to levels of violence against

:31:06. > :31:11.women. Maybe anybody who has can intervene now and share that

:31:12. > :31:14.information with me. I didn't think anyone would actually have any idea

:31:15. > :31:18.what they were talking about before they came here today, because that

:31:19. > :31:22.would break a great tradition on a Friday if somebody came in and knew

:31:23. > :31:27.they pontificated. So I've done the they pontificated. So I've done the

:31:28. > :31:30.work for them. A game, I've done the work for them. I content of the

:31:31. > :31:35.ambassadors of the countries who have ratified the convention and

:31:36. > :31:38.asked for their figures. I'm sure everyone will be interested to know

:31:39. > :31:42.what has happened in those countries. I'm sure the Minister

:31:43. > :31:46.will be delighted to know. Maybe the minister doesn't know this either.

:31:47. > :31:53.It's quite extraordinary, really. Sweden's signed the convention in

:31:54. > :31:59.May 2011 and ratified in July 20 14. It came into force in November 2014

:32:00. > :32:02.with reservations. I will come onto them later because I know it's a

:32:03. > :32:08.subject that my honourable friend for Christchurch feels very strongly

:32:09. > :32:14.about. The figures given to me by the Swedish ambassador, the total

:32:15. > :32:21.report reported offences in 2013 before the convention was ratified

:32:22. > :32:30.in Sweden was 39,000 580. When the convention came into force, it was

:32:31. > :32:41.42,217. In 2015, after ratification, it went up to 42,252. In the

:32:42. > :32:47.preliminary figures for 2016 show an ever increasing violence with

:32:48. > :32:54.reported offences at 43,179. The offences included in this capacity,

:32:55. > :32:58.and the Swedish ambassador sent detailed information along with it,

:32:59. > :33:01.included all forms of assault, murder, rape, including attempted

:33:02. > :33:08.rape, regardless of the victim's age. In Sweden, ratification of the

:33:09. > :33:13.Istanbul Convention has not made a blind bit of difference to levels of

:33:14. > :33:17.violence against women. Not a blind bit. In fact, all that's happened is

:33:18. > :33:21.its continued to increase. All of those people claiming that this is

:33:22. > :33:25.essential to reduce violence - what do they say now? What do they have

:33:26. > :33:30.to say now? Absolutely nothing, that's what they have to say. I give

:33:31. > :33:35.way. I wonder if there might be other factors involved. You may have

:33:36. > :33:41.heard the President of the United States considers -- are expressing

:33:42. > :33:44.considerable concern about the dangers arising in Sweden. My

:33:45. > :33:52.honourable friend makes a good point and I don't intend to deviate too

:33:53. > :33:55.much from the matter in hand, but he does raise an interesting point as

:33:56. > :33:59.to what may be the driving force of this. I think the point he's getting

:34:00. > :34:05.too is that he thinks the levels and nature of immigration into Sweden

:34:06. > :34:10.may have had a contributory factor to that. I think that's the point

:34:11. > :34:15.he's probably trying to make. And a point that was being made by

:34:16. > :34:19.President Trump last week. There will be truth in that. There may

:34:20. > :34:24.well be truth in that. I don't know, I didn't ask the ambassador for any

:34:25. > :34:28.assessment he made of the levels. All we do know is that ratifying the

:34:29. > :34:34.Istanbul convention has not led to a decrease in violence against women

:34:35. > :34:37.in Sweden. So all of those people claiming that's what's going to

:34:38. > :34:41.happen, they might want to think again. I give way. Is it possible

:34:42. > :34:45.that by highlighting the issue that the country cares about the

:34:46. > :34:50.particular form of violence, that people might be more willing to

:34:51. > :34:55.report that violence? Therefore, figures might go up, rather than

:34:56. > :35:00.down. I'm grateful to my honourable friend. It's a no fail measure,

:35:01. > :35:05.isn't it? If it goes down, it's because of the Istanbul Convention.

:35:06. > :35:09.If it goes up, it's because of the Istanbul Convention. It can't fail,

:35:10. > :35:15.it a winner. That's the line my honourable friend and I commend her

:35:16. > :35:19.greatly. She's almost certainly going to be made a government

:35:20. > :35:23.minister very soon. With that level of a at the dispatch box, she will

:35:24. > :35:29.be a very fine minister to explain away any figure that her government

:35:30. > :35:34.has. She will make a mighty fine minister in very short order. I

:35:35. > :35:39.suspect that may well be the case. Unfortunately, of course, it wasn't

:35:40. > :35:46.quite the same in Portugal as it was in Sweden. My honourable friend's

:35:47. > :35:52.ceases slightly. In Portugal -- my honourable friend's thesis. In

:35:53. > :35:54.Portugal, who ratified earlier than Sweden, what were seen as a

:35:55. > :36:00.roller-coaster in numbers since they have ratified the convention. Some

:36:01. > :36:05.years, it's gone down. Then down, then up again. I'm not entirely sure

:36:06. > :36:10.how that one would be explained away on the basis of increased levels of

:36:11. > :36:15.awareness or... Basically, it's pretty fair to say that any

:36:16. > :36:18.independent observer of these figures would indicate that

:36:19. > :36:24.ratification makes not a blind bit of difference to levels of violence

:36:25. > :36:30.against women. But I'm very happy for people to put their own

:36:31. > :36:33.particular gloss and spin on upward and downward figures. I'm just

:36:34. > :36:38.looking at it as somebody who's interested... Of course I'll give

:36:39. > :36:42.way. I'm not sure whether he's talking about reporting figures or

:36:43. > :36:49.not. Surely the cases, if women are aware that their voice will be heard

:36:50. > :36:54.if they would come forward and report incidents, surely he can see

:36:55. > :36:57.that as a positive thing? Of course I'm in favour of people reporting

:36:58. > :37:03.crimes. I'm not entirely sure that we need to ratify the Istanbul

:37:04. > :37:07.Convention in order for people to report a crime. We encourage people

:37:08. > :37:10.to report crimes now. If my honourable friend wants to send out

:37:11. > :37:14.a message today to say to any victim of violence that it's absolutely

:37:15. > :37:19.essential that they report that crime to the police, very welcome to

:37:20. > :37:24.do so. I will endorse that message wholeheartedly. Everybody who is a

:37:25. > :37:28.victim in any shape and form of any kind of violence, irrespective of

:37:29. > :37:31.gender, should report back to the police and it should be fully

:37:32. > :37:34.investigated. The perpetrator should be brought to justice and we should

:37:35. > :37:39.be much more harshly punished them they are today. Let that message

:37:40. > :37:42.ring out from the chamber today. We do not need to ratify the Istanbul

:37:43. > :37:47.convention for people to report that they've been the victim of a violent

:37:48. > :37:51.crime. We have measures in place already to deal with that in this

:37:52. > :37:56.country. In Portugal we have a roller-coaster effect. In Poland,

:37:57. > :38:02.situation. It seems to me. Where situation. It seems to me. Where

:38:03. > :38:10.they have a game ratified on the 27th of April 2015. -- have again

:38:11. > :38:15.ratified. It seems that after Poland signed the convention, the figures

:38:16. > :38:21.went up. But lately the figures have gone down. So it's difficult.

:38:22. > :38:24.There's no pattern, is what I would say, Mr Speaker, in the countries

:38:25. > :38:29.where the ambassadors kindly sent me their figures. But I would say, and

:38:30. > :38:33.I think this is important to put on The Record, I think it shows that in

:38:34. > :38:37.Sweden, Portugal and Poland, they clearly take this issue very

:38:38. > :38:44.seriously. I commend them for doing so. And actually laying bare to me

:38:45. > :38:48.what their figures were. In some cases, are very good. In some cases,

:38:49. > :38:52.they're not so good. But they've been open and transparent enough

:38:53. > :38:57.share them with me and I've been able to share them with the House.

:38:58. > :39:02.What I do worry about is the countrys that didn't share those

:39:03. > :39:08.figures. The reason that some did not reply with the figures, and I

:39:09. > :39:11.have no evidence to support this, I'm making an assertion that I

:39:12. > :39:14.appreciate can be counted, but I would fear and my suspicion may well

:39:15. > :39:18.be that the reason of the countries haven't supplied the information is

:39:19. > :39:20.because they may be slightly embarrassed that the figures have

:39:21. > :39:28.gone in the wrong way since they ratified the convention. But I could

:39:29. > :39:38.be wrong. People can draw their own conclusions. We've also had figures

:39:39. > :39:42.through from Albania and Austria. In Albania, the figures show an

:39:43. > :39:53.increase from the time of ratification, from 4999 to 5281. In

:39:54. > :39:57.Austria, the trend is the same. Their first annual report came out

:39:58. > :40:02.in September last year after the convention came into force in 2014.

:40:03. > :40:12.It showed that the number of female victims of those violent offences

:40:13. > :40:15.has increased again from 37,546 to 37,637. I think it's fair to say

:40:16. > :40:19.that we're not going to make a massive amount of difference to

:40:20. > :40:23.levels of violence against women by ratifying this treaty. I should also

:40:24. > :40:28.say that in Austria, the number of women murdered in Austria since they

:40:29. > :40:36.ratified the Istanbul convention, the number of women murdered when

:40:37. > :40:40.from 118 in 2014, to 165 in 2015. That seems to me quite a significant

:40:41. > :40:47.increase in murders against women in the day after they ratified the

:40:48. > :40:50.Istanbul convention. It seems to me that it's absolutely essential and

:40:51. > :40:55.this is why I think that... On that point, does he think that increase

:40:56. > :41:01.on the number of murders against women has been because there is a

:41:02. > :41:06.high reporting rate? I suspect it harder for a murder victim to report

:41:07. > :41:09.that particular crime. So, clearly not. My honourable friend is

:41:10. > :41:14.absolutely right, it can't be explained away by increased

:41:15. > :41:16.reporting of crime. I think it's fair to say that murders are known

:41:17. > :41:25.to the authorities. That is an increase in murders is

:41:26. > :41:29.the one year they ratified the Convention, so I hope those people

:41:30. > :41:32.claiming it will lead to a miraculous reduction in violence

:41:33. > :41:36.against women will change their minds and perhaps it might be

:41:37. > :41:39.persuaded to vote for new clause 11, which would mean we would have all

:41:40. > :41:44.of these statistics available to us so we could produce our own

:41:45. > :41:48.analysis. What has anybody got to fear from knowing what the facts are

:41:49. > :41:52.around all the countries who have ratified the convention? I don't see

:41:53. > :41:57.what anyone would have the fear of asking the government to source that

:41:58. > :42:03.information. New clause 12 is similar to new clause 11, but it

:42:04. > :42:07.asks for quarterly statistics. And asks for the government to use its

:42:08. > :42:11.best endeavours to obtain statistics at the levels of violence against

:42:12. > :42:16.men, women and all domestic violence and publish them quarterly. So I

:42:17. > :42:20.wouldn't one or not, the argument are the same but it is asking them

:42:21. > :42:23.to do it quarterly rather than annually, so people can make their

:42:24. > :42:29.choice between the preferred 11 or clause 12. Both not compatible with

:42:30. > :42:36.each other, it is give the House a choice to see when they want the

:42:37. > :42:40.figures published. New clause 17 relates to compensation awarded to

:42:41. > :42:46.those who sustained serious bodily injury or impairment of health. And

:42:47. > :42:54.this, we now coming to the reservations that are loud within

:42:55. > :42:56.the Istanbul Convention. My honourable friend the Christchurch

:42:57. > :43:01.knows much more about the subject than me. And I know, I am sure he

:43:02. > :43:06.will want to speak to his new clauses and amendments which cover

:43:07. > :43:11.this area. It is fair to say, it is unusual that my honourable friend

:43:12. > :43:19.and I are coming at this bill from different angles. Because I'm

:43:20. > :43:23.wishing to, for the government to retain as many reservations as is

:43:24. > :43:29.allowed under the Istanbul Convention, my honourable friend 's

:43:30. > :43:33.is seeking to come I was going to say reduce the number, eliminate, it

:43:34. > :43:37.seems, eliminate the numbers of reservations the government would be

:43:38. > :43:41.able to retain under the Istanbul Convention. He will make his case

:43:42. > :43:46.when he comes to it, I want to make the case for giving the government

:43:47. > :43:53.as much freedom as possible within the convention. I will be interested

:43:54. > :44:00.to know what the Mercer, where she sets -- minister. When she comes to

:44:01. > :44:04.speak. Paragraph two of article 30 of the convention states that

:44:05. > :44:09.adequate state compensation shall be awarded to those who have sustained

:44:10. > :44:13.serious bodily injury or impairment of health, to the is not covered by

:44:14. > :44:17.other sources such as the perpetrator, insurance or state

:44:18. > :44:20.funded health and social provisions. This is not preclude parties for

:44:21. > :44:25.claiming compensation awarded from the perpetrator, as as long as jury

:44:26. > :44:31.guard is paid to the victim's safety. I'm a bit nervous, Mr

:44:32. > :44:35.Speaker. I believe as much as anybody, may be more, that victim

:44:36. > :44:43.should be much more fairly treated in the Cribbar justice system, and

:44:44. > :44:49.that to include them being properly compensated -- crime justice system.

:44:50. > :44:55.My dear here, if we were to adopt this particular article, article 30

:44:56. > :45:00.of the convention, we'll be opening up the government to large claims

:45:01. > :45:04.for the state to pay compensation, when perhaps it might be more

:45:05. > :45:08.appropriate for them to be pursued through different avenues. People

:45:09. > :45:13.may not, they just think the state is easier to go to and do that. I'm

:45:14. > :45:18.not entirely sure, I hope the Minister, where she comes to speak,

:45:19. > :45:23.will be able to give us some estimate of how much the government

:45:24. > :45:28.thinks it would cost. If the government were to adopt article 30

:45:29. > :45:33.of the convention. Because I generally don't know. I don't know

:45:34. > :45:41.how much additional cost, if any, there would be for the UK taxpayer

:45:42. > :45:45.from signing up to article 30. But maybe the Minister doesn't know, and

:45:46. > :45:51.I don't blame her, because anything would be an estimate. My point would

:45:52. > :45:57.be, if we don't know, rather than signing ourselves of two an unknown

:45:58. > :46:00.cost to the UK taxpayer, it would be more sensible for the UK to reserve

:46:01. > :46:05.the right on that particular issue not to sign up to wed. We can make

:46:06. > :46:10.our own arrangements, just because not signing up to that part of the

:46:11. > :46:18.convention doesn't mean to say we can't do it ourselves anyway. My

:46:19. > :46:22.view is that we should believe that -- leave it to us to decide matters

:46:23. > :46:28.for ourselves, rather than signing ourselves of the something about

:46:29. > :46:34.which we don't know the full consequences and cost of. That is my

:46:35. > :46:39.point of view. I will give way. I commend him for new clause 17

:46:40. > :46:44.because what it is effectively is a probing new clause to try and find

:46:45. > :46:48.out what the government's policy is in relation to this particular

:46:49. > :46:53.issue. The government is saying they wish to ratify this convention, but

:46:54. > :46:58.there has been no statement from the government as to whether they wish

:46:59. > :47:03.to have reservations or not, and that the powers in the convention.

:47:04. > :47:08.My honourable friend makes a good point, they have the Minister will

:47:09. > :47:13.make that clear. I've given up in the hope the SNP know anything about

:47:14. > :47:18.what is in the Istanbul Convention. They clearly have no idea. If they

:47:19. > :47:21.did bother to read what was at it, they would know in the Istanbul

:47:22. > :47:24.Convention, there are powers the government to reserve some of the

:47:25. > :47:31.issues, they don't have the sign up to them. We don't have any idea as

:47:32. > :47:36.to whether or not we will be signed up to these things or not. It seems

:47:37. > :47:41.to me that before Parliament agrees a survey, we should at least know

:47:42. > :47:46.what we are signing up to. At the moment we have no idea at all what

:47:47. > :47:50.we are signing up to. Perhaps the Minister, before we get onto the

:47:51. > :47:54.third reading of the bill, might be could never tell us what they

:47:55. > :48:00.envisage is signing up to or not signing up to. My honourable friend

:48:01. > :48:04.is right one sense, to tease out from the government which bit of a

:48:05. > :48:08.convention we will be signing up to as part of the ratification, and

:48:09. > :48:13.which we won't, but think he's likely doing my new clause a

:48:14. > :48:17.disservice in just saying it's a probing amendment because I'm not

:48:18. > :48:23.entirely sure I agree with him it is just a probing amendment. A probing

:48:24. > :48:27.amendment would indicate I don't really agree with the new clause I'm

:48:28. > :48:35.putting forward, but I'm just try to seek information. I do agree with

:48:36. > :48:42.new clause 17, and so I can't agree with him on that. When we come to

:48:43. > :48:48.new clause 19, my honourable friend, if he was to make the same

:48:49. > :48:56.accusation at me here, may have a point. He may have a point. New

:48:57. > :48:59.clause 19, Mr Speaker, means nothing in this bill should prevent the UK

:49:00. > :49:05.ratifying the Istanbul Convention with reservations as provided for in

:49:06. > :49:12.paragraphs two and three of article 70 eight. And so effect, new clause

:49:13. > :49:20.19 would allow the government, would require the government will not just

:49:21. > :49:23.allow the government, to ratify the convention by having the maximum

:49:24. > :49:32.number of reservations allowed under the convention. I think it is

:49:33. > :49:37.important we highlight what reservations are allowed and

:49:38. > :49:50.therefore what would be covered by new clause 19. Because these

:49:51. > :49:53.reservations apply from these outlying areas. Compensation, which

:49:54. > :50:01.I've just covered a new clause 17, Jura structure and, Statute of

:50:02. > :50:04.limitation -- jurisdiction. And the right to reserve a non-criminal

:50:05. > :50:12.sanctions for psychological violence and stalking. Article 30, I've

:50:13. > :50:18.talked about, it is about the thing about compensation. But the other

:50:19. > :50:21.ones that are covered, which will be covered by new clause 19, which

:50:22. > :50:29.would allow the government to opt out of the convention in these

:50:30. > :50:36.areas, Article 44, paragraphs one he, three and four, which are

:50:37. > :50:41.regarding jurisdiction. Article 55, paragraph one in respect of article

:50:42. > :50:53.35, regarding a minor offences. Which considers ex-party. Article

:50:54. > :50:58.58, in respect of article 30 seven, 38 and 39, regarding statute of

:50:59. > :51:02.limitation. And the D9 which considers resident status,

:51:03. > :51:10.especially in relation to spouses. And finally paragraph three macro of

:51:11. > :51:16.article 78, declares a state -- is under criminal sanctions for the

:51:17. > :51:20.behaviour is referred to in articles 33 and 34, which psychological

:51:21. > :51:27.violence and stalking respectively. For all these reservations, I think

:51:28. > :51:30.there is a good case to be had for saying the UK Government and

:51:31. > :51:34.parliament should be sovereign in all these issues and that's where we

:51:35. > :51:38.can just leave these matters to the UK Government and to Parliament and

:51:39. > :51:44.the UK courts, we should take the opportunity. Partly, mainly for the

:51:45. > :51:47.reason I outlined in response to my right honourable friend the East

:51:48. > :51:51.Yorkshire, that we have no idea necessarily how these things will

:51:52. > :51:55.develop over years, how these things will happen, so it is best to

:51:56. > :51:59.reserve as many as these rights as possible. And that would be, I

:52:00. > :52:05.think, the most sensible strategy for the government to adopt. Because

:52:06. > :52:10.that waited retained as much control as possible for us and how we deal

:52:11. > :52:14.with these things. -- because in that way. Does he agreed there is

:52:15. > :52:19.plenty of President from around Europe from what other countries

:52:20. > :52:25.have done as part of their ratification but going down

:52:26. > :52:30.precisely this route? He is right. I was literally just about to come

:52:31. > :52:36.onto that. Because of the 22 countries that have already signed

:52:37. > :52:42.and ratified the convention, 11 have done so with reservations attached.

:52:43. > :52:48.And indeed, a further four countries have signed the convention, saying

:52:49. > :52:54.they have reservations attached too. It is clearly a reasonable approach

:52:55. > :52:59.the government to take, and it is accepted, and it's in the

:53:00. > :53:03.convention. It must be an accepted approach. It is clearly a reasonable

:53:04. > :53:08.approach, as all countries are different and all government and

:53:09. > :53:11.legal systems are different. It is important they are recognised as

:53:12. > :53:19.much as possible so that any provisions are to the taste of that

:53:20. > :53:24.particular country I hope the government will make clear where we

:53:25. > :53:30.are with these reservations. And what implications it has. And

:53:31. > :53:35.whether or not if it seeks, if it is seeking to exercise the maximum

:53:36. > :53:40.number of reservations, which I would advise it to do, maybe the

:53:41. > :53:44.Minister can confirm she has no objection therefore to new clause

:53:45. > :53:49.19, which will simply make that clear on the face of the bill and

:53:50. > :53:55.put that matter beyond any doubt whatsoever and beyond any debate,

:53:56. > :54:03.any further debate. I agree. Does he really think that the issue of

:54:04. > :54:07.stalking, for example, that we should be prepared as a parliament

:54:08. > :54:11.to contemplate only having noncriminal sanctions against

:54:12. > :54:18.stalking? No, I don't, I was going to come onto that matter a bit

:54:19. > :54:29.later. But as my honourable friend has raised no, no, absolutely not.

:54:30. > :54:32.In fact, colleagues will remember my honourable friend, the Member for

:54:33. > :54:37.Cheltenham, launching a campaign to try and double the maximum sentence

:54:38. > :54:41.the court could impose the people convicted of stalking. I was a

:54:42. > :54:45.strong supporter of his attempts to do that, he introduced a ten minute

:54:46. > :54:51.rule Bill. I was a strong supporter of his ten minute rule. I am pleased

:54:52. > :54:56.the government agreed to that measure. They agreed to adopt that

:54:57. > :55:00.measure, and I think that is fantastic. Where I think I differ

:55:01. > :55:07.with my honourable friend is I don't accept the premise that making

:55:08. > :55:10.reservations from the convention means you necessarily always have to

:55:11. > :55:14.disagree with what is in those particular articles. It just means

:55:15. > :55:18.we are free to do what we think is right rather than having another

:55:19. > :55:22.the matter is. I think we can be the matter is. I think we can be

:55:23. > :55:27.trusted to do the right thing by people who are guilty of, who are

:55:28. > :55:35.victims of stalking, and the government have done that already.

:55:36. > :55:39.What I would say is that not signing up to any article doesn't say you

:55:40. > :55:41.disagree with it, just means you want to retain sovereignty for your

:55:42. > :55:53.own country. Following on, can my honourable

:55:54. > :55:56.friend understand why it was at the last Labour government, when they

:55:57. > :56:00.were negotiating this convention, were prepared to allow other

:56:01. > :56:07.countries merely to have non-criminal sanctions in respect of

:56:08. > :56:11.Dorking, and to allow a reservation of this nature in relation to

:56:12. > :56:17.stalking with our only a very limited number of reservations

:56:18. > :56:21.allowed? -- in respect of stalking. The honourable member makes a very

:56:22. > :56:24.good point. No doubt the Labour spokesman will be able to explain to

:56:25. > :56:28.the House why they think it's absolutely fine for all the

:56:29. > :56:33.countries to have non-criminal sanctions for stalking, and for

:56:34. > :56:40.psychological violence against women. They obviously agreed to that

:56:41. > :56:44.being part of the convention. And people are happy for us to sign up

:56:45. > :56:49.to this convention as being a gold standard for protecting women. Well,

:56:50. > :56:55.I hope people realise what's in this gold standard for protecting women.

:56:56. > :56:59.Those who would campaign the most vociferously seem to be the ones who

:57:00. > :57:03.think there's a direct correlation think there's a direct correlation

:57:04. > :57:06.that the people who are the most mind up about it are the ones who

:57:07. > :57:10.really the least. And if some of them take the time to actually read

:57:11. > :57:15.what's in the convention, they may be shocked as to what's this gold

:57:16. > :57:20.standard. I think the UK can do a darn sight better than what is in

:57:21. > :57:26.the Istanbul convention. And actually I think that we will be

:57:27. > :57:27.levelling things down by signing up to the convention, rather than

:57:28. > :57:31.levelling things upwards, which is levelling things upwards, which is

:57:32. > :57:34.what we should be seeking to do. If the Government wanted to do

:57:35. > :57:39.something useful around the world, actually what it should be saying is

:57:40. > :57:42.they should be encouraging other countries to adopt the same

:57:43. > :57:47.practices that we adopt in this country, rather than us agreeing to

:57:48. > :57:50.adopt the same things they do in those countries, which are much

:57:51. > :57:55.weaker in terms of dealing with violent crime, particularly violence

:57:56. > :57:57.against women. My honourable friend is absolutely right, the Labour

:57:58. > :58:02.Party have a great deal to answer for in this debate as to why they

:58:03. > :58:06.think stalking should be a noncriminal function in other

:58:07. > :58:09.countries, and psychological violence against women. Maybe the

:58:10. > :58:14.bill will be able to explain why she would adopt a policy as well. I

:58:15. > :58:19.suspect it's not one but she tells people about very often when talking

:58:20. > :58:23.about the Istanbul Convention. New clause 20, Mr Deputy Speaker,

:58:24. > :58:30.provides for a requirement to denounce the convention after five

:58:31. > :58:34.years. In effect, this is a sunset clause in the bill. I think more

:58:35. > :58:39.bills should have a sunset clause is in them so we can actually review

:58:40. > :58:44.whether or not the Istanbul convention has been a force for good

:58:45. > :58:49.or not in the United Kingdom. If of course everybody is so confident

:58:50. > :58:52.that this ratification of this convention will be such a force for

:58:53. > :58:56.good, they have nothing to fear from a sunset clause because it will

:58:57. > :59:00.become apparent that it's been a force for good, a great triumph, and

:59:01. > :59:06.we can all agree to get the legislation back on the statute book

:59:07. > :59:12.in time for it to continue. If of course it's proven to be a turkey,

:59:13. > :59:16.then it means that this bill will fall on we can start from scratch,

:59:17. > :59:20.and actually bring something forward that much more sensible and

:59:21. > :59:24.effective. I've no idea why anybody might not support a sunset clause

:59:25. > :59:30.for legislation. It seems a very good safeguard to make sure that we

:59:31. > :59:33.actually keep focusing on what these bills are designed to achieve and

:59:34. > :59:43.make sure that they are achieving them. They are my new clauses, Mr

:59:44. > :59:52.Deputy Speaker. I'll now come onto my amendments. And I have 14 of the

:59:53. > :00:05.36 amendments tabled in my name. The first one is amendment number 22.

:00:06. > :00:14.This amendment is a page one clause to sub-clause two, line 14. This

:00:15. > :00:17.relates to the report of subsection one about the timetable for

:00:18. > :00:23.ratification of the Istanbul Convention. It says that the report

:00:24. > :00:28.must be laid at the moment within four weeks of this fact receiving

:00:29. > :00:34.Royal assent. And what is being asked to be produced within four

:00:35. > :00:37.weeks, Mr Deputy Speaker, is for the Secretary of State to say what steps

:00:38. > :00:42.are required to enable the United Kingdom to ratified the Istanbul

:00:43. > :00:46.Convention, and the date by which the Secretary of State would expect

:00:47. > :00:50.the United Kingdom to be able to ratified the convention. I think

:00:51. > :00:57.four weeks is an unrealistic timetable for those two things to

:00:58. > :01:03.happen. No doubt the Secretary of State could rustle something to hit

:01:04. > :01:08.the four week arbitrary timescale that in the bill. But I think it

:01:09. > :01:12.would be much more sensible to have something meaningful and accurate.

:01:13. > :01:15.That surely is what we should be aiming for with this, rather than

:01:16. > :01:20.just hitting an artificial timetable. I would love to know,

:01:21. > :01:24.maybe the proposer of the bill will be able to tell us - Y four weeks?

:01:25. > :01:30.Why not six weeks, or two weeks? What is so special about four weeks?

:01:31. > :01:37.I suspect there is nothing special at all about for weeks, it was just

:01:38. > :01:41.somebody thinking, we need a figure, let's go for four weeks. I don't

:01:42. > :01:48.think that's a sensible way to settle legislation. I will give way.

:01:49. > :01:52.He is effectively supporting the Government amendment on this. Can I

:01:53. > :01:55.put an appointment -- an alternative point of view and that is that the

:01:56. > :02:01.Government has had since 2014 to draw up a list of the requirements,

:02:02. > :02:05.legislative requirements, in order to satisfy this convention so it can

:02:06. > :02:13.be ratified. The bill about which we are talking today was published on

:02:14. > :02:17.the 29th of June last year. And we still have not got from government

:02:18. > :02:21.any indication as to what it believes has got to be done in order

:02:22. > :02:27.to enable the United Kingdom to ratify this convention. My

:02:28. > :02:31.honourable friend seems to be making my point for me. I understand the

:02:32. > :02:36.point he's making, which is that we have had ample time to do it and so

:02:37. > :02:41.we should be able to put a fixed time in the near future to them. My

:02:42. > :02:46.contrary point would be if it's taken so long and they still haven't

:02:47. > :02:50.been able to come forward with it, then how on earth do we expect them

:02:51. > :02:54.to do it within four weeks? That seems to be unrealistic. It seems to

:02:55. > :02:59.me the fact that they haven't managed to do it in all those months

:03:00. > :03:04.means that they can't do it in four weeks. That would be my contrary

:03:05. > :03:08.point to my honourable friend. The point is that it's an unrealistic

:03:09. > :03:15.timetable to expect it in four weeks. He can expand greater as to

:03:16. > :03:19.why he thinks it could be... It's not just four weeks, there's also a

:03:20. > :03:23.government amendment but says the bill should not actually come into

:03:24. > :03:30.force until two months after Royal assent. That would mean after a

:03:31. > :03:33.Royal assent, there would be three a month, effectively, for the

:03:34. > :03:38.Government, on top of all the time it's had up until now. Well, my

:03:39. > :03:42.honourable friend is clearly right. I can't disagree with anything he

:03:43. > :03:48.said. The point he made about the Royal assent is a factual point. But

:03:49. > :03:52.I'm still not entirely sure that that's an achievable timetable

:03:53. > :03:56.either, given the delay we've already had. My point is rather than

:03:57. > :03:59.the Government rushing to meet an artificial timetable which they

:04:00. > :04:09.clearly are finding difficult to meet, it would be better if they

:04:10. > :04:13.left it, I have two amendments, 22 and 24, one extends the time for

:04:14. > :04:17.four weeks until three years. That is amendment 20 two. I would like to

:04:18. > :04:20.think everybody agrees that is ample time for them to get their ducks in

:04:21. > :04:26.would hope to think that they have would hope to think that they have

:04:27. > :04:28.got no excuse for not meeting that particular timetable. On the basis

:04:29. > :04:36.that my honourable friend for Christchurch thinks that's letting

:04:37. > :04:40.the Government of the hook too much, my amendment 24 changes the four

:04:41. > :04:47.with time-limit to sailing when a reasonably practical. -- the

:04:48. > :04:56.four-week time-limit to complete sailing when reasonably practical.

:04:57. > :05:03.Is it not the case that the other option would leave it open ended? Me

:05:04. > :05:07.being practical, maybe never. My honourable friend is absolutely

:05:08. > :05:14.right about this job I want to come onto this in a bit more detail

:05:15. > :05:18.later. The Government really are selling people shorter. They're

:05:19. > :05:22.trying to get all the plaudits. The plaudits have been putting their

:05:23. > :05:26.shoulder to the wheel to get the Istanbul Convention signed. But

:05:27. > :05:31.actually the reality is that the flitting amendments are designed to

:05:32. > :05:33.do the exact opposite. At least my three-year amendments, as my

:05:34. > :05:37.honourable friend says, it may be a long time in the waiting. But at

:05:38. > :05:41.least it means that there is a fixed deadline for them to meet.

:05:42. > :05:47.Reasonably practicable, as I put down, which very much mirrors what

:05:48. > :05:51.the Government amendment said. It's very, very similar. Obviously, great

:05:52. > :05:57.minds think alike. Me and the Government minister on this. But I

:05:58. > :06:03.do concede the point that it does allow a never ending timescale to be

:06:04. > :06:11.reasonable practical. Maybe that's what the Government and SNP have in

:06:12. > :06:15.mind. I don't know. I will take soundings and colleagues to which

:06:16. > :06:21.they think is the best. But my general point is that four weeks was

:06:22. > :06:24.never going to be achievable, particularly with all the other

:06:25. > :06:31.things going on for the Government at the moment. On that point, so

:06:32. > :06:37.much else going on, how do you define "As soon as reasonably

:06:38. > :06:41.practicable"? It seems to me, as if said on the team, as is reasonably

:06:42. > :06:45.practicable. It's whether they're in a position to be able to do so. I

:06:46. > :06:52.know my honourable friend have extensive experience of government

:06:53. > :06:56.as a former minister. That is a privilege that I don't have and

:06:57. > :07:01.never will have. And so it's not really for me to know what it takes

:07:02. > :07:05.in the machinery of government to get itself into a position to do

:07:06. > :07:10.something. But I'm sure he trusts the Government to move as easily as

:07:11. > :07:15.possible on these matters, given that the Minister's stated

:07:16. > :07:22.commitment to these things. I don't know, I'm sure he's got nothing to

:07:23. > :07:29.worry about. The Minister tabled a very similar amendment to me, which

:07:30. > :07:33.is a rare thing in its well. But presumably the Minister might be

:07:34. > :07:36.able to answer its question to my honourable friend. Maybe she will be

:07:37. > :07:41.able to explain what she had in mind when she tabled her amendment to

:07:42. > :07:49.satisfy my honourable friend. Amendment 25 is page two, clause

:07:50. > :07:59.three, sub clause one. This is about the report that is required in this

:08:00. > :08:08.particular part of the bill. It asks for an annual report. It says the

:08:09. > :08:21.report should be each year. And I've changed that to a biannual report. I

:08:22. > :08:26.just think that every two years is perfectly adequate for this report.

:08:27. > :08:36.I don't think we need an annual one. If my honourable friend gets his

:08:37. > :08:40.way, it wouldn't really need to be annual or biannual, to be perfectly

:08:41. > :08:44.honest, because they would have it done and dusted in no time anyway.

:08:45. > :08:47.I'm not entirely sure why we need an annual report, due with perfectly

:08:48. > :08:54.honest. But again the volcanic blame why if these things -- but again if

:08:55. > :09:00.people have too explain why these things have to be done. The point if

:09:01. > :09:05.we were going to ratify was that it would be done and dusted in no time

:09:06. > :09:19.anyway. I'm not sure of the need for that in the bill anyway. Amendment

:09:20. > :09:29.26 is page two, clause three, 1.A. This is about deleting any

:09:30. > :09:32.alteration in the date by which the United Kingdom expects to be able to

:09:33. > :09:44.ratify the Convention, and the reasons for the alteration. I

:09:45. > :09:50.proposed deleting that particular amendment, that particular part of

:09:51. > :09:57.the hill. I don't really see any point in it. Personally, it seems to

:09:58. > :10:09.me superfluous to requirements. I've also proposed in amendments 27 and

:10:10. > :10:15.28 to delete B and B. These are all points of pre-ratification reports.

:10:16. > :10:20.I really can't see the point of these rings. About the

:10:21. > :10:24.administrative measures taken to ratify the Istanbul convention and

:10:25. > :10:28.what is being done in the Scottish Parliament, Welsh assembly, the

:10:29. > :10:33.Northern Ireland assembly. I really can't see the point of those

:10:34. > :10:40.particular things, so I proposed deleting those in those amendments.

:10:41. > :10:45.Amendment... It seems to me, I must say with these things, Mr Deputy

:10:46. > :10:49.Speaker, we've got all this verbiage in the build-up out how the

:10:50. > :10:54.Government has to report on this, and on that, and it's got to report

:10:55. > :10:58.on the other. It strikes me as bureaucracy for the sake of

:10:59. > :11:02.bureaucracy. In practice, none of these pre-ratification requirements

:11:03. > :11:07.will make a jot of difference to the victims of domestic violence and

:11:08. > :11:13.people suffering from any kind of violence. It is a pen pusher's

:11:14. > :11:17.dream, really, to explain away why the Government isn't doing anything,

:11:18. > :11:20.or why it hasn't done something. It's all these things. The whole

:11:21. > :11:24.thing about this bill is it's all about looking as if you're doing

:11:25. > :11:30.something, rather than doing something to make any difference to

:11:31. > :11:32.people's lives. It seems to me the more we can get rid of all this

:11:33. > :11:36.bureaucracy and crack on with measures to help reduce violent

:11:37. > :11:40.crime in the UK, that would be a more worthwhile thing. I would

:11:41. > :11:48.prefer to see action taken, rather than reports of inaction.

:11:49. > :11:54.My honourable friend has given me an idea that we should bring forward in

:11:55. > :12:03.a private members bill something that would outlaw any legislation

:12:04. > :12:06.that is purely gesture politics. That would abolish Fridays

:12:07. > :12:12.altogether if we were to abolish any bills that would just about gesture

:12:13. > :12:16.politics, that would abolish private members bills altogether so that is

:12:17. > :12:26.a debate for another day and I don't want to be side down that particular

:12:27. > :12:30.line today. Amendment 29 is to delete that particular point. This

:12:31. > :12:34.is about saying that the Secretary of State will lay bit for each

:12:35. > :12:40.parliamentary report on the measures to be taken on legislation required

:12:41. > :12:45.to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul convention.

:12:46. > :12:49.Surely it is clear what legislation is required to enable United Kingdom

:12:50. > :12:52.to ratify the Istanbul convention. Why on earth do we need an annual

:12:53. > :12:58.report for the government to tell us what legislation is required to

:12:59. > :13:04.ratify the Istanbul convention? It seems to be... It should be the

:13:05. > :13:07.minister intervening my honourable friend because it is my government

:13:08. > :13:14.'s case that they don't know yet what legislation is required. I am a

:13:15. > :13:18.bit worried that I know your time is going by and you wouldn't want to

:13:19. > :13:26.not hear some of the other speeches. I am sure you are trying to get to

:13:27. > :13:30.the end. You must not be distracted by your honourable friend. I will

:13:31. > :13:33.try not to be distracted too many times and as I think you will

:13:34. > :13:37.appreciate I have been trying to crack on through my amendments.

:13:38. > :13:42.There are 47 new clauses and amendments in this group and they do

:13:43. > :13:45.take some wading through, I have to say. I have been racing through

:13:46. > :13:51.them. I will leave the minister to answer my honourable friend 's point

:13:52. > :13:59.when she comes to speak. Amendment 49 is again page two, clause three,

:14:00. > :14:05.this is one B3. This says that the measures taken, this is about a

:14:06. > :14:09.report, we are still in a report, the measures taken by the government

:14:10. > :14:13.to be compliant with the Istanbul convention, to protect and assist

:14:14. > :14:20.victims of violence against women and domestic file and is. My

:14:21. > :14:27.amendment would say at the end of that, I would dead cert -- insert,

:14:28. > :14:29.produce a breakdown of government spending on victims of violence and

:14:30. > :14:34.mystified and is for both men and women. I don't really see why

:14:35. > :14:38.anybody would want to oppose the government having to produce the

:14:39. > :14:42.breakdown of how much the government is spending on victims of violence

:14:43. > :14:50.and domestic file and is, broken down by men and women. I have to

:14:51. > :14:56.say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that men are nearly twice as likely to be the

:14:57. > :15:01.victim of a violent crime as women. 1.3% of women interviewed for the

:15:02. > :15:08.crime survey reported being victims of violence in 2014/15, compared

:15:09. > :15:11.with 2.4% of men. When it comes to the most serious of cases, according

:15:12. > :15:18.to the crime survey for England Amway is, with enough accounted for

:15:19. > :15:24.36 of recorded homicide victims in 2015/16 when men were 64% of

:15:25. > :15:28.homicide victims, and yet so far the only provisions we have here apply

:15:29. > :15:31.to women, and I am therefore thinking it is important that the

:15:32. > :15:35.government makes clear what provisions they have for the victims

:15:36. > :15:40.of violent crime, whether they be men or women, and I hope the

:15:41. > :15:46.government will agree to publish that information and if not to

:15:47. > :15:54.explain why it objects to it so much. Amendment 50, Mr Deputy

:15:55. > :15:59.Speaker, again page two, clause three, this is the next bit about

:16:00. > :16:02.the report, to show what they are doing to promote international

:16:03. > :16:08.cooperation against these forms of violence. After that I have inserted

:16:09. > :16:12.at the end of all of that that they should also provide the statistics

:16:13. > :16:17.showing international comparisons on the levels of violence against women

:16:18. > :16:21.and men. I spoke earlier, I don't intend to repeat myself, I spoke

:16:22. > :16:22.earlier about the information I have managed to acquire from different

:16:23. > :16:27.ambassadors but again I think if we ambassadors but again I think if we

:16:28. > :16:32.actually asked the government to show what they are doing and then

:16:33. > :16:34.ask them to show what other countries who have ratified the

:16:35. > :16:38.Convention are doing, it gives us a good idea as to how we can compare

:16:39. > :16:41.how we are doing in this country against what other countries are

:16:42. > :16:45.doing and surely that is a meaningful comparison is that we

:16:46. > :16:48.would want to be looking out. At the moment there are no meaningful

:16:49. > :16:51.comparisons that the government can offer us, saying how we are doing

:16:52. > :16:55.compared to what other countries are doing. I do not know why it would be

:16:56. > :17:00.afraid of doing that, surely it would want to make sure it is doing

:17:01. > :17:04.better than other countries and my amendment tabled allowing the

:17:05. > :17:08.opportunity to do that and to highlight its record against other

:17:09. > :17:12.countries, and maybe bring each other up to the highest possible

:17:13. > :17:15.level, to level everybody's standards upwards, rather than than

:17:16. > :17:27.just being done at the lowest possible common denominator.

:17:28. > :17:31.Amendment 51 relates about the report on the measures that the

:17:32. > :17:35.government is taking on providing support and assistance to

:17:36. > :17:39.organisations and law enforcement organisations to adopt an integrated

:17:40. > :17:45.approach to violence against women and domestic and. At the end of that

:17:46. > :17:48.I have added and to include the names of these organisations. I

:17:49. > :17:51.think it is very important, Mr Deputy Speaker that the government

:17:52. > :17:57.should make clear as part of this reporting strategy to say what

:17:58. > :18:01.support and assistance that is giving and which organisations it is

:18:02. > :18:05.giving that support and then we can scrutinise whether or not they are

:18:06. > :18:07.the right organisations that the government are supporting. It may

:18:08. > :18:11.well be that there are other well be that there are other

:18:12. > :18:13.organisations out there, maybe small organisations in local communities

:18:14. > :18:17.that the government may not have come across that we can actually

:18:18. > :18:22.champion and say they are not giving enough money to these organisations,

:18:23. > :18:28.how about giving them a cut of the funding available? I don't really

:18:29. > :18:30.know what would be lost that kind of transparency, delivery which

:18:31. > :18:39.organisations the government were funding. I will give way. Thank you,

:18:40. > :18:42.Mr Deputy Speaker, does my honourable friend see any irony in

:18:43. > :18:51.the fact that whilst he and I have proposed deleting as a result of

:18:52. > :18:54.separate amendments, A, B, C, and day, the government of actually

:18:55. > :18:59.proposed deleting sub-clause A which is the one which is the most

:19:00. > :19:02.substantive one of all of the sub paragraphs to this clause? My

:19:03. > :19:07.honourable friend is right and actually Mr Deputy Speaker, what is

:19:08. > :19:10.happening here, if anybody would bother to notice, is that I am

:19:11. > :19:14.actually strengthening the paragraph A, I am trying to give the

:19:15. > :19:19.government more requirements for reporting what they are doing

:19:20. > :19:23.post-ratification. I will come onto the government amendment a bit later

:19:24. > :19:28.but my honourable friend is writing what he is saying, I am

:19:29. > :19:34.strengthening paragraph EE and making sure government has to give

:19:35. > :19:39.more information but with the SNP 's connivance the government are making

:19:40. > :19:42.sure there will be no reporting post-ratification of the Istanbul

:19:43. > :19:48.convention on any of these issues, any of them! Again they will have to

:19:49. > :19:52.explain themselves on that, but if we are going to ratify this

:19:53. > :19:57.convention we should at least have some post-ratification knowledge of

:19:58. > :20:01.what on earth is happening. Might be helpful if you want to hear it in

:20:02. > :20:04.order to get on that if you got to the end I could get some answers for

:20:05. > :20:11.you. I wouldn't want to distract you from hearing the answer. I shall

:20:12. > :20:16.certainly be leaving plenty of time for the answers. As I say, there are

:20:17. > :20:22.47 new clauses and amendments here and I am going through them as

:20:23. > :20:28.quickly as possible. You are absolutely right, there have been

:20:29. > :20:34.lots of interventions and I will try to resist the temptation to be as

:20:35. > :20:46.generous as I normally am and I will try and resist that temptation for a

:20:47. > :20:50.bit. At least. Amendment 54 is about reports on progress again, it is

:20:51. > :20:54.clause three of the bill. This is about saying that the first annual

:20:55. > :21:05.report should be laid no later than the 1st of November 2017, which is

:21:06. > :21:08.interesting in itself because what the government is leaving is about

:21:09. > :21:12.before ratification and I want to keep in post-ratification reports

:21:13. > :21:15.about the first one should be from Twenty20 onwards, basically as my

:21:16. > :21:22.amendment. They are done from Twenty20 and done every two years

:21:23. > :21:30.forth with. That covers Amendment 53 and 54. Amendment 55 is my final

:21:31. > :21:35.amendment would, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it relates to about when this

:21:36. > :21:41.act should come into being. I am saying in here, we have written here

:21:42. > :21:45.that it comes into force on the day which the act has Royal assent and

:21:46. > :21:49.the government have amended that, but I have actually said it

:21:50. > :21:53.shouldn't come into force until 90% of the signatories have ratified and

:21:54. > :21:58.there has been a proven reduction in violence against women in 75% of the

:21:59. > :22:01.countries who have ratified the convention. That seems to me to be

:22:02. > :22:05.perfectly clear, that we would only want to ratify it if it actually

:22:06. > :22:11.shows that it works. We don't have that evidence at the moment to

:22:12. > :22:15.support that, as I made clear earlier, and I think we ought to any

:22:16. > :22:20.ratify it when we can be confident it is going to work so they are my

:22:21. > :22:23.amendment and I will touch briefly, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the other ones

:22:24. > :22:33.which I can race through fairly quickly, I hope. My honourable

:22:34. > :22:41.friend for Christchurch in new clause 14 and 15 and 16 and 18, I

:22:42. > :22:47.think all of my honourable friend 's new clauses are about the

:22:48. > :22:50.reservations and making sure that the government does not actually

:22:51. > :22:55.apply any of the reservations allowed in them. I explained why I

:22:56. > :23:01.thought the government should apply some reservations, Mr Deputy

:23:02. > :23:10.Speaker. I think that, and certainly I think that is why I would reject

:23:11. > :23:14.new clause 14, 15 and 16. I think my honourable friend, if I might be so

:23:15. > :23:20.bold to say, is best attempt here is on new clause 18 which is the issue

:23:21. > :23:26.about psychological violence and stalking because it is inconceivable

:23:27. > :23:30.that those things wouldn't come with them a criminal sanction. In the UK.

:23:31. > :23:36.In that sense we have nothing to fear from signing up to that. And

:23:37. > :23:41.maybe, it might be his case, and perhaps this might be his argument,

:23:42. > :23:48.that if we were to make sure, make clear that we would sign up to that

:23:49. > :23:50.then we would be quite happy to make sure there was always a criminal

:23:51. > :23:54.sanction it might encourage others to do the same and that maybe his

:23:55. > :23:59.point. Whether that works or not I don't know but I would not be averse

:24:00. > :24:04.to that end if my honourable friend were to push new clause 18 to a vote

:24:05. > :24:11.I would be more sympathetic to that then I would be other ones, if that

:24:12. > :24:16.is helpful to him. As to the government amendments, Mr Speaker,

:24:17. > :24:23.which the SNP have endorsed, let's not forget that. These are quite

:24:24. > :24:26.extraordinary. Quite extraordinary. I am opposed to this convention, I

:24:27. > :24:33.have made that clear, but this cosy deal shows that they don't really

:24:34. > :24:36.care too much about it either. I am going to resist the temptation to

:24:37. > :24:41.give way to my honourable friend from now, Mr Depp to Speaker, as I

:24:42. > :24:50.indicated earlier. Just to show that I do take notice of the chair, as

:24:51. > :24:55.always. They are attempting to fill it this bill without anybody

:24:56. > :24:58.noticing, claiming to be champions of the Istanbul convention, whilst

:24:59. > :25:01.allowing the government off the hook, ever to actually have to

:25:02. > :25:07.implement it. These are all about making sure either that the Istanbul

:25:08. > :25:11.convention is never ratified or is delayed as much as possible in terms

:25:12. > :25:15.of the ratification of why on earth the SNP have agreed to this only

:25:16. > :25:19.they will be able to explain. Perhaps they are so embarrassed

:25:20. > :25:22.about it they won't even be willing to explain it at all but I hope they

:25:23. > :25:29.will have the guts to admit to what they have done, but the government

:25:30. > :25:35.clause one removes the ratification of the Convention on violence

:25:36. > :25:40.against women, which would impose a duty on the government to take all

:25:41. > :25:44.reasonable steps to enable the United Kingdom to become compliant

:25:45. > :25:51.with the Istanbul convention. The government wants to delete that. He

:25:52. > :25:54.wants to leave out clause one when actually the whole point of the bill

:25:55. > :26:00.is clause one of the bill, to cover the ratification to impose a duty on

:26:01. > :26:03.the government to take all reasonable steps as soon as possible

:26:04. > :26:05.that the United Kingdom is compliant on the Istanbul, to run the

:26:06. > :26:09.government have removed that from the bill and the SNP are happy for

:26:10. > :26:13.them to remove it from the bill. Absolutely extraordinary stuff, Mr

:26:14. > :26:18.Deputy Speaker, you literally could not make it up. Actually the

:26:19. > :26:23.honourable gentleman from Coventry South to intervene on the earlier

:26:24. > :26:26.was referring to the Prime Minister 's words in Prime Minister's

:26:27. > :26:31.Questions on Wednesday about this particular point and I have got what

:26:32. > :26:33.the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's Questions and the Prime

:26:34. > :26:37.Minister I thought was very sensible, as usual, and what she

:26:38. > :26:45.said because the Prime Minister said in answer to the leader of the SNP

:26:46. > :26:50.in Parliament, she said, in many ways the measures we have in place

:26:51. > :26:54.in the United Kingdom actually go further than the convention. It

:26:55. > :26:59.makes you wonder what on earth is the point of the UK's ratification

:27:00. > :27:01.of the Convention on the Prime Minister herself says that we are

:27:02. > :27:07.actually going further than the convention itself. It is, as my

:27:08. > :27:12.honourable friend for Christchurch said, gesture politics.

:27:13. > :27:18.She also made clear that the amendments made were mutually agreed

:27:19. > :27:27.with the SNP. She also made that clear, too. Amendment 56 and 57 are

:27:28. > :27:31.both from my honourable friend for Christchurch. I think the SNP are

:27:32. > :27:34.rather embarrassed about the fact that they have been cosying up to

:27:35. > :27:38.the Government on this particular amendment will stop and they're

:27:39. > :27:43.trying to mask anybody knowing anything about it. It's quite

:27:44. > :27:52.extraordinary, really. It's a good job some of us are on the ball. 56

:27:53. > :27:56.and 57 relates to reservations which my honourable friend can talk about

:27:57. > :28:02.himself. The Government amendment to is a game and that I would report.

:28:03. > :28:06.-- government amendment two is a game one that I would support. It

:28:07. > :28:12.leaves out where it says the date by which the Government would expect,

:28:13. > :28:17.and just to provide a timescale within. There's quite a big

:28:18. > :28:20.difference within a day by which something must be done, and a

:28:21. > :28:26.timescale within it is expected to be done. Again, this is more

:28:27. > :28:33.watering down of the provisions of the bill that the SNP have agreed to

:28:34. > :28:37.with the Government. Government amendment three is actually very

:28:38. > :28:40.similar to mine and 24, which I talked about before, about bringing

:28:41. > :28:44.the bill in as soon as reasonably practical. So we can leave that one

:28:45. > :28:46.there because I've already covered that in my amendment. I will be

:28:47. > :28:53.supporting government amendment three. Then we have government

:28:54. > :28:56.amendment four, which is something that my honourable friend for

:28:57. > :29:02.Christchurch was raising as part of a point of order for the start of

:29:03. > :29:08.our proceeding. And so, and I don't really understand this, to be

:29:09. > :29:13.perfectly honest, there must be a reason for this. I hope the Minister

:29:14. > :29:19.will explain what that reason is. What government amendment four does

:29:20. > :29:23.is say that it's not Her Majesty's government that determines that the

:29:24. > :29:28.United Kingdom is compliant with the Istanbul Convention. That is

:29:29. > :29:31.removed, and instead of Her Majesty's government it's the

:29:32. > :29:35.Secretary of State. Surely the Secretary of State is the person

:29:36. > :29:39.within Her Majesty's government responsible for this policy area. So

:29:40. > :29:45.I don't really see what the needed for those to be changed round. I'm

:29:46. > :29:49.hoping that the minister, when she comes to speak, can explain why on

:29:50. > :29:53.government amendment four it's not no longer the Government's

:29:54. > :29:56.responsibility, but just the Secretary of State's responsibility.

:29:57. > :30:05.There must be a point two, but it's passed me by. Government amendment

:30:06. > :30:07.five, it seems to me, is consequential to government

:30:08. > :30:12.amendment four. And so I think we can leave that particular part of

:30:13. > :30:14.that there are. And I believe that government amendment six is

:30:15. > :30:20.consequential to government amendments four and five. And so

:30:21. > :30:28.again we can leave that one there, too. Government amendment seven is

:30:29. > :30:34.actually another very significant watering down of the bill and of the

:30:35. > :30:39.convention. In clause two on page one, line 20, it actually says that

:30:40. > :30:42.the Government shall make a statement to say, and it's very

:30:43. > :30:47.important, this, that the Government shall make a statement to say to the

:30:48. > :30:53.Houses of Parliament that the date by which the convention will be

:30:54. > :30:57.ratified. That is the whole purpose of the bill, presumably, to ratify

:30:58. > :30:59.the Convention. At the moment the Government have a requirement to

:31:00. > :31:04.save the date by which it will be ratified. The Government and SNP are

:31:05. > :31:07.wanting to water that down so they no longer have to say the date by

:31:08. > :31:12.which the convention will be ratified. They only have to say the

:31:13. > :31:16.date that they will expect the convention to be ratified. Of course

:31:17. > :31:21.that can be any date at all, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a very

:31:22. > :31:24.significant watering down of the bill, which hasn't been well

:31:25. > :31:31.publicised too many people until now. I know it's very boring to

:31:32. > :31:34.point out the SNP watering down their own bill and cosying up to a

:31:35. > :31:38.Conservative government to do so. I know they're embarrassed about doing

:31:39. > :31:41.that, but I'm taking a great pleasure in telling the people of

:31:42. > :31:45.Scotland what they actually do when they're down here. Government

:31:46. > :31:54.amendment eight is clause three, page two, line two. Again, it says

:31:55. > :32:01.that this is about the report. It's basically saying that it delete the

:32:02. > :32:05.bits of the report what should be done before ratification. And it

:32:06. > :32:08.basically says that instead of saying each year, it just says that

:32:09. > :32:14.these will be done until ratification. That's basically

:32:15. > :32:20.virtually all of them. Government amendment nine is a consequential

:32:21. > :32:28.amendment to actually firm up the watering down of the bill because it

:32:29. > :32:33.means that it basically says if a report, any alteration in the

:32:34. > :32:37.timescale, it must be set out and the reasons for its alteration. It's

:32:38. > :32:42.just a consequential amendment to the watering down that's been agreed

:32:43. > :32:50.to. Government amendment ten is consequential to eight, as is 11.

:32:51. > :32:56.Government amendment 12 and 13 have again consequential to eight and all

:32:57. > :32:59.of no real consequence. The Government and 14 is very

:33:00. > :33:07.significant again, Mr Deputy Speaker. As per amendment eight.

:33:08. > :33:12.Because here we have government amendment 14, which required that

:33:13. > :33:14.the moment that the Government has an annual report setting out the

:33:15. > :33:20.measures taken by the Government to ensure that the UK is and remains

:33:21. > :33:26.compliant with the convention. More specifically, it includes measures

:33:27. > :33:30.in five areas. To protect women against violence, prosecute and

:33:31. > :33:36.eliminate violence against women and domestic violence, second measures

:33:37. > :33:40.to be taken to contribute to the elimination of discrimination

:33:41. > :33:44.against women, and the formation of equality between women and men and

:33:45. > :33:50.empower women. Third, to protect and assist victims of violence and

:33:51. > :33:54.domestic violence. Fourth, to promote international cooperation.

:33:55. > :34:01.This, to provide a porter assistance to organisations to eliminate

:34:02. > :34:05.violence. Those of the aims of the convention. The Government is

:34:06. > :34:09.actually saying that we're no longer going to report on any of these

:34:10. > :34:15.things we've implemented them. In effect, it's basically saying once

:34:16. > :34:19.if ratified the Istanbul Convention, job done, we don't need to worry

:34:20. > :34:23.about these things any more. We need to worry about what's happening. We

:34:24. > :34:28.don't need to report. The job has been done. I'm afraid it hasn't been

:34:29. > :34:31.done, as we've seen from the reports in other countries. We need to keep

:34:32. > :34:35.on top of these things to make sure that the Government has done what it

:34:36. > :34:38.has said it was going to do. It's quite extraordinary that the

:34:39. > :34:43.Government and the SNP don't want any reporting at all of anything

:34:44. > :34:46.after ratification of the Istanbul convention. Nothing at all. That is

:34:47. > :34:52.quite extraordinary and I hope that the House will test the will of that

:34:53. > :34:56.on whether or not there should be no reporting on anything after

:34:57. > :34:59.ratification. Amendment 60 by my honourable friend for Christchurch

:35:00. > :35:07.is one that I very much support. This basically says that subsection

:35:08. > :35:10.E, that I want to retain the bill, as users, rather than delete, he

:35:11. > :35:14.wants to strengthen it by saying that the Government should also make

:35:15. > :35:18.clear what the costs of the Exchequer are of the measures set

:35:19. > :35:21.out any previous subsection. I think it's quite right that the UK

:35:22. > :35:26.taxpayer knows how much has been spent on these particular measures

:35:27. > :35:31.in bill. That's a matter of transparency, it to me, for the UK

:35:32. > :35:34.taxpayer. Government amendment 15 is yet again another watering down.

:35:35. > :35:40.Instead of the bill coming into effect on the day of Royal assent,

:35:41. > :35:47.it's now one of the two month that will have to pass before it comes in

:35:48. > :35:50.a game. I'm very happy to support it, but people campaigning on this

:35:51. > :36:00.ought to be worried about the motive for this. Finally, Mr Deputy

:36:01. > :36:10.Speaker, in many respects I've saved the until last. Here we go! I've is

:36:11. > :36:15.the best till last. Oh, yes, don't worry, you're going to hear it all

:36:16. > :36:19.its glory. Government amendment 16, and with its 17, the 60's an

:36:20. > :36:28.absolute pearl. I have to say it myself. -- but 16's an absolute

:36:29. > :36:31.polar. Not only has taken an clause one of the bill, which is the whole

:36:32. > :36:36.point of the bill, it's so bad that they've even had to change the title

:36:37. > :36:39.of the bill because the title is no longer applicable to what the

:36:40. > :36:46.Government are prepared to sign himself up to. And with SMP support.

:36:47. > :36:51.-- sign themselves up to with SMP support. The title at the start of

:36:52. > :36:55.the bill says it is a bill to require the United Kingdom to ratify

:36:56. > :36:59.the council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence

:37:00. > :37:03.against women and domestic violence, the Istanbul Convention, and for

:37:04. > :37:08.connected purposes. I think that is what everybody outside of this place

:37:09. > :37:11.thinks that the whole bill is what we are debating today. A bill to

:37:12. > :37:17.require the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul Convention. Not any

:37:18. > :37:20.more. Not any more - the Government and the SNP have caved in on what

:37:21. > :37:27.this whole bill was supposed to be about. Now they've changed that.

:37:28. > :37:32.They're leaving the requirement of the United Kingdom to ratify it and

:37:33. > :37:36.it's so longer in the title of the bill, if the Government and SNP get

:37:37. > :37:41.their way. It would just make provision in connection with the

:37:42. > :37:48.ratification by the United Kingdom. I.e., let's keep this one into the

:37:49. > :37:52.long grass. It doesn't matter, just a few things that need to be done

:37:53. > :37:56.before we actually ratify it. It doesn't any longer require the

:37:57. > :38:02.Government to ratify the Istanbul Convention. It has even removed

:38:03. > :38:09.connected purposes as well. Nothing that might actually help ratify the

:38:10. > :38:15.Istanbul Convention can be included. There we have it, a whole range of

:38:16. > :38:18.amendment. Some of mine, I have, are about transparency. Some are

:38:19. > :38:24.actually to strengthen the measures expected of the bill. Certainly so

:38:25. > :38:26.that people know what has to be reported, and so we can see what's

:38:27. > :38:32.happening in other countries as well. On the other hand, we have the

:38:33. > :38:36.Government amendments, supported by the SNP, watering down the bill, and

:38:37. > :38:41.even removing the requirement to ratify the Istanbul convention. The

:38:42. > :38:44.public outside need to know that they have been conned by people who

:38:45. > :38:48.claim to be supporting this, claimed to be on the campaign group to

:38:49. > :38:52.ratify this, and they have been really sold. At least some of us are

:38:53. > :38:55.honest about the fact that we don't that this convention, and I think

:38:56. > :38:58.that has got to be a better way to operate on this shabby deal that has

:38:59. > :39:03.been done between the Government and the SNP. I hope we can test the will

:39:04. > :39:07.of the House on the weakening of the convention, and we will see how we

:39:08. > :39:12.get on with that, Mr Deputy Speaker. But I beg to move you clause six.

:39:13. > :39:18.Recommendations by grieve you and the commissions of the parties. The

:39:19. > :39:26.question is that new clause 60 read a second time. Thank you very much,

:39:27. > :39:29.Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments in

:39:30. > :39:34.the script with which I believe it would also be useful to consider the

:39:35. > :39:39.related document, the sixth report of the joint committee on human

:39:40. > :39:43.rights, session 2014-15, on violence against women and girls published on

:39:44. > :39:47.February 2015 and also called on the Government to ratify the Istanbul

:39:48. > :39:50.Convention. I am of course delighted that my bill is back before the

:39:51. > :39:53.House for report stage and I'm extremely grateful to colleagues

:39:54. > :39:58.from all sides of the House, from nine parties in this house who

:39:59. > :40:03.supported this bill and especially to those who have given up a very

:40:04. > :40:06.valuable constituency Friday. Particularly those who have been up

:40:07. > :40:10.all night with by-elections. I can see there are quite a few folks who

:40:11. > :40:14.are bleary eyed this morning. Thank you all for being here. However,

:40:15. > :40:19.preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence

:40:20. > :40:22.is something extremely relevant to people in every single constituency

:40:23. > :40:26.represented in this place. And we have a chance today to make a real

:40:27. > :40:30.difference in their lives and in the lives of future generations. In

:40:31. > :40:36.terms of the new clauses and amendments in the group, you may

:40:37. > :40:39.recall that in its second reading, the Government implemented its

:40:40. > :40:44.intention to amend the bill was supporting its intent and print.

:40:45. > :40:47.Although these amendments were not forthcoming at committee stage, we

:40:48. > :40:50.do have them with us this morning and I would like to thank the

:40:51. > :40:53.Minister and her officials for the constructive way they've worked with

:40:54. > :41:00.me and my staff to bring forward amendments to the spill in a way

:41:01. > :41:02.that makes their need -- meets their need for unambiguous and watertight

:41:03. > :41:05.legislation without watering down the substance of the bill. Because

:41:06. > :41:11.grown-up politics is about compromise.

:41:12. > :41:19.Frankly, if there was less grandstanding in this place and more

:41:20. > :41:25.destructive -- constructive discussion I think we would all be

:41:26. > :41:28.much better off. I will address the government amendments in due course,

:41:29. > :41:32.however, as we have now heard ad nauseam this morning there are more

:41:33. > :41:37.amendments before us today and you will all be relieved I do not intend

:41:38. > :41:40.to address the great leg. I plan to keep my remarks relatively concise

:41:41. > :41:44.this morning and to the point and I hope the substance of my comments

:41:45. > :41:47.were more than compensate for any brevity. I do need to respond to

:41:48. > :41:52.some of what we have heard this morning. I am aware that the member

:41:53. > :41:55.opposite enjoys playing the pantomime villain in this very

:41:56. > :41:59.public theatre and a genuinely opposes the principles of the bill

:42:00. > :42:05.but I have 27 where he has gone about tabling wrecking amendments

:42:06. > :42:10.and talking to the map mind-numbing late this morning does nothing to

:42:11. > :42:15.enhance his reputation here or the reputation of our democratic

:42:16. > :42:18.process. The only embarrassment in this house today is the

:42:19. > :42:22.embarrassment of his government and his Prime Minister at the way he has

:42:23. > :42:27.misrepresented their position this morning. He let himself down and he

:42:28. > :42:31.lets down those thousands of people amongst his own constituents who

:42:32. > :42:35.will have experienced horrific sexual and domestic violence. Whose

:42:36. > :42:41.lives have been irreparably blighted as a result. Indeed, yesterday,

:42:42. > :42:44.along with other MPs in this house I received a copy of a letter from

:42:45. > :42:49.more than 130 of his own constituents, women and men who are

:42:50. > :42:54.dismayed by what they term his wilful mess -- misunderstanding and

:42:55. > :42:58.sabotage of the bill. They point out that while this bill is delayed

:42:59. > :43:03.people, mostly women, are being maimed and killed by abusive

:43:04. > :43:08.partners. To see this legislation filibustered is soul destroying for

:43:09. > :43:13.those who really need the protection of such a bill and I am delighted to

:43:14. > :43:16.give way to my honourable friend. I thank my honourable friend for

:43:17. > :43:21.giving way. Around seven women a month or killed in England somewhere

:43:22. > :43:24.is, or wounded, does my honourable friend agree that this needs to be

:43:25. > :43:29.treated with the utmost urgency, as we would with any other source of

:43:30. > :43:34.major depths? The honourable member is absolutely right and what we also

:43:35. > :43:39.need to do is understand the dynamics of control and abuse that

:43:40. > :43:44.feed those very shocking statistics. I will give way. I want to thank the

:43:45. > :43:48.honourable lady forgiving way and I want to congratulate her for

:43:49. > :43:52.bringing forward this really important and very necessary bill

:43:53. > :43:59.and for being able to make such good progress with it. Does she agree

:44:00. > :44:01.with me that it is very important that people have faith in

:44:02. > :44:06.parliamentarians to carry out their monitoring role of this convention

:44:07. > :44:11.once it is implemented, and the actions of the member opposite don't

:44:12. > :44:15.help. I absolutely agree with the honourable lady and scrutiny is

:44:16. > :44:19.something I will come on to speak about in a bit. There are very few

:44:20. > :44:23.issues that unite this house but there is a compelling egg degree of

:44:24. > :44:28.unanimity on the need to ratify the Istanbul convention, on the need to

:44:29. > :44:31.do more to prevent and combat gender-based violence and that is

:44:32. > :44:35.reflected in the cross-party support this bill has attracted and the

:44:36. > :44:38.willingness of members from all parties to work together to achieve

:44:39. > :44:42.the progressive change that people in our communities want to say.

:44:43. > :44:47.However the member for Shipley has done the one favour this morning

:44:48. > :44:51.with his amendments, by giving me an opportunity I might not otherwise

:44:52. > :44:54.have had a report stage to clear up some fairly basic misunderstanding

:44:55. > :44:57.about the Istanbul convention, not least what it actually says and

:44:58. > :45:01.does. I will clear up some fundamental misconceptions about the

:45:02. > :45:05.gender designer Microsoft sexual violence and abuse. The first point

:45:06. > :45:08.to make is that the Istanbul convention itself states very

:45:09. > :45:13.explicitly in article four, clause three, and I quote, that the

:45:14. > :45:17.provisions of this convention by the parties, in particular measures to

:45:18. > :45:22.protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on

:45:23. > :45:26.any ground such as sex, gender, race, colour, language, religion,

:45:27. > :45:31.political or any other opinion, national social origin, association

:45:32. > :45:38.with the national by Jorge, sexual identification, gender, state of

:45:39. > :45:42.health, migrant or refugee status or other states. It is really

:45:43. > :45:47.unambiguously clear that the Istanbul convention provisions apply

:45:48. > :45:49.to women, men, indeed a trance and non-binary people alike and

:45:50. > :45:54.regardless of any other characteristic it is comprehensive

:45:55. > :46:01.and clear. It is very interesting to note that an organisation which

:46:02. > :46:05.advocates specifically for males, trams and non-binary Victim Support

:46:06. > :46:10.non-domestic violence would not in the past claim adherence to a

:46:11. > :46:13.feminist agenda, supports the Istanbul convention once it ratified

:46:14. > :46:16.because it recognises it will help all victims and their chief

:46:17. > :46:21.executive said yesterday that they recognise that the focus on ending

:46:22. > :46:25.violence against women is important because it recognises the global

:46:26. > :46:30.pandemic of injustice. Gender inequality, they say, create a world

:46:31. > :46:34.where power, money and strength, motivators for systemic violence.

:46:35. > :46:40.The CEO of another men's organisation yesterday urged all MPs

:46:41. > :46:43.who care about ending violence and promoting gender equality should

:46:44. > :46:47.vote in favour of the bill today. That is why the member for Shipley

:46:48. > :46:51.is simply wrong to suggest that this can ever be understood as a gender

:46:52. > :46:56.neutral issue and the points that he has made in the past about men being

:46:57. > :47:02.left out, and this is not about them, it can't be taken seriously. I

:47:03. > :47:06.think all of us are agreed that all sexual violence is a serious, or

:47:07. > :47:09.domestic fire and is a serious, regardless of the victim or the

:47:10. > :47:16.perpetrators gender or any other characteristic, end of. The

:47:17. > :47:23.honourable gentleman has had more than enough airtime! Everybody

:47:24. > :47:26.recognises that some men will experience gender violence and

:47:27. > :47:31.domestic file in and sometimes the perpetrator will be female, but in

:47:32. > :47:34.the real world in which we live the people who experience sexual and

:47:35. > :47:39.domestic file is overwhelmingly female. We cannot ignore that. Women

:47:40. > :47:45.are disproportionately subjected to these forms of violence and abuse is

:47:46. > :47:49.on a colossal scale, we can't ignore that reality. The large majority, by

:47:50. > :47:54.no means all, but the majority of perpetrators happen to be men. There

:47:55. > :47:58.is no credible documented source of evidence anywhere in the world that

:47:59. > :48:01.suggests otherwise and we do ourselves a huge disservice if we

:48:02. > :48:08.pretend that this is just another case of the boys against the girls.

:48:09. > :48:13.We are not in primary four. This is a distortion of a terrible systemic

:48:14. > :48:17.abuse of human rights to ignore the profound gender inequalities that

:48:18. > :48:21.drive and compound sexual violence and domestic abuse. I think it is

:48:22. > :48:26.also important to say that some types of sexual violence are

:48:27. > :48:31.becoming more prevalent. Crime in Scotland, for example, is at a 40

:48:32. > :48:35.year low and yet sexual offences are rising. This could be due to more

:48:36. > :48:39.people reporting what has happened to them, and certainly in the wake

:48:40. > :48:45.of the exposure of the Southall review, we know there has been a

:48:46. > :48:49.spike in reporting of historic incidents but I fear that it is also

:48:50. > :48:56.to do with a genuine increase in new types of gender-based violence, that

:48:57. > :49:04.are partly facilitated by this very saturated world we live in of

:49:05. > :49:12.violent sexual imagery, the so-called revenge poured on which

:49:13. > :49:17.was not possible until the advent of smartphones, and things like

:49:18. > :49:22.so-called date rape drugs being available, these when problems 20 or

:49:23. > :49:28.30 years ago, but they have become very prevalent problems now and they

:49:29. > :49:32.are driving an increase in sexual assault in particular. Women's

:49:33. > :49:36.inequality is still a key feature of every society in the world and that

:49:37. > :49:41.is what is really underpinning gender-based violence. I am happy to

:49:42. > :49:45.give way. I think the honourable member who is making an excellent

:49:46. > :49:49.speech and I congratulate her on her honourable work on this -- ongoing

:49:50. > :49:53.work on this. She makes an important point, would she agreed with me that

:49:54. > :49:59.particularly on a day when we come into this chamber with the horror of

:50:00. > :50:05.the story of Helen Bailey being in the papers today, with her partner

:50:06. > :50:07.jailed for 34 years for her murder, highlights how domestic file and

:50:08. > :50:19.sound violence against women is a crime that hits... Despite it's not

:50:20. > :50:23.relevant to age, background, it is a universal crime, and not just that,

:50:24. > :50:26.to have a way in which we raise awareness amongst young people will

:50:27. > :50:30.be the very best gift that we can give them in terms of prevention,

:50:31. > :50:34.and to support this today would be global Britain in action. The

:50:35. > :50:39.honourable lady makes a series of very salient points in that

:50:40. > :50:44.intervention. Our condolences go to the friends and family of Helen

:50:45. > :50:49.Bailey, whose dreadful murder, I think, made us all pause for thought

:50:50. > :50:58.and breath that this really truly horrific crime. I'm glad that her

:50:59. > :51:01.killer has been brought to justice. The honourable lady also anticipated

:51:02. > :51:05.the points that I was just about to come on to make, which is indeed the

:51:06. > :51:09.universality of gender-based violence. I talked quite a lot at

:51:10. > :51:13.second reading about the differential experiences of

:51:14. > :51:16.gender-based violence and I think it explaining why I won't be opposing

:51:17. > :51:20.the amendments that have already been moved this morning, I will

:51:21. > :51:24.reiterate the points I made them. It is a universal crime and it affects

:51:25. > :51:29.women right across the spectrum but we know that low income women,

:51:30. > :51:31.disabled women, women under 30, are more likely to experience

:51:32. > :51:35.gender-based violence than others. We know that women from some

:51:36. > :51:39.cultural and ethnic minorities or at a greater risk of specific

:51:40. > :51:40.manifestations of violence such as FGM or forced marriage. Sexual

:51:41. > :52:11.violence can happen to any of us, it affects people of all

:52:12. > :52:13.economic and social backgrounds and ages but there are nevertheless deep

:52:14. > :52:15.structural social inequalities reflected in our likelihood of

:52:16. > :52:17.experiencing sexual and domestic file is an gender inequality is

:52:18. > :52:20.underpinning and confounding at all. We are serious about ending this

:52:21. > :52:22.forms of abuse we have to understand the manifestations and then the

:52:23. > :52:24.denial, the blind spot about the far reaching effect of wider gender

:52:25. > :52:27.inequality. Women may hav e secured equality before the law but we are

:52:28. > :52:29.nowhere near equality in practice, we just need to look around

:52:30. > :52:31.Parliament listened to the amount of airtime that people get in

:52:32. > :52:33.Parliament, including today, and until we do women will continue to

:52:34. > :52:36.face life-threatening and life changing abuse over the course of

:52:37. > :52:38.equality in practice, we just need to look around Parliament on this

:52:39. > :52:40.and the amount of airtime that people get in Parliament, including

:52:41. > :52:42.today, and until we do women will continue to face life-threatening

:52:43. > :52:45.and life changing abuse over the course of their principles and the

:52:46. > :52:50.intention and the integrity and spirit of the bill I do now want to

:52:51. > :52:53.turn to the amendments tabled by the Minister, all of which I am willing

:52:54. > :52:55.to accept and I am very grateful for the way in which the government in

:52:56. > :52:57.proposing some significant changes has worked to retain the principles

:52:58. > :53:00.and the intention and the integrity and spirit of the we're at our best

:53:01. > :53:02.as legislators will use those areas where there is already a large

:53:03. > :53:05.degree of common ground and consensus to find compromises and

:53:06. > :53:09.push forward together that we are able to do and where we are able to

:53:10. > :53:12.government was a black committee stage to outline its intentions in

:53:13. > :53:17.detail and indicate that the areas in which it plans to amend the bill

:53:18. > :53:19.at report stage. Government amendment one removes clause one

:53:20. > :53:21.from the face of the although the government amendments when tabled a

:53:22. > :53:23.time for committee stage the government was a black committee

:53:24. > :53:26.stage to outline its intentions in detail and indicate that the areas

:53:27. > :53:28.in which it plans to amend the bill at report stage. Government

:53:29. > :53:31.amendment one removes clause one from the face of and is undoubtedly

:53:32. > :53:33.the amendment about which I still have reservations. However I with

:53:34. > :53:37.all due haste to make the legislative changes that they need

:53:38. > :53:41.to make in order to bring the UK into compliance with the Istanbul to

:53:42. > :53:43.take on good faith the government 's commitment that they will move

:53:44. > :53:46.forward with all due haste to make the legislative changes that they

:53:47. > :53:51.need to make in order to bring the UK into compliance with the Istanbul

:53:52. > :53:55.urge anyone to go and speak to the women on the Tory benches, including

:53:56. > :54:05.those who have courageously spoken about their own experience of

:54:06. > :54:10.domestic abuse. All of us are affected and I believe genuinely

:54:11. > :54:12.that there is a shared commitment, including a commitment, personal

:54:13. > :54:19.commitment from the Prime Minister. I will give way. I appreciate you

:54:20. > :54:21.giving way and I appreciate how you have acknowledged the cross-party

:54:22. > :54:26.support and everything you have done in the chamber and outside the

:54:27. > :54:30.chamber and while you have the full backing of the female Conservative

:54:31. > :54:37.backbenchers, I also applaud my male colleagues who are also behind you.

:54:38. > :54:43.I am grateful for that intervention. I said at second reading that

:54:44. > :54:48.actions speak louder than words. We have had a lot of warm words and

:54:49. > :54:52.verbal commitments in principle to this convention to nearly five years

:54:53. > :54:56.now but the process had clearly stalled. I am delighted that a few

:54:57. > :55:01.days ago ahead of this debate we saw the Prime Minister announced new

:55:02. > :55:05.legislation on domestic abuse and express her support for this bill. I

:55:06. > :55:08.hope today the Minister will be able to say more about the proposed

:55:09. > :55:14.legislation and confirm whether the government intends to use this

:55:15. > :55:16.legislation to address the outstanding issues, particularly

:55:17. > :55:21.relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction that have been the last

:55:22. > :55:32.main barrier to ratification of the convention. Perhaps the Prime

:55:33. > :55:34.Minister can also say whether there were plans to strengthen compliance

:55:35. > :55:37.with the convention in areas where we all know there is massive room

:55:38. > :55:40.for improvement, such as in relation to the issue of coercive control, or

:55:41. > :55:42.in relation to the way which the family courts and their equivalents

:55:43. > :55:43.working all of our jurisdictions and set out how discussions are

:55:44. > :55:47.progressing the devolved administrations who support the

:55:48. > :55:51.Istanbul convention but also have competencies and steps to take

:55:52. > :55:54.towards ratification in these areas. I do think the prime ministers

:55:55. > :55:58.personal oversight of this process and her personal commitment is

:55:59. > :56:01.really important because that is the one way to ensure the crucial issues

:56:02. > :56:06.like extraterritorial jurisdiction that will cut across more than one

:56:07. > :56:10.government department won't slip through the cracks. It has been too

:56:11. > :56:14.easy for sexual violence and domestic abuse to fall off the to-do

:56:15. > :56:20.list and I think all of us in this place will be very familiar with the

:56:21. > :56:25.tired old phrase, when a parliamentary time allows. It is

:56:26. > :56:30.code around here for, yeah, well, whenever, maybe never. It has been

:56:31. > :56:33.trotted out too often in relation to the Istanbul convention. The prime

:56:34. > :56:37.aim of my bill has been to shift that logjam and get the ratification

:56:38. > :56:40.process back on track and the prime ministers intervention is a very

:56:41. > :56:45.welcome signal that that is now happening. We should all applaud

:56:46. > :56:48.that progress and continue to work together to ensure that it becomes a

:56:49. > :56:52.vehicle for real meaningful improvement for people affected by

:56:53. > :56:58.gender-based violence and not just a token effort.

:56:59. > :57:03.I hope the Minister will be able to give assurances to date that the

:57:04. > :57:07.Government will continue to peddle as hard as they can understand give

:57:08. > :57:11.up the momentum. I appreciate that the machinery of Government can

:57:12. > :57:18.sometimes take time to turn. The other important change to highlight

:57:19. > :57:21.the latest to Government amendment seven - 13 which relates to those

:57:22. > :57:26.parts of the bill is concerned with reporting back to Parliament as we

:57:27. > :57:29.progress towards ratification, once the treaty is ratified the

:57:30. > :57:33.Convention itself commits the UK dues of central reporting

:57:34. > :57:39.requirements. And a process of ongoing reporting. These

:57:40. > :57:49.requirements are arguably the most useful mechanism in the treaty. They

:57:50. > :57:54.enable us to measure progress that enable us to learn from other people

:57:55. > :58:01.and other people to learn from us. They will enable a more coherent, it

:58:02. > :58:04.can strategic approach on preventing and combating gender-based violence

:58:05. > :58:08.across the UK and can be used as a vehicle for ongoing improvements in

:58:09. > :58:10.policy and practice. I know the Government was concerned that the

:58:11. > :58:17.reporting requirements placed ratification included in the bill

:58:18. > :58:20.might duplicate that my intention is not to create unnecessary extra

:58:21. > :58:25.work. The intent has to improve parliamentary scrutiny and

:58:26. > :58:28.accountability but we all make only too well how easy it is the reports

:58:29. > :58:37.that are simply filed in the library to become dusty and then when read

:58:38. > :58:40.them again. We pay heed to them and use them to inform future

:58:41. > :58:44.improvements in policy and services. A new car will not get you anywhere

:58:45. > :58:50.if you leave it parked in the garage. And the vehicle of the

:58:51. > :58:56.Istanbul convention will only help us if we use it. That is why at

:58:57. > :58:59.committee stage I, and the member for Rotherham, pressed the Minister

:59:00. > :59:03.for a commitment that the Government will not only lay their report to

:59:04. > :59:07.the Council of Europe before this house, but that ministers will come

:59:08. > :59:10.to the dispatch box and make an annual oral statement on that

:59:11. > :59:13.reporting Government time. So that we can better do other job of

:59:14. > :59:23.Parliamentary scrutiny and prevent this issue once again falling out of

:59:24. > :59:25.sight, out of mind. I very much hope that the Minister will reiterate

:59:26. > :59:28.that commitment today, particularly for those who did not hear it the

:59:29. > :59:33.first time round. I hope members will support the bill in an amended

:59:34. > :59:43.form and oppose those amendments that are simply intended to scupper

:59:44. > :59:49.out this vital piece of legislation. Thank you Mr Speaker. And I thought

:59:50. > :59:56.that it may assist the house if I intervene at this stage of the

:59:57. > :00:01.debate to explain Government men in -- amendments and to address valid

:00:02. > :00:06.concerns raised by my honourable friend. I very much welcome the next

:00:07. > :00:15.stage of this bill. And the opportunity to continue working with

:00:16. > :00:20.the honourable member. As the Prime Minister made absolutely clear at

:00:21. > :00:24.Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, the honourable member's

:00:25. > :00:28.commitment to ensuring the UK ratifies the Istanbul convention is

:00:29. > :00:36.one which this Government showers. We signed the convention in 2012 to

:00:37. > :00:42.signal our aim that everyone, men and women, should live a life free

:00:43. > :00:47.from violence. Now the convention's key priorities already aligned with

:00:48. > :00:51.those of the UK. To continue increasing reporting, prosecutions

:00:52. > :00:57.and convictions, and ultimately to prevent these crimes from happening

:00:58. > :01:02.in the first place. The UK already complies goes further than the

:01:03. > :01:07.Convention requires. This includes delivering against its practical

:01:08. > :01:10.requirement, such as ensuring provision of helplines, referral

:01:11. > :01:15.centres and appropriate shelters for victims. As well as meeting its

:01:16. > :01:19.requirement to ensure that we have robust legislation in place.

:01:20. > :01:25.However, in order to be fully compliant with the convention, there

:01:26. > :01:30.remains one outstanding issue in relation to extraterritorial

:01:31. > :01:37.jurisdiction. And we do need to address that. The UK already

:01:38. > :01:42.exercises ET J over a number of serious offences including forced

:01:43. > :01:45.marriage, e-mail genital mutilation and sexual offences against

:01:46. > :01:51.children. -- female genital mutilation. There is some violence

:01:52. > :01:56.against women and girls offences for which we do not yet have ET J and we

:01:57. > :01:59.require primary legislation. I'm working closely with my colleagues

:02:00. > :02:05.in the Ministry of Justice to progress with this issue and as the

:02:06. > :02:09.prime Minster has signalled, we will explore all options for bringing the

:02:10. > :02:14.necessary legislation forward. At committee stage, I made it clear

:02:15. > :02:20.that the Government fully supports the principles which underpinned the

:02:21. > :02:24.honourable member for Buchan is seeking to ensure that we deliver on

:02:25. > :02:28.our commitment to ratify the Convention and are thoroughly

:02:29. > :02:31.commend that aim. However, as they indicated at committee, some

:02:32. > :02:38.amendments are necessary to ensure that the bill achieves the same. And

:02:39. > :02:42.I will now set out the rationale behind these. Amendment one removes

:02:43. > :02:48.clause one. But I want to make it absolutely clear, we fully support

:02:49. > :02:52.the motivation behind this clause which requires the Government to

:02:53. > :02:58.take all reasonable steps necessary to ratify the convention. As soon as

:02:59. > :03:05.is reasonably practicable. However, as I've set out before, we need both

:03:06. > :03:09.the devolved administrations to legislate to introduce ET J before

:03:10. > :03:13.we can ratify the convention. Now, as members will appreciate, this

:03:14. > :03:20.means that there is a danger this clause could be interpreted as

:03:21. > :03:23.imposing a duty on the Government to legislate and indeed potentially, as

:03:24. > :03:28.pre-empting the will of Parliament. But I would like to assure members

:03:29. > :03:32.that we support the intention behind this clause and the requirements

:03:33. > :03:37.introduced in the remainder of this bill will ensure we deliver what it

:03:38. > :03:43.seeks to do. I want to be absolutely clear that seeking to remove this

:03:44. > :03:47.clause in no way changes our absolute commitment to ratifying the

:03:48. > :03:50.convention. Now, clause two would require the Government to lay

:03:51. > :03:58.overboard setting up next at is to be taken to enable the UK to ratify

:03:59. > :04:03.and expect a date for which... For this within four weeks. As outlined

:04:04. > :04:09.at committee stage, we fully support the motivation behind this clause.

:04:10. > :04:13.However, we do need to legislate on ET J before ratifying and we do need

:04:14. > :04:22.to ensure appropriate flexibility for the timing within which we will

:04:23. > :04:24.need to lay this report. This flexibility is additionally

:04:25. > :04:31.necessary, given that both Northern Ireland and Scotland will also need

:04:32. > :04:37.to legislate on ET J. So amendment to replace as the words date by with

:04:38. > :04:44.timescale within and amendment three replaces the four weeks' time

:04:45. > :04:49.framework with as soon as reasonably practical, after this act comes into

:04:50. > :04:54.force. Clause three would require the Government to lay annual reports

:04:55. > :04:58.on the measures taken to ensure that the UK remains compliant with the

:04:59. > :05:03.convention post gratification. As with other Council of Europe

:05:04. > :05:09.treaties, once the UK has ratified this convention, we will be required

:05:10. > :05:13.to submit regular reports to the Council of Europe on compliance.

:05:14. > :05:18.Those reports will include detail on the policy and strategies in place

:05:19. > :05:25.to tackle, the role of civil society organisations in particular women's

:05:26. > :05:28.non-governmental organisations. And date on prosecutions and

:05:29. > :05:35.convictions. These reports will then be scrutinised by the Independent

:05:36. > :05:38.expert body responsible for monitoring implementation of the

:05:39. > :05:45.convention. Now based on the information received, they will then

:05:46. > :05:51.prepare a final public report with recommendations. In addition, a

:05:52. > :05:55.selected panel of members may visit the UK to carry out further

:05:56. > :06:01.assessment of the arrangements in place. And I would like to confirm

:06:02. > :06:06.that once we have ratified the convention there will be additional

:06:07. > :06:12.members and it will be possible for UK to have representatives. As you

:06:13. > :06:17.will appreciate, we want to avoid to be getting our existing reporting

:06:18. > :06:23.requirements. Amendment 14 therefore removes this paragraph of clause

:06:24. > :06:28.three one. However, I hope members are reassured to hear that after we

:06:29. > :06:31.ratified, there will be rigorous oversight to ensure we continue to

:06:32. > :06:37.remain compliant with all the measures in the convention. Clause

:06:38. > :06:46.42 provides that the provisions within the Bill come into force the

:06:47. > :06:49.day after Royal assent. Amendment 15 reflects the usual two-month

:06:50. > :06:53.convention for any bill receiving Royal assent. But I would like to

:06:54. > :06:59.also assure members that this will not affect the timescale for any of

:07:00. > :07:07.the measures proposed in this bill. Now the remaining amendments, 47,

:07:08. > :07:11.and 16 and 17 are consequential on the Government's amendments and

:07:12. > :07:20.technical to ensure that the bill affects usual drafting conventions.

:07:21. > :07:29.I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In respect of the

:07:30. > :07:32.amendment 16, the note says that this amendment is consequential on

:07:33. > :07:39.amendment seven. Could the Minister please explain in what way is the

:07:40. > :07:44.amendment possibly in anyway consequential on amendment seven?

:07:45. > :07:49.It is related to the fact that we have absolutely already accepted

:07:50. > :07:55.everything that is within the convention. It is just a matter of

:07:56. > :08:01.verification and everything has been set out very clearly in terms of the

:08:02. > :08:06.details of what it is that this house has agreed to. There is

:08:07. > :08:10.cross-party, cross country support for every aspect of the convention.

:08:11. > :08:16.So Mr Speaker, what I would really like to emphasise... I've made my

:08:17. > :08:20.point very clearly. I really do want to respect the wishes of the

:08:21. > :08:26.speaker. He's made it very clear to everyone that he's very keen to make

:08:27. > :08:30.sure on today as an days that backbenchers have as much time as

:08:31. > :08:36.necessary to make their cases and I have very thoroughly addressed the

:08:37. > :08:41.issues raised in the amendments by colleagues. So what I will do is

:08:42. > :08:44.press on in the time that I have available and I really want to

:08:45. > :08:49.emphasise that ending violence against women and girls is a top

:08:50. > :08:53.priority for this Government. And since publishing the original

:08:54. > :08:58.quarter rent violence against women and girls strategy in 2010 we have

:08:59. > :09:00.made great strides. In the last four years we have strengthened the

:09:01. > :09:06.legislative framework and introduced a range of new measures including

:09:07. > :09:14.new offences on a domestic abuse, forced marriage and stroking. FGM

:09:15. > :09:16.protection orders and a range of guidance and support for

:09:17. > :09:21.professionals. But we know that there's more to do. And I want to

:09:22. > :09:25.assure the house that we remain committed to drive forward at a pace

:09:26. > :09:30.work to tackle violence against women and girls. That is why we

:09:31. > :09:36.recently announced the tackling child sexual exploitation progress

:09:37. > :09:39.report supported by ?40 million packages of measures to protect

:09:40. > :09:43.children and young people from sexual abuse exploitation and

:09:44. > :09:48.trafficking. And to crack down on offenders. Last week, the Prime

:09:49. > :09:53.Minister announced plans for a major new programme of work to transform

:09:54. > :09:57.the way we think about and tackle domestic abuse. This is being led by

:09:58. > :10:02.the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary. And we will look at all

:10:03. > :10:06.legislative and non-legislative options for improving support for

:10:07. > :10:12.victims, especially in terms of how the law and legal procedures

:10:13. > :10:16.currently work. It will work towards bringing forward a domestic violence

:10:17. > :10:21.and abuse act and the measures that come out of this work will raise

:10:22. > :10:25.public awareness of the problem as well encourage victims to report

:10:26. > :10:30.their abusers and see them brought to justice. And the ?15 million Home

:10:31. > :10:36.Office transformation fund is currently open for bids to further

:10:37. > :10:40.support local areas in promoting and embedding best practice. I would

:10:41. > :10:44.like to turn my attention to the issues raised by the other

:10:45. > :10:49.amendments in this group. My honourable friend the member for

:10:50. > :10:54.Shipley spoken about the importance of recognising that men and boys can

:10:55. > :10:59.also be victims of these crimes, both at second reading and at this

:11:00. > :11:02.bill and on many other parliamentary occasions. I would like to make it

:11:03. > :11:09.clear that this Government recognises, as the convention does,

:11:10. > :11:13.that men and boys can be victims of these crimes and they too deserve

:11:14. > :11:17.support and protection. This is why, for example, the Home Office funds

:11:18. > :11:22.the men's advised by which provide support to male victims of domestic

:11:23. > :11:29.violence as well as providing information and support to LGBTQ

:11:30. > :11:33.community members who may be affected by violence and abuse. I

:11:34. > :11:37.want the clear that the UK's signing of the convention is both

:11:38. > :11:44.cross-party and cross UK support. We signed up to the convention in 2012

:11:45. > :11:47.and we stand by our commitment to delivering against everything it

:11:48. > :11:53.requires. All acts of gender-based violence needs to be tackled.

:11:54. > :11:54.However, we cannot ignore the fact that women are disproportionately

:11:55. > :12:07.affected by these crimes. Women are around twice as likely to

:12:08. > :12:15.experience domestic abuse since the age of 16 than men. 19.9% of women,

:12:16. > :12:19.compared to 3.6% of men have experienced sexual assault since the

:12:20. > :12:23.age of 16. Furthermore the data shows that women are much more

:12:24. > :12:27.likely than men to have been victims of high risk or severe domestic

:12:28. > :12:34.abuse. This is clearly demonstrated through a greater number of cases

:12:35. > :12:37.going to multi-agency risk assessment conferences and more

:12:38. > :12:42.victims accessing an independent domestic file and adviser who deal

:12:43. > :12:48.with the most severe cases. More than 95% of these victims are

:12:49. > :12:55.female. The Istanbul convention seeks to address this by promoting

:12:56. > :12:59.international corporation. It is the first pan-European, legally binding

:13:00. > :13:02.instrument that provides a comprehensive set of standards to

:13:03. > :13:08.prevent and combat violence against women. In terms of scope it is the

:13:09. > :13:12.most far reaching international treaty to tackle these violations of

:13:13. > :13:16.human rights and promote greater equality between women and men. It

:13:17. > :13:21.is therefore in the interest of the UK that we further coordinate our

:13:22. > :13:26.efforts internationally to eliminate all forms of violence against women

:13:27. > :13:30.and girls, both home and abroad. Whilst I understand my honourable

:13:31. > :13:37.friend is concern that we ensure measures we take to address for do

:13:38. > :13:41.not indiscriminately discriminate against men and boys. I must stress

:13:42. > :13:45.that this bill, which is focused on progress towards ratifying a

:13:46. > :13:51.convention, we have already signed up to, and it simply does not do

:13:52. > :13:57.that. I also want to reassure my honourable friend in the house that

:13:58. > :14:01.once we are compliant, and before we ratify, we are required by the

:14:02. > :14:06.constitutional and reform and governments act of 2010 to lay the

:14:07. > :14:11.text of the Convention and all accompanying explorer memorandum

:14:12. > :14:15.before this house to scrutinise. I hope, therefore, that having gone

:14:16. > :14:19.through this explanation that the honourable gentleman for Shipley, I

:14:20. > :14:25.may appreciate that I am being rather optimistic in this hope, will

:14:26. > :14:28.seek to withdraw his amendments because I think there is

:14:29. > :14:38.overwhelming support in this house today, across the country, that this

:14:39. > :14:44.bill must be progress. Have the honourable lady concludes her

:14:45. > :14:48.speech? She has. I am going to be incredibly brief because we have

:14:49. > :14:52.taken years to get to this point and I do not want to slow it down any

:14:53. > :14:58.further. I must start by congratulating the honourable member

:14:59. > :15:02.for her hard work, both her and her team, in ensuring her Private

:15:03. > :15:06.members Bill have made it this far. I know the links that honourable

:15:07. > :15:10.member has gone to so that we can be here today and I congratulate you

:15:11. > :15:14.for it. The convention provides a step change in the way that we all,

:15:15. > :15:17.central government, local authorities, charities, women

:15:18. > :15:22.services and even individuals work to prevent violence against women

:15:23. > :15:25.and girls. I will give way. I am very grateful to my honourable

:15:26. > :15:29.friend for giving way and indeed I want to congratulate her as well for

:15:30. > :15:36.the work she has done to support this bill. Does she agree with me

:15:37. > :15:38.that it is very important that we get multi-agency and coordinated

:15:39. > :15:43.approach to tackling violence against women and girls that the

:15:44. > :15:48.Istanbul convention requires and will she work with MPs across the

:15:49. > :15:51.house to check that this integrated approach and support services are

:15:52. > :15:55.available throughout the country because they are absent in some

:15:56. > :15:59.areas are present. My honourable friend raises a very interesting

:16:00. > :16:05.point. The good thing about this bill is that it does work and

:16:06. > :16:09.encourage everyone to work together, both in preventing the crime but

:16:10. > :16:11.also tackling the perpetrators and providing the support but the

:16:12. > :16:16.honourable member is absolutely right, it is a patchwork across the

:16:17. > :16:19.country and this legislation will only go so far, and what we need to

:16:20. > :16:22.be seeing your scrutiny on the ground in our own areas to make sure

:16:23. > :16:27.that everybody gets the service that they deserve. The successful passage

:16:28. > :16:30.of this bill is hugely significant. The government have given a

:16:31. > :16:34.commitment to ratify the convention but with due respect a commitment on

:16:35. > :16:40.the statute book will always count for more. Turning to the government

:16:41. > :16:45.amendments, I would like to say on record how grateful I am to the

:16:46. > :16:47.honourable member for her endorsement of this bill and you

:16:48. > :16:52.have worked in a truly collaborative way for the benefit of all women,

:16:53. > :16:57.and I am grateful for that. I have heard your speech and I understand

:16:58. > :17:00.your reasons and where you are bringing forward the amendments and

:17:01. > :17:02.I am grateful that you have recommitted today that the

:17:03. > :17:07.government is fully intent on ratifying the convention and as such

:17:08. > :17:09.we support all of how amendments but I want to push the Minister on two

:17:10. > :17:15.issues before I sit down. Firstly the government announced last week

:17:16. > :17:18.plans for work leading towards the domestic violence and abuse act,

:17:19. > :17:22.which I fully welcome, could I push the minister a little on the detail?

:17:23. > :17:27.Can the Minister confirm if this bill will contain the primary

:17:28. > :17:29.legislative measures necessary to extend the extraterritorial

:17:30. > :17:34.jurisdiction to the remaining violence against women and girls

:17:35. > :17:36.offences. If so, what is the government 's timetable for this

:17:37. > :17:41.Bill? Secondly I have repeatedly asked the government to make

:17:42. > :17:45.assurances about the continued grant funding for the revenge porn

:17:46. > :17:51.helpline which ends shortly. Since it opened in 2015 it has received

:17:52. > :17:53.over 5000 calls, relating to over 1200 individual cases. The only

:17:54. > :17:57.answer I have received so far from the government is that a decision on

:17:58. > :18:01.funding will be made later in the year. Can the Minister tell us

:18:02. > :18:05.exactly when this will be. I have worked closely with too many

:18:06. > :18:10.survivors of domestic file and save the time I have served as the MP for

:18:11. > :18:14.Rotherham. These brave women show so much courage just by showing their

:18:15. > :18:19.stories. We owe it to them, at the very least, to give clear and

:18:20. > :18:22.committed action to prevent violence against women and girls and, Mr

:18:23. > :18:31.Speaker, this bill goes a long way towards achieving that. This is an

:18:32. > :18:35.extraordinary occasion because we are discussing a bill with a long

:18:36. > :18:41.title that was put down on the 29th of June last year and it was to

:18:42. > :18:48.require the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul convention. We have

:18:49. > :18:53.just heard the promoter of the bill explain why she now wishes that long

:18:54. > :18:57.title to effectively be to not require the United Kingdom to ratify

:18:58. > :19:01.the Istanbul convention. I congratulate the honourable lady for

:19:02. > :19:11.the charming way in which she has been able to explain a complete

:19:12. > :19:16.about turn in relation to her approach to this important subject.

:19:17. > :19:20.My honourable friend the Minister has spelt out all the wonderfully

:19:21. > :19:24.effective and good measures which the government has already brought

:19:25. > :19:29.forward to try and address these really serious issues of violence

:19:30. > :19:32.against women, and domestic violence, and I commend her and the

:19:33. > :19:36.government on the work that it has already done and the future work

:19:37. > :19:43.that it is going to do but my honourable friend hasn't, in her

:19:44. > :19:47.remarks, addressed my questions which are implicit in the amendments

:19:48. > :19:51.I have got down, as to whether or not, when the government ratifies

:19:52. > :19:57.this convention, it will do so with any reservations, or not? We haven't

:19:58. > :19:59.had an answer on that and I would be grateful if my honourable friend

:20:00. > :20:03.could intervene to give me an assurance that when there is this

:20:04. > :20:08.ratification it will be without any reservations. I am happy to give

:20:09. > :20:13.way. I think I may be positioned very very clear that we have already

:20:14. > :20:20.signed the convention, so all we are looking now to do is to ratify the

:20:21. > :20:24.convention. Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect my honourable

:20:25. > :20:28.friend, that is not an answer to the question because the question is,

:20:29. > :20:33.when the government ratifies the convention, will it do so with or

:20:34. > :20:38.without reservations? That is the question. Will, when the government

:20:39. > :20:42.ratifies the convention, will it do so with or without reservations?

:20:43. > :20:48.Will my honourable friend respond to that point? I appreciate the

:20:49. > :20:56.opportunity for further clarification, we have signed the

:20:57. > :21:01.convention without any reservations. Again, signing the convention, under

:21:02. > :21:06.the rules of the convention, Mr Speaker, at the time of signature,

:21:07. > :21:10.that is not the time when the reservations are putting, the time V

:21:11. > :21:13.-- reservations are putting is the time of ratification but I will take

:21:14. > :21:17.that as a commitment from a honourable friend that when it comes

:21:18. > :21:24.ratification there won't be any reservations. I will give way. The

:21:25. > :21:31.Minister, for the benefit of the house, the Minister asked if I would

:21:32. > :21:34.be minded to withdraw my amendments before the house and I would just

:21:35. > :21:38.like to make it clear through my honourable friend that I will be

:21:39. > :21:46.very happy to withdraw my amendments to the bill, I won't be pushing any

:21:47. > :21:50.of my amendments to a vote. I am glad that my honourable friend has

:21:51. > :21:57.been able to be satisfied by our honourable friend, the minister,

:21:58. > :22:01.response. One of the reasons that I have been interested in the subject

:22:02. > :22:05.for a long time is because I was present at the standing committee of

:22:06. > :22:10.the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe when this

:22:11. > :22:18.convention was first discussed. And at that stage I remember vividly the

:22:19. > :22:23.representations that were made to myself and I think to my then

:22:24. > :22:26.honourable friend the member who represented North Dorset, explaining

:22:27. > :22:31.that the British government, the United Kingdom government, really

:22:32. > :22:35.wanted the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe to pass an

:22:36. > :22:46.amendment to the draft convention, as it now -- as it then was, to

:22:47. > :22:49.enable a signature party to the convention to have a reservation in

:22:50. > :22:57.respect of extra territorial jurisdiction. The Foreign Office

:22:58. > :23:03.representative who came and lobbied us in Paris on that occasion,

:23:04. > :23:06.unfortunately was only half an hour before the decisions were going to

:23:07. > :23:10.be taken, and he was expecting us to be able to persuade everybody to

:23:11. > :23:14.accept an amendment from the United Kingdom at that very short notice

:23:15. > :23:16.but I remember then that the United Kingdom government through its

:23:17. > :23:23.Foreign Office representative was very concerned about the

:23:24. > :23:29.extraterritorial application of this convention and that is why they

:23:30. > :23:33.wanted to allow a participant party to have a reservation in relation to

:23:34. > :23:39.that. In the end it went through without that power being granted. It

:23:40. > :23:42.is against that background, Mr Speaker, but I think everybody who

:23:43. > :23:46.is suspicious about the length of time it has taken for the government

:23:47. > :23:52.to get its act together on this issue needs to bear in mind, that

:23:53. > :23:57.background. The government at that stage, in 2011, on the basis of the

:23:58. > :23:59.convention which had been negotiated by the Labour government, the

:24:00. > :24:03.previous Labour government, the government was concerned about this

:24:04. > :24:11.issue of extraterritorial application. We have not heard even

:24:12. > :24:16.at this very late stage anything from the government precisely about

:24:17. > :24:23.what measures need to be brought in in order to satisfy those

:24:24. > :24:28.requirements before the convention can be ratified. It seems to me, Mr

:24:29. > :24:33.Speaker, that we are owed something from the government on that issue

:24:34. > :24:38.because people have been pressing them, the honourable member for ban

:24:39. > :24:43.has been pressing others as well as the government to come up with a

:24:44. > :24:46.list of what is required. Even the honourable lady from Roger in her

:24:47. > :24:50.short contribution from the opposition front bench just now

:24:51. > :24:55.asked the Minister whether the bill to which the Minister referred, the

:24:56. > :25:00.forthcoming legislation in relation to domestic violence, whether that

:25:01. > :25:05.bill would incorporate the necessary legislative requirements to enable

:25:06. > :25:07.the ratification of the Istanbul convention and my honourable friend,

:25:08. > :25:12.I Danny Chia is listening to this, but it is a pity that she is not

:25:13. > :25:14.because she wasn't even able to respond then to what the honourable

:25:15. > :25:24.lady from the opposition front bench was saying. That surely must cast

:25:25. > :25:29.doubt upon how long it is going to be before this convention is

:25:30. > :25:33.actually ratified. When I looked at some of the government amendments

:25:34. > :25:40.and the explanation for them one of the government amendments says that

:25:41. > :25:46.it doesn't wish to have claws to implemented before clause three and

:25:47. > :25:51.therefore it may well be that no statement will have been made, no

:25:52. > :25:56.report will be made, under clause two, by the time that we reach the

:25:57. > :26:01.1st of November 2017 for the report on progress under clause three. That

:26:02. > :26:06.seems to be an acceptance by the government that they are not going

:26:07. > :26:11.to be in a position to ratify this convention for some considerable

:26:12. > :26:17.time and I think it is clear that the strong feeling across the house

:26:18. > :26:20.is that people want to get this convention ratified, and yet the

:26:21. > :26:25.government seems to be wriggling about when and how it is going to

:26:26. > :26:31.achieve that. Mr Speaker, I put down an number of amendments and new

:26:32. > :26:34.clauses and I think I have got a commitment insofar as one can tell

:26:35. > :26:37.from the Minister that when the convention is ratified it will not

:26:38. > :26:45.be rectified with any reservations and I am grateful to the Minister

:26:46. > :26:49.for that. But I still fear that the impression being given to the world

:26:50. > :26:57.outside is that we will be passing today a bill which will actually

:26:58. > :27:01.require the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention and

:27:02. > :27:03.in fact it does nothing of the kind. I think that needs to be made

:27:04. > :27:15.absolutely clear. Amendment for and the explanation

:27:16. > :27:21.given for it by the Government. It does not seem to me that my

:27:22. > :27:30.honourable friend has answers that point at all. Why is it necessary

:27:31. > :27:32.that the Secretary of State rather than Her Majesty's Government should

:27:33. > :27:36.determine that the United Kingdom is complied with the Istanbul

:27:37. > :27:39.convention? I don't understand why. I can understand why it should be

:27:40. > :27:43.required that the Secretary of State should make a statement to each

:27:44. > :27:45.house on that issue but I do not understand why the Secretary of

:27:46. > :27:50.State rather than the whole Government should be deciding and

:27:51. > :27:53.determining whether or not the United Kingdom is complied with the

:27:54. > :27:58.convention. Had my honourable friend has not responded to that point. If

:27:59. > :28:00.this bill progresses to the other place I hope that she will, the

:28:01. > :28:07.Government will respond to that point at that stage. Other big that

:28:08. > :28:12.it is most unsatisfactory and it is most unsatisfactory that the

:28:13. > :28:17.explanatory note given by the Government in support of its

:28:18. > :28:24.amendment is inaccurate in such a major respect of I Bible giveaway.

:28:25. > :28:28.I'm grateful from our honourable friend for allowing me to intervene

:28:29. > :28:35.so I can seek to address the pointy races. I did not address that

:28:36. > :28:37.amendment in my few words but the replacement of Her Majesty's

:28:38. > :28:41.Government with Secretary of State is to ensure that the bill reflects

:28:42. > :28:46.the usual drafting conventions. In no way at all doesn't alter the

:28:47. > :28:51.overall responsibilities of the Government.

:28:52. > :28:55.I hear what my honourable friend has said about that and I'm grateful to

:28:56. > :29:01.her for that intervention and I'm sure that others will be able to

:29:02. > :29:07.check out the issue and see whether it will need further discussion when

:29:08. > :29:11.it gets to the other place. But having said that, and in the light

:29:12. > :29:17.of that intervention, I am not going to speak to the new clauses that I

:29:18. > :29:27.put down in the amendments because I get the feeling that the house would

:29:28. > :29:44.like to be able to move on and debate other issues. What is...? Mr

:29:45. > :29:52.Speaker, sometimes wonder spares -- one despairs at 1's colleagues. But

:29:53. > :29:57.I will not do that in public. I would like to ask Mr Davies

:29:58. > :30:05.whether it is his wish that new clause six be withdrawn.

:30:06. > :30:12.I do not intend to move clause six to a division.

:30:13. > :30:21.New clause six is by leave withdrawn. We therefore come...

:30:22. > :30:27.I move that the question been output.

:30:28. > :30:31.Well, there is not a question before us to be put because new clause six

:30:32. > :30:36.has been withdrawn so therefore the correct procedure now is for me to

:30:37. > :30:42.move on to Government amendment one and the proposition before the house

:30:43. > :30:46.is that it be made once the Minister has moved it formally, which I think

:30:47. > :30:53.she does. Thank you. The question is that Government amendment number one

:30:54. > :30:54.B made. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

:30:55. > :32:48."no". To the lobby. The question is that Government

:32:49. > :32:54.amendment number one be made. As many as are of the opinion, say

:32:55. > :32:57."aye". To the contrary, "no". Tell us for the eyes will stop tell us

:32:58. > :43:30.for the nose. Order! Order! The eyes to the right

:43:31. > :43:39.137, the nose to the left, three. The ayes to the right 137, the noes

:43:40. > :43:44.to the left, three, so the ayes have it. A lock, unlock. With the leave

:43:45. > :43:51.of the house I propose to take government amendments to to 13

:43:52. > :43:57.together. I ask the Minister on the Treasury bench to move amendments to

:43:58. > :44:00.macro to 13 formally. Thank you. The question is that government

:44:01. > :44:06.amendments two to 13 be made? As many as are of that opinion say aye,

:44:07. > :44:12.on the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

:44:13. > :44:16.Order. Government amendment 14 to be moved formally by the Minister.

:44:17. > :44:21.Thank you. The question is that government amendment 14B made. As

:44:22. > :44:28.many as are of that opinion say aye, on the contrary, no. Division! Clear

:44:29. > :46:35.the lobby. Order. The question is that

:46:36. > :46:44.government amendment number 14 be made. As many as are of that opinion

:46:45. > :46:45.say aye, on the contrary, no. Tellers for the ayes and tellers for

:46:46. > :52:41.the noes. Order! Order! The ayes to the right,

:52:42. > :56:22.135, the noes to the left, three. CIOs to the right 135, so the eyes

:56:23. > :56:34.have it. Unlock. We come now the government amendment

:56:35. > :56:42.15 to be moved formerly. The question is that government

:56:43. > :56:51.amendment 15 be made, as many of that, I think the eyes have it.

:56:52. > :57:01.Government amendment 16. The questions that government on the

:57:02. > :59:21.16th of May, say I. Debrecen! Clever lob! -- division! Clear the lobby!

:59:22. > :59:32.As many of that opinion say I. Tell us for the eyes. Mr Peter Brown and

:59:33. > :08:48.Mr David at all. Order. Order. The ayes to the right,

:08:49. > :09:00.132. The nose to the left, too. The ayes to the right, 132. The noes to

:09:01. > :09:06.the left, too. Sony ayes habit. We can now the government amendment 17

:09:07. > :09:11.to be moved formerly. The question is that government amendment 17 be

:09:12. > :09:20.made. As many are that opinion say aye. To the know. I think the ayes

:09:21. > :09:29.habit, the ayes habit. Third reading.

:09:30. > :09:32.Mr Speaker, I baked a myth that the preventing in committing violence in

:09:33. > :09:42.domestic violence ratification of convention Bill now be read a third

:09:43. > :09:44.time. The bill now before us sets us on a very clear path towards

:09:45. > :09:48.ratification of the Istanbul ratification of the Istanbul

:09:49. > :09:52.convention and I want to thank all members who have attended and the

:09:53. > :09:56.dissipated today and at early stages of the bill's progress, in

:09:57. > :10:00.particular I want to thank the honourable member for Rotherham and

:10:01. > :10:05.the honourable member for Truro and Thomas, both of whom I believe have

:10:06. > :10:09.shown real leadership from the respective front benches today and

:10:10. > :10:12.through the process of the passage of the bill to work towards a shared

:10:13. > :10:16.objective, even where we have not always agreed on the detail. I'm

:10:17. > :10:22.sure agenda is entirely confidential to that outcome! Should the bill

:10:23. > :10:27.passed today and progress to the Lords committee will be progressed

:10:28. > :10:30.by Baroness Gale, to whom I am extremely grateful. I hope it will

:10:31. > :10:35.have a smooth passage there than here, time will tell. I think the

:10:36. > :10:39.real credit to the progress this bill presents must go to the women

:10:40. > :10:46.across civil society who insisted on change and compelled Parliament to

:10:47. > :10:52.act. The women of the campaign, women's aid in Scotland, England,

:10:53. > :10:57.Northern Ireland and Wales and a host of other individuals and

:10:58. > :11:00.organisations who have advised, supported and worked so hard I visit

:11:01. > :11:03.a long time to make it happen, including the men who have stayed

:11:04. > :11:16.with us in solidarity. Can I share my honourable friend's

:11:17. > :11:20.praise of Rebecca, Rachel, Robin and all the Crow one? It has been a

:11:21. > :11:24.pleasure to work with them over the last year and a half but it would be

:11:25. > :11:28.remiss if I don't take the opportunity to thank the honourable

:11:29. > :11:36.woman herself for the professional and fantastic structure of this

:11:37. > :11:39.bill, so thank you. I am very grateful and flattered by my

:11:40. > :11:43.honourable friend's remarks, but the real thank you goes to the people,

:11:44. > :11:47.some of whom are here today, for leading the way and making us listen

:11:48. > :11:53.to you. I know the campaign will not end here and in many ways this is a

:11:54. > :11:58.big thing for substantive change. I would also like to express my thanks

:11:59. > :12:02.to Emma Watson who took time out of her busy film promotion scheduled to

:12:03. > :12:05.speak about the build to an audience politicians find hard to reach. I

:12:06. > :12:11.know these issues lie close to her heart. On reflection, it strikes me

:12:12. > :12:15.that Parliament has been left playing catch up where progress for

:12:16. > :12:20.women has been concerned. For those who campaigned for women's suffrage

:12:21. > :12:22.for over a century before it was achieved, from trade unionists who

:12:23. > :12:27.fought for equal pay for women years before the Equal Pay Act came into

:12:28. > :12:31.force, from the women who, in the 1970s, set up refuges for other

:12:32. > :12:36.women fleeing domestic abuse at a time when there was absolutely no

:12:37. > :12:48.support from the state or the authorities for women experiencing

:12:49. > :12:51.violence or coercive control from an intimate partner, a time when rape

:12:52. > :12:53.in marriage wasn't even a crime. Every step of the way it has been

:12:54. > :12:56.citizens that have driven progressive change, sisters have had

:12:57. > :12:58.to do it for themselves. I thank her for giving way, and offer my huge

:12:59. > :13:02.congratulations to her and all involved. Would she agree with me

:13:03. > :13:07.and Emmeline Pankhurst said, famously, that we are here not in

:13:08. > :13:10.our efforts to be lawmakers but to be -- lawbreakers but to be

:13:11. > :13:15.lawmakers and she is the absolute embodiment of those words today. I'm

:13:16. > :13:19.grateful to my honourable friend. It is critically important that we

:13:20. > :13:24.remember our history and understand -based Oracle change process that we

:13:25. > :13:28.live within. I have been asked so many times over the last few months

:13:29. > :13:36.and widely Istanbul Convention, while these difficult issues, this

:13:37. > :13:43.complex multilateral process, and the answer is it has the potential

:13:44. > :13:47.to make concrete improvements in the lives of people suffering domestic

:13:48. > :13:52.Byland at local, national and international level. In light the

:13:53. > :13:55.Istanbul Convention, I'm pleased to say my own local authority,

:13:56. > :13:59.Aberdeenshire Council, is already looking at how local provision might

:14:00. > :14:03.be strengthened and improved. That could and should be replicated in

:14:04. > :14:08.local authorities across the UK. We have seen already at UK level and in

:14:09. > :14:12.the devolved administrations are a whole raft of new legislation driven

:14:13. > :14:16.by the Istanbul Convention process on issues such as stalking, forced

:14:17. > :14:21.marriage, human trafficking, modern slavery, all of which have taken us

:14:22. > :14:24.closer to compliance. Internationally we can make the

:14:25. > :14:30.world a safer place for our own citizens and others, but we need now

:14:31. > :14:33.to finish the job. The short answer to my question, widely Istanbul

:14:34. > :14:37.Convention, is that change needs to come and change will come. Mr

:14:38. > :14:43.Speaker, at the end of the day this is about real people and real lives.

:14:44. > :14:48.I have been moved beyond measure by the truly inspirational courage of

:14:49. > :14:51.my constituency. A woman from a small coastal community where I grew

:14:52. > :15:12.up who was subjected to an exceptionally

:15:13. > :15:16.brutal rape and waived her right to anonymity in an attempt to prevent

:15:17. > :15:18.what happened to her ever happening to anyone else. Sarah is one of a

:15:19. > :15:21.desperately small minority of rape victims who saw her attacker brought

:15:22. > :15:23.to justice and convicted but during the course of her trial her past

:15:24. > :15:26.medical history was used by the defence in an attempt to discredit

:15:27. > :15:28.her as a witness to her own experience. She spoke publicly about

:15:29. > :15:30.the profound violation of her privacy, the re-traumatised nation

:15:31. > :15:32.that those experiences provoke, and I can only begin to imagine the

:15:33. > :15:36.inner strength and bravery it took for her to speak out. We have

:15:37. > :15:42.travelled some distance in this struggle but we still have such a

:15:43. > :15:42.long way to go, and we need to recognise that ratification of

:15:43. > :15:44.in the journey of equality and Istanbul Convention is

:15:45. > :15:48.in the journey of equality and justice for women, not an end point.

:15:49. > :15:51.So, Sarah, this bill is for you and for every person who knows

:15:52. > :15:54.shattering reality of sexual shattering reality of sexual

:15:55. > :15:59.violence and have had the courage to claim justice and fight for it.

:16:00. > :16:03.Thank you for helping us all be a bit braver and stronger in the fight

:16:04. > :16:05.for equality and human rights, and more determined than ever to end

:16:06. > :16:16.this abuse once and for all. the question is that the bill be

:16:17. > :16:22.read the third time. Mr David Nuttall. Unfortunately I was not

:16:23. > :16:29.able to contribute in the second reading debate as the debate was

:16:30. > :16:34.terminated before I have the opportunity to try to persuade the

:16:35. > :16:40.House of the merits of my case against it, but I'm very grateful to

:16:41. > :16:44.my honourable friend the Member for Shipley for at least putting several

:16:45. > :16:49.of the points that I wanted to make and I would have supported him in

:16:50. > :17:01.making for putting those points on the record at second reading. I do

:17:02. > :17:06.want to congratulate the honourable lady for the very polite and

:17:07. > :17:10.efficient way that she has brought this bill before this House and she

:17:11. > :17:17.has steered it through to this third reading stage. Any Private members

:17:18. > :17:22.Bill is not an easy thing to deal with, and I think she has

:17:23. > :17:30.demonstrated great skill in what she has done in being able to get the

:17:31. > :17:38.bill to this stage. It is no secret of course that I oppose this bill,

:17:39. > :17:41.and I'm quite open about that. I want to start therefore by putting

:17:42. > :17:54.on record that those of us who oppose this bill do so on the basis

:17:55. > :17:57.that the Istanbul Convention will do nothing to achieve the that

:17:58. > :18:05.supporters think it will do, and it will certainly do nothing to stop

:18:06. > :18:11.violence against men and boys, which is something I am equally concerned

:18:12. > :18:19.about, just as much concerned about as I am about violence against women

:18:20. > :18:26.and girls, leaving aside the issue for the moment of the position of

:18:27. > :18:33.transgender individuals, which we have not really considered at great

:18:34. > :18:42.length so far. I want to put that on the record, and it's important to

:18:43. > :18:55.note in passing that the views that the honourable member for Shipley

:18:56. > :18:59.and I have espoused, they are supported by a larger section of

:19:00. > :19:04.society than some in this House might think. Indeed, after the

:19:05. > :19:09.second reading debate, even though I had not been able to contribute to

:19:10. > :19:16.the debate, I was receiving e-mails from all over from people saying,

:19:17. > :19:21.good for standing up for our rights as men, because sometimes we feel

:19:22. > :19:26.that we're not getting a fair crack of the whip. But this morning I

:19:27. > :19:34.think we have seen something quite remarkable happened this bill. I'm

:19:35. > :19:40.grateful, Mr Speaker, that we've had the opportunity to put certain

:19:41. > :19:45.matters to a vote. For anybody watching the proceedings, they may

:19:46. > :19:53.have thought, hang on, what's going on here? Well, we have demonstrated

:19:54. > :19:58.this morning that those who support this bill have actually gone through

:19:59. > :20:07.lobbies to vote to weaken the provisions in the bill. The bill, I

:20:08. > :20:14.think it is a bit of a clue, really, if ever a bill has to have its title

:20:15. > :20:21.amended, the chances are it has been very, very seriously filleted, and I

:20:22. > :20:27.think on this occasion the fact that the whole of clause one has

:20:28. > :20:32.disappeared and the whole love clause three subsection Aegon has

:20:33. > :20:38.disappeared, I think that just demonstrates the extent to which

:20:39. > :20:45.this bill has been chopped and changed, not in committee but at

:20:46. > :20:53.report stage. Incidentally, at the second reading of this bill, the

:20:54. > :20:59.Minister, who wasn't the Minister in her place, the honourable lady for

:21:00. > :21:05.farmers, it was the right honourable member for Great Yarmouth, said that

:21:06. > :21:13.amendments would be brought forward at the committee stage, and impact,

:21:14. > :21:18.as we now know, there were no amendments put forward at committee

:21:19. > :21:22.stage, even though they must have been ready because they were tabled

:21:23. > :21:27.that day and the next day, this was on February the 1st, and the next

:21:28. > :21:36.day they were there on the website, so that is the first indication,

:21:37. > :21:41.Timmy, that something was amiss -- that was the first indication to me.

:21:42. > :21:47.This whole series of Government amendments which have now all been

:21:48. > :21:52.accepted have had the effect of making this bill is very, very

:21:53. > :21:59.different bill to the one which was introduced on its first reading. The

:22:00. > :22:06.requirement for the United Kingdom to ratify the bill has gone, and the

:22:07. > :22:11.only provision now reflected in the long tried to lob the bill is that

:22:12. > :22:18.the bill makes provision in connection with the ratification by

:22:19. > :22:28.the United Kingdom of the Council of Europe's Convention on, the Istanbul

:22:29. > :22:32.Convention, as we know it. Even the words, and for connected purposes,

:22:33. > :22:38.have gone. The whole of the first paragraph has gone, clause one has

:22:39. > :22:46.gone, and that was the crucial point of the whole bill, the whole object

:22:47. > :22:51.of the exercise, we were told, to impose a duty on her Majesty's

:22:52. > :22:56.Government to take all reasonable steps, so it wasn't expecting the

:22:57. > :23:05.Government to do everything within its power, just reasonable steps,

:23:06. > :23:08.and as soon as reasonably practicable, so it was very modest

:23:09. > :23:16.clause even as it was to enable this to become compliant with the

:23:17. > :23:20.convention. But that's all gone now and I think it's worth putting on

:23:21. > :23:25.the record for those who support this bill and they campaign behind

:23:26. > :23:35.it is exactly what this bill now looks like and what it actually

:23:36. > :23:39.does. It essentially now requires no more from the Government, the

:23:40. > :23:46.Secretary of State, to lay a report before each house of parliament

:23:47. > :23:52.setting out the steps required to be taken to enable the United Kingdom

:23:53. > :23:55.to ratify the Istanbul Convention, and I think we almost what those

:23:56. > :24:01.steps are anyway so there will be nothing new in it. It has been said

:24:02. > :24:07.many times, there's only one thing, really, that the Government still

:24:08. > :24:13.need to do and that is to sort out how we're going to deal with

:24:14. > :24:18.extraterritorial jurisdiction. Not that easy thing to do, I accept, but

:24:19. > :24:23.it has been done in respect of other offences and I would have thought if

:24:24. > :24:26.it has been done in respect of one set of offensive it couldn't have

:24:27. > :24:31.been that difficult for it to have been worked out by now, given how

:24:32. > :24:37.many years it is since the Istanbul Convention was signed, as to why

:24:38. > :24:43.primary legislation is not ready, and of course we have still not

:24:44. > :24:46.heard whether that final legislation is going to be brought forward in

:24:47. > :24:54.the next Queen's Speech, for example. But then we move onto the

:24:55. > :24:57.crucial point of the timescale. The bill, as it was originally drafted,

:24:58. > :25:05.would have required the Government to set a specific date, the date by

:25:06. > :25:08.which the Secretary of State would expect the United Kingdom to be able

:25:09. > :25:13.to ratify the Convention. That has now gone, we are now talking just

:25:14. > :25:19.about a timescale will stop a timescale of cause could be

:25:20. > :25:25.anything, a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade. It is all a

:25:26. > :25:31.timescale. It might not even be by reference to... Yes, I will give

:25:32. > :25:34.way. The number of stories my staff shared in respect of violence

:25:35. > :25:37.against women and the severity of violence was staggering and the vast

:25:38. > :25:42.majority of them ended with the victim deciding not to report the

:25:43. > :25:47.incident to the police due to social stigma, fear of retribution, feared

:25:48. > :25:51.the authorities would not believe them. Doesn't he agree it is time to

:25:52. > :25:59.change this by ratifying the Istanbul Convention as soon as

:26:00. > :26:04.possible? To be quite honest, I entirely agree that anyone who has

:26:05. > :26:10.been the victim of domestic violence or violence outside of the domestic

:26:11. > :26:14.setting, should be reporting that, and that accounts for both men and

:26:15. > :26:20.women, and the incidence of reporting amongst men because of the

:26:21. > :26:24.fear that people might laugh at them is much lower than amongst women,

:26:25. > :26:30.particularly where domestic violence is concerned. How on earth anybody

:26:31. > :26:33.thinks that just because the Government have ratified the

:26:34. > :26:38.Convention which, quite frankly, most members of the public have

:26:39. > :26:42.never even heard of is going to make one drop of difference to whether or

:26:43. > :26:52.not they go and reported is frankly beyond me. If the issue is whether

:26:53. > :26:57.or not I think people should report domestic violence, then of course

:26:58. > :27:03.yes, they should. But do I think that whether or not that figure will

:27:04. > :27:07.be changed as a result of the ratification of the convention? No,

:27:08. > :27:16.I don't, and we saw in some of the figures earlier from other countries

:27:17. > :27:19.where the ratification has already taken place, figures provided by the

:27:20. > :27:22.ambassador to my honourable friend the Member for shipping that there

:27:23. > :27:29.is impact of very mixed picture, putting it politely, there is a

:27:30. > :27:37.mixed picture about what affect this convention has had in actually

:27:38. > :27:42.reducing the incidence of domestic violence, which we all want to see,

:27:43. > :27:46.no issue about that, we all want to see violence against women and

:27:47. > :27:52.violence against men and domestic violence reduced, and this bill

:27:53. > :27:57.isn't about that, as I will come onto will stop so I hope that deals

:27:58. > :28:07.with that point. Let me return to the point I was

:28:08. > :28:11.dealing with, the issue of the timescale, this is the whole thrust

:28:12. > :28:17.of this bill, the whole purpose was to try and tie the government down

:28:18. > :28:21.to actually doing something and to stop this matter from drifting on.

:28:22. > :28:28.That was the whole purpose of the bill, but what do we have now? The

:28:29. > :28:32.words to date by have been replaced by the timescale and previously,

:28:33. > :28:39.this report, which is going to sit out to date, had to be laid within

:28:40. > :28:46.four weeks of the act of receiving Royal assent. Now that has been

:28:47. > :28:51.changed to as soon as reasonably practicable after this act comes

:28:52. > :28:58.into force. Notice the subtle change their commented on the day, no

:28:59. > :29:03.longer after this act receives Royal assent, but it comes into force.

:29:04. > :29:09.There is a subtle difference because another government amendment changes

:29:10. > :29:12.to date on which the act comes into force, from being the date on which

:29:13. > :29:18.the act receives Royal assent to a period of two months beginning on

:29:19. > :29:25.the day on which the act is passed. So if a two-month delay, then an

:29:26. > :29:32.unlimited amount of time before the report has to be laid, and even when

:29:33. > :29:38.the report is laid, all that has to do is set out a timescale, no

:29:39. > :29:43.specific date. Quite frankly, we may as well say, the 12th of never.

:29:44. > :29:49.Because that is in essence what this bill is saying. There is no specific

:29:50. > :29:56.dates given and there are no provisions in the bill to tie the

:29:57. > :30:01.government down. As proof of that assertion, simply ask this question.

:30:02. > :30:09.On what date in the future would it be possible for anyone to turn

:30:10. > :30:15.around, to look at this bill, but it has passed if it passes through this

:30:16. > :30:21.place and the Lords, on what date would it be possible to look at the

:30:22. > :30:30.act and say, the government has not complied with that act? I would

:30:31. > :30:39.venture to submit that it would be very difficult indeed to pick any

:30:40. > :30:44.date, because it is so widely drafted now, that they would never

:30:45. > :30:47.be a date were it would not be possible

:30:48. > :30:51.round and say, actually, we're not round and say, actually, we're not

:30:52. > :30:58.quite there yet. There are things we are dealing with. It is not

:30:59. > :31:05.reasonably practicable at this stage to deliver the report. And even if

:31:06. > :31:09.the report was delivered, you've still got to get over the hurdle of

:31:10. > :31:19.the timescale. Which could be very vague. Yes, I will give way. I think

:31:20. > :31:25.into giving way. Much progress has been made under this government with

:31:26. > :31:33.our Prime Minister as Home Secretary on criminalising acts such as forced

:31:34. > :31:38.marriage, dealing with stalking, tackling FGM and the domestic

:31:39. > :31:46.violence reduction orders. Does not Honourable friend agree that this

:31:47. > :31:52.global commitment is constructive in leading the way in fighting in this

:31:53. > :31:55.vein. I'm grateful that intervention, I think, Honourable

:31:56. > :31:59.friend highlights their some of the valuable work the government has

:32:00. > :32:04.already been doing, without ratifying this bill. And I think

:32:05. > :32:10.that other countries may well want to look at the work that this

:32:11. > :32:13.country has been doing, and see whether they could improve their

:32:14. > :32:18.procedures and adopt some of the things we have been doing this

:32:19. > :32:20.country. It is interesting that my honourable friend highlights that

:32:21. > :32:25.because of course all that has because of course all that has

:32:26. > :32:33.happened without signing, without ratifying, rather, the Istanbul

:32:34. > :32:43.convention. I will give way. Can he set out... Domestic violence all to

:32:44. > :32:47.do with violence against women, is there anything the government

:32:48. > :32:53.couldn't do that has to wait for the ratification of the Istanbul

:32:54. > :32:57.convention? Well, the short answer to that question is no. I can't.

:32:58. > :33:04.Because I can't think of anything. And I would be interested if anyone

:33:05. > :33:11.else in the house present they could come up with any measure that we are

:33:12. > :33:18.prevented from introducing, because we have not yet ratified the

:33:19. > :33:20.convention. In effect, as the previous intervention demonstrated,

:33:21. > :33:25.the government has quite happily been dealing in bringing forward

:33:26. > :33:33.lotsa proposals already. And quite rightly. I have got my own ideas

:33:34. > :33:37.about what we could do to try and tackle domestic violence and I would

:33:38. > :33:43.be interested if members of the said would support me in this. For

:33:44. > :33:46.example we could start with saying that those were convicted of the

:33:47. > :33:51.Mystic violence and sent to prison are required to serve the full

:33:52. > :33:56.length of the sentence rather than being left out halfway through. That

:33:57. > :34:02.would be a good signal, let's send a signal that if you commit an act of

:34:03. > :34:09.domestic violence and are sent to prison, the person would have to

:34:10. > :34:14.serve the full length. There are things which we could be doing. I

:34:15. > :34:25.would be very much willing to support that. When this report is

:34:26. > :34:30.finally tabled by the Secretary of State, as soon as reasonably

:34:31. > :34:38.practical, and it sets out the timescale, even then, the Secretary

:34:39. > :34:43.of State, that's not the final step, because then we have the final step.

:34:44. > :34:48.From the Secretary of State has finally determined that the United

:34:49. > :34:56.Kingdom is complied with the Istanbul convention, even then it

:34:57. > :35:03.doesn't have too set a date for when the conventional be rectified. It

:35:04. > :35:09.said the states that the Secretary of State would expect that the

:35:10. > :35:16.convention be rectified, so another small small delay built in there.

:35:17. > :35:19.But then, what happens, what is the purpose of the bill then?

:35:20. > :35:25.Previously, the purpose of the bill would have been to report on

:35:26. > :35:28.progress every year until ratification and then after

:35:29. > :35:38.ratification, report on how the government was doing. All that, the

:35:39. > :35:44.reporting of the ratification, has now been removed. There will only be

:35:45. > :35:50.report prepared until ratification. So they will be no measure, no

:35:51. > :36:00.mechanism in place under this bill, I stress, for any sort of

:36:01. > :36:05.measurement to be taken as to whether the various things, which

:36:06. > :36:12.the proposer of the bill must have thought they were all important at

:36:13. > :36:16.the time, that it was crafted. -- drafted. The government sets out

:36:17. > :36:24.measures to protect women against violence and prevent prosecuting

:36:25. > :36:31.eliminating, the long list of things... I will give way. Support

:36:32. > :36:36.the bill, but it has been watered down so much, I'm not entirely sure

:36:37. > :36:40.which way the vote on third reading. I'm interested to hear what the

:36:41. > :36:52.minister says before making my mind up. What would his advice be? I'm

:36:53. > :36:57.grateful to my honourable friend that intervention. I think he raises

:36:58. > :37:03.an interesting point, there will be many supporters of the bill who like

:37:04. > :37:06.him, look at what's happened this morning and the changes that have

:37:07. > :37:12.been made and think, what is the purpose of this book? Even people

:37:13. > :37:18.who like my honourable friend, west of the tip towards the bill, could

:37:19. > :37:27.never get it and think, there is no real purpose to the bill anymore. I

:37:28. > :37:35.hope he has been persuaded that all measures he has in mind to reduce

:37:36. > :37:41.domestic violence against women and men could be taken regardless of

:37:42. > :37:48.whether successful or not it's merely virtue signalling. This bill

:37:49. > :37:59.does nothing of itself to reduce violence. Understandably, the

:38:00. > :38:05.government say that they cannot ratify this treaty until they know

:38:06. > :38:12.in advance that they are complied in every respect. -- compliant.

:38:13. > :38:15.Although many other countries have managed to do this and as we heard

:38:16. > :38:27.early, a lot of countries have done it by way of making reservations. I

:38:28. > :38:32.have worked through the text of the bill, and I just want now to touch

:38:33. > :38:39.on another reason why I do not think that this bill is this a salary at

:38:40. > :38:47.all. And that is because the procedure already zest in law --

:38:48. > :38:50.exists in law to govern the way this house ratifies international

:38:51. > :39:01.treaties. The constitutional reform and governance act of 2010. This act

:39:02. > :39:06.was passed and sets out, it was passed by the last coalition

:39:07. > :39:12.government in 2010, came into force on the 11th of November 2010, and

:39:13. > :39:19.gave this house and Parliament induced estuary -- a new statutory

:39:20. > :39:25.role in the ratification of treaties. The act did not go as far

:39:26. > :39:39.as giving Parliament the power to amend the treaty, and neither of

:39:40. > :39:46.bill did do was to set out a clear bill did do was to set out a

:39:47. > :39:53.procedure under part two of the 2010 act as to what we should be doing.

:39:54. > :40:00.And I would submit that this is the procedure that we now need to be

:40:01. > :40:02.following. There is a general statutory requirement to publish a

:40:03. > :40:08.treaty that is subject to ratification or its equivalent. The

:40:09. > :40:14.government must lay it before Parliament for 21 sitting days. This

:40:15. > :40:18.provision put what was known previously as the Ponsonby rule in

:40:19. > :40:22.the statute, named after Arthur Ponsonby, the Parliamentary under

:40:23. > :40:29.Secretary of state for foreign affairs in 1924 during the debate on

:40:30. > :40:33.the Treaty of Lausanne. The 2010 act allows both houses the opportunity

:40:34. > :40:40.to pass a resolution that a treaty should not be ratified during the 21

:40:41. > :40:46.sitting days. If neither house does so, the government is then able to

:40:47. > :40:52.proceed and ratify the treaty. If either this house or the other place

:40:53. > :40:55.against ratification, the government cannot immediately ratify the

:40:56. > :40:59.treaty. Instead the government must lay a statement to explain why it

:41:00. > :41:12.wishes to proceed with the ratification process. I will give

:41:13. > :41:16.way. The question is that the question being output. As many are

:41:17. > :41:21.of the opinion say aye. Of the country, no. Division, clear the

:41:22. > :43:30.lobby. Order, the question is that the

:43:31. > :43:37.question now be put. As many as are of the opinion, say, "aye". To the

:43:38. > :43:44.contrary, "no". Teller for the ayes, Mr Christopher Pincher. Tell a

:43:45. > :49:28.further noes, Mr David Nuttall. -- teller for the noes.

:49:29. > :52:58.Order, order! The ayes to the right, 135. The noes to the left, three.

:52:59. > :53:02.The ayes to the right, 135. The noes to the left, three, said the ayes

:53:03. > :53:10.habit, the ayes have it. Unlock! The question is that the

:53:11. > :53:17.bill be now read the third time, as many as are off the opinion say aye.

:53:18. > :55:25.To the contrary, no. Division, clear the lobby!

:55:26. > :55:30.Question is that the bill be read the third time. As many as are of

:55:31. > :55:36.the opinion, say, "aye". To the contrary, "no". Tellers that the

:55:37. > :55:39.ayes Mr Christopher Pincher, mist of -- Mr Owen Thompson. Tellers for the

:55:40. > :01:24.noes, Mr David Nuttall. The ayes to the right, 138. The noes

:01:25. > :04:34.to the left, one. Order. The ayes to the right, 138,

:04:35. > :04:43.the noes to the left, one. So the ayes, the ayes have it. Awards for

:04:44. > :04:49.the protection bill as amended in committee to be considered. We begin

:04:50. > :04:53.with new clause one of which be convenient to consider the other new

:04:54. > :05:02.clauses and amendments as listed on the paper. Mr Philip Davies. Thank

:05:03. > :05:10.you very much, Mr Speaker. I have a number of new clauses for this bill

:05:11. > :05:12.and a number of amendments. As I said during the second reading

:05:13. > :05:19.debate on this particular bill, I don't support it. In fact, in going

:05:20. > :05:25.through the bill in order to try and amend it, I have been struck by the

:05:26. > :05:31.fact that I have been trying to amend the non-amendable in many

:05:32. > :05:36.respects. I cannot put on record in enough, how much I understand my

:05:37. > :05:41.honourable friend's very sincere honourable friend's very sincere

:05:42. > :05:46.intention behind the bill and also the effort he has put into the bill

:05:47. > :05:51.and also his efforts to try and find a compromise that would suit

:05:52. > :05:54.everybody within it. And I absolutely commence my honourable

:05:55. > :06:01.friend from Dartford for both his sincerity and his attempt/ and find

:06:02. > :06:06.a way forward that everybody can agree with. It's just that I cannot

:06:07. > :06:11.happen to agree with him on this particular occasion. Should the bill

:06:12. > :06:15.proceed and I would very much hope that the amendments I suggest would

:06:16. > :06:20.be accepted, as I believe they would save the bill from some unintended

:06:21. > :06:25.consequences and reduce the chance of criminalising some who may be on

:06:26. > :06:35.the back caught up as the bill stands. I ought to say that the bill

:06:36. > :06:38.is considerably different to the bill as appeared in second reading,

:06:39. > :06:43.and it's very much the credit to my honourable friend the Dartford, it

:06:44. > :06:46.shows a much effort he has gone to the trying find a workable solution

:06:47. > :06:52.and am grateful to him for taking on board many of the points I made

:06:53. > :06:58.during the second reading debate. But I still feel that bill is

:06:59. > :07:06.deficient and I will go through the amendments I have tabled, and hope

:07:07. > :07:12.that they may find favour. I will start with new clause one, as the

:07:13. > :07:18.lead amendment, the new clause one would insert that the offence of

:07:19. > :07:25.wearing awards within intent to deceive is triable only summarily.

:07:26. > :07:30.And really this in states that it is something that must be dealt with in

:07:31. > :07:36.a Magistrates' Court, some might think this is a necessary --

:07:37. > :07:41.answered Terry but it would mean people would have to think twice

:07:42. > :07:45.impeachable amending the decision to increase the sentence, that's really

:07:46. > :07:50.the purpose behind new clause one, as a safeguard to any future

:07:51. > :07:53.attempts to change it. This was also something that was specifically

:07:54. > :08:03.mentioned by the Defence Select Committee in their report on the

:08:04. > :08:08.bill. With regard to new clause two, it is to insert that a person is not

:08:09. > :08:16.guilty of an offence under subsection one, if they are wearing

:08:17. > :08:19.the award in a public house. The intention to deceive element of this

:08:20. > :08:25.effect could be committed in a variety of circumstances. Seen as to

:08:26. > :08:27.deceive for financial gain would be covered by fraud legislation, this

:08:28. > :08:33.is clearly supposed to include other types of deception. This could be

:08:34. > :08:37.the intention to deceive in order to gain respect or impress potential

:08:38. > :08:42.future partner, and my first Amendment here deals with people in

:08:43. > :08:56.a pub. I think where pubs are places where

:08:57. > :09:08.all kind of rubbish is taught, not just in pubs. To think somebody

:09:09. > :09:11.clever future many and end up with a cheap port medal off eBay or

:09:12. > :09:14.wherever, and end up at the end of all that with a criminal conviction,

:09:15. > :09:23.is a rather over the top as far as I'm concerned. This amendment would

:09:24. > :09:27.remove that possibly the because not honourable friend, when he first

:09:28. > :09:31.conceived the bill, which I applaud, was about people who turn up at

:09:32. > :09:48.Remembrance Day parades and things like that, for putting things they

:09:49. > :09:52.are not. It would be to do new clause three would insert that a

:09:53. > :09:57.person is not guilty of an offence if they are not wearing the award in

:09:58. > :10:05.a public place. And therefore provide the defence of the offence

:10:06. > :10:07.taking place in private. I think really it's important given the

:10:08. > :10:13.intention behind the bill, to limit the offence to a public face. If

:10:14. > :10:18.someone gets a medal out and use it to impress someone in their own home

:10:19. > :10:21.or on private property, a private club or something like that, don't

:10:22. > :10:24.see why I note that should be an offence. I can't believe this is

:10:25. > :10:29.what people think of when they think with criminal convictions. If

:10:30. > :10:32.someone wants to argue that there are some private places that should

:10:33. > :10:38.be covered, then I would say, what about the unintended consequences?

:10:39. > :10:44.Isn't it time we stopped ignoring these foreseeable consequences of

:10:45. > :10:47.legislation? As someone who posts to a woman in a pub that he has a medal

:10:48. > :10:51.that is not his or something that looks like an award, could find

:10:52. > :10:57.himself in court with a record for the first time. Some people might

:10:58. > :11:01.not care about that, but I do care about that. I think we have enough

:11:02. > :11:06.people committing serious offences that we don't deal with properly, to

:11:07. > :11:12.create offences for those with likely issues anywhere, including

:11:13. > :11:20.probably mental health funds, in the privacy of their own home, strikes

:11:21. > :11:22.me as being rather over the top. New clause forward and said that a

:11:23. > :11:26.person is not guilty under subsection one if they are entitled

:11:27. > :11:31.to wear any of the other awards listed under the schedule.

:11:32. > :11:37.The defence would be that they are entitled to wear a listed medal in

:11:38. > :11:39.the longest in the schedule at the end of medals that are prescribed

:11:40. > :11:44.but they just happen to be wearing but they just happen to be wearing

:11:45. > :11:50.the wrong one. If someone is allowed to wear one medal but whether

:11:51. > :11:55.different one, not an additional one just a different one, what you might

:11:56. > :11:58.call enhanced valour in some cases, why should that be criminalised if

:11:59. > :12:03.they were actually entitled to wear a medal on the list? I don't really

:12:04. > :12:08.think that should be a criminal offence. It may not happen often,

:12:09. > :12:12.but it is certainly not impossible and assuming it did happen, would we

:12:13. > :12:15.merely want to criminalise that person, would it not be better to

:12:16. > :12:25.make it clear on the face of the bill that that person would not be

:12:26. > :12:28.criminalised? New clause five insert a person is not guilty of an offence

:12:29. > :12:31.under subsection one if they have served in the armed forces for more

:12:32. > :12:37.than two years. As with the Amendment concerning an existing

:12:38. > :12:39.entitlement, I don't think people really had in mind to criminalise

:12:40. > :12:42.former or current members of our armed forces with this offence.

:12:43. > :12:52.Again, back to the point about intent to deceive to gain respect,

:12:53. > :13:00.added respect, I guess, do we really want to go down that route? I don't

:13:01. > :13:04.really think that we should be wanting to risk criminalising

:13:05. > :13:10.someone who has actually risked their lives serving our country just

:13:11. > :13:13.because they may be tried to embellish their record in some way,

:13:14. > :13:20.said this amendment would remove that possibility but those who have

:13:21. > :13:23.served for two years or more in the armed Forces. New clause six would

:13:24. > :13:28.insert that a person is not guilty of an offence if they have served in

:13:29. > :13:30.the Armed Forces and as a result of front-line service has been

:13:31. > :13:34.medically diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. And

:13:35. > :13:38.in a similar vein to the amendment is about serving all former members

:13:39. > :13:46.of the Armed Forces, this amendment would protect in many respects many

:13:47. > :13:49.of the most vulnerable, those with -- those with diagnosed

:13:50. > :13:52.post-traumatic stress disorder, those seriously affected by

:13:53. > :13:56.front-line service and have this condition as a result could be more

:13:57. > :13:59.likely than those without falling foul of this proposed legislation

:14:00. > :14:05.and, again, I wouldn't want to see this person, whether intentionally

:14:06. > :14:09.or unintentionally, caught out by this particular piece of

:14:10. > :14:12.legislation, and again I'd rather make it abundantly clear in it that

:14:13. > :14:23.they couldn't be caught by the legislation. New clause seven

:14:24. > :14:27.inserts that a person is not guilty of an offence under subsection one

:14:28. > :14:30.if they are a family member of the person awarded the medal and for the

:14:31. > :14:37.purposes of that somebody is a family member, counts as a family

:14:38. > :14:42.member, if they are the spouse or civil partner of that person, that

:14:43. > :14:48.they live together as husband and wife or as if they were civil

:14:49. > :14:52.partners, that it is the person's parent, grandparent, child,

:14:53. > :14:59.grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece, and for the

:15:00. > :15:02.purposes of subsection one relationship by marriage or civil

:15:03. > :15:07.partnership shall be treated as a relationship by blood and a

:15:08. > :15:11.relationship of the half blood shall be treated as a relationship of the

:15:12. > :15:15.whole blood, stepchild or adopted child as a person shall be treated

:15:16. > :15:18.as their child and an illegitimate child shall be treated as a

:15:19. > :15:25.legitimate child of the mother and reputed father. Again, Madam Deputy

:15:26. > :15:31.Speaker, this amendment deals with family members of those given an

:15:32. > :15:39.award, and my concern is that they may well actually have the medal in

:15:40. > :15:41.medal at all, especially if the medal at all, especially if the

:15:42. > :15:44.person in question sadly died, so the chances of becoming susceptible

:15:45. > :15:48.to the provisions of this bill must be greater than your average person

:15:49. > :15:54.by definition, and I go back to my... Will he give way on that

:15:55. > :15:59.point? I am grateful. Does my honourable friend think that this

:16:00. > :16:03.new clause would deal adequately with the points raised by the Royal

:16:04. > :16:06.Air Force families association when they gave their written evidence to

:16:07. > :16:13.the defence select committee on this point? He's right, and I am going to

:16:14. > :16:24.come onto that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because he is absolutely

:16:25. > :16:28.right, it is very pertinent. Clearly it can't have been the intention

:16:29. > :16:32.behind the bill, and I know it isn't the intention behind the bill but it

:16:33. > :16:36.has to remain a possibility and as my honourable friend says the Royal

:16:37. > :16:40.Air Force families Association said in their written evidence to the

:16:41. > :16:42.defence select committee yes camp and there should most certainly be

:16:43. > :16:47.safeguards for family members, the key question is who qualifies. The

:16:48. > :16:50.definition we use is anyone who is a blood relation but this may not be

:16:51. > :16:53.appropriate in these circumstances and can be difficult to prove on

:16:54. > :17:19.occasion. Interestingly the MoD is of a family member but it may

:17:20. > :17:21.be sensible to align any definition for the circumstances with the MOD

:17:22. > :17:24.definition if and when they decide what it should be, otherwise it is

:17:25. > :17:27.probably a matter for common sense. I know the issue has been dealt with

:17:28. > :17:30.differently now but I think it is worth having family in their in this

:17:31. > :17:32.new sense. As I mentioned earlier with the second reading, the defence

:17:33. > :17:36.select committee say in their report, a number of our witnesses

:17:37. > :17:41.emphasise that the relatives of deceased can continue to use those

:17:42. > :17:46.medals, as well as being able to avail themselves of a specific

:17:47. > :17:50.defence placed in the bill. I agree that that should be included in the

:17:51. > :17:53.bill and that is the reason for this amendment. How to define family is

:17:54. > :17:56.an issue because the report goes on to say quite crucially, the term

:17:57. > :17:59.family member must be defined in terms of the proximity of the

:18:00. > :18:05.relations that it is seeking to include in the defence. It is not a

:18:06. > :18:08.legal term with a single definition. Acts of Parliament which use the

:18:09. > :18:10.term commonly carry a definition of family within them to be used for

:18:11. > :18:30.the purposes of that Act. Mr Johnson suggested in all evidence he was

:18:31. > :18:32.mindful the defence should be quite narrow so that for example and

:18:33. > :18:35.nephew deceitfully wearing medals could not rely on the defence by

:18:36. > :18:37.claiming there were his uncle's awards, and they also said the

:18:38. > :18:39.inclusion of the defence to ensure family members representing the

:18:40. > :18:41.deceased or incapacitated relatives in receipt of medals is vital but

:18:42. > :18:44.family member must be properly defined to make sure there is no

:18:45. > :18:46.room for uncertainty or abuse. We suggest the bill include a

:18:47. > :18:48.definition of family member in order to provide certainty over who will

:18:49. > :18:51.be covered by this category, and that is what I have tried to do

:18:52. > :18:57.here, I have taken it that spouse etc it should blood relatives and

:18:58. > :19:01.step relatives, and also provision for those adopted into families

:19:02. > :19:05.would slightly extend the basic definition of family according to

:19:06. > :19:10.section 113 of the Housing Act 1985. In reality there will only be one

:19:11. > :19:13.actual award so you should assume the closest family member might have

:19:14. > :19:17.it all for it to be shared by close family members, in which case the

:19:18. > :19:21.chances are it would not be some distant relative using the award in

:19:22. > :19:23.the first place. This amendment would also prevent the situation

:19:24. > :19:50.where for example a son pinches their father's

:19:51. > :19:53.medal for a bit of fun then goes out bragging about it being his. However

:19:54. > :19:55.unlikely or believable but would be, the Act of intending to DC does not

:19:56. > :19:58.take account of the perception of others. They may well laugh out loud

:19:59. > :20:01.at the absurdity of a 17-year-old wearing a medal when everyone knows

:20:02. > :20:03.they have never been in the Armed Forces but this does not prevent the

:20:04. > :20:05.offence from being committed as the bill stands. Hopefully this new

:20:06. > :20:08.clause would help with that. My honourable friend has obviously done

:20:09. > :20:11.a lot of work on defining what he means by a family member for these

:20:12. > :20:13.purposes. Did I hear him right when he says this is based upon the

:20:14. > :20:20.legislation related to housing? That is where I took the basic definition

:20:21. > :20:26.of a family member, according to section 113 of the Housing Act 1985.

:20:27. > :20:33.I'm conscious that my definition goes wider than that, but that was,

:20:34. > :20:36.if you like, a starting point as a definition. But I would like to

:20:37. > :20:44.think it has maybe been brought a bit more up to date, really, for

:20:45. > :20:47.current circumstances, perhaps. In that case I would like to

:20:48. > :20:53.congratulate my honourable friend for his innovative drafting. I'm

:20:54. > :20:56.very grateful, and from somebody as esteemed as my honourable friend,

:20:57. > :21:03.that is high praise indeed and I'm very grateful to him for that. New

:21:04. > :21:06.clause eight would require the Government to place before each

:21:07. > :21:10.house of parliament figures showing the number of convictions and

:21:11. > :21:12.sentences handed down for the offence of wearing medals with the

:21:13. > :21:17.intent to deceive each year following the bill coming into

:21:18. > :21:21.force, on or as near as possible to the anniversary of that date. This

:21:22. > :21:25.amendment would ensure we monitor the effect of the legislation both

:21:26. > :21:29.in terms of the number of convictions and the sentences handed

:21:30. > :21:34.out for those convictions. As we have no figures now, we don't know

:21:35. > :21:37.what the problem actually is. When I asked my local police force and the

:21:38. > :21:43.Metropolitan Police, they couldn't tell me of any incidents related to

:21:44. > :21:47.the existing offences of military uniforms etc, the defence select

:21:48. > :21:50.committee heard from various sources and nobody could actually quantify

:21:51. > :21:56.the problem, although people did give anecdotal examples of a

:21:57. > :22:00.problem. The problem does seem to be very small, from what I can glean

:22:01. > :22:04.from the evidence that the defence select committee heard. Again, the

:22:05. > :22:07.idea that we need to have a law seems more of a sledgehammer to

:22:08. > :22:12.crack a nut, and this was really just to see if this bill did come

:22:13. > :22:16.into effect, what we were dealing with, we would have a clear idea of

:22:17. > :22:23.the extent of the problem and sentences being handed down. We know

:22:24. > :22:27.that under the fraud Act 2006 it is still an offence to make or attempt

:22:28. > :22:31.to make financial gain by fraudulently wearing uniforms or

:22:32. > :22:35.medals. As my honourable friend got any information as to how many

:22:36. > :22:40.occasions that particular provision has been applied in the? No, I

:22:41. > :22:44.haven't, and I apologise to my honourable friend for not being well

:22:45. > :22:48.and are prepared to deal with his question, but I don't have that

:22:49. > :22:55.information and I don't even know if anybody has a information, they may

:22:56. > :23:02.well but I don't think I do have it. Other people may. New clause nine

:23:03. > :23:07.basically says the Act shall expire at the end of 2022 unless an order

:23:08. > :23:11.is made under this section by statutory instrument, and it says no

:23:12. > :23:15.order shall be made under the draft have been made and approved by each

:23:16. > :23:23.house of parliament. Basically this is a sunset clause in the bill, and

:23:24. > :23:27.it is there that if it did become apparent that the bill was not doing

:23:28. > :23:36.as intended it is our way of it nicely falling without any fanfare,

:23:37. > :23:43.but of course was introduced and doing particularly well somebody

:23:44. > :23:48.would be able to rehash it. Does my honourable friend agree that it

:23:49. > :23:51.strengthens the case for actually including new clause eight, because

:23:52. > :23:56.if new clause eight is accepted then it would be far easier for those

:23:57. > :24:02.wanting to assess the success or otherwise of the bill if it was

:24:03. > :24:05.included? Yes, I think he is absolutely right, new clause eight

:24:06. > :24:09.and nine in many respects go together in the sense that if you

:24:10. > :24:14.have a sunset clause you would need to be able to measure the success or

:24:15. > :24:19.otherwise of the legislation and the reporting set out in new clause

:24:20. > :24:22.eight would certainly help with that task. I think my honourable friend

:24:23. > :24:26.is right to draw attention to the fact that in many respects new

:24:27. > :24:32.clauses eight and nine, although not reliant on each other, do flow on

:24:33. > :24:37.quite nicely from each other. So, they are the new clauses which I

:24:38. > :24:42.appreciate was a quick canter round because of -- the course of the new

:24:43. > :24:47.clauses. In terms of the amendments tabled... I will give way. I have

:24:48. > :24:51.listened closely to the new clauses he is setting out but I wonder if he

:24:52. > :24:54.has read the proceedings of the bill in committee where it enjoyed strong

:24:55. > :24:57.support from across the House, including former members of the

:24:58. > :25:00.Armed Forces serving as members on both sides of the House? Many of the

:25:01. > :25:05.issues raised in these clauses have been dealt with, particularly those

:25:06. > :25:09.around mental health and family members wearing medals. Why is the

:25:10. > :25:13.continuing to frustrate the process? If the point I had been including in

:25:14. > :25:16.the bill in my amendment and new clauses had been covered, they

:25:17. > :25:20.wouldn't be allowed as amendments and new clauses. The reason they are

:25:21. > :25:24.amendments and new clauses is because they are not covered by the

:25:25. > :25:27.bill, that is the whole point of it, you cannot but an amendment to a

:25:28. > :25:30.bill that is already there otherwise it is not an amendment to the bill.

:25:31. > :25:36.I'm surprised he has not grasped that in his time in the House so

:25:37. > :25:41.far, that slightly basic point. I will come onto the amendment I have

:25:42. > :25:48.tabled, the first Amendment is page one, clause one, sub clause one B,

:25:49. > :25:55.which is to delete line four. In the bill it actually refers to the

:25:56. > :26:02.wearing of an award but also something that has the appearance of

:26:03. > :26:07.being an award. Now, it is one thing to have an offence related to people

:26:08. > :26:10.wearing actual medals, but it seems to be quite another to have it

:26:11. > :26:15.extend to something with the appearance of a medal. I think the

:26:16. > :26:20.whole bill is rather over the top in its provisions but this takes it one

:26:21. > :26:23.stage further. If somebody can be guilty of a criminal offence by

:26:24. > :26:28.wearing something which looks like something else but isn't, in attempt

:26:29. > :26:37.to deceive, I Is he suggesting that if someone

:26:38. > :26:44.goes around with a fake Victoria Cross, shouldn't be covered by this,

:26:45. > :26:49.only a genuine one they have stolen? I'm afraid the bill doesn't say, if

:26:50. > :26:51.someone goes out with a fake Victoria Cross, it's as if something

:26:52. > :26:58.has the appearance of being an award. That's quite

:26:59. > :27:01.all-encompassing, really, something that has the appearance of

:27:02. > :27:06.something, is really quite all-encompassing, this is for a

:27:07. > :27:08.criminal offence, by the way, that somebody would be committing a

:27:09. > :27:15.criminal offence by wearing somebody at some buddy else thinks that at

:27:16. > :27:22.the matter... Would it be a aside, does it have the appearance, at what

:27:23. > :27:26.distance do you see it, is it make a difference? If you see it from a

:27:27. > :27:30.long distance, it may well have the appearance, they see it close up it

:27:31. > :27:36.may be obvious it isn't, what are we judging that something has the

:27:37. > :27:40.appearance of? This is the law of the land we are introducing, it

:27:41. > :27:46.seems to me to be rather airy fairy at best. Certainly not precise

:27:47. > :27:52.enough to be able to be tested out in a court of law. Who is to decide?

:27:53. > :27:56.The somebody say, it gave the appearance to me on having it? Is

:27:57. > :28:03.that good enough? I really don't know where we are with that. My

:28:04. > :28:10.second Amendment in-line six is the same thing... Yes we would have a

:28:11. > :28:16.look at the placebo cream to this bill, which are set out in -- the

:28:17. > :28:22.policy background to this bill, it said, since 2009 committed not been

:28:23. > :28:26.an offence for an individual to wear medals and decorations they were

:28:27. > :28:35.never award. So doesn't seem as though the law before 2009 covered

:28:36. > :28:42.the wearing of full medals. -- force medals. I cannot understand why it

:28:43. > :28:49.is thought to extend the law beyond even what was applied prior to 2009.

:28:50. > :28:55.I very much agree, it seems to me that the bill, like I say, goes over

:28:56. > :29:01.the top in making these things a criminal offence with a custodial

:29:02. > :29:04.sentence. That is bad enough intervals of going over the top but

:29:05. > :29:07.when we are in the things that have the appearance of being an award,

:29:08. > :29:16.goes way beyond what anybody has ever envisaged before. That to me is

:29:17. > :29:20.too far. My third amendment is page one, clause one, sub clause two,

:29:21. > :29:28.line six which deletes the words in particular. It is including in

:29:29. > :29:35.particular which seems a strange phrase to have in legislation. It

:29:36. > :29:40.seems it generally doesn't strike me as being a helpful legal phrase, I

:29:41. > :29:44.would have thought. How do we define included in particular? Does that

:29:45. > :29:52.mean something else is included that we don't know? I don't really know

:29:53. > :29:55.what definition we have in mind will included in particular, how on earth

:29:56. > :29:59.is anyone to know if they are committing an offence? If they are

:30:00. > :30:06.wearing something which is not mentioned in particular, but could

:30:07. > :30:12.be interpreted to that they could be they are breaking the law, because

:30:13. > :30:18.it's not exclusively. It seems to me to be a rather strange phrase to

:30:19. > :30:23.have in the legislation. Amendment for, there are quite a few

:30:24. > :30:35.amendments here, which we can take together, which is four, six, seven,

:30:36. > :30:45.eight, nine, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. One of those deal with the fact of this

:30:46. > :30:51.being an imprisonable offence. And my amendments would, in the first

:30:52. > :30:54.instance, remove the custodial sentence in England and Wales, as I

:30:55. > :30:58.have said, I don't really think we should have this legislation and as

:30:59. > :31:01.I pointed out, when this bill was debated at the second reading, the

:31:02. > :31:07.Defence Select Committee called the report into this Bill exposing

:31:08. > :31:13.Walter Mitty. The award for protection Bill. But fear not

:31:14. > :31:18.exposing what is given this particular legislation, we are

:31:19. > :31:22.criminalising Walter Mitty and also sending him to prison for three

:31:23. > :31:27.months. If it was just exposing Walter Mitty, I don't think many of

:31:28. > :31:35.us would have a problem with this legislation but that isn't what

:31:36. > :31:37.we're doing. Yes. I'm grateful to him for giving way, I had

:31:38. > :31:40.interrupted him because it quite clear to me what he's trying to

:31:41. > :31:44.achieve here, to talk the bill out, it's clear these are ripping

:31:45. > :31:49.amendments and not based on logic. Would he accept it a great shame

:31:50. > :31:52.that Her Majesty 's opposition, the government, the SNP, across the

:31:53. > :31:59.house there is support for this Bill it seems hell-bent on actually

:32:00. > :32:02.preventing it becoming law? Ivan Piris honourable friend takes

:32:03. > :32:07.attitude. I have tabled some amendments to the Bill which found

:32:08. > :32:11.to be in order by the speaker. I don't know if he's questioning the

:32:12. > :32:15.Speaker's selection of amendments or not but they are all in order. If

:32:16. > :32:19.they went in order, they wouldn't have been selected for debate. Going

:32:20. > :32:24.through, rather rapidly, I would have thought, each of the amendments

:32:25. > :32:26.that have been put down in mining, that's what we're supposed to do,

:32:27. > :32:31.the table amendments and we go through them and explain the purpose

:32:32. > :32:35.behind them. The people can explain why they have them. That takes as

:32:36. > :32:41.long as it takes to do, I don't think I have and the Sara Lee -- I

:32:42. > :32:48.necessarily falling on any particular amendment. I don't set

:32:49. > :32:51.the timings for the debate, if it would last for longer, I would be

:32:52. > :32:55.happy for it to last the longer but I'm going to go through the

:32:56. > :32:58.amendments tabled and explain why I have tabled them them so you doesn't

:32:59. > :33:02.like people doing that with the legislation in the House of Commons

:33:03. > :33:07.but that is what the House of Commons is for. On put a printable,

:33:08. > :33:14.does he think the people who deface or cemeteries should be subject to

:33:15. > :33:18.criminal sanction? As it happens, I do, but I think we are straying from

:33:19. > :33:22.the point of the legislation so I don't would test your patience by

:33:23. > :33:27.going off on a tangent, trying to stick to my amendments to the Bill.

:33:28. > :33:32.I do agree they should but this isn't what this bill is about. And

:33:33. > :33:35.certainly not what my amendments are about as this would remove the

:33:36. > :33:40.custodial sentence for the offence in England and Wales. I have come in

:33:41. > :33:43.here listened to justice questions regularly as a member of the

:33:44. > :33:47.justices Select Committee and I'm always hearing everybody saying,

:33:48. > :33:52.agreeing apart from me and a few other notable exceptions, that we

:33:53. > :33:55.should have more people sent to prison. Now everybody, I think the

:33:56. > :34:00.Labour Party was in the proposal should let half the out of prison,

:34:01. > :34:03.the present publisher should be halved. I think the shadow Attorney

:34:04. > :34:12.General made that recommendation not to long ago. -- the present

:34:13. > :34:16.publisher should be halved. So how can we have a situation where we are

:34:17. > :34:21.getting people who are convicted of burglary and arson, out of prison

:34:22. > :34:26.and at the same time, domestic violence, indeed, they're desperate

:34:27. > :34:30.to get those out of prison as quickly as possible and at the same

:34:31. > :34:35.time, supposedly supporting a bill which would send somebody like this

:34:36. > :34:39.to prison. You literally couldn't make it up, that anybody could put

:34:40. > :34:42.those things together, there are too many people in prison and we should

:34:43. > :34:46.let them out but these people here should be sent to prison. How can

:34:47. > :34:52.anyone... I would be delighted to. I'm pleased he takes he takes a

:34:53. > :34:55.custodial sentences seriously, would you try make little progress so we

:34:56. > :34:58.could try and get some of the other bills, for example mind which would

:34:59. > :35:04.look too inconsistent and sing for animal cruelty from the Portal six

:35:05. > :35:09.months it is? I very much agree with her Bill about her Bill is the

:35:10. > :35:13.seventh down on the list so they get a bit optimistic to her ever have

:35:14. > :35:18.thought, Colin in the last time we have got the seventh bill on Friday

:35:19. > :35:24.for debates will stop she will not go that Bill was never going to be

:35:25. > :35:26.reached for debate. I agree with appellation get my wholehearted

:35:27. > :35:31.support if she persuade the government to take up the particular

:35:32. > :35:37.proposal. But the luck of the trouble is that her Bill was never

:35:38. > :35:40.going to be reached today. I think we are straight quite a lot. We are

:35:41. > :35:45.now only not talking about the amendment, not even talking about

:35:46. > :35:50.the Bill, if you can restrict comments to the amendments he has

:35:51. > :35:53.tabled I would be grateful. I was trying to do that they keep getting

:35:54. > :36:00.distracted by people wanting to raise all of other matters. I will

:36:01. > :36:03.stick to my moments as I was trying to do in the first place. My

:36:04. > :36:07.amendment number four, as a starting point, would remove the chance of

:36:08. > :36:11.anyone being sent to prison for this. Other countries have different

:36:12. > :36:15.positions, as the House of Commons library confirmed for the second

:36:16. > :36:20.reading debate. There are a range of offences covered here and detection

:36:21. > :36:24.between wearing medals, medals and to do to deceive, medals with a view

:36:25. > :36:27.to a financial gain, as the honourable member said, there is

:36:28. > :36:30.already protection under forward legislation when it comes to wearing

:36:31. > :36:34.an army uniform so we do have other legislation which covers this area

:36:35. > :36:44.when other countries have no such legislation. And in the defence...

:36:45. > :36:48.The other amendment on this, I have given a range of options, I've gone

:36:49. > :36:54.from no custodial sentence at all the custodial sentence for one day,

:36:55. > :36:58.seven days, 14 days, 21 days, 28 days, all of which are better than

:36:59. > :37:02.three months, I would prefer it to be no custodial sentence at all. But

:37:03. > :37:06.I've tabled all those different amendments to give the Houston kind

:37:07. > :37:13.of choice they felt different option was more appropriate. I'm grateful

:37:14. > :37:19.to him for giving way. Does he agree it's very sad that come this

:37:20. > :37:25.Remembrance Sunday, any individual ( in front of widows, that runs,

:37:26. > :37:29.families, loved ones, wearing medals that they haven't won themselves,

:37:30. > :37:33.intending to deceive and curry favour when they have not served

:37:34. > :37:36.themselves and the reason they would be able to do that is because the

:37:37. > :37:42.honourable gentleman has filibustered this bill? I thought

:37:43. > :37:47.the honourable friend was going to make a sensible point in this thing

:37:48. > :37:50.rather than spending about his accusations still, I'm trying to

:37:51. > :37:55.improve his Bill. The fact of the matter is that by his own admission,

:37:56. > :37:58.by his own admission, he brought for a bill which was a bit of a dog 's

:37:59. > :38:04.breakfast because he changed it radically at the committee stage of

:38:05. > :38:07.the Bill. If he had had his way, the bill would have gone through on the

:38:08. > :38:10.nod, nobody would have said anything and would have gone through in its

:38:11. > :38:16.original form which he himself accepts was a dog 's dinner of

:38:17. > :38:20.Irbil. And so now we have half a dog 's dinner of a bill and I accept he

:38:21. > :38:25.has made some improvements in the committee and just because he's in a

:38:26. > :38:30.tight timescale, is no basis for passing the deflation in this house.

:38:31. > :38:33.That can't be the appropriate way to pass legislation, to say, I know

:38:34. > :38:38.it's not really very good and there are still deficiencies in it and

:38:39. > :38:41.concerns, but I tell you what, we are on a tight timescale so we will

:38:42. > :38:44.forget all about that and just nodded through and the helm with the

:38:45. > :38:46.consequences, if somebody gets into the prison with the consequences, if

:38:47. > :38:53.somebody gets into the prison, record, and nobody intended in this

:38:54. > :38:57.has to get a criminal record, so be it, hard cheese. That might be the

:38:58. > :39:01.attitude he takes, but I'm afraid isn't it achieved I take. We have

:39:02. > :39:04.got to take these provisions... I'm going to press on because the

:39:05. > :39:08.honourable member hasn't yet made in sensible contribution to the debate,

:39:09. > :39:11.he seems to be talking a load of old nonsense. I'm going to press on with

:39:12. > :39:15.the whole point of my amendments which is to try and make this bill

:39:16. > :39:19.into something worthwhile. And hopefully we still have other days

:39:20. > :39:23.to consider private members bills in this session of Parliament, I hope

:39:24. > :39:36.we will be able to conclude it on a future, if time allows. I will give

:39:37. > :39:39.way. I'm grateful to my honourable friend. I think it's putting that

:39:40. > :39:44.anybody should wish to try and use emotional blackmail against what my

:39:45. > :39:49.honourable friend is putting forward because our honourable friend, in

:39:50. > :39:52.his last intervention, referred to people who were wearing medals which

:39:53. > :39:55.they had been awarded, he didn't deal with the issue of them wearing

:39:56. > :39:59.things that had the appearance of being an award, and I can't

:40:00. > :40:02.understand why some of the amendments my honourable friend is

:40:03. > :40:10.putting forward are not acceptable to the sponsor of the Bill? I very

:40:11. > :40:12.much agree, perhaps if the bill had been drawn as narrowly as my

:40:13. > :40:17.honourable friend is now trying to draw it, it may have been acceptable

:40:18. > :40:20.to all concerned, but unfortunately he didn't, he decided to go way over

:40:21. > :40:24.the top in terms of including all sorts of people who never envisaged

:40:25. > :40:31.originally, that's why we have to come to this point, to try and sort

:40:32. > :40:36.out some of these issues. I won't give way, I'm going to crack on. I