My Lords, I have put my name to both these amendments. The points made in the previous debate substantially apply, as well as the powerful speeches we have heard in Committee and today. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, ended on a very positive note. Amendment 70 is about the destitution domestic violence concession, and I found myself thinking about the meaning of each of those words. At the previous stage, the Minister said that the system was designed for a different purpose,
“to provide a route to settlement for migrant victims who held spousal visas”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 98.]
and had a legitimate expectation of a permanent stay. However, given the definition of domestic abuse, the term included in the amendment as part of the Bill and defined in it, even if one thought that any extension beyond someone with a spousal visa was inappropriate, there would surely be unlikely to be any substantial numbers.
Even if one thought that an extension of limited leave to remain from three to six months was too generous, it is only limited leave, as has already been said. Do the Government really believe that this would
“lead to more exploitation of our immigration system”,—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 99.]
as was said in Committee? If we consider victims as victims first, what is the Government’s proposal for the victims we are discussing here, who are in a very particular situation on top of everything else that they have to contend with?
Amendment 87 is about equality—positive equality without discrimination on the grounds of migrant or refugee status. This prompted me to think about the unconscious, sometimes perhaps conscious, prejudices that there are against equality and, indeed, against migrants—some migrants, sometimes all migrants. My noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece made a very succinct point in Committee that the amendment would enshrine a more consistent and cohesive approach which must be adhered to by all public authorities in providing for victim protection. She had hoped to be able to speak on the second day of Committee, but was unable to, so withdrew her name, and the procedures mean that she cannot speak on it today. I am sorry, because her voice would have been welcome.
This is another amendment that would deprive an abuser of a means of control and abuse. We were told in Committee and on other occasions that the ratification of the Istanbul convention is, of course, under review, pending the evaluation and findings of the support for migrant victims scheme. I am afraid that “under review” and “pending” sound to me rather like “parked”. Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady Lister, mentioned the suggestion that we have heard from the Government—not in the debate, but before today—about ratification with reservations. I share their concerns.
I am baffled that there should be any resistance to ensuring that all victims of domestic abuse receive equally effective treatment and support, irrespective of who they are and how they came to be in the UK. In view of what has been called an inconsistent and even haphazard response by the police, we need to make clear that this is about equality. It is not about some victims qualifying and some not. Surely we accept equality. We accept that legislation is not necessary for ratification of the convention, but this is our opportunity to move ahead. What is the problem? Are the Government concerned about challenges to particular decisions? Is this in fact, as it was beginning to sound at the Bill’s previous stage, about not victims first but Treasury first? If so, could we at least hear that said?
To me, the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, are irrefutable, and she put them very clearly and powerfully. Our Benches support her. I hope that she will give the House the opportunity to support her. If she does not, I give notice that when we get to its place in the list, I will move Amendment 87 to put it to the House and, if necessary, take it to a Division, and I would be grateful if my voice could be taken accordingly.