Female Judges and Prosecutors in Afghanistan

Debate between Nigel Evans and Joanna Cherry

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Afghan women and girls, I rise to present a petition to the House of Commons from the residents of the United Kingdom. The presentation of this petition mirrors an online petition signed by more than 56,000 people. This petition has been signed by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop KC, and reflects the solidarity of people in the legal profession across the jurisdictions of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom with the plight of our colleagues in Afghanistan.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that female judges and prosecutors in Afghanistan, who have stood for the rule of law and a more inclusive and equal Afghanistan, are now deeply concerned for their own safety; further that they live with daily death threats and in constant fear of violent reprisals; and further that female judges and prosecutors, their children and their families are at continued risk of violent attacks.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to immediately help evacuate and resettle female judges and prosecutors, and their families from Afghanistan by providing emergency visas urgently.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002832]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have just one piece of business to go before we rise for the coronation recess, and I want to wish everybody a most enjoyable extended celebration, both within the United Kingdom and in all the other territories where His Majesty is monarch. On behalf of the House of Commons, I just want to say, “God bless the King and Queen, and may they be long to reign over us.”

Points of Order

Debate between Nigel Evans and Joanna Cherry

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Good. Members have freedom of speech in this Chamber and they, not the Chair, are responsible for their comments. That said, Mr Speaker has repeatedly reminded the House of the need for “Good temper and moderation”, as “Erskine May” puts it. I would encourage all Members to follow that advice, particularly on sensitive issues.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 15 March, in my capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to invite her to appear before the Committee as part of our inquiry into the Illegal Migration Bill. On that Bill, the Home Secretary has made a declaration, as required under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, that she is unable to certify that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The Committee has asked the Home Secretary to give evidence to us on the human rights consequences of her legislation, and to interrogate the legal arguments put forward in the ECHR memo that accompanied the Bill. Given the pace with which the Bill is passing through Parliament, we asked her to respond by 22 March. It is now 29 March and we have today heard that she will not be available to attend, despite our giving her more than one date, but the Government are considering whether the Minister for Immigration is available instead.

Mr Deputy Speaker, can you advise me on what steps are available to my Committee to ensure that we can carry out—and we are going to be the only Committee that will carry it out—effective legislative scrutiny of the Government’s proposals in the Illegal Migration Bill, by hearing from the very person whose name appears on the section 19 statement saying that the Bill does not comply with the European convention on human rights and, indeed, the Human Rights Act?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for her forward notice of her point of order. Mr Speaker has made it repeatedly clear that it is very important that Committees have access to the relevant witnesses, and that of course includes Ministers. Therefore, I very much hope that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard this exchange, and that a Minister will be able to give evidence to the Committee as soon as possible.

Bills Presented

Non-Domestic Rating Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, Oliver Dowden, Jeremy Quin, Victoria Atkins and Lee Rowley, presented a Bill to make provision about non-domestic rating.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 285) with explanatory notes (Bill 285-EN).

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Dominic Raab, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Suella Braverman, Secretary Mark Harper, the Attorney General, Edward Argar and Miss Sarah Dines, presented a Bill to make provision about victims of criminal conduct and others affected by criminal conduct; about the appointment and functions of individuals to act as independent public advocates for victims of major incidents; about the release of prisoners; about the membership and functions of the Parole Board; to prohibit certain prisoners from forming a marriage or civil partnership; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 286) with explanatory notes (Bill 286-EN).

Elections (Voter Identification Requirements) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Helen Morgan, supported by Layla Moran, Richard Foord, Munira Wilson, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Jamie Stone, Sarah Green, Wera Hobhouse, Sarah Olney, Daisy Cooper, Christine Jardine and Ed Davey, presented a Bill to remove the requirement for voters to show an identity document in order to vote; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 287).

Local Electricity Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

David Johnston, supported by Peter Aldous, Hilary Benn, Sir Graham Brady, Alan Brown, Simon Fell, Wera Hobhouse, Ben Lake, Clive Lewis, Selaine Saxby, Mick Whitley and Sir Jeremy Wright, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish an export guarantee scheme for small generators of low carbon electricity; to set a tariff, based on market rates, for the sale of electricity under the export guarantee scheme; to make provision to enable small generators of low carbon electricity to sell electricity directly to local people; to place certain duties on the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority; and for connected purposes

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 288).

Illegal Migration Update

Debate between Nigel Evans and Joanna Cherry

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will take the points of order in a moment. I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for well over an hour, but could I ask him to remain seated for the first point of order, which I think relates directly to something he may have said?

Afghan Resettlement Update

Debate between Nigel Evans and Joanna Cherry

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I just remind Members that we have six hours of protected time after this statement, plus several votes. I just remind Members to focus their questions.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I have a particular case that I know the Minister will want to help me with, and I know he is genuine in his concerns here. It relates to a gentleman who worked for the British Geographical Survey, part of which is based at Heriot-Watt University in my constituency. He spent a lot of time working to keep British people safe and to help them navigate round Afghanistan while the British Government were helping Afghanistan to explore mining opportunities to bring income to the country. Despite all his hard work, his ARAP application has been turned down and he is having to appeal it. Will the Minister speak to me about this case to see whether we can get it speeded up?

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Joanna Cherry

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I rise to support the Lords amendments in respect of devolution. Northern Ireland is allegedly sorted out now, and the international lawbreaking parts of the Bill have gone, but what of Scotland? According to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, businesses in Northern Ireland will enjoy “the best of both worlds”: access to the single market and, at the same time, unfettered access to the rest of the UK market. Presumably this means that when Scotland becomes independent and a member of the European Union, Scotland too could have the best of both worlds: access to the single market and to the rest of the UK market, with no hard border and no infrastructure on the border. We shall see, but one thing is for sure: the Conservative party can never again be allowed to get away with claiming that Scottish independence means that a hard border with England is inevitable.

Scotland has yet to vote for independence, but that is only a matter of time. In the meantime, we want to protect what we have. Scotland did not vote for Brexit, but Scotland did vote for devolution in very significant numbers in 1997. This House should not use Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for, to undermine devolution, which we did vote for. The Lords amendments are designed to protect some of the essentials of the devolved settlement. It is very telling that Lord Hope, who I count as a friend and who is a former Lord President of the Court of Session, former Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court and also a Unionist, said that initially, when he heard SNP politicians talking about a power grab, he thought it was an exaggeration, but after reading the Bill, he agreed with us. That is not a nationalist—that is a Unionist, so Government Members would be wise to listen up.

Others in the Lords did not fall for the Government’s sleight of hand in the Bill either. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, Lord Thomas said yesterday:

“the clause without my amendments would enable the UK Government to spend in devolved fields and bypass the devolved Governments and Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who have been elected to be responsible for those fields. It would, in effect, hollow out the devolution settlements.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1294.]

Lord Adonis warned:

“This Bill is deliberately intended to cut across and undermine the devolution settlements because the Prime Minister does not agree with them”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2020; Vol. 808, c. 1294.]

The game’s up, and Government Members should realise that the heads of voters in Scotland do not zip up the back. Devolution is very popular in Scotland across parties. It is supported by the vast majority of voters in Scotland. Even some Scottish Conservatives—some, not all—support the current devolved settlement. Donald Dewar set it out carefully, making a delineation between reserved and devolved powers, and that is what this Bill is driving a coach and horses through. We must not forget today that Scotland’s Parliament—the democratically elected voice of Scotland’s people—has voted against the Bill by a margin of 90 to 28 MSPs.

I say to the Minister that we are sick to the back teeth of the Government’s disingenuous words, saying that they listen to the Scottish Government. Listening is not enough; they have to have respect for the democratic voice of Scotland, which is expressed through our Parliament. Our Parliament has said it does not want this Bill, and if the Government do not listen, then a vote for independence is inevitable. I say, “Bring it on.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To sit down no later than 2.30 pm, Mr Tim Farron.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Joanna Cherry

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

I have not said that it is an absolute lock. It does envisage some possibilities. But the bottom line is that you do not create a triple lock against something if you are expecting to encourage it or to allow it in. It simply cannot be right not to prosecute criminal acts of a crime as serious as that of torture if there is strong evidence that it took place. Torture victims have a right to see their tormentors brought to account, and there should be no time limit on justice.

This is not just a matter of domestic law. As we have heard from other hon. Members, our international legal obligations under the UN convention against torture and the Rome statute consist of recognising prohibitions against torture, which are absolute. That was the point of my intervention on the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). The prohibition against torture in international law is absolute, and it ill behoves us to pass a statute creating one class of defendants in the United Kingdom wherein there is a presumption against them being prosecuted for that crime.

I have no time for vexatious litigation. I can say, as somebody who practised at the Bar for many years, and also someone who prosecuted, that vexatious litigation is a pain in the neck. What I am concerned about is the international reputation of the United Kingdom, for so long as Scotland remains part of it. Indeed, I will be concerned about the international reputation of England even when Scotland is no longer in a union with it. International law may not mean much to this Government, but they forget at their peril that it keeps all of us safe. If this is what the Government meant by their manifesto promise to update human rights laws, then we should all be very concerned.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind Members that if they intend to press the Second Reading to a Division, it would be very useful if the Chair got the names of the Tellers in advance, please

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nigel Evans and Joanna Cherry

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Justice Committee. I found much with which to agree in what he said and I share his regret that the Bill is necessary.

I start, however, by recognising that the Bill is necessary as a result of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and I wish to make it clear that the Scottish National party supports the swift implementation of the 1996, 2005 and 2007 Hague conventions, because that will allow vital family law co-operation measures to continue after the transition period. My party is all for close and co-operative judicial relationships and we hope that, despite some worrying signs to the contrary, the United Kingdom will work with the European Union to ensure such relationships during and beyond the transition period.

However, my party’s support for the Bill does not change the fact that the Scottish National party, along with the majority of people living in Scotland, deeply regrets the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 31 January 2020. That happened without the consent of the people of Scotland and against the explicit wishes of our Parliament. In the EU referendum, which seems an awfully long time ago now, Scotland voted by a significant majority to remain in the European Union, and majority support for EU membership remains constant in opinion polls in Scotland. Indeed, at every electoral opportunity since the 2016 referendum, voters in Scotland have given my party and the other pro-EU parties a resounding majority. I know these facts may be unpalatable to some on the Government Benches but they are facts, and ignoring these facts—ignoring the repeatedly expressed democratic wishes of people in Scotland—has consequences. These consequences are plain to be seen in the fact that, even in the absence of a campaign, support for Scottish independence has reached 55% in the opinion polls during the current crisis. Brexit is widely recognised as a significant factor in the rise of that support, which is now at unprecedented levels.

The Government and those on their Back Benches would do well to listen to wise voices, such as that of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who last night told “Newsnight” that

“Brexit has made the case for the Union more difficult to push in Scotland”

and that it would be

“very difficult to resist”

a second independence referendum.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I understand the point that the hon. and learned Lady is making, but is there any chance that she could now get to the Bill in front of us?

[Joanna Cherry]

I was about to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think it is important for the record that we restate the view, and make it crystal clear—as my constituents, and those who elected my fellow SNP Members, would wish us to do—that we are agreeing to the Bill only because we see it as inevitable to protect constituents and businesses in Scotland; but that we do not agree to the fact of Brexit, and that that has consequences, which I am sure are relevant to all discussions in this Parliament going forward—at least from the point of view of Scottish Members of Parliament.

Returning to the specific terms of the Bill, we accept the need to make preparations for the circumstances that will arise as a result of the end of the transition period. As others have said, although international private law is rather dry—as a student, I regarded it with dread—nevertheless it is really important to our constituents, and particularly important in the field of family law, but also really important for commerce and business.

As an aside, I was pleased to see that during the Bill’s passage through the Lords, the UK Government registered their intent to ratify and implement the 2000 Hague convention on the international protection of adults. That has already been done in Scotland, but I am pleased to see that it will now happen in England and Wales, and that there will be an appropriate consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive.

Although the Bill’s introduction has been triggered by the UK leaving the EU, there are aspects of it that go beyond Brexit. I think the Bill—certainly clause 2—was very much about the future strategy for international relations in the area of private international law, about which the Lord Chancellor spoke. I very much hope that for so long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom and, indeed, afterwards, when it becomes an independent nation, the strategy of the Government will be based on a commitment to international co-operation on private international law, including multinational agreements, and not just limited to the European Union. As others have said, these agreements are important because they allow and support the legal services sector in the United Kingdom, including in the separate jurisdiction of Scotland, to participate in private international law developments internationally. The commitment to international co-operation on international private law is in line with my party’s policy. We would like to see more international co-operation, not less, and that is certainly the strategy that an independent Scotland will pursue in the years to come.

I welcome the fact that this Bill was drafted to recognise that Scotland is a separate legal jurisdiction and to make provision accordingly. The Lord Chancellor knows that, in another area, I have had occasion to write to him recently to remind him of the fact that the Scottish system of civil justice is indeed completely independent from that of England. That is not just because of devolution, which, of course, is a fairly modern event. It is important to understand that the civil justice system under the Scotland Act 1998 is the preserve of the Scottish Parliament, but that separateness is also guaranteed by the Treaty of Union—in particular by article 19 of the Treaty of Union.

Although I am afraid, as the Lord Chancellor knows, that in the field of judicial review there may be a threat of an excursion into Scottish territory, I am very pleased to see that, in this Bill, that is not the case. None the less, it is worth reminding ourselves that it has often been said that some parts of the Treaty of Union, such as the preservation of Scotland’s Church and also Scotland’s legal system, are so fundamental that this Parliament does not have the power to legislate in contravention of them. I am aware that that point has never been definitively tested in a court of law, but were there to be an excursion into Scots law in the field of judicial review, that might be the opportunity to test that question, and I think the outcome of any such litigation could have interesting knock-on effects. However, as I say, it is not a bridge that we need to cross in relation to this Bill. I see the Lord Chancellor shaking his head with something approaching belief and I am sure that he will be aware that any interference in Scotland’s independent legal system would be met with some resistance, not just from adherence to the cause of Scottish independence, but from the Scottish legal profession. The two things are not always the same thing, although they are increasingly becoming the same thing.

I do not mean to jest here because I am grateful to the Government for having drafted this Bill in a way that recognises that, under section 126(4)(a) of the Scotland Act, private international law is part of Scots private law and that includes matters such as choice of law that this Bill covers, choice of jurisdiction, recognition of judgments and enforcement of decisions. There is also the convention under section 28(8) of the Scotland Act—the Sewel convention—that this Parliament would normally legislate with regard to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. I know that that has been breached on a number of occasions recently, but thankfully not in a relation to this Bill. Under the original clause 2 of this Bill, Scottish Ministers were given certain powers in relation to delegated legislation because, whereas negotiating and joining international agreements on private international law is reserved, implementing them in domestic law is devolved. As the Lord Chancellor will be aware, the Scottish Government have considered carefully the provisions of the Bill as originally laid insofar as they legislated for Scotland and legislative consent was sought from the Scottish Parliament and granted on 17 June. That was very much because the view was taken that, because the provisions of the Bill cover Scotland as a separate jurisdiction, Scotland would be placed in a prejudicial position if allowance was not made, and that would adversely impact on Scottish citizens and businesses. I think it is fair to say that my colleagues in the Scottish Government wanted to provide reassurance to those affected by cross-border family support and custody mechanisms, as other Members have adverted to.

Finally, I come to the removal of clause 2 in the other place. I appreciate that if clause 2 is not reinserted into the Bill, it will mean that for each private international law agreement the UK enters into in future, primary legislation will be required to implement it domestically. A lack of clause 2 would not mean that the UK did not have the ability to enter into these agreements, but it would mean that they would have to be brought before this House and implemented into law by way of primary legislation. I note that the Lord Chancellor intends to reinstate clause 2, but I say to him, having read the debate in the Lords, that legitimate concerns about parliamentary scrutiny, or the lack thereof, in relation to delegated legislation were raised.

Let me pick up on what other hon. Members have said. If it is the case, as it appears to me, that the Government’s clear policy is to rejoin the Lugano convention—obviously, we would need to do that quickly—I suggest to the Lord Chancellor, and I am indebted to the Law Society of Scotland for this suggestion, that one way around this would be to reintroduce clause 2 on the basis that it focuses only on the implementation of the Lugano convention. I believe that was suggested by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). If the Government are insistent on bringing it back on a general basis, might I suggest attaching a sunset clause to it, perhaps for a year or so?

More broadly, the Government need to establish a clear and comprehensive approach to ratifying treatments, one that includes an appropriate role for this Parliament in providing scrutiny, because when the transition period ends, the UK will negotiate and sign treaties on a much larger scale than when we were members of the EU. Although the negotiating and signing of treaties is a function of government, exercised through prerogative powers, the increasing complexity of modern treaty obligations and the way they affect individual rights creates a need to ensure that they are adequately scrutinised here. As others have mentioned, it is particularly important that that happens when criminal offences are being created, or indeed amended or extended, because that has particular implications for individual rights. Let me finish by saying that if the Government do not find a way to enhance parliamentary scrutiny of these matters, the promise that leaving the EU meant taking back control will be made a mockery of.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Joanna Cherry

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Whatever our political differences, I know that this is an area where she cares passionately and has made a difference. Before I address the Bill, I would like to welcome to his place the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). I congratulate him on his appointment as shadow Home Secretary, and I pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).

With some important caveats, the Scottish National party welcomes this Bill. Most of its provisions will apply only to England and Wales; domestic abuse is a devolved matter, and Scotland passed its own consolidating legislation two years ago. The UK Government should look to the Scottish Government’s groundbreaking Equally Safe strategy, which has been hailed as one of the best strategies in Europe for tackling violence against women.

In the current covid crisis, there is ample evidence that social isolation is adding pressure to those who live in abusive domestic situations. There may be women and children watching this debate at home today who are in that position, and the Scottish Government have moved to reassure anyone experiencing domestic abuse that support is available to them during these difficult times. Scotland’s 24-hour domestic abuse and forced marriage helpline is available on 0800 027 1234, and I know that similar help is available in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course, if anyone feels threatened or in fear of harm, they should call the police.

There is much to welcome in this Bill. The inclusion of non-physical abuse in the statutory definition of “domestic abuse”, the inclusion of children aged 16 and 17, and the appointment of the domestic abuse commissioner are all to be applauded. Like others, I pay tribute to the work she has done already. However, I regret that this Bill is a lost opportunity to tackle a number of important matters—these are reserved matters and therefore can be addressed only by the UK Government. For example, I would like the Minister, in her summing up, to explain why the Government have failed to take the opportunity to ensure that this Bill helps all women in the UK, regardless of their immigration status. I would also like her to address why, despite years of lobbying from the SNP, the Government have not used this Bill to address two important matters relating to the payment of universal credit. This Bill is a missed opportunity to introduce a system whereby UC is paid separately by default. The current system of single-household payments makes it even easier for abusers to perpetrate economic abuse. The Scottish Government have legislated to introduce separate payments, but are dependent on the Department for Work and Pensions’ information technology infrastructure to make this happen. I know that the Minister is likely to respond by saying that victims of domestic abuse can apply for separate payments, but she will be well aware that a survey carried out by Women’s Aid some time ago said that 85% of domestic abuse survivors would not dare to apply as an exceptional measure, because it would attract further abuse. That is why this needs to happen automatically. This Bill was the perfect opportunity to change the system, so why not just do it?

Likewise, when domestic abuse survivors leave their partner and apply for UC, the five-week wait leaves many in abject poverty, at a time when they are attempting to rebuild their lives and replace essential belongings. SNP MPs have repeatedly explained to the UK Government why it is vital that UC advances are paid as grants to survivors, yet, once more, the opportunity to achieve that, which this Bill afforded, has not been taken. I do not understand why, and I await the Minister’s explanation with interest.

I will devote the rest of my remarks to the provisions omitted from this Bill, which mean that it will continue to be impossible for the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul convention. In 2017, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, then the SNP Member of Parliament for Banff and Buchan, led a successful campaign to pass a law that required the UK Government to ratify the Istanbul convention. That was the first time an SNP MP had managed to get a private Member’s Bill into law, so it is particularly frustrating that three years later the United Kingdom has yet to ratify the Istanbul convention. It is also rather shameful that the UK is one of only six states in Europe to have failed to ratify it.

The Istanbul convention is based on the understanding that violence against women is committed against women because they are women. It makes clear that it is the state’s obligation to address fully violence against women in all its forms, and that the state must introduce measures to protect all women from violence, to protect all victims, and to prosecute perpetrators. Parties to the convention are encouraged to apply the protective framework that it creates to men who may also be exposed to violence in the domestic unit. However, it should not be overlooked that the majority of victims of domestic violence and abuse are women, and that domestic abuse is perpetrated against women as part of a wider pattern of discrimination and inequality based on their sex.

The Scottish Parliament has passed all the measures that are necessary and within its competence to enable ratification of the convention to proceed, but the UK Government are holding things up. The Bill before us introduces certain provisions regarding extraterritorial effect, which are necessary for ratification, but it falls short in the key area of provision of services to migrant women.

As others have said, some migrant women find it impossible to access emergency protection because of the no recourse to public funds condition. Two weeks ago, the Home Affairs Committee took evidence about that condition from the Victims Commissioner, the domestic abuse commissioner designate, and the Children’s Commissioner, all of whom were clear that the no recourse to public funds provision should be scrapped, not just during this crisis, but for good. The cross-party joint parliamentary scrutiny committee that preceded the first iteration of this Bill also recommended that the Bill should include proper protections for migrant women, yet all those recommendations have been ignored. I would like an explanation from the Minister of why they have been ignored.

I have no doubt that amendments will be tabled in Committee to rectify those omissions and enable all migrant women to access vital protections from abuse. Will the Minister accept those amendments? Will she look favourably on amendments that address the payment of universal credit, which I mentioned earlier? I look forward to hearing about that point later this afternoon, because if the UK Government do not address the matters I have raised, protection for victims of domestic abuse will not be universal. Gaps in provision will remain, particularly for migrant women, and the UK Government will continue to be unable to ratify the Istanbul convention.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are now back to five-minute contributions for the rest of the debate.