HMP Birmingham

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have said absolutely that we have seen significant rises in violence over recent years. That is why we launched the prison safety and reform plan. The first thing I did when I became Secretary of State was to make sure that we dealt with those issues. We have faced new challenges such as psychoactive drugs and mobile phones, which were not an issue before. I say to the right hon. Lady that since the inception of prisons we have not seriously impacted the reoffending rate, which is a challenge we face as a country. It is costing us £15 billion a year. It is important that we make our prisons safe, but also make them places of reform where we can reduce reoffending. Prisons need to follow both purposes.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It is very clear that the Prison Service is in a state of acute crisis, and it is a pity that the Secretary of State is not willing to admit that. Why was G4S involved in staffing the prison in the first place? We should look at its past. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), an illustrious Government Whip, is very excited in the approach to his wedding. I advise him that the descent on him of a Zen-like calm will aid his preparations.

[Mr Winnick]

G4S was the organisation that had to pay back £109 million to the Secretary of State’s own Department for overcharging. There were problems in the Medway secure training centre, the Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre and many other cases where this organisation has been involved. It is time that G4S was told very clearly that it is no longer needed in our Prison Service.

Prisons and Secure Training Centres: Safety

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The transfer from G4S to MTCnovo should reinforce some of the changes that are already taking place, which ensure that children and young people are better looked after. I had the opportunity to visit Rainsbrook, where I saw that staff were taking very seriously some of the unhappy practices that had been reported in the past and were determined to improve the care of young people.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Despite what the Minister said earlier, why should organisations with such a dubious record, to say the least, be given such responsibility, as we all agree that the safety of children is of the utmost importance? Why should such work be outsourced in the first place?

[Michael Gove]

There are two related points. First, there are institutions that are run by G4S, which are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, that are well run, that have been inspected and that every respectable observer believes are run in the interests of the inmates in a way that ensures that inmates do have a chance to turn their lives around. More broadly, it is fair to say that, within the secure estate overall, there needs to be a balance between the innovation that can be brought by outside organisations, and the rigour that proper inspection and proper monitoring can guarantee. That balance is always a difficult one to strike.

Police Funding Formula

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I am always conscious of the morale of police officers. That is why I say again from this Dispatch Box that I am proud to be the Policing Minister with the best police force in the world. I can tell my right hon. Friend that no money has gone missing from north Wales, because the proposal was indicative and no money was likely to go until a decision was made. However, the existing formula will continue for an extra year while we finish the rest of the proposals.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister bear in mind what has been said repeatedly, namely that the west midlands police force has suffered drastically as a result of the cuts that have occurred? Representations have been made and debates have been held about the position. Before the Minister tells us about the crime situation, I should say that in the past he has, I believe, accepted the unfairness of what occurred because of the previous formula. Will he bear all that in mind, and let us hope that there will be a fair settlement, at long last, for the west midlands police force?

[Mike Penning]

I usually disagree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says, but this time I do not. I think that the settlement needs to be fair to the West Midlands authority, and to the other 42 authorities, and we delayed the process so that we could get it right.

Arrests of Chinese Protesters

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

If an individual wants to make a complaint pertaining to this case to the police complaints authority, that is for them to do. It does not matter whether this was a Chinese demonstration or any other sort of demonstration; if the police decided at the scene that an arrest was needed, I will back them for that. I think that the whole House would support that decision, too.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister have any idea of the anger felt in this place and outside it over what occurred? It is unfortunate that he appears to be an apologist for that, as it seems to many people that what took place, as far as the police were concerned, could be described as British police action with Chinese characteristics.

[Mike Penning]

I will treat some of those comments with contempt. Given the amount of experience the hon. Gentleman has in this House, I would have thought that he would have supported the police in this difficult situation. I was not there and I saw the TV coverage, too. The officers who were there made the decision to arrest. Ongoing litigations continue, so let us wait and see what happens.

Saudi Penal System

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I take my right hon. Friend’s comments very seriously. He is absolutely right to say that constructive engagement with Governments like Saudi Arabia’s is always the wisest course. However, it is also the case that there is always a balance to be struck in the nature of the engagement that we make. The decision was made across Government that the Just Solutions International branch of the National Offender Management Service should be wound up, and this decision is consequent on that cross-Government decision.

As I have said before at the Dispatch Box, it is vital that we support the Foreign Office, its skilled diplomats and its excellent Ministers in the work that they continue to do to influence not just the Saudi Government, but other Governments who are considering how they can improve their own domestic human rights record and, indeed, promote the rule of law.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is it not almost farcical that the Saudi ambassador to the United Nations is actually chairing a panel that selects officials to decide on human rights violations? I am not aware that the United Kingdom has protested about that; it was probably a party to the appointment.

Is it not also the case that the Saudi Government do not take too seriously the various disapprovals expressed occasionally by Ministers, because they know that Britain will continue to sell arms on a substantial scale to a country where executions occur, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter)? Britain’s dealings with that state do not present a very pretty picture.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman has made two points. The first relates to the involvement of Saudi Arabia in the United Nations. Again, I should stress that this is a matter for another Department. However, I think that we should encourage the involvement of countries in international institutions when we can bring pressure and influence to bear on them to meet higher standards when it comes to the rule of law and human rights. That is an ongoing process; it is a dialogue.

In the same spirit, I should also stress that there are, of course, individual British companies that do business in Saudi Arabia, and there are shared security interests as well. Any responsible Government will always want to balance those interests with standing up for and making the case for progress in the realm of human rights, and that has been the consistent policy of this Government.

West Midlands Police (Funding)

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden]

I hope that it was clear from what I said at the outset that if a region has higher needs and a lower capacity to meet those needs locally, an important part of which is the level of the council tax precept, the Government should not ignore that problem. The formula should take account of that kind of thing, and the support should reflect the region’s needs and its lower capacity to raise money, which is partly a result of deprivation and the historical level of the council tax precept. As I said, if we decided to try to go for a higher council tax precept, the police force would have to pay for the referendum, which is patently unfair.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Bedfordshire decided to hold such a referendum in order to increase the council tax. That vote was lost and it cost Bedfordshire police some £600,000. It would be madness for the West Midlands police to try that even if it was desirable.

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the costs of referendums.

I am concerned that the Government’s proposals fail to take into account the multiple and complex demands on policing in the UK’s second largest city and the wider west midlands region. My constituency of Birmingham, Northfield, part of the Birmingham south local police unit, has recently seen a wave of high-profile incidents that have raised safety concerns among local residents. The reality is that those incidents are unrelated and exceptional—it is not a high-crime area—but the fact that they are taking place underlines the cross-cutting demands and sporadic pattern of many of the crimes with which large urban areas must contend. As a result, the question of police providing essential community reassurance is as important as crime detection and crime prevention.

Police community support officers are familiar faces of reassurance in many of our communities, mine being no exception. They play a vital role in deterring crime and building confidence among local people. Yet, despite their prominence and value on our streets, we look set to lose huge numbers of PCSOs. What is the Minister’s assessment of his Government’s pledge not to undermine front-line policing services such as PCSOs? Traffic police are another key, often overlooked front-line service. Specifically trained traffic officers are vital in deterring dangerous driving. Yet as their numbers have fallen in the past five years, casualties have risen dramatically nationally. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the Central Motorway Policing Group, for example, will maintain adequate staffing? Indeed, when considering job cuts to police officers, traffic officers and PCSOs, what assessment has he made of the required policing capability and capacity of each force area?

Across the west midlands—this goes back to the point of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) about crime levels—recorded incidents of violence against the person have increased by 10%, sexual offences by 18% and public order offences by 13% in the last year alone. West Midlands police is facing increasingly important challenges, such as radicalisation, child sexual exploitation and female genital mutilation. Safeguarding the most vulnerable in society and investigating and bringing perpetrators to justice are time and resource-intensive processes. When we consider the increases in many types of recorded crime, many of us will be aware that the real figure is probably much higher.

Critics of official crime statistics are well aware that many crimes, such as rape and sexual assault, regrettably go unreported. Others such as cybercrime and credit card fraud are simply not recorded properly. Crime is changing—not falling—and the Government must recognise that fair and proportionate funding for police forces is important.

In closing, I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, will he publish in full the data that his Department has used to develop the consultation proposals and will he then consider extending the consultation deadline to allow all respondents more time to review that information? Secondly, in the light of the disproportionate cuts in funding for West Midlands police, as found in the recent National Audit Office report, and given the growing local and national security demands in our region, will the Minister commit today to those things being taken into account in the new formula?

On Tuesday, the Select Committee on Home Affairs will take evidence about such matters, not only from the West Midlands police, but from other forces as well. For the Committee’s discussions and debates on Tuesday to be as informed as possible, I hope that the Minister will give at least some of that information today. He should be able to answer today the questions about the nature of the consultation, the basis for the figures arrived at and the work of the National Audit Office, without in any way jeopardising the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on initiating this important debate.

In all the time I have served as a west midlands Member—a very long time indeed—the West Midlands police force has never received such a financial blow as it has over the last five years. The force has, at times, been the subject of controversy—perhaps the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) will remember only too well some of the more recent controversies—but the fact of the matter is that the force has been treated properly under successive Governments until, unfortunately, the last few years, and it is due to be hit again. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield referred to a future meeting of the Home Affairs Committee. On 21 July, the very day that the Home Secretary gave evidence to that Committee, the Chancellor called for a further 40% cut from what are known as unprotected Departments. I asked the Home Secretary during that session what effect that would have on the police, and in particular on the West Midlands force, and she gave, more or less as one would expect, a rather ambiguous reply.

As has been pointed out, the West Midlands police force relies far more on a central Government grant allocation than do most other forces in the country. As the Minister will know, that point has been emphasised on so many occasions since 2010—by local authorities in the west midlands and by both the late and the new police and crime commissioners. Indeed, few Members, even Conservative ones, have not made the point that the manner in which finance has been organised over the years—the damping process that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield referred to—has been particularly adverse to the West Midlands police force.

In my earlier intervention I made reference to referendums. To increase the precept by just under 2%, a referendum would be necessary. When a referendum took place in Bedfordshire, the answer was no, and the cost was in the region of £600,000. Bearing in mind incomes in the west midlands, and the way in which so many people, certainly in public services, have had their wage increases frozen at 1%, it would not be right or proper to ask people in the region to pay more.

In comparison, Surrey, which undoubtedly is a far more prosperous area than the west midlands—I do not think there is any controversy about that—gets half its income from council tax. That is very different indeed from in the west midlands, yet Ministers and the Home Secretary have simply refused to recognise the difference between places such as Surrey, which rely far more on council tax, and those that rely more on the grant allocation.

In five years there has been a 17% reduction in the number of police officers in the west midlands. I do not think that the Minister is likely to challenge that figure—if he does, I will be interested to hear what he says. Moreover, there has been a 24% cut in the number of police community support officers. I would also be interested to hear the Minister’s comments about the fact that some 590 west midlands officers, each with more than 30 years’ service, have been forced to retire under regulation A19. Of those 590 officers, nearly 500 have put in claims regarding pension sums that amount to more than £71 million—a very substantial figure.

Let me add a little about my own constituency. Over the years there have been two police stations, in Bloxwich and Willenhall. In addition, there has been the main station on Green Lane—I will not go into the fact that it was opened by the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, in 1966. What is happening now is that Willenhall station is to close and be sold off. The borough’s central police station, on Green Lane, is to close next year and the building will be sold off also. Bloxwich will, fortunately, remain—I hope we are not going to be told that it is also to close.

That is the situation locally. No wonder the police and crime commissioner, David Jamieson, has said that

“the force will have to look and feel different”

in respect of crime in the future. How different? The chief constable, who is retiring, has said that by 2020 the police force will have to be reduced by almost 45% over 10 years.

In conclusion, law-abiding people in the west midlands must feel a good deal of anxiety, certainly among those who understand what has happened and is likely to happen—people who feel that if they are burgled or their cars are stolen, there will be difficulties contacting the police, getting the crimes investigated and all the rest. Such anxiety is perfectly justified. Criminals and potential criminals must feel a good deal of satisfaction about what is happening. I believe that the Government, and certainly the Home Secretary, have a duty to understand the concern that is being expressed by so many, including Members on both sides of the House, and to find a formula that is fair for the people of the west midlands. That is what we are asking for today. I hope it is not too much to ask that the Minister bear in mind our concerns and our desire to ensure that there are sufficient police officers and facilities to protect law-abiding people in the region.

Undercover Policing

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone of his comments. He knows from his experience how difficult it is, and to realise that he was in the dark about authorisations that have taken place—that is exactly what the inquiry has to consider. Lord Justice Pitchford must have full access, and even though the right hon. Gentleman will sadly be leaving the House, I am sure he will give him all the help he can in future to find out why Home Secretaries, Ministers and police managers were not informed about what was going on inside the Met. That is what the inquiry must do.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister really understand that this is a matter of parliamentary sovereignty and privilege? Action was taken by the police purely and simply for political reasons, and that is why it is so unacceptable. If the House of Commons was exercising its authority, as it would have done in previous times, the Metropolitan police commissioner would be at the Bar of the House to explain precisely why this was done and only Labour Members were targeted. It is unfortunate that that has not been done today.

[Mike Penning]

We do not know if it was only Labour Members, and that is what the inquiry will find out. As the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said, we know so little because so little was passed up the food chain to Ministers. That is why we need the inquiry to find out exactly what went on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Let me first explain that I am taking these points of order untypically now, rather than later, because they spring directly out of the business that we have just dealt with. On the last point from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the short answer is that I do not know, but I feel that I should be made aware. Inquiries can and will be made.

In response to the right hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), I think I can offer the assurance he seeks. In response to him and to the right hon. Lady the shadow Home Secretary, I should perhaps say this, which I think is at least as strong as is sought and possibly stronger. I have no doubt that the permanent authorities of the House—the Clerk and the Speaker’s Counsel—will not wait to be asked, but will proactively take steps to ensure that the concerns of the House are fully understood by Lord Justice Pitchford and his team. This is an extremely serious matter.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe reference has been made so far to the promise made by Harold Wilson when he was Prime Minister that the telephone conversations of Members of Parliament would not be intercepted in any way. May we work on the assumption, bearing in mind what has come out, that this continues to be the position? If the position of Members of Parliament has been undermined in the way we have heard about today, we do not know whether Harold Wilson’s pledge continues to apply.

[Mr Speaker]

In response to the hon. Gentleman, I do not feel there is anything more I can add. There is a sense in which his point of order contains a rhetorical question. He has aired his concern, which is widely shared. I am not in a position to allay that concern today, but it is very clear that it is a concern that I share 100% from the Chair on behalf of the House. This matter will not go away.

Prison Communications

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am only aware of a handful of cases over the years. When such cases arise, they are dealt with individually, with an apology and an explanation given to the prisoner involved. In terms of numbers, I am not aware that that is comparable to the issue we are dealing with today. It is however a concern, because such cases do arise.

The truth is that we all make mistakes. I do not yet have a detailed answer on the case of the Member of Parliament, but I suspect that it was a simple mistake by a member of staff who did not realise that they should not do what they did. However, we need to understand why and how this happened in both those circumstances, and we need to make sure that appropriate guidelines or measures are in place to ensure that they do not happen again.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The statement is headed, “Prison Communications”. Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a good deal of concern—in my view, justified concern—that the intelligence services are intercepting communications between lawyers and their clients. We know that there is an acute threat of terrorism and we have no illusions about that, but does he accept that such communications between lawyers and their clients should remain confidential and that what has happened should not occur again?

[Chris Grayling]

Rule 39 mail is very clearly covered by privilege, and it should remain so. As I have indicated, we have a remit to look at rule 39 mail only if we have good reason to believe that it is being misused. That matter is at the discretion of prison governors, but a concerted series of measures to intercept communications relating to an individual would almost certainly be subject to a ministerial warrant. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Security Service activity is subject to ministerial warrants, and rightly so.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

As is well known in this House, the Democratic Unionist party opposes this legislation and continues to oppose the Bill in principle. I want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who served in Committee and faithfully put forward the perspective that we hold on the need to protect the traditional definition of marriage. I also want to thank other hon. Members who share that view, including the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who also served in Committee and did a commendable job in putting forward our perspective.

I believe that marriage is foundational, that it is for one man and one woman, and that it ought not to be redefined. I believe that marriage is universal and not just for Christians, although I am a Christian and my stance on this issue, like that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is influenced by our Christian faith. I believe that marriage is for everyone, man and woman, who wants to take up that right in law. I believe that the definition of marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman should stand. I believe that marriage is beneficial, and that it is for the mutual help and support of husband and wife and for the procreation of children.

Our opposition to the redefinition of marriage is not born of prejudice. It is not born of homophobia. It is born of a deep sense of our Christian faith, and I hope that that can be respected. Our Christian faith is important to us. It is what motivates us to take the stances that we take on many issues. It is shared by many people in our native Northern Ireland, where a high proportion of the population still go to church and more than half our children attend faith schools.

The Northern Ireland Assembly recently voted not to introduce same-sex marriage in our part of the United Kingdom. I welcome the commitment that the Minister has given to seek the consent of the Department for Finance and Personnel, which is responsible for this matter in Northern Ireland, before implementing any amendments that would have an impact there. Notwithstanding that, however, we remain opposed to the legislation in principle. I was a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill that became the Civil Partnership Act 2004. I remember pointing out at that time that civil partnerships would inevitably lead to a demand for same-sex marriage and being told by the then Government that that was nonsense, that we were scaremongering and that it would not happen.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) tells us that marriage has changed and will change in the future. When we talk about equality in marriage, where do we draw the line? There are some in this country who believe that marriage should be between a man and more than one woman. Will we not, in time, hear another demand for equality—the demand that a man who wants to be married to more than one woman should have that right enshrined in law? If marriage is to change in the future, will not the House, in time, be presented with proposals to give effect to the demand for equality for those who want to be married to more than one partner?

We are told that we are on the wrong side of history. Well, time will tell whether those of us who take the stand that we are taking are on the wrong side of history. I have heard that argument many times in the past, and I have watched as the House has legislated time and again to undermine some of the fundamental building blocks of our society. I look around me, and I see the harm that that does to our society.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Who would the right hon. Gentleman say was on the right side of history as a result of the 1967 legislation that decriminalised homosexuality?

Church of England (Women Bishops)

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bradshaw]

The hon. Gentleman will have to examine the Church personship of those particular members of Synod, but it is not a secret that there are as many female members of the conservative evangelical and conservative Catholic wings of Synod as there are male members. We do not necessarily make choices and choose values based on our gender.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Arising from that intervention, does my right hon. Friend not agree that when women were campaigning for the parliamentary vote and to sit as Members of Parliament, it was argued that the majority of women wanted nothing of the kind?

[Mr Bradshaw]

Indeed, that is an interesting historical parallel.

It is important that we in the Church consider the reality of parliamentary opinion as the bishops, led by the new archbishop, try to chart a way forward. If they are to resolve this matter quickly using the usual or some form of expedited Synod process, they will still need a two-thirds majority in all three Houses of Synod—bishops, clergy and laity—and they will need to get it through Parliament.

It has been widely reported that if the Measure is further watered down in any way or more concessions offered to opponents, it will not get through Synod. However, it may well not get through Parliament either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I speak with some caution on this issue since, as I have mentioned in previous exchanges, I am not involved with the Church of England or with any other religious institution or establishment. Why, then, should I speak in a debate in which everyone except me is a religious believer and a member of some wing of the Church of England? If the Church were not established, I certainly would not speak in the debate. I would take the view that whatever rules a particular religion may have, that is a matter for it, not for me. However, the Church of England is an established religion, and bishops sit in the House of Lords as of right because that has been the custom and practice over a long period.

Moreover, whatever decision the Church came to, and certainly if it were in favour of women bishops, it would be necessary, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said, for Parliament to approve it or otherwise. Therefore, although it appears as though I am an outsider, as a Member of Parliament I am involved, as I was involved 20 years ago when the issue of whether women were to be ordained as priests had to come to the House of Commons. It will not come as a surprise to anyone, but I voted for that, and no one said to me, “Keep out of it: it is not a matter for you, you are not a religious believer and you are not involved with the Church of England.”

I could not disagree more with the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), but I respect what he said. I recognise his viewpoint, and he argued with all the skills that one would expect from a leading barrister. I listened to his eloquence, as I always do, with great interest, while not necessarily, and certainly not on this occasion, agreeing with him.

What I find so difficult to understand about this controversy is that the principle of women being ordained was accepted, and it has been a fact for 20 years. Inevitably, as a layperson, I must say to myself, “If women are ordained as priests, how on earth can it be argued that there should be a barrier to their promotion to bishop—or indeed to further promotion?”

The space around the Admission Order Office contains extensive displays depicting the struggle that women waged in order to obtain the parliamentary vote and to stand for election. Hon. Members who have not yet seen them might like to do so on their way out. I am sure that all of us, including the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, would agree that tribute should be paid to those women who fought so hard 100 years ago and more, who went to prison and who starved themselves and in some cases actually died for the cause that they believed in. How right they were.

It was finally conceded at the end of the first world war that the other half of the adult population should have the right to vote and to stand for Parliament, but let us imagine what would have happened if the Government of the day had said, “Yes, you may stand for Parliament and become a Member, but if you are elected, you may go no further. You may not become a Minister.” That would have been illogical, but the issue of women bishops is no less illogical. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon quoted scripture from his wing of the Church, and I understand that, but he himself acknowledged that the principle of women priests had been accepted. This is not a question of whether women should be ordained or not. That has been happening for 20 years and we rightly pay tribute to the contribution that they make, in my constituency and elsewhere, so why on earth should we prevent them from becoming bishops?

In December 1966, when I represented a different constituency, I had an Adjournment debate on the problems being faced by some black youngsters who were being discriminated against simply because of the colour of their skin. This was before the Race Relations Act was brought in under that Government. I now find myself, nearly half a century later, standing here speaking about discrimination against women. I believe that there should be substantial parliamentary pressure for a change to occur, bit it might come as a surprise to some Members that I do not believe that Parliament should necessarily override the decision of the Church. I want the Church itself to reach the decision. But—and it is an important “but” for most of us—it is necessary that the Church should come to the right decision very quickly. If it does not do so, there will be more and more impatience in the House and certainly outside it for parliamentary action to be taken.

It would be far better if the Church understood what was needed, and I believe that it does to a large extent. The vote that took place resulted in a two-thirds majority in two of the Houses of the Synod, with the House of Laity nearly achieving one. It has been quite clear from the debate tonight what the feeling of Parliament is on this matter—apart from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon—and if the Church of England as a whole recognises the pressure and the concern that undoubtedly exist in this House, that will be all the more reason for it to come to the right decision promptly. I hope that it will do so.

[Diana Johnson]

rose—