Petition
Debate between David Winnick and Diana Johnson(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I wish to present a petition from 1,200 residents in the Hull area who have signed a petition in support of the Government providing more help to refugees. In particular, I want to thank Councillor Colin Inglis, Councillor Daren Hale and Councillor Rosemary Pantelakis and all the volunteers over the weekend at Hull’s Freedom Festival for their efforts in obtaining signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Kingston upon Hull,
Declares that there is a global refugee crisis; notes that the UK is not offering proportional asylum in comparison with European counterparts; further declares that the petitioners believe that the UK should not allow refugees who have risked their lives to escape horrendous conflict and violence to be left living in dire, unsafe and inhumane conditions in Europe; and that Britain must do its fair share to help.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government urgently to increase its support for asylum seekers and refugees in Europe.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001542]
Mr Winnick
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I could clarify the situation over motion 3 on the Order Paper. I would be grateful for your advice. I was sitting here and waiting for the opportunity to speak. Clearly, the matter went on without my being able to catch your eye. I wanted to object to the method of appointment, to point out the need for elections to that Committee and to put the case accordingly. In those circumstances, I wonder if you can advise me on how I can pursue this, since I was not able to make my remarks today.
Refugee Crisis
Debate between David Winnick and Diana Johnson(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I wish to present a petition from 1,200 residents in the Hull area who have signed a petition in support of the Government providing more help to refugees. In particular, I want to thank Councillor Colin Inglis, Councillor Daren Hale and Councillor Rosemary Pantelakis and all the volunteers over the weekend at Hull’s Freedom Festival for their efforts in obtaining signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Kingston upon Hull,
Declares that there is a global refugee crisis; notes that the UK is not offering proportional asylum in comparison with European counterparts; further declares that the petitioners believe that the UK should not allow refugees who have risked their lives to escape horrendous conflict and violence to be left living in dire, unsafe and inhumane conditions in Europe; and that Britain must do its fair share to help.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government urgently to increase its support for asylum seekers and refugees in Europe.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001542]
Mr Winnick
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I could clarify the situation over motion 3 on the Order Paper. I would be grateful for your advice. I was sitting here and waiting for the opportunity to speak. Clearly, the matter went on without my being able to catch your eye. I wanted to object to the method of appointment, to point out the need for elections to that Committee and to put the case accordingly. In those circumstances, I wonder if you can advise me on how I can pursue this, since I was not able to make my remarks today.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
Debate between David Winnick and Diana Johnson(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson
I listened to what the Minister said, in particular, about the amendments on clause 36. While I will not press them to a vote, I am minded to reserve our position until we return after the Christmas break. I thank everybody for their contributions to the Bill’s Committee stage on the Floor of the House, and wish everybody a very merry Christmas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 36 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Commencement
Amendment made: 12, page 25, line 3, at end insert—
“() section 18(10);”—(James Brokenshire.)
Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill to be considered tomorrow.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that references have been made during the course of today’s proceedings to the atrocities that have occurred in Pakistan. The latest information is that 141 have been murdered in Pakistan, of whom 132 were children aged between five and 14. As we would all agree, this has undoubtedly been an act of murderous inhumanity.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise this point of order not just to give the latest information, but to ask you whether there is any way in which the House can express its horror at and condemnation of what has occurred in Pakistan. It is an act of terror carried out —and recognised and admitted as such—by the Taliban. I hope that it will be possible for such condemnation to be expressed by the House.
Church of England (Women Bishops)
Debate between David Winnick and Diana Johnson(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.