Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ms Johnson, do you have a similar question?

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

21. Yes, Mr Speaker; I am grateful. I want to ask about the number of nurses who have been made redundant. Lots of hospitals in my area are now recruiting from Spain, and I wonder whether an assessment has been made of the cost to the NHS of using nurses from abroad after making other nurses redundant.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I will not say the occurrence was unprecedented, but a lawyer finishing his speech earlier than expected is certainly a rarity.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am very well aware of the pressure in respect of today’s business, and I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have signed amendments that they want to debate later. I will of course attempt to keep my remarks as succinct as possible, but we are dealing with a very wide-ranging group of amendments on child protection issues, ranging from FGM to mandatory reporting to a new offence of child exploitation, so I do not think I will be able to match the Minister’s brevity in setting out the Government amendments. I will do my best, but it is important to recognise that this is an important grouping that needs to be fully debated.

I shall deal first with Government new clause 8 and Labour amendment (a), new clause 3 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), and new clause 22, dealing with a new offence of child exploitation and tabled by the Labour Front Bench. I certainly welcome what the Government are trying to do with new clause 8, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on this issue which has led to it going high up the agenda. Her report on child sexual exploitation highlighted the particular issue that children and young adults were being ignored or seen as the problem or even the instigator, when the truth was that they were being abused. One of the recommendations of the report was that our legislation needed to reflect the vulnerabilities of children and the fact that children cannot consent to being abused. A proposed step towards achieving this was to remove the terms “child prostitute” or “child pornography” from legislation to demonstrate that any children taking part in these sexual acts were not instigators and consenting participants, but were being abused. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend is in her place, and she has already paid tribute to the Minister for tabling the new clause. It is very helpful, but I want to highlight some issues relating to it, which is why I have tabled amendment (a).

In particular, I have concerns about the definition of child sexual exploitation, which is defined by new clause 8 as a situation where a child

“offers or provides sexual services”

to an adult. Let us be clear: this is about abused children. It is about a child being abused. They are not providing sexual services to adults; they are being abused and exploited, and our legislation should reflect the real nature of that relationship. Indeed, the purpose of the new clause is to ensure that the legislation reflects the fact that those subject to exploitation are victims, not instigators. I do not think moving from the term “child prostitute” to children as providers of sexual services is correct, and amendment (a) would correct that by moving to a definition of child sexual exploitation where a child engages in sexual activity with an adult. We would move away from the concept of the child as the provider or instigator of sexual activity. The term “sexual activity” is used extensively in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, so adopting amendment (a) would mean we have consistent and well-established terminology which will make legislation easier to apply. I hope the Minister will reflect on that and consider this amendment.

I would also like to raise with the Minister the wider consequences of new clause 8 in improving our understanding of child sexual exploitation and our response to it.

We will now have an offence of child sexual exploitation that will cover situations of child exploitation involving payment or photography, but those are just some of the examples of exploitation. I also have real concerns about the ancillary offences under sections 48 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. We will now have offences of arranging or facilitating sexual exploitation of a child, of controlling a child in relation to sexual exploitation and of causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child, but none of those offences covers all child sexual exploitation. They provide only for child sexual exploitation involving payment or photography.

I want to put to the Minister the example of a scenario in which control is exerted through threats, intimidation or coercion, or in which a child is plied with drugs or alcohol. We should recognise that those are all forms of child sexual exploitation. However, the Government’s approach is to have an offence of child sexual exploitation involving payment or photography. Other forms of exploitation not covered by that specific offence would therefore need to be prosecuted under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act for the general offence of arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence. That is a complicated offence to establish, however, because it relies on proving the commission of another sexual offence under the terms of the Act. In 2012, the latest year for which I have managed to find figures, there were just 32 convictions for that particular offence, and there have been only 130 convictions in five years. There is therefore a problem with the legislation: it is not working as effectively as we would all like it to.

That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 22, which would create a specific offence of child exploitation for the first time. There has been a lot of comment about such an offence being put on the statute book. I have heard people saying that it could criminalise a parent for getting their teenage son or daughter to do the washing up, for example, because that could count as child exploitation. However, the country’s leading expert in this area, Peter Carter QC, says that to use that kind of argument is to

“miss the significance of the word ‘exploitation’”.

The exploitation of children is, in and of itself, a serious matter that should be recognised in legislation. New clause 22 covers all forms of exploitation, from children being forced into begging or into working on cannabis farms to young girls being controlled by men and forced to submit to their sexual advances and abuse. It recognises that exploitation involves a wide spectrum, and the sentencing guidelines would reflect the fact that some forms of exploitation are more serious than others. Crucially, it would recognise that the exploitation of children is an offence in and of itself.

The new clause is about asserting the right of the child to a life free from exploitation. It is about saying that we will not accept the exploitation of children, just as we will not accept their abuse or their neglect. It would address some of the many problems that are preventing prosecutions under the Sexual Offences Act by moving from a situation in which we look at the commission of individual offences to one in which we look at people who control, manipulate and coerce children for their own ends. It would allow the police to step in where they could see an adult using controlling and coercive behaviour towards a vulnerable child, forcing them into situations involving sexual abuse, drugs, crime or forced labour.

Many prosecutions focus on particular criminal incidents, such as rape or sexual assault, but for victims of sexual exploitation, such incidents might be difficult to separate from the multiple assaults that they have endured. Such prosecutions might not give a true representation of the abuse that had been suffered. One young person has said:

“I was pressurised to go to court. There needs to be a sexual exploitation law. My charge was for rape, this was the wrong charge. So many times it happened.”

Cases often do not get prosecuted because the young person is considered an unreliable witness. That could be because she was returning to perpetrators and found it difficult to break the contact with them. So practitioners say that the effects of exploitation as a result of duration of relationships, coercion and controlling behaviour are like the Stockholm syndrome, with which we are all familiar, but that is not being recognised in the current drafting of offences, because they all focus on separate counts of rape or sexual assault.

Separate exploitation offences with a focus on children will also enable the prosecution of cases where current legislation does not offer equal protection to all children under the age of 18. For example, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 establishes the age of consent as 16, and children aged 16 and 17 are afforded the additional protection of the Act only if the person who commits the sexual offence is a person in a position of trust in relation to them. Yet those in that age group are likely to be victims of sexual exploitation. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England report on sexual exploitation by groups and gangs estimated that out of 16,500 children and young people who are experiencing or are at risk of child sexual exploitation 28% were aged 16 and 16% were aged 17.

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In written parliamentary question 221790, I sought information from the Home Office about funding allocated to the child abuse inquiry for the 2014-15 financial year and for future years. I received the answer:

“We will ensure appropriate funding”.

Given that we are nearly three quarters of the way through this financial year, I would expect the Home Office to have that information readily available. I also feel it is disrespectful to Parliament not to provide the detailed information requested in a parliamentary question. Can you offer me any guidance, Mr Speaker, on how to take the matter further?

[Mr Speaker]

Responses from Ministers to questions should be timely, and it is also widely expected that answers will be as forthcoming and copious as the circumstances require. As the hon. Lady will know, the content of answers is not a matter for the Chair. In my experience, the hon. Lady is both an extremely assiduous Chamber attender and a very dextrous parliamentarian. I rather imagine that she will be troubling—in the perfectly proper sense of the term—the Table Office on a regular basis with further inquiries. I have never been a Minister, but if I were one, and on the receiving end of a regular spate of inquiries from the hon. Lady, there would be a point at which I would think, “Well, it is probably better to give a full answer if such exists; otherwise, I shall just be chased to the end of the earth.” We will leave it there for now.

Business of the House

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 15th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

What a delicious choice! I call Diana Johnson.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Disappointingly, Morrison’s have decided to close their store at Bransholme in Hull, which will involve a loss of jobs. Surprisingly, I have just received an e-mail from the site managing agent criticising me for raising concerns about those job losses. This is at a time when the 14 new jobs at Siemens in Hull attracted 1,000 applicants. May we have a debate on the jobs situation, especially in northern cities? Also, two years ago, the Government scrapped the gathering of statistics to show how many jobseekers were chasing each vacancy. May we have those figures reinstated, please?

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 5, page 11, line 3, at end insert—

(iii) is beyond that which is necessary to allow the identification of the user from the public Internet Protocol address.”

This amendment would make it explicit that the extra data retention provided for in Clause 17 does not extend beyond that which is necessary for the purpose of identifying a user from the IP address. This amendment is not intended to impact on the rest of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, only the extra retention requirements created by Clause 17.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 17 stand part.

New clause 1—Access to retained data; judicial oversight—

“(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 22 insert—

“22A Access to retained communications data: judicial oversight

(1) This section applies where a person designated for the purposes of this Chapter believes that it is necessary on grounds falling within section 22 to obtain relevant communications data retained under section 1 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 relating to professional activities covered by a duty of confidentiality.

(2) Before granting an authorisation or issuing a notice under section 22 the designated person must have obtained the permission of the court.

(3) In determining whether to grant permission under subsection (2) the court shall in particular balance the reasons why the designated person believes it is necessary to obtain the data against the public interest in upholding the duty of confidentiality.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify—

(a) the court or courts that shall determine applications for permission under this section;

(b) the process for the court or courts to determine whether to grant permission;

(c) the period for which permission shall apply before being renewed by the court; and

(d) the process for a person or persons to appeal against a decision to grant permission.

(5) Regulations under this section may not be made until they have been laid in draft before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

(6) In this section “professional activities covered by a duty of confidentiality” shall include, but not be limited to, the professional activities of journalists, legal advisers, medical professions and Members of Parliament.”

New clause 2—Review of timing for disclosure of Relevant Internet Data—

“(1) The Secretary of State must instigate a review of the time taken for communications service providers to comply with a request for subscriber information made under Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

(2) In this section “subscriber information” means relevant internet data as defined in section 17 of this Act in so far as it relates to information required to link a public internet protocol address to an individual user.”

This New Clause would require the Home Secretary to instigate a review regarding the time taken by communications service providers to disclose information which links an individual to an IP address.

Amendment 11, in clause 42, page 25, line 5, at end insert—

‘(3A) The Secretary of State shall not make regulations under subsection (3)(a) until a report by the Interception of Communications Commissioner on the use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to access the records of journalists has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Minister for that.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order that the Prime Minister has made an announcement to the Australian Parliament about a future counter-terrorism Bill and the Home Secretary has, this morning, made a detailed speech about the contents of that Bill before it has been announced to this House?

[Mr Speaker]

I have not yet read the Home Secretary’s speech, although that delight awaits me ere long. I feel sure that if a significant policy announcement is contained therein, she will want to communicate it to the House sooner rather than later. If, for some reason, that does not happen—it seems to me inconceivable that it will not—the hon. Lady is experienced in the use of parliamentary devices to ensure that Ministers are held to account in a timely way on the Floor of the House.

We will leave it there. I am grateful to colleagues for their very full appetite for points of order today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Chris Ruane. He is not here; therefore, the grouping with Question 12 falls, and questioner 12 will have to come in at that point.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

5. What steps the Government are taking to (a) enforce payment of the minimum wage and (b) encourage firms to pay the living wage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Diana Johnson.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am very intrigued by the answer that the Minister has just given. Is she or is she not in favour of compulsory sex and relationships education? That is what I am really interested to know.

Business of the House

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Of course, we cannot get involved in individual planning applications, but I hope that I can be forgiven for saying that we need more tennis courts in this country and not fewer. That is a matter about which I feel very strongly, as does the Lawn Tennis Association and a great many other people besides.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

May I agree with the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for a debate on Ebola? The Health Secretary made a statement on Monday about Ebola and the targeted screening at Heathrow, Gatwick and Eurostar, but he did not refer to ports such as Hull, which are busy entry points and targets for illegal immigration. Would it be possible to have a debate on what more needs to be done to protect all our ports of entry?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are uncharacteristically ahead of schedule today, but as all the principals are present we should now proceed straight away to topical questions.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I was aware of the change of rules, and now the House is. We are grateful for that and will leave it there for today. I hope that is helpful.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 6 January this year I asked a named-day question about the introduction of fees for employment tribunals, and particularly the issue of pregnant women who are now being asked to pay £1,200 to go to tribunal. There is concern that there has been chaos in the system about the fee remittance available to that group. My named-day question was answered only on 17 January after I had submitted pursuant questions. The Minister said that he would write to me in full, but I have not heard anything and it is now two months later. Can you do anything, Mr Speaker, to ensure that Ministers respond to legitimate questions from Members of Parliament?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has made her point. The Procedure Committee is conscious of its importance, as indeed is the Leader of the House, who is nodding sagely from a sedentary position on the Treasury Bench.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not wish to be unkind, but the Minister does perambulate in a mildly eccentric fashion. If he feels that he can face the House in answering questions, that would be greatly to the advantage of both the hon. Gentleman and the House.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the prices charged by the six largest energy companies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That was a splendidly pithy reply, which allows us briefly to get on to the important matter of vermin infestation.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

9. What recent representations he has received on vermin infestation on the parliamentary estate.

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is, of course, perfectly possible for there to be either an urgent question or a statement tomorrow, but I feel sure that those are facts of which the Leader of the House was already well aware. I am merely courteously repeating them in order properly to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Home Secretary said on Monday, about the latest TPIM terror suspect to abscond:

“I do not have his passport, but the police do.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 27.]

However, the Home Secretary has since asked that Hansard be corrected to say:

“I do not have his passport, Mohamed was not in possession of his British passport when he returned to the UK so there was no passport for the police to seize.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 1MC.]

Can you tell me whether it is in order for a Secretary of State to try to amend Hansard because of her own error, or should she come back to Parliament and correct the record herself? Can Hansard even be changed in this way, especially as it has been printed and the facts have now changed?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, of which I did not have advance notice. Therefore my immediate reply is that I will look into the matter that she has very properly raised.

The issue of the Intelligence and Security Committee was raised earlier and for the purpose of clarification I wish to remind the House that the Committee may sound like a Select Committee and, at its hearing today, it may look like a Select Committee, but in fact it is not a Select Committee. We will leave it there for now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Michael Connarty—not here.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Is it acceptable that properties built after 2009 and small businesses will not be covered by the Government’s new flood insurance scheme?

Business of the House

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Colleagues may feel that, when it comes to Opposition Back Benchers, I have left the best until last.

[Diana Johnson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

On 9 August, the Hull Daily Mail led with the following report:

“Yesterday the Prime Minister…said A & E departments would get a share of the money over the next two years, to ensure they are fully prepared for winter.”

On 10 September, I learned that Hull will not get a penny of the £250 million set aside for this winter. May we have a debate on why Hull, despite its real needs, is not getting a fair share of funding—it applies to council funding, too—from this Government?

Business of the House

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are still several colleagues trying to contribute and I am keen to accommodate them. I just remind the House that there are two debates to take place today under the auspices of the Back Bench Business Committee, the first of which in particular is extremely heavily subscribed, so there is a premium, both in this session and subsequently, on brevity.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago, the Leader of the House told me that the reason food bank use had trebled in the last year was that the Government were now advertising in job centres that food banks were available. To explore this further, may we have a debate to explain why, in Hull, police and retailers have been reporting a serious increase in food theft? Is it down to shops advertising food better?

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I draw to your attention the written ministerial statement provided this morning on flood insurance? There has been no opportunity to consider what is in that statement, and the Chief Secretary was not able to give full details in his statement earlier. My constituents are particularly concerned about flood insurance and the provisional deal that seems to have been reached by the Government and the insurance industry. May I ask that the appropriate Minister be brought to the Dispatch Box to answer questions, so that we can have effective scrutiny of the issue?

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House has signalled an interest in coming in on this issue. He is welcome to do so.

Point of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that it is not a convention of the House of Commons for the Second Church Estates Commissioner to make a statement to the House, but in the light of the extraordinary decision of the General Synod of the Church of England last night not to have women bishops, is it possible to have a statement from the hon. Gentleman setting out what the Church intends to do next, and what this means for the continuing discrimination in the other place with only men being eligible to sit in the House of Lords as Church of England bishops?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. She is right to say that it is no part of the convention of this House that the Second Church Estates Commissioner makes statements to the House. The right to make a statement of the kind that she has in mind is reserved to Ministers. The hon. Lady may however wish to explore whether the Minister for Women and Equalities has any responsibilities in relation to this matter, and whether there are avenues by which she may pursue this issue. It is certainly open to the Minister for Women and Equalities to make a statement to the House. In the meantime, I would simply say that very strong voice to opinion in this House has been given today on both sides. I will leave it there for today.

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s attempted point of order is that answers to questions are the responsibility of Ministers. Similarly, in the event of an inaccuracy known to the Minister, it is the Minister’s responsibility to correct the record. The hon. Gentleman is a determined and persistent chap, and I feel sure that he will pursue the path of righteousness to his satisfaction. If he remains dissatisfied, no doubt we shall hear from him again.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to a question on 11 July, the Health Secretary told me that local government was being given sufficient funding to cope with provisions in the new social care White Paper, but on the same day the Local Government Association released a statement saying:

“there won’t be enough money to provide these services to anyone other than the most needy, or those who can afford to pay for all of their own care.”

In the interests of accuracy, will the Secretary of State correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but in material terms my reply does not differ in content from that which I just offered the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). It is, at least in part, a matter of interpretation. I said that the hon. Gentleman was a persistent chap, but she is a persistent woman, and I feel sure that she will pursue this matter in a way she judges fit.

I shall now call the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The hon. Gentleman has three minutes in which to make such an application.

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. The matters that concern him do not appear to me to raise any questions about the rules of the House. Therefore, they are not a matter for the Chair. No doubt Ministers will have heard what he has just said. It is open to any Member of the House to table a prayer against a statutory instrument. Moreover, I would emphasise that it is Wednesday today. The House will not rise for the summer recess until next Tuesday, so there are opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to seek to debate the matter, whether in Government time, Opposition time or, indeed, Back-Bench time. I hope that that is helpful to him.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. I wrote to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice on the important issue of firearms on 4 January 2012, and again on 27 March and 21 May, as well as making two telephone calls to his private office to ask for a response. Today I have still not received a response. I wonder whether you could advise me on whether there is anything further I could do to seek a response from the Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is an experienced and assiduous Member of the House. One thing she can do is to raise the matter on the Floor of the House, which she has just done. It is perhaps fortuitous for her that she has done so in the presence of no less a figure than the Deputy Leader of the House, who, together with the Leader of the House, attaches great importance to timely replies from Ministers to Back-Bench Members. This is a point I have made repeatedly: Ministers must answer to hon. and right hon. Members. I hope that the failure thus far to do so will be speedily communicated to the Minister and that he will make good in time. I hope that is helpful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I would not want the hon. Lady to feel marginalised or excluded. Diana R. Johnson.

[Diana Johnson]

I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker. In light of the impact that sexual assault referral centres can have on rape convictions, should sexual assault referral centres have their funding ring-fenced, both from the NHS and from the police?

Airport Security (People with Disabilities)

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on the written ministerial statement laid today by the Ministry of Defence on the White Paper, “National Security Through Technology: Technology, Equipment, and Support for UK Defence and Security”, and on the reference that was made in Prime Minister’s questions to BAE losing the Typhoon order from India. Is it possible for a Defence Minister to come to the House to address both those issues as they are of such importance to many Members of Parliament and their constituents?

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Lady knows, the manner in which the Government make statements is a matter for those on the Treasury Bench. Specifically, it is for them to judge whether there should be a written or an oral statement. Her point of order will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and will doubtless be transmitted to the Leader of the House and his deputy. Moreover, the hon. Lady is an assiduous attender of Question Time each day and will be conscious that tomorrow there will be business questions, where she may make an appearance to pursue this point further.

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7))

That the following provisions shall apply to the Welfare Reform Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 9 March 2011 (Welfare Reform Bill (Programme)) and 13 June 2011 (Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1.Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 pm at this day’s sitting

2. The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

3. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

14. What assessment he has made of the advice from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr Speaker]

Now for an intelligent answer, from whichever Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Patrick Mercer. Not here.

[Diana Johnson]

Is the security situation worse or better than it was a year ago?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I call Diana Johnson.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

17. How much funding he plans to allocate to local authorities in order to perform their new public health duties in each of the next three years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Government have pledged 12 new Chinooks, which are crucial for the UK defence industry capacity and for national security because of their role in Afghanistan. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have signed the contracts for these new helicopters? If not, can he explain what that means for the British defence industry, when he expects the contracts to be signed, and when these much-needed Chinooks will enter theatre?

[Mr Speaker]

I counted about four questions there, but the Minister is a specialist in pithy responses, and we will hear him.

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Education Secretary told the House, Official Report, column 888, that people in Hull should vote Liberal Democrat as the council provided a full travel grant for 16 to 18-year-olds in receipt of education maintenance allowance. He did not mention that the current grant of £100 a year is only about £3 a week and does not cover the full travel costs, or that it is available only to those travelling more than 3 miles. The scheme is discretionary and is threatened by the £67 million of cuts that the coalition Government are imposing on Hull. Under a Labour council, Hull previously provided a totally free student travel pass. Is there an opportunity for the correct facts to be put before the House?

[Mr Speaker]

In the assessment of the hon. Lady, that version has just been put on the record, and I am sure the House is indebted to her.

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order that the promise made by the Under-Secretary of State for Health to publish a review on contaminated blood products before the end of the year has not been fulfilled? My constituent Mr Glen Wilkinson has contacted me in the last hour. He is extremely angry that a group who have suffered so much have been let down again. May I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether you would look into this matter?

[Mr Speaker]

Nothing disorderly has occurred. The hon. Lady is dissatisfied, but that is a different matter. She has registered that dissatisfaction, which will have been heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

There is no means by which to compel or oblige a Minister to follow through on the precise words or commitment previously uttered or given. How a statement is made or a decision is announced by a Minister is a matter for the Minister. However, the hon. Gentleman, who is a perspicacious parliamentarian, has drawn attention to what I would call the disparity between what was said on one occasion and what happened on another.

[Diana Johnson]

Further to my previous point of order, Mr Speaker. I note the comment that you went on to make about today’s written ministerial statement. May I just confirm that that written ministerial statement is merely a holding response, and that it is not actually the statement that was promised by the Minister?

[Mr Speaker]

I am unsighted on that point, but my additional observation about the written ministerial statement was intended to be helpful. It was not intended to spark a further debate on this occasion.

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and John Bercow

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is that that is a matter for the Leader of the House and, in his absence, the Deputy Leader of the House. It is quite possible that a cosy chat will shortly ensue between the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) and the Deputy Leader of the House.

[Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This follows on from my question during business questions and may be more appropriate for you. When they came through security into the House yesterday, my constituents were asked to remove a campaign T-shirt or turn it inside out. Can you give some guidance to our security staff with regard to that policy?

[Mr Speaker]

I shall certainly investigate the matter and revert to the hon. Lady. I am not familiar with the circumstances of this case, other than from what she said. An overly restrictive approach in matters of this kind is undesirable. Occasionally, a bit of flamboyance is not such a bad thing. I think I can say that to the hon. Lady from personal experience.