24/02/2017 House of Commons

Order, order. The House do now is sit in private, Mr Speaker. The

question is that the House do now sit in private. Say aye. Say no. The

ayeshave it. On Wednesday morning there were four

bills for the remaining stages on the order paper. But on Thursday

morning, a fifth one appeared on the order paper, the Kew Gardens still

remains in stages, which only completed its committee stage on

Wednesday. I must say, I don't attach any blame here to the

honourable gentleman for Bridgwater, and I don't have any particular

issue with the bills. But my particular issue is a point of

principle but amendments or private members bills on Friday have to be

tabled by the end of play on Tuesday. And yet this bill didn't

appear on the order paper until Thursday morning after it had

completed its committee stage on Thursday, therefore giving people no

opportunity to table any amendments if they so wish. I just wondered

what your view was on this and whether or not this should be the

state of affairs. I noticed that the Kew Gardens Bill

had appeared on the order paper yesterday morning. And I'd tabled

some amendments to it. But obviously those amendments are star

amendments, because I tabled in the first opportunity. -- starred

amendments. Unless there is a rolling to the contrary, it would be

possible to debate those amendments. -- a ruling to the contrary. I was

told that although it was the convention that a member of this

house should not put down a bill for report stage at the third reading if

that Bill had only come out of committee on the Wednesday, rather

than the Tuesday of that week, which is certainly the practice that was

adopted by my honourable friend when he brought forward the homelessness

bill, which I have the privilege of sharing in committee, it was quite

clear that that Bill would not be put forward for report stage unless

I had been a clear period in which amendments could be put down. I just

wonder whether you can rule on this, and if the bill is heard today,

whether it will be possible to discuss the amendments to it. The

short answer is it will be possible. As is probably obvious to the

honourable gentleman and the honourable member for Shipley, this

is the first I had heard of the disquiet of the two honourable

members. And of the timing of this bill coming forward. The rationale

for that, I am advised, is that there are few Fridays left and that

the honourable gentleman, the member for Bridgwater, is keen to make

progress with his bills. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that, what I

can say to the honourable member for Christchurch and to the honourable

gentleman for Shipley, is that there will be an opportunity for new

clauses and amendments to be considered. Moreover, beyond those

that have been tabled, if there is concern that there was not a proper

period in conformity with usual practice for the tabling of

amendments, and the honourable gentleman feel disadvantaged by

that, it is open to the chair to allow manuscript amendments. So I

hope that even if the honourable members are not pleased about the

sequence of events, they are reassured that such opportunities as

they might speak on those matters will be there for them they will

have an opportunity to deploy their vocal chords and their intellects. I

think I've given a full explanation. On the point of manuscript

amendment, if a member has noted that there has been a small

typographical error on the amendments that have been filed for

a bill that has already been tabled for debate today, is it in order to

try and bring forward manuscript amendments for the order paper on

debate, and would be chair be prepared to consider? The chair will

certainly be happy to consider that will stop I make no commitments, it

will depend on the case, but I am certainly open to that. I hope that

the point of order appetite has been satisfied at least for now. The

clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. Preventing and

combating violence against women and domestic violence.

Ratification of Convention bill. Not amended in public Bill committee to

be considered. Thank you, we begin with new clause six with which it

will be convenient to consider the new clauses and amendments as listed

on the selection paper also Mr Philip Davies. Thank you, very much.

Point of order. I did wish to -- I don't wish to try your patience, Mr

Speaker... Lap I wonder if you could advise the House about the

explanatory statements that are associated with amendments?

Particularly explanatory statements associated with government

amendments. If you look at page nine of the Amendment paper, Mr Speaker,

you'll see in relation to amendment for, the members explanatory

statement says that this means in obligation to make a statement to

parliament will fall on the Secretary of State, rather than Her

Majesty's government generally. But in fact the amendment goes much

further than that. Because what it would also do is it would change the

role of the Government in determining whether or not they were

ratification did, and that would substitute the Government putting

the Secretary of State in place. The explanatory statement is not a full

and accurate statement of the effects of the amendment.

In response to that though the point of order, I am not responsible for

the content of government explanatory statement. Moreover,

well, the Government Whip says from a secondary position that a shame. I

have a sufficient burden, which I am very happy to see to discharge to

the best of my ability. But responsibility for government

explanatory statement is not part of that burden. Moreover, if I can

bring a glimpse to the eye and a Sprint EV step of the honourable

gentleman, it might be my observation that he, too, is not

responsible for the content of government explanatory statements.

They are intended to help the House and facilitate debate, but they

enjoy no formal status whatsoever. So I don't think that the honourable

gentleman should be troubled by the matter. There may be something on

which he may wish to expand on a later stage. We shall see. "Not

really," says the honourable member for Google. We will see. We begin

with new clause, with which it will be convenient to consider new

clauses as listed. Thank you. I beg to move new clause six and other new

clauses and amendments which stand in my name and in the name of my

honourable friend for Bury North. We actually have quite a large group of

new clauses and amendments to go through this morning. There are, in

total, 11 new clauses in this group of amendments. Seven that have been

tabled by me. Four that have been tabled by my honourable friend for

Christchurch. On top of those 11 new clauses, we have 36 further

amendments in this group. The highest member of these amendments

have been tabled by the Government. In cahoots, I think it's fair to

say, Mr Speaker, with the SNP and the proposer of the bill. I will

come onto that amendments in a bit, because it seems to me that they're

trying to corner the campaigners who are behind this bill by pretending

to support the Istanbul convention, at the same time as splitting the

bill to try and make sure they doesn't come into effect at all.

More on that later. There are 14 further amendments that I've tabled.

And five from my honourable friend for Christchurch. So we have 47

combined new causes and amendments to consider this morning. -- new

clauses. I will try to do justice to these amendments, Mr Speaker, and I

will try and do it as quickly as I can, because we appreciate that

other people will want to speak on these amendments, too. But I think a

quick bit of arithmetic will tell you that if I only spent... I will

in a second. If I only spent two minutes on each new clause, we would

soon rattle past 1.5 hours. I appreciate that it's going to take

some time to go through such a group of amendments that are so large in

number. I give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way.

I would have thought supporting the Prime Minister's commitment to

ratify the Istanbul convention. Can he clarify that for me? I think it's

fair to say that I've never been considered the Prime Minister's

official spokesperson. I'm very grateful that the honourable

gentleman has elevated me to that lofty position. I suspect it's one

that will never come about. I might note the opportunity for all it's

worth now -- I might look the opportunity for all that is

worthwhile. The Prime Minister has made clear that she has supported

the bill. I will come onto explaining why that is a long way

away from agreeing. I've made it clear in the second

reading, I don't agree with the Istanbul convention because it is

discriminatory. But at least I'm upfront and honest about it in

saying I oppose the bill and I seek to stop the bill from going forward.

I think that's a bit more appropriate than pretending you

support something but actually quietly trying to develop something

to make sure it doesn't come into place. But other people and explain

their motivations when they get the opportunity to speak, including

hopefully the promoter of the bill. I hope they will get an opportunity.

So anyway, going through these in order, I will start with new clause

six. New clause six refers to the recommendations by the committee.

Any recommendable... At the moment, we have the Council of Europe's

group of Oxford experts on violence against women. And the committee of

parties. That is the committee of the parties to Council Europe in

combating violence against women and domestic violence Istanbul

convention. My amendment, my new clause six, Mr Speaker, would mean

those recommendations given by the committee and the parties would not

be binding on the UK Government. Has a two pellet monitoring system that

accompanies it. Ensuring all members are living up to their commitments.

It is interesting to note that nobody on the SNP bench once listen

to the debate. Which is uprising because it was exposing the second

reading they didn't know what was in the convention when it came to it.

You would think they've learned their lesson and want to learn about

what was the Istanbul convention this time around, but apparently

not. I'm not entirely whether the kneeling position of the honourable

gentleman opposite is in order during a speech, his position on his

knees facing the wrong way. I am not sure if it is an order, but it is

certainly not normal. It is not normal behaviour from the honourable

gentleman. He may not be listing, but he could at least give the

impression he's interested in what is going on in the debate. He's not.

We are very to him he is not interested in the debate. There is

no wonder the SNP are so authoritarian. The Istanbul

convention has a two pillar monitoring system that accompanies

it, making sure all members are living up to their commitments. The

aim of this, is to it assessed implementation of the convention by

the parties. We have these two groups, composer of ten members and

bully subsequently enlarged to 50 members following the 25th country

to ratify it. And a political body, the committee of the parties,

composed of representatives of the party of the Istanbul convention.

Now, it seems to me that the last thing we need here is another group

from a supranational body, set up to luck, to make it look like they're

doing something on issues, but it just becomes a talking shop, were

actually it is not the implementation of the Istanbul

convention which will make any real difference to levels of violence

generally, and said the levels of violence against woman, it is

harsher sentencing, perpetrators who will make a big deference. The idea

that having these group of experts pontificating about how well above

the survey has been implicated will make any difference to the levels of

violence in the UK is for the birds. But the task is to monitor the

implementation and they may adopt general recommendations on themes

and the concept of the convention, the committee of the parties follows

up on their report and conclusions, and adopt recommendations of the

parties concerned. There are different procedures that these two

bodies can use to monitor each country's fermentation, such as a

country by country evaluation procedure, where they considered as

evidence submitted by the relevant countries. However, should they find

his evidence is insufficient, they have the power to organise country

visits and fact-finding missions in the countries concerned. I will give

way. I'm grateful to him, can he tell us whether the UK is

represented on either or both of these two bodies? And if it is, who

is our representative? Has he consulted with such persons

concerning the terms of his new clause before he tabled it? As far

as I'm aware, Mr Speaker, from my reading of the situation, my right

honourable friend issues do much more up on these matters, so I will

bow to his superior knowledge, but my understanding is until we

actually ratified the convention, that we don't get any members on

these bodies. So we will only get members on these bodies once we've

actually ratified the convention, that's my understanding. If he knows

definitely, I'm very happy to allow him to correct me because as I say,

the duty after more right than I am on those matters. But that's my

understanding. Another procedure they can adopt as a special enquiry

procedure which can be implemented when there is reliable information

indicating action is required to prevent a serious, massive or

persistent pattern of any acts of violence covered by the convention.

They can request urgent a special report by the concerned country.

Now, although this is a concern to me, Mr Speaker, because I don't

believe the government should ratify the convention at all, but what I do

want to see happen should we do ratify, what I want to see is for

these foreign supranational bodies to come over. As we often see from

the UN, start lecturing, when the factors we are doing things an awful

lot better than anyone else in the world on these matters. We see this

often with United Nations, and it seems to me by ratifying the

convention upon the terms of this bill, we will be open ourselves up

to some visits and fact-finding missions and interfering by a

foreign body, lecturing us about what we should do and instructed us

that we should be doing this, that and the other. Does he agree we

already have sufficient procedures and committees within our own House

of Commons to be able to monitor the actions of the government on the

Istanbul convention? I think you are right, it is rather sad if the House

of Commons and Parliament generally things it is so poor at holding the

government to account these things and it can't do itself and has the

form of the Johns to a foreign body. It seems to me a rather strange

approach -- farm of the jobs. Of course, we do have the women and

equality side committee, which strikes me... We won't go into the

issue of the name of that, but that select committee will be more than

capable of holding the government to account on the work they're doing on

combating violence against women and violence against men for that

matter, so I don't really see we need a foreign politicians and

bureaucrats sticking their nose into what are doing. I will give way.

Isn't he contradicting himself, because if we were to adapt the

convention, it would be a foreign body lecturing us, it would be a

body upon which we have representation and were able to make

our views known? I don't accept that, Mr Speaker. After having said

my right honourable friend is fishy always right, I fear on this

occasion this is one of the rare occasions he is not -- is always

right. These things sound wonderful when you sign up to them, but you

don't understand the full implications of doing so. Just to

give an illustration of that, perhaps we might focus on the

European Convention on human rights. Where if anybody actually looks at

the convention itself and looks at the rights that are contained within

it, it is difficult for anyone to disagree with anything contained

within it. But what we didn't realise at the time was how it would

grow and how it would start to get ahead of itself and start

interpreting things in a way that could never have been envisaged and

start getting above the station, not create all sorts of problems further

down the line. And my dear here, Mrs vigour, isn't necessarily always

about what is in the convention, although I do have concerns, but for

the purpose of this new clause, I'm more concerned about the way a

foreign body will interpret their role. Growing to a level that was

never envisaged either in the convention or by Bill itself, and I

think the votes for prisoners in European convention on human rights

in how these things can grow to a way we never, ever envisage, so I

don't accept the premise of my right honourable friend's intervention. I

think new clause six is essential to maintain our sovereignty in the UK

and make sure to set out clearly on the face of the bill so it is in no

doubt we retain all sovereignty in these matters and the in the

implementation of what we are doing. That is news clause six. New clause

ten, Mr Speaker, follows on from that. I would have hoped the SNP and

the campaigners for this particular piece of legislation would very much

welcome my new clause ten. Because new clause ten says that any

recommendations made by the company, and the committee of the parties,

must be debated in Parliament before any government responds. As my right

honourable friend was arguing that Parliament should be in charge of

these matters, it seems to me we've got a situation if we sign up to

this, Parliament will be excluded from anything that goes on at once

we've ratified the Convention on the bill is passed, Parliament will all

of a sudden become redundant. It seems to me that if a foreign

organisation is actually saying, producing reports saying the

government is not actually meeting what it signed up to, that is the

view of the committee of the parties and they produce a report, surely it

is only right that matter is debated in Parliament so Parliament can have

its say on whether or not it agrees with that before the government

response back to them and the committee of the parties. I can't

really see why anybody he was in favour of this bill and is

campaigning for this bill could possibly object to giving Parliament

more scrutiny over the process and actually give them more power to

hold the government to account, perhaps of anybody who supports the

bill would now like to intervene and tell me what objection they have two

new clause ten, and very happy to hear it and try deal with it. If

people don't have any objections, they will remain quiet and we will

proceed on that basis, and we can't post new clause ten to and hopefully

get people's endorsements. I will give the opportunity again, Mrs

Peter, if anybody has any objections to new clause ten, if they can speak

about -- Mr Speaker. We will hopefully... It looks like we have

full support, I will give way. It is a slightly different point. Does my

right honourable friend accept the bill as currently drafted in clause

3180 does include some provision for Parliamentary scrutiny? But the

government amendment number 14 is seeking to remove even that a

modicum of scrutiny. He is right, I will come onto the government

amendments in due course. In passing, I would say my right

honourable friend is writes, the government 's, in cahoots with the

SNP, I must stress this, their cosy little deal, have actually removes

any post ratification, scrutiny of how the government is doing, which

seems to be quite extraordinary. But no doubt the government and the SNP

will be able to answer for themselves in due course. He says

they have removed, but at the moment the bill has not been amended at

all. My honourable friend ensures that any government amendments are

tested in this House, because it may well be a lot of the people who were

supporters of this bill will not want to see it watered down on the

way the government wishes. My honourable friend is right. I no far

from watering down the Bill, my honourable friend is seeking to

strengthen the bill, and I will come to his amendments and a new clauses

in due course. I certainly think we have an important role to play in

Parliament in making sure any legislation is fit for purpose. And

he's right, any attempts to try to hoodwink the public, we ought to

test will on the House and so people know where MP stands on watering

down the convention and on whether or not Parliament should have any

role post-ratification or whether we should ratify the Istanbul

convention and leave it as that. I will give way. I'm grateful to my

honourable friend the giving way in regard to new clause ten. I wonder

whether he's fought for the constitutional implications of

allowing a boot in this House to have any formal standing when it is

not a primary legislation, and wouldn't that risk

I will always bow to the superior knowledge on constitutional issues.

I'm certainly not going to enter into a competition with him because

I would certainly lose by competition. But I don't really

think that new clause ten, there is anything to fear particularly from

it because all it asks for is for a debate on the report to take place

in Parliament before the Government gives a response. It wouldn't

necessarily even make the Government beholden to the outcome of that

debate. But at least it would make sure that the Government is aware of

the views of members of Parliament before they actually responded.

Thank you for giving way again. But how would that be tested? Because if

the Government decided not to have a debate in parliament, it couldn't be

taken to a judicial review because the courts could not consider a

proceeding in Parliament. I think there's plenty of evidence of

governments ignoring what Parliament has to say to it. I have to say on a

number of occasions, whether it be on appointments, elect committees,

or whatever, -- select committees, I appreciate my honourable friend's

concern, and obviously I will always take them seriously. During the

course of the rest of the debate I will reflect on what other people

have to say and they may be able to persuade me that new clause ten

isn't worth pursuing. But I don't envision is the problem is that my

honourable friend does envisions. I suppose, Mr Speaker, we ought to

just leave it at that. And perhaps move on from there. But my

honourable friend will get his opportunity to have his say and

explain in greater detail why new clause ten should be resisted. I'm

sure that as ever the House will listen carefully to what he says, as

will I, because it will be a sad fate of affairs if I found myself in

a different voting lobby to my honourable friend. It would be a sad

and rare state of affairs defy myself in that situation. I think

that new clause ten should find favour with people because it gives

Parliament more say over what is happening post-ratification. As for

new clause 11, Mr Speaker, this is about annual statistics. I think

this is very important because I've heard lots of assertions from

campaigners that we must pass the Istanbul convention in order to

eliminate violence against women. It seems that the campaign will have

no violence against women. My new clause when

in each country who have ratified the Istanbul convention to make them

publicly available and publish them annually. The point of this is so we

can actually all see for ourselves whether or not ratifying the

Istanbul convention actually makes any difference at all levels of

violence against women and levels of domestic violence. At the moment, we

don't really know too much about it. And in preparation this debate, I

tried to get figures on those countries who have already ratified

the convention to ask if they had seen a reduction in violence since

the ratification. It's seems to me that we need to test whether or not

it makes any difference at all. Unfortunately, the House of Commons

Library told me that they did not have any such figures, that these

figures did not exist. Anybody who stands up today and says that

passing the Istanbul Convention will reduce levels of violence against

women are actually standing up and saying that they have no evidence at

all to support that claim. Unless, of course, they've done what I did.

What I did if I wrote to the What I did if I wrote to the

ambassadors of all the countries who have ratified the convention to ask

if they could supply any of this information to me in the absence of

the House of Commons Library. I don't know if anybody else in the

House had bothered to find out whether or not ratifying the

convention makes any difference at all to levels of violence against

women. Maybe anybody who has can intervene now and share that

information with me. I didn't think anyone would actually have any idea

what they were talking about before they came here today, because that

would break a great tradition on a Friday if somebody came in and knew

they pontificated. So I've done the they pontificated. So I've done the

work for them. A game, I've done the work for them. I content of the

ambassadors of the countries who have ratified the convention and

asked for their figures. I'm sure everyone will be interested to know

what has happened in those countries. I'm sure the Minister

will be delighted to know. Maybe the minister doesn't know this either.

It's quite extraordinary, really. Sweden's signed the convention in

May 2011 and ratified in July 20 14. It came into force in November 2014

with reservations. I will come onto them later because I know it's a

subject that my honourable friend for Christchurch feels very strongly

about. The figures given to me by the Swedish ambassador, the total

report reported offences in 2013 before the convention was ratified

in Sweden was 39,000 580. When the convention came into force, it was

42,217. In 2015, after ratification, it went up to 42,252. In the

preliminary figures for 2016 show an ever increasing violence with

reported offences at 43,179. The offences included in this capacity,

and the Swedish ambassador sent detailed information along with it,

included all forms of assault, murder, rape, including attempted

rape, regardless of the victim's age. In Sweden, ratification of the

Istanbul Convention has not made a blind bit of difference to levels of

violence against women. Not a blind bit. In fact, all that's happened is

its continued to increase. All of those people claiming that this is

essential to reduce violence - what do they say now? What do they have

to say now? Absolutely nothing, that's what they have to say. I give

way. I wonder if there might be other factors involved. You may have

heard the President of the United States considers -- are expressing

considerable concern about the dangers arising in Sweden. My

honourable friend makes a good point and I don't intend to deviate too

much from the matter in hand, but he does raise an interesting point as

to what may be the driving force of this. I think the point he's getting

too is that he thinks the levels and nature of immigration into Sweden

may have had a contributory factor to that. I think that's the point

he's probably trying to make. And a point that was being made by

President Trump last week. There will be truth in that. There may

well be truth in that. I don't know, I didn't ask the ambassador for any

assessment he made of the levels. All we do know is that ratifying the

Istanbul convention has not led to a decrease in violence against women

in Sweden. So all of those people claiming that's what's going to

happen, they might want to think again. I give way. Is it possible

that by highlighting the issue that the country cares about the

particular form of violence, that people might be more willing to

report that violence? Therefore, figures might go up, rather than

down. I'm grateful to my honourable friend. It's a no fail measure,

isn't it? If it goes down, it's because of the Istanbul Convention.

If it goes up, it's because of the Istanbul Convention. It can't fail,

it a winner. That's the line my honourable friend and I commend her

greatly. She's almost certainly going to be made a government

minister very soon. With that level of a at the dispatch box, she will

be a very fine minister to explain away any figure that her government

has. She will make a mighty fine minister in very short order. I

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

quite the same in Portugal as it was in Sweden. My honourable friend's

ceases slightly. In Portugal -- my honourable friend's thesis. In

Portugal, who ratified earlier than Sweden, what were seen as a

roller-coaster in numbers since they have ratified the convention. Some

years, it's gone down. Then down, then up again. I'm not entirely sure

how that one would be explained away on the basis of increased levels of

awareness or... Basically, it's pretty fair to say that any

independent observer of these figures would indicate that

ratification makes not a blind bit of difference to levels of violence

against women. But I'm very happy for people to put their own

particular gloss and spin on upward and downward figures. I'm just

looking at it as somebody who's interested... Of course I'll give

way. I'm not sure whether he's talking about reporting figures or

not. Surely the cases, if women are aware that their voice will be heard

if they would come forward and report incidents, surely he can see

that as a positive thing? Of course I'm in favour of people reporting

crimes. I'm not entirely sure that we need to ratify the Istanbul

Convention in order for people to report a crime. We encourage people

to report crimes now. If my honourable friend wants to send out

a message today to say to any victim of violence that it's absolutely

essential that they report that crime to the police, very welcome to

do so. I will endorse that message wholeheartedly. Everybody who is a

victim in any shape and form of any kind of violence, irrespective of

gender, should report back to the police and it should be fully

investigated. The perpetrator should be brought to justice and we should

be much more harshly punished them they are today. Let that message

ring out from the chamber today. We do not need to ratify the Istanbul

convention for people to report that they've been the victim of a violent

crime. We have measures in place already to deal with that in this

country. In Portugal we have a roller-coaster effect. In Poland,

situation. It seems to me. Where situation. It seems to me. Where

they have a game ratified on the 27th of April 2015. -- have again

ratified. It seems that after Poland signed the convention, the figures

went up. But lately the figures have gone down. So it's difficult.

There's no pattern, is what I would say, Mr Speaker, in the countries

where the ambassadors kindly sent me their figures. But I would say, and

I think this is important to put on The Record, I think it shows that in

Sweden, Portugal and Poland, they clearly take this issue very

seriously. I commend them for doing so. And actually laying bare to me

what their figures were. In some cases, are very good. In some cases,

they're not so good. But they've been open and transparent enough

share them with me and I've been able to share them with the House.

What I do worry about is the countrys that didn't share those

figures. The reason that some did not reply with the figures, and I

have no evidence to support this, I'm making an assertion that I

appreciate can be counted, but I would fear and my suspicion may well

be that the reason of the countries haven't supplied the information is

because they may be slightly embarrassed that the figures have

gone in the wrong way since they ratified the convention. But I could

be wrong. People can draw their own conclusions. We've also had figures

through from Albania and Austria. In Albania, the figures show an

increase from the time of ratification, from 4999 to 5281. In

Austria, the trend is the same. Their first annual report came out

in September last year after the convention came into force in 2014.

It showed that the number of female victims of those violent offences

has increased again from 37,546 to 37,637. I think it's fair to say

that we're not going to make a massive amount of difference to

levels of violence against women by ratifying this treaty. I should also

say that in Austria, the number of women murdered in Austria since they

ratified the Istanbul convention, the number of women murdered when

from 118 in 2014, to 165 in 2015. That seems to me quite a significant

increase in murders against women in the day after they ratified the

Istanbul convention. It seems to me that it's absolutely essential and

this is why I think that... On that point, does he think that increase

on the number of murders against women has been because there is a

high reporting rate? I suspect it harder for a murder victim to report

that particular crime. So, clearly not. My honourable friend is

absolutely right, it can't be explained away by increased

reporting of crime. I think it's fair to say that murders are known

to the authorities. That is an increase in murders is

the one year they ratified the Convention, so I hope those people

claiming it will lead to a miraculous reduction in violence

against women will change their minds and perhaps it might be

persuaded to vote for new clause 11, which would mean we would have all

of these statistics available to us so we could produce our own

analysis. What has anybody got to fear from knowing what the facts are

around all the countries who have ratified the convention? I don't see

what anyone would have the fear of asking the government to source that

information. New clause 12 is similar to new clause 11, but it

asks for quarterly statistics. And asks for the government to use its

best endeavours to obtain statistics at the levels of violence against

men, women and all domestic violence and publish them quarterly. So I

wouldn't one or not, the argument are the same but it is asking them

to do it quarterly rather than annually, so people can make their

choice between the preferred 11 or clause 12. Both not compatible with

each other, it is give the House a choice to see when they want the

figures published. New clause 17 relates to compensation awarded to

those who sustained serious bodily injury or impairment of health. And

this, we now coming to the reservations that are loud within

the Istanbul Convention. My honourable friend the Christchurch

knows much more about the subject than me. And I know, I am sure he

will want to speak to his new clauses and amendments which cover

this area. It is fair to say, it is unusual that my honourable friend

and I are coming at this bill from different angles. Because I'm

wishing to, for the government to retain as many reservations as is

allowed under the Istanbul Convention, my honourable friend 's

is seeking to come I was going to say reduce the number, eliminate, it

seems, eliminate the numbers of reservations the government would be

able to retain under the Istanbul Convention. He will make his case

when he comes to it, I want to make the case for giving the government

as much freedom as possible within the convention. I will be interested

to know what the Mercer, where she sets -- minister. When she comes to

speak. Paragraph two of article 30 of the convention states that

adequate state compensation shall be awarded to those who have sustained

serious bodily injury or impairment of health, to the is not covered by

other sources such as the perpetrator, insurance or state

funded health and social provisions. This is not preclude parties for

claiming compensation awarded from the perpetrator, as as long as jury

guard is paid to the victim's safety. I'm a bit nervous, Mr

Speaker. I believe as much as anybody, may be more, that victim

should be much more fairly treated in the Cribbar justice system, and

that to include them being properly compensated -- crime justice system.

My dear here, if we were to adopt this particular article, article 30

of the convention, we'll be opening up the government to large claims

for the state to pay compensation, when perhaps it might be more

appropriate for them to be pursued through different avenues. People

may not, they just think the state is easier to go to and do that. I'm

not entirely sure, I hope the Minister, where she comes to speak,

will be able to give us some estimate of how much the government

thinks it would cost. If the government were to adopt article 30

of the convention. Because I generally don't know. I don't know

how much additional cost, if any, there would be for the UK taxpayer

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

I don't blame her, because anything would be an estimate. My point would

be, if we don't know, rather than signing ourselves of two an unknown

cost to the UK taxpayer, it would be more sensible for the UK to reserve

the right on that particular issue not to sign up to wed. We can make

our own arrangements, just because not signing up to that part of the

convention doesn't mean to say we can't do it ourselves anyway. My

view is that we should believe that -- leave it to us to decide matters

for ourselves, rather than signing ourselves of the something about

which we don't know the full consequences and cost of. That is my

point of view. I will give way. I commend him for new clause 17

because what it is effectively is a probing new clause to try and find

out what the government's policy is in relation to this particular

issue. The government is saying they wish to ratify this convention, but

there has been no statement from the government as to whether they wish

to have reservations or not, and that the powers in the convention.

My honourable friend makes a good point, they have the Minister will

make that clear. I've given up in the hope the SNP know anything about

what is in the Istanbul Convention. They clearly have no idea. If they

did bother to read what was at it, they would know in the Istanbul

Convention, there are powers the government to reserve some of the

issues, they don't have the sign up to them. We don't have any idea as

to whether or not we will be signed up to these things or not. It seems

to me that before Parliament agrees a survey, we should at least know

what we are signing up to. At the moment we have no idea at all what

we are signing up to. Perhaps the Minister, before we get onto the

third reading of the bill, might be could never tell us what they

envisage is signing up to or not signing up to. My honourable friend

is right one sense, to tease out from the government which bit of a

convention we will be signing up to as part of the ratification, and

which we won't, but think he's likely doing my new clause a

disservice in just saying it's a probing amendment because I'm not

entirely sure I agree with him it is just a probing amendment. A probing

amendment would indicate I don't really agree with the new clause I'm

putting forward, but I'm just try to seek information. I do agree with

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

new clause 19, my honourable friend, if he was to make the same

accusation at me here, may have a point. He may have a point. New

clause 19, Mr Speaker, means nothing in this bill should prevent the UK

ratifying the Istanbul Convention with reservations as provided for in

paragraphs two and three of article 70 eight. And so effect, new clause

19 would allow the government, would require the government will not just

allow the government, to ratify the convention by having the maximum

number of reservations allowed under the convention. I think it is

important we highlight what reservations are allowed and

therefore what would be covered by new clause 19. Because these

reservations apply from these outlying areas. Compensation, which

I've just covered a new clause 17, Jura structure and, Statute of

limitation -- jurisdiction. And the right to reserve a non-criminal

sanctions for psychological violence and stalking. Article 30, I've

talked about, it is about the thing about compensation. But the other

ones that are covered, which will be covered by new clause 19, which

would allow the government to opt out of the convention in these

areas, Article 44, paragraphs one he, three and four, which are

regarding jurisdiction. Article 55, paragraph one in respect of article

35, regarding a minor offences. Which considers ex-party. Article

58, in respect of article 30 seven, 38 and 39, regarding statute of

limitation. And the D9 which considers resident status,

especially in relation to spouses. And finally paragraph three macro of

article 78, declares a state -- is under criminal sanctions for the

behaviour is referred to in articles 33 and 34, which psychological

violence and stalking respectively. For all these reservations, I think

there is a good case to be had for saying the UK Government and

parliament should be sovereign in all these issues and that's where we

can just leave these matters to the UK Government and to Parliament and

the UK courts, we should take the opportunity. Partly, mainly for the

reason I outlined in response to my right honourable friend the East

Yorkshire, that we have no idea necessarily how these things will

develop over years, how these things will happen, so it is best to

reserve as many as these rights as possible. And that would be, I

think, the most sensible strategy for the government to adopt. Because

that waited retained as much control as possible for us and how we deal

with these things. -- because in that way. Does he agreed there is

plenty of President from around Europe from what other countries

have done as part of their ratification but going down

precisely this route? He is right. I was literally just about to come

onto that. Because of the 22 countries that have already signed

and ratified the convention, 11 have done so with reservations attached.

And indeed, a further four countries have signed the convention, saying

they have reservations attached too. It is clearly a reasonable approach

the government to take, and it is accepted, and it's in the

convention. It must be an accepted approach. It is clearly a reasonable

approach, as all countries are different and all government and

legal systems are different. It is important they are recognised as

much as possible so that any provisions are to the taste of that

particular country I hope the government will make clear where we

are with these reservations. And what implications it has. And

whether or not if it seeks, if it is seeking to exercise the maximum

number of reservations, which I would advise it to do, maybe the

Minister can confirm she has no objection therefore to new clause

19, which will simply make that clear on the face of the bill and

put that matter beyond any doubt whatsoever and beyond any debate,

any further debate. I agree. Does he really think that the issue of

stalking, for example, that we should be prepared as a parliament

to contemplate only having noncriminal sanctions against

stalking? No, I don't, I was going to come onto that matter a bit

later. But as my honourable friend has raised no, no, absolutely not.

In fact, colleagues will remember my honourable friend, the Member for

Cheltenham, launching a campaign to try and double the maximum sentence

the court could impose the people convicted of stalking. I was a

strong supporter of his attempts to do that, he introduced a ten minute

rule Bill. I was a strong supporter of his ten minute rule. I am pleased

the government agreed to that measure. They agreed to adopt that

measure, and I think that is fantastic. Where I think I differ

with my honourable friend is I don't accept the premise that making

reservations from the convention means you necessarily always have to

disagree with what is in those particular articles. It just means

we are free to do what we think is right rather than having another

the matter is. I think we can be the matter is. I think we can be

trusted to do the right thing by people who are guilty of, who are

victims of stalking, and the government have done that already.

What I would say is that not signing up to any article doesn't say you

disagree with it, just means you want to retain sovereignty for your

own country. Following on, can my honourable

friend understand why it was at the last Labour government, when they

were negotiating this convention, were prepared to allow other

countries merely to have non-criminal sanctions in respect of

Dorking, and to allow a reservation of this nature in relation to

stalking with our only a very limited number of reservations

allowed? -- in respect of stalking. The honourable member makes a very

good point. No doubt the Labour spokesman will be able to explain to

the House why they think it's absolutely fine for all the

countries to have non-criminal sanctions for stalking, and for

psychological violence against women. They obviously agreed to that

being part of the convention. And people are happy for us to sign up

to this convention as being a gold standard for protecting women. Well,

I hope people realise what's in this gold standard for protecting women.

Those who would campaign the most vociferously seem to be the ones who

think there's a direct correlation think there's a direct correlation

that the people who are the most mind up about it are the ones who

really the least. And if some of them take the time to actually read

what's in the convention, they may be shocked as to what's this gold

standard. I think the UK can do a darn sight better than what is in

the Istanbul convention. And actually I think that we will be

levelling things down by signing up to the convention, rather than

levelling things upwards, which is levelling things upwards, which is

what we should be seeking to do. If the Government wanted to do

something useful around the world, actually what it should be saying is

they should be encouraging other countries to adopt the same

practices that we adopt in this country, rather than us agreeing to

adopt the same things they do in those countries, which are much

weaker in terms of dealing with violent crime, particularly violence

against women. My honourable friend is absolutely right, the Labour

Party have a great deal to answer for in this debate as to why they

think stalking should be a noncriminal function in other

countries, and psychological violence against women. Maybe the

bill will be able to explain why she would adopt a policy as well. I

suspect it's not one but she tells people about very often when talking

about the Istanbul Convention. New clause 20, Mr Deputy Speaker,

provides for a requirement to denounce the convention after five

years. In effect, this is a sunset clause in the bill. I think more

bills should have a sunset clause is in them so we can actually review

whether or not the Istanbul convention has been a force for good

or not in the United Kingdom. If of course everybody is so confident

that this ratification of this convention will be such a force for

good, they have nothing to fear from a sunset clause because it will

become apparent that it's been a force for good, a great triumph, and

we can all agree to get the legislation back on the statute book

in time for it to continue. If of course it's proven to be a turkey,

then it means that this bill will fall on we can start from scratch,

and actually bring something forward that much more sensible and

effective. I've no idea why anybody might not support a sunset clause

for legislation. It seems a very good safeguard to make sure that we

actually keep focusing on what these bills are designed to achieve and

make sure that they are achieving them. They are my new clauses, Mr

Deputy Speaker. I'll now come onto my amendments. And I have 14 of the

36 amendments tabled in my name. The first one is amendment number 22.

This amendment is a page one clause to sub-clause two, line 14. This

relates to the report of subsection one about the timetable for

ratification of the Istanbul Convention. It says that the report

must be laid at the moment within four weeks of this fact receiving

Royal assent. And what is being asked to be produced within four

weeks, Mr Deputy Speaker, is for the Secretary of State to say what steps

are required to enable the United Kingdom to ratified the Istanbul

Convention, and the date by which the Secretary of State would expect

the United Kingdom to be able to ratified the convention. I think

four weeks is an unrealistic timetable for those two things to

happen. No doubt the Secretary of State could rustle something to hit

the four week arbitrary timescale that in the bill. But I think it

would be much more sensible to have something meaningful and accurate.

That surely is what we should be aiming for with this, rather than

just hitting an artificial timetable. I would love to know,

maybe the proposer of the bill will be able to tell us - Y four weeks?

Why not six weeks, or two weeks? What is so special about four weeks?

I suspect there is nothing special at all about for weeks, it was just

somebody thinking, we need a figure, let's go for four weeks. I don't

think that's a sensible way to settle legislation. I will give way.

He is effectively supporting the Government amendment on this. Can I

put an appointment -- an alternative point of view and that is that the

Government has had since 2014 to draw up a list of the requirements,

legislative requirements, in order to satisfy this convention so it can

be ratified. The bill about which we are talking today was published on

the 29th of June last year. And we still have not got from government

any indication as to what it believes has got to be done in order

to enable the United Kingdom to ratify this convention. My

honourable friend seems to be making my point for me. I understand the

point he's making, which is that we have had ample time to do it and so

we should be able to put a fixed time in the near future to them. My

contrary point would be if it's taken so long and they still haven't

been able to come forward with it, then how on earth do we expect them

to do it within four weeks? That seems to be unrealistic. It seems to

me the fact that they haven't managed to do it in all those months

means that they can't do it in four weeks. That would be my contrary

point to my honourable friend. The point is that it's an unrealistic

timetable to expect it in four weeks. He can expand greater as to

why he thinks it could be... It's not just four weeks, there's also a

government amendment but says the bill should not actually come into

force until two months after Royal assent. That would mean after a

Royal assent, there would be three a month, effectively, for the

Government, on top of all the time it's had up until now. Well, my

honourable friend is clearly right. I can't disagree with anything he

said. The point he made about the Royal assent is a factual point. But

I'm still not entirely sure that that's an achievable timetable

either, given the delay we've already had. My point is rather than

the Government rushing to meet an artificial timetable which they

clearly are finding difficult to meet, it would be better if they

left it, I have two amendments, 22 and 24, one extends the time for

four weeks until three years. That is amendment 20 two. I would like to

think everybody agrees that is ample time for them to get their ducks in

would hope to think that they have would hope to think that they have

got no excuse for not meeting that particular timetable. On the basis

that my honourable friend for Christchurch thinks that's letting

the Government of the hook too much, my amendment 24 changes the four

with time-limit to sailing when a reasonably practical. -- the

four-week time-limit to complete sailing when reasonably practical.

Is it not the case that the other option would leave it open ended? Me

being practical, maybe never. My honourable friend is absolutely

right about this job I want to come onto this in a bit more detail

later. The Government really are selling people shorter. They're

trying to get all the plaudits. The plaudits have been putting their

shoulder to the wheel to get the Istanbul Convention signed. But

actually the reality is that the flitting amendments are designed to

do the exact opposite. At least my three-year amendments, as my

honourable friend says, it may be a long time in the waiting. But at

least it means that there is a fixed deadline for them to meet.

Reasonably practicable, as I put down, which very much mirrors what

the Government amendment said. It's very, very similar. Obviously, great

minds think alike. Me and the Government minister on this. But I

do concede the point that it does allow a never ending timescale to be

reasonable practical. Maybe that's what the Government and SNP have in

mind. I don't know. I will take soundings and colleagues to which

they think is the best. But my general point is that four weeks was

never going to be achievable, particularly with all the other

things going on for the Government at the moment. On that point, so

much else going on, how do you define "As soon as reasonably

practicable"? It seems to me, as if said on the team, as is reasonably

practicable. It's whether they're in a position to be able to do so. I

know my honourable friend have extensive experience of government

as a former minister. That is a privilege that I don't have and

never will have. And so it's not really for me to know what it takes

in the machinery of government to get itself into a position to do

something. But I'm sure he trusts the Government to move as easily as

possible on these matters, given that the Minister's stated

commitment to these things. I don't know, I'm sure he's got nothing to

worry about. The Minister tabled a very similar amendment to me, which

is a rare thing in its well. But presumably the Minister might be

able to answer its question to my honourable friend. Maybe she will be

able to explain what she had in mind when she tabled her amendment to

satisfy my honourable friend. Amendment 25 is page two, clause

three, sub clause one. This is about the report that is required in this

particular part of the bill. It asks for an annual report. It says the

report should be each year. And I've changed that to a biannual report. I

just think that every two years is perfectly adequate for this report.

I don't think we need an annual one. If my honourable friend gets his

way, it wouldn't really need to be annual or biannual, to be perfectly

honest, because they would have it done and dusted in no time anyway.

I'm not entirely sure why we need an annual report, due with perfectly

honest. But again the volcanic blame why if these things -- but again if

people have too explain why these things have to be done. The point if

we were going to ratify was that it would be done and dusted in no time

anyway. I'm not sure of the need for that in the bill anyway. Amendment

26 is page two, clause three, 1.A. This is about deleting any

alteration in the date by which the United Kingdom expects to be able to

ratify the Convention, and the reasons for the alteration. I

proposed deleting that particular amendment, that particular part of

the hill. I don't really see any point in it. Personally, it seems to

me superfluous to requirements. I've also proposed in amendments 27 and

28 to delete B and B. These are all points of pre-ratification reports.

I really can't see the point of these rings. About the

administrative measures taken to ratify the Istanbul convention and

what is being done in the Scottish Parliament, Welsh assembly, the

Northern Ireland assembly. I really can't see the point of those

particular things, so I proposed deleting those in those amendments.

Amendment... It seems to me, I must say with these things, Mr Deputy

Speaker, we've got all this verbiage in the build-up out how the

Government has to report on this, and on that, and it's got to report

on the other. It strikes me as bureaucracy for the sake of

bureaucracy. In practice, none of these pre-ratification requirements

will make a jot of difference to the victims of domestic violence and

people suffering from any kind of violence. It is a pen pusher's

dream, really, to explain away why the Government isn't doing anything,

or why it hasn't done something. It's all these things. The whole

thing about this bill is it's all about looking as if you're doing

something, rather than doing something to make any difference to

people's lives. It seems to me the more we can get rid of all this

bureaucracy and crack on with measures to help reduce violent

crime in the UK, that would be a more worthwhile thing. I would

prefer to see action taken, rather than reports of inaction.

My honourable friend has given me an idea that we should bring forward in

a private members bill something that would outlaw any legislation

that is purely gesture politics. That would abolish Fridays

altogether if we were to abolish any bills that would just about gesture

politics, that would abolish private members bills altogether so that is

a debate for another day and I don't want to be side down that particular

line today. Amendment 29 is to delete that particular point. This

is about saying that the Secretary of State will lay bit for each

parliamentary report on the measures to be taken on legislation required

to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul convention.

Surely it is clear what legislation is required to enable United Kingdom

to ratify the Istanbul convention. Why on earth do we need an annual

report for the government to tell us what legislation is required to

ratify the Istanbul convention? It seems to be... It should be the

minister intervening my honourable friend because it is my government

's case that they don't know yet what legislation is required. I am a

bit worried that I know your time is going by and you wouldn't want to

not hear some of the other speeches. I am sure you are trying to get to

the end. You must not be distracted by your honourable friend. I will

try not to be distracted too many times and as I think you will

appreciate I have been trying to crack on through my amendments.

There are 47 new clauses and amendments in this group and they do

take some wading through, I have to say. I have been racing through

them. I will leave the minister to answer my honourable friend 's point

when she comes to speak. Amendment 49 is again page two, clause three,

this is one B3. This says that the measures taken, this is about a

report, we are still in a report, the measures taken by the government

to be compliant with the Istanbul convention, to protect and assist

victims of violence against women and domestic file and is. My

amendment would say at the end of that, I would dead cert -- insert,

produce a breakdown of government spending on victims of violence and

mystified and is for both men and women. I don't really see why

anybody would want to oppose the government having to produce the

breakdown of how much the government is spending on victims of violence

and domestic file and is, broken down by men and women. I have to

say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that men are nearly twice as likely to be the

victim of a violent crime as women. 1.3% of women interviewed for the

crime survey reported being victims of violence in 2014/15, compared

with 2.4% of men. When it comes to the most serious of cases, according

to the crime survey for England Amway is, with enough accounted for

36 of recorded homicide victims in 2015/16 when men were 64% of

homicide victims, and yet so far the only provisions we have here apply

to women, and I am therefore thinking it is important that the

government makes clear what provisions they have for the victims

of violent crime, whether they be men or women, and I hope the

government will agree to publish that information and if not to

explain why it objects to it so much. Amendment 50, Mr Deputy

Speaker, again page two, clause three, this is the next bit about

the report, to show what they are doing to promote international

cooperation against these forms of violence. After that I have inserted

at the end of all of that that they should also provide the statistics

showing international comparisons on the levels of violence against women

and men. I spoke earlier, I don't intend to repeat myself, I spoke

earlier about the information I have managed to acquire from different

ambassadors but again I think if we ambassadors but again I think if we

actually asked the government to show what they are doing and then

ask them to show what other countries who have ratified the

Convention are doing, it gives us a good idea as to how we can compare

how we are doing in this country against what other countries are

doing and surely that is a meaningful comparison is that we

would want to be looking out. At the moment there are no meaningful

comparisons that the government can offer us, saying how we are doing

compared to what other countries are doing. I do not know why it would be

afraid of doing that, surely it would want to make sure it is doing

better than other countries and my amendment tabled allowing the

opportunity to do that and to highlight its record against other

countries, and maybe bring each other up to the highest possible

level, to level everybody's standards upwards, rather than than

just being done at the lowest possible common denominator.

Amendment 51 relates about the report on the measures that the

government is taking on providing support and assistance to

organisations and law enforcement organisations to adopt an integrated

approach to violence against women and domestic and. At the end of that

I have added and to include the names of these organisations. I

think it is very important, Mr Deputy Speaker that the government

should make clear as part of this reporting strategy to say what

support and assistance that is giving and which organisations it is

giving that support and then we can scrutinise whether or not they are

the right organisations that the government are supporting. It may

well be that there are other well be that there are other

organisations out there, maybe small organisations in local communities

that the government may not have come across that we can actually

champion and say they are not giving enough money to these organisations,

how about giving them a cut of the funding available? I don't really

know what would be lost that kind of transparency, delivery which

organisations the government were funding. I will give way. Thank you,

Mr Deputy Speaker, does my honourable friend see any irony in

the fact that whilst he and I have proposed deleting as a result of

separate amendments, A, B, C, and day, the government of actually

proposed deleting sub-clause A which is the one which is the most

substantive one of all of the sub paragraphs to this clause? My

honourable friend is right and actually Mr Deputy Speaker, what is

happening here, if anybody would bother to notice, is that I am

actually strengthening the paragraph A, I am trying to give the

government more requirements for reporting what they are doing

post-ratification. I will come onto the government amendment a bit later

but my honourable friend is writing what he is saying, I am

strengthening paragraph EE and making sure government has to give

more information but with the SNP 's connivance the government are making

sure there will be no reporting post-ratification of the Istanbul

convention on any of these issues, any of them! Again they will have to

explain themselves on that, but if we are going to ratify this

convention we should at least have some post-ratification knowledge of

what on earth is happening. Might be helpful if you want to hear it in

order to get on that if you got to the end I could get some answers for

you. I wouldn't want to distract you from hearing the answer. I shall

certainly be leaving plenty of time for the answers. As I say, there are

47 new clauses and amendments here and I am going through them as

quickly as possible. You are absolutely right, there have been

lots of interventions and I will try to resist the temptation to be as

generous as I normally am and I will try and resist that temptation for a

bit. At least. Amendment 54 is about reports on progress again, it is

clause three of the bill. This is about saying that the first annual

report should be laid no later than the 1st of November 2017, which is

interesting in itself because what the government is leaving is about

before ratification and I want to keep in post-ratification reports

about the first one should be from Twenty20 onwards, basically as my

amendment. They are done from Twenty20 and done every two years

forth with. That covers Amendment 53 and 54. Amendment 55 is my final

amendment would, Mr Deputy Speaker, and it relates to about when this

act should come into being. I am saying in here, we have written here

that it comes into force on the day which the act has Royal assent and

the government have amended that, but I have actually said it

shouldn't come into force until 90% of the signatories have ratified and

there has been a proven reduction in violence against women in 75% of the

countries who have ratified the convention. That seems to me to be

perfectly clear, that we would only want to ratify it if it actually

shows that it works. We don't have that evidence at the moment to

support that, as I made clear earlier, and I think we ought to any

ratify it when we can be confident it is going to work so they are my

amendment and I will touch briefly, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the other ones

which I can race through fairly quickly, I hope. My honourable

friend for Christchurch in new clause 14 and 15 and 16 and 18, I

think all of my honourable friend 's new clauses are about the

reservations and making sure that the government does not actually

apply any of the reservations allowed in them. I explained why I

thought the government should apply some reservations, Mr Deputy

Speaker. I think that, and certainly I think that is why I would reject

new clause 14, 15 and 16. I think my honourable friend, if I might be so

bold to say, is best attempt here is on new clause 18 which is the issue

about psychological violence and stalking because it is inconceivable

that those things wouldn't come with them a criminal sanction. In the UK.

In that sense we have nothing to fear from signing up to that. And

maybe, it might be his case, and perhaps this might be his argument,

that if we were to make sure, make clear that we would sign up to that

then we would be quite happy to make sure there was always a criminal

sanction it might encourage others to do the same and that maybe his

point. Whether that works or not I don't know but I would not be averse

to that end if my honourable friend were to push new clause 18 to a vote

I would be more sympathetic to that then I would be other ones, if that

is helpful to him. As to the government amendments, Mr Speaker,

which the SNP have endorsed, let's not forget that. These are quite

extraordinary. Quite extraordinary. I am opposed to this convention, I

have made that clear, but this cosy deal shows that they don't really

care too much about it either. I am going to resist the temptation to

give way to my honourable friend from now, Mr Depp to Speaker, as I

indicated earlier. Just to show that I do take notice of the chair, as

always. They are attempting to fill it this bill without anybody

noticing, claiming to be champions of the Istanbul convention, whilst

allowing the government off the hook, ever to actually have to

implement it. These are all about making sure either that the Istanbul

convention is never ratified or is delayed as much as possible in terms

of the ratification of why on earth the SNP have agreed to this only

they will be able to explain. Perhaps they are so embarrassed

about it they won't even be willing to explain it at all but I hope they

will have the guts to admit to what they have done, but the government

clause one removes the ratification of the Convention on violence

against women, which would impose a duty on the government to take all

reasonable steps to enable the United Kingdom to become compliant

with the Istanbul convention. The government wants to delete that. He

wants to leave out clause one when actually the whole point of the bill

is clause one of the bill, to cover the ratification to impose a duty on

the government to take all reasonable steps as soon as possible

that the United Kingdom is compliant on the Istanbul, to run the

government have removed that from the bill and the SNP are happy for

them to remove it from the bill. Absolutely extraordinary stuff, Mr

Deputy Speaker, you literally could not make it up. Actually the

honourable gentleman from Coventry South to intervene on the earlier

was referring to the Prime Minister 's words in Prime Minister's

Questions on Wednesday about this particular point and I have got what

the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's Questions and the Prime

Minister I thought was very sensible, as usual, and what she

said because the Prime Minister said in answer to the leader of the SNP

in Parliament, she said, in many ways the measures we have in place

in the United Kingdom actually go further than the convention. It

makes you wonder what on earth is the point of the UK's ratification

of the Convention on the Prime Minister herself says that we are

actually going further than the convention itself. It is, as my

honourable friend for Christchurch said, gesture politics.

She also made clear that the amendments made were mutually agreed

with the SNP. She also made that clear, too. Amendment 56 and 57 are

both from my honourable friend for Christchurch. I think the SNP are

rather embarrassed about the fact that they have been cosying up to

the Government on this particular amendment will stop and they're

trying to mask anybody knowing anything about it. It's quite

extraordinary, really. It's a good job some of us are on the ball. 56

and 57 relates to reservations which my honourable friend can talk about

himself. The Government amendment to is a game and that I would report.

-- government amendment two is a game one that I would support. It

leaves out where it says the date by which the Government would expect,

and just to provide a timescale within. There's quite a big

difference within a day by which something must be done, and a

timescale within it is expected to be done. Again, this is more

watering down of the provisions of the bill that the SNP have agreed to

with the Government. Government amendment three is actually very

similar to mine and 24, which I talked about before, about bringing

the bill in as soon as reasonably practical. So we can leave that one

there because I've already covered that in my amendment. I will be

supporting government amendment three. Then we have government

amendment four, which is something that my honourable friend for

Christchurch was raising as part of a point of order for the start of

our proceeding. And so, and I don't really understand this, to be

perfectly honest, there must be a reason for this. I hope the Minister

will explain what that reason is. What government amendment four does

is say that it's not Her Majesty's government that determines that the

United Kingdom is compliant with the Istanbul Convention. That is

removed, and instead of Her Majesty's government it's the

Secretary of State. Surely the Secretary of State is the person

within Her Majesty's government responsible for this policy area. So

I don't really see what the needed for those to be changed round. I'm

hoping that the minister, when she comes to speak, can explain why on

government amendment four it's not no longer the Government's

responsibility, but just the Secretary of State's responsibility.

There must be a point two, but it's passed me by. Government amendment

five, it seems to me, is consequential to government

amendment four. And so I think we can leave that particular part of

that there are. And I believe that government amendment six is

consequential to government amendments four and five. And so

again we can leave that one there, too. Government amendment seven is

actually another very significant watering down of the bill and of the

convention. In clause two on page one, line 20, it actually says that

the Government shall make a statement to say, and it's very

important, this, that the Government shall make a statement to say to the

Houses of Parliament that the date by which the convention will be

ratified. That is the whole purpose of the bill, presumably, to ratify

the Convention. At the moment the Government have a requirement to

save the date by which it will be ratified. The Government and SNP are

wanting to water that down so they no longer have to say the date by

which the convention will be ratified. They only have to say the

date that they will expect the convention to be ratified. Of course

that can be any date at all, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a very

significant watering down of the bill, which hasn't been well

publicised too many people until now. I know it's very boring to

point out the SNP watering down their own bill and cosying up to a

Conservative government to do so. I know they're embarrassed about doing

that, but I'm taking a great pleasure in telling the people of

Scotland what they actually do when they're down here. Government

amendment eight is clause three, page two, line two. Again, it says

that this is about the report. It's basically saying that it delete the

bits of the report what should be done before ratification. And it

basically says that instead of saying each year, it just says that

these will be done until ratification. That's basically

virtually all of them. Government amendment nine is a consequential

amendment to actually firm up the watering down of the bill because it

means that it basically says if a report, any alteration in the

timescale, it must be set out and the reasons for its alteration. It's

just a consequential amendment to the watering down that's been agreed

to. Government amendment ten is consequential to eight, as is 11.

Government amendment 12 and 13 have again consequential to eight and all

of no real consequence. The Government and 14 is very

significant again, Mr Deputy Speaker. As per amendment eight.

Because here we have government amendment 14, which required that

the moment that the Government has an annual report setting out the

measures taken by the Government to ensure that the UK is and remains

compliant with the convention. More specifically, it includes measures

in five areas. To protect women against violence, prosecute and

eliminate violence against women and domestic violence, second measures

to be taken to contribute to the elimination of discrimination

against women, and the formation of equality between women and men and

empower women. Third, to protect and assist victims of violence and

domestic violence. Fourth, to promote international cooperation.

This, to provide a porter assistance to organisations to eliminate

violence. Those of the aims of the convention. The Government is

actually saying that we're no longer going to report on any of these

things we've implemented them. In effect, it's basically saying once

if ratified the Istanbul Convention, job done, we don't need to worry

about these things any more. We need to worry about what's happening. We

don't need to report. The job has been done. I'm afraid it hasn't been

done, as we've seen from the reports in other countries. We need to keep

on top of these things to make sure that the Government has done what it

has said it was going to do. It's quite extraordinary that the

Government and the SNP don't want any reporting at all of anything

after ratification of the Istanbul convention. Nothing at all. That is

quite extraordinary and I hope that the House will test the will of that

on whether or not there should be no reporting on anything after

ratification. Amendment 60 by my honourable friend for Christchurch

is one that I very much support. This basically says that subsection

E, that I want to retain the bill, as users, rather than delete, he

wants to strengthen it by saying that the Government should also make

clear what the costs of the Exchequer are of the measures set

out any previous subsection. I think it's quite right that the UK

taxpayer knows how much has been spent on these particular measures

in bill. That's a matter of transparency, it to me, for the UK

taxpayer. Government amendment 15 is yet again another watering down.

Instead of the bill coming into effect on the day of Royal assent,

it's now one of the two month that will have to pass before it comes in

a game. I'm very happy to support it, but people campaigning on this

ought to be worried about the motive for this. Finally, Mr Deputy

Speaker, in many respects I've saved the until last. Here we go! I've is

the best till last. Oh, yes, don't worry, you're going to hear it all

its glory. Government amendment 16, and with its 17, the 60's an

absolute pearl. I have to say it myself. -- but 16's an absolute

polar. Not only has taken an clause one of the bill, which is the whole

point of the bill, it's so bad that they've even had to change the title

of the bill because the title is no longer applicable to what the

Government are prepared to sign himself up to. And with SMP support.

-- sign themselves up to with SMP support. The title at the start of

the bill says it is a bill to require the United Kingdom to ratify

the council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence

against women and domestic violence, the Istanbul Convention, and for

connected purposes. I think that is what everybody outside of this place

thinks that the whole bill is what we are debating today. A bill to

require the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul Convention. Not any

more. Not any more - the Government and the SNP have caved in on what

this whole bill was supposed to be about. Now they've changed that.

They're leaving the requirement of the United Kingdom to ratify it and

it's so longer in the title of the bill, if the Government and SNP get

their way. It would just make provision in connection with the

ratification by the United Kingdom. I.e., let's keep this one into the

long grass. It doesn't matter, just a few things that need to be done

before we actually ratify it. It doesn't any longer require the

Government to ratify the Istanbul Convention. It has even removed

connected purposes as well. Nothing that might actually help ratify the

Istanbul Convention can be included. There we have it, a whole range of

amendment. Some of mine, I have, are about transparency. Some are

actually to strengthen the measures expected of the bill. Certainly so

that people know what has to be reported, and so we can see what's

happening in other countries as well. On the other hand, we have the

Government amendments, supported by the SNP, watering down the bill, and

even removing the requirement to ratify the Istanbul convention. The

public outside need to know that they have been conned by people who

claim to be supporting this, claimed to be on the campaign group to

ratify this, and they have been really sold. At least some of us are

honest about the fact that we don't that this convention, and I think

that has got to be a better way to operate on this shabby deal that has

been done between the Government and the SNP. I hope we can test the will

of the House on the weakening of the convention, and we will see how we

get on with that, Mr Deputy Speaker. But I beg to move you clause six.

Recommendations by grieve you and the commissions of the parties. The

question is that new clause 60 read a second time. Thank you very much,

Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments in

the script with which I believe it would also be useful to consider the

related document, the sixth report of the joint committee on human

rights, session 2014-15, on violence against women and girls published on

February 2015 and also called on the Government to ratify the Istanbul

Convention. I am of course delighted that my bill is back before the

House for report stage and I'm extremely grateful to colleagues

from all sides of the House, from nine parties in this house who

supported this bill and especially to those who have given up a very

valuable constituency Friday. Particularly those who have been up

all night with by-elections. I can see there are quite a few folks who

are bleary eyed this morning. Thank you all for being here. However,

preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence

is something extremely relevant to people in every single constituency

represented in this place. And we have a chance today to make a real

difference in their lives and in the lives of future generations. In

terms of the new clauses and amendments in the group, you may

recall that in its second reading, the Government implemented its

intention to amend the bill was supporting its intent and print.

Although these amendments were not forthcoming at committee stage, we

do have them with us this morning and I would like to thank the

Minister and her officials for the constructive way they've worked with

me and my staff to bring forward amendments to the spill in a way

that makes their need -- meets their need for unambiguous and watertight

legislation without watering down the substance of the bill. Because

grown-up politics is about compromise.

Frankly, if there was less grandstanding in this place and more

destructive -- constructive discussion I think we would all be

much better off. I will address the government amendments in due course,

however, as we have now heard ad nauseam this morning there are more

amendments before us today and you will all be relieved I do not intend

to address the great leg. I plan to keep my remarks relatively concise

this morning and to the point and I hope the substance of my comments

were more than compensate for any brevity. I do need to respond to

some of what we have heard this morning. I am aware that the member

opposite enjoys playing the pantomime villain in this very

public theatre and a genuinely opposes the principles of the bill

but I have 27 where he has gone about tabling wrecking amendments

and talking to the map mind-numbing late this morning does nothing to

enhance his reputation here or the reputation of our democratic

process. The only embarrassment in this house today is the

embarrassment of his government and his Prime Minister at the way he has

misrepresented their position this morning. He let himself down and he

lets down those thousands of people amongst his own constituents who

will have experienced horrific sexual and domestic violence. Whose

lives have been irreparably blighted as a result. Indeed, yesterday,

along with other MPs in this house I received a copy of a letter from

more than 130 of his own constituents, women and men who are

dismayed by what they term his wilful mess -- misunderstanding and

sabotage of the bill. They point out that while this bill is delayed

people, mostly women, are being maimed and killed by abusive

partners. To see this legislation filibustered is soul destroying for

those who really need the protection of such a bill and I am delighted to

give way to my honourable friend. I thank my honourable friend for

giving way. Around seven women a month or killed in England somewhere

is, or wounded, does my honourable friend agree that this needs to be

treated with the utmost urgency, as we would with any other source of

major depths? The honourable member is absolutely right and what we also

need to do is understand the dynamics of control and abuse that

feed those very shocking statistics. I will give way. I want to thank the

honourable lady forgiving way and I want to congratulate her for

bringing forward this really important and very necessary bill

and for being able to make such good progress with it. Does she agree

with me that it is very important that people have faith in

parliamentarians to carry out their monitoring role of this convention

once it is implemented, and the actions of the member opposite don't

help. I absolutely agree with the honourable lady and scrutiny is

something I will come on to speak about in a bit. There are very few

issues that unite this house but there is a compelling egg degree of

unanimity on the need to ratify the Istanbul convention, on the need to

do more to prevent and combat gender-based violence and that is

reflected in the cross-party support this bill has attracted and the

willingness of members from all parties to work together to achieve

the progressive change that people in our communities want to say.

However the member for Shipley has done the one favour this morning

with his amendments, by giving me an opportunity I might not otherwise

have had a report stage to clear up some fairly basic misunderstanding

about the Istanbul convention, not least what it actually says and

does. I will clear up some fundamental misconceptions about the

gender designer Microsoft sexual violence and abuse. The first point

to make is that the Istanbul convention itself states very

explicitly in article four, clause three, and I quote, that the

provisions of this convention by the parties, in particular measures to

protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on

any ground such as sex, gender, race, colour, language, religion,

political or any other opinion, national social origin, association

with the national by Jorge, sexual identification, gender, state of

health, migrant or refugee status or other states. It is really

unambiguously clear that the Istanbul convention provisions apply

to women, men, indeed a trance and non-binary people alike and

regardless of any other characteristic it is comprehensive

and clear. It is very interesting to note that an organisation which

advocates specifically for males, trams and non-binary Victim Support

non-domestic violence would not in the past claim adherence to a

feminist agenda, supports the Istanbul convention once it ratified

because it recognises it will help all victims and their chief

executive said yesterday that they recognise that the focus on ending

violence against women is important because it recognises the global

pandemic of injustice. Gender inequality, they say, create a world

where power, money and strength, motivators for systemic violence.

The CEO of another men's organisation yesterday urged all MPs

who care about ending violence and promoting gender equality should

vote in favour of the bill today. That is why the member for Shipley

is simply wrong to suggest that this can ever be understood as a gender

neutral issue and the points that he has made in the past about men being

left out, and this is not about them, it can't be taken seriously. I

think all of us are agreed that all sexual violence is a serious, or

domestic fire and is a serious, regardless of the victim or the

perpetrators gender or any other characteristic, end of. The

honourable gentleman has had more than enough airtime! Everybody

recognises that some men will experience gender violence and

domestic file in and sometimes the perpetrator will be female, but in

the real world in which we live the people who experience sexual and

domestic file is overwhelmingly female. We cannot ignore that. Women

are disproportionately subjected to these forms of violence and abuse is

on a colossal scale, we can't ignore that reality. The large majority, by

no means all, but the majority of perpetrators happen to be men. There

is no credible documented source of evidence anywhere in the world that

suggests otherwise and we do ourselves a huge disservice if we

pretend that this is just another case of the boys against the girls.

We are not in primary four. This is a distortion of a terrible systemic

abuse of human rights to ignore the profound gender inequalities that

drive and compound sexual violence and domestic abuse. I think it is

also important to say that some types of sexual violence are

becoming more prevalent. Crime in Scotland, for example, is at a 40

year low and yet sexual offences are rising. This could be due to more

people reporting what has happened to them, and certainly in the wake

of the exposure of the Southall review, we know there has been a

spike in reporting of historic incidents but I fear that it is also

to do with a genuine increase in new types of gender-based violence, that

are partly facilitated by this very saturated world we live in of

violent sexual imagery, the so-called revenge poured on which

was not possible until the advent of smartphones, and things like

so-called date rape drugs being available, these when problems 20 or

30 years ago, but they have become very prevalent problems now and they

are driving an increase in sexual assault in particular. Women's

inequality is still a key feature of every society in the world and that

is what is really underpinning gender-based violence. I am happy to

give way. I think the honourable member who is making an excellent