Church of England (Women Bishops)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cox]

No.

If we have to wait until 2015, will it be so bad a thing?

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

Yes, it will be for those women.

--- 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—

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate. I should also like to congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing the debate to take place because of the importance of the subject. I want to say at the outset to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) that my comments this evening might not be seen as tender, and that I am very impatient. I am also on the side of the oppressed—in this case, the women in the Church who are being discriminated against.

The Times this morning carried a report on the 2011 census, which showed that Hull, my home city, had had the largest fall in Christian belief in this country over the past decade, at 16.8%. The row that is going on in the Church over women bishops will just make the established Church’s struggle for relevance even more difficult as it seeks exemptions from the realities of the modern society that it wishes to serve. We all know that women are the mainstay of the Church in communities throughout our land. As has been said many times, the theological argument over women priests—and, therefore, their position in roles of authority—was settled 20 years ago. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), I was involved in that campaign to get women ordained. The argument was won, and since 1992 more than 3,000 women have been ordained as priests, which is a huge success for the Church of England—new wine in old bottles. The next natural step, as many people have said, is to see some of those excellent ordained women priests move into positions of church leadership as bishops.

Discrimination in the wider community is wrong and prevents the talents and abilities of all from flourishing, so it is important in the established Church that the experience and skills of both men and women are used. The Church should be led by the very best, not just those who happen to be male. As I said during the urgent question to the Second Church Estates Commissioner last month, the stained glass ceiling for women in our Church must go. As a result of the House of Laity being just six votes short of a two-thirds majority on 20 November, the Church of England now stands to be left behind by the society it seeks to serve and made to look outdated, irrelevant and, frankly, eccentric. It also stands to be left behind by the Anglican community around the world.

I want to remind the House of some of the arguments that have been deployed as to why we should not have women bishops. Some hold the belief that God created man to lead and that women are there to be his obedient helper. They take the view that the Church should be run by Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve. Those in favour of women bishops more commonly draw inspiration from the theological arguments that both men and women were created equal in God’s image. We can also rely on facts that are usually painted out in biblical history. For example, in the early Christian Church, until about 400 AD, there were female priests and it was common for congregations to be led by women.

Theology and theological debate evolve over time. My celebrated predecessor in Hull, William Wilberforce, fought a 30-year campaign against the slave trade, with theological arguments for slavery deployed against him. Theological fundamentalists tried to resist the scientific work on evolution by Charles Darwin and others. Afrikaner theologians also made a case in favour of apartheid. Those who oppose gender equality in the Church often draw on literal, if selective, interpretations of the Bible, and I have heard personally from some such opponents in recent days.

The House might like to hear just a few of the comments I have received from those whom I call the three wise men. The first said to me:

“God actually knows better than you”.

Thanks, Mr Dave Croton—I am only a woman, after all, so what would I know? The second wise man said to me:

“The language of ‘equality’ seems to me to be profoundly unhelpful in this debate.”

Thanks, Mr Ian Colson—equality is often “unhelpful” to vested interests. Finally, I was told:

“How dare you seek to go against the will of Almighty God. Almighty God will hold you to account for what you have said in the day of judgment. Ask his forgiveness and beg for mercy.”

Thanks, Mr Jonathan Buss—I will take my chances on that one.

Forward in Faith has produced a briefing that is heavy on public relations advice for how opponents of change should lobby Members of this House on today’s debate. I will quote an example of the quality of its case:

“We do not, for example, have women in Premier League football teams but this is not seen as a failure in equal opportunities.”

We are asked to believe that the physical demands of being a bishop are like premiership football—and obviously beyond what women can do. I am not really sure that that is the strongest argument for a team that is fighting relegation.

I am worried about what will happen next. The decision made by a minority in the House of Laity means that this essential modernisation of the Church of England has potentially been put back another five years, with no guarantee of progress even then. A broad Church is being held to ransom by a few narrow minds, even though the vast majority of its members want to see women bishops. Some of those who tell us that they want to see change claim that it must not be rushed. However, this issue has been debated in the General Synod since 2000, so I do not think that the Church can seriously be accused of acting in haste on gender equality.

So what needs to be done? As long as we have an established Church, Parliament has a role to play in supporting it through its time of crisis. The Church and wider faith communities often seek to inform and inspire our deliberations in politics. It is now time for the Church to pause and reflect on how wide the gap has become between it and the society that it wishes to serve and influence.

As the established Church is part of the settlement of this country, this House should consider what the decision of the 20 November vote means for the Church’s role in our law making. The Synod’s vote means the entrenchment of the discriminatory nature of the 26 places in the House of Lords that are reserved for bishops who can only be male. Such sexual discrimination would not be allowed to determine membership anywhere else in the Houses of Parliament. In light of the Government’s deferral of wider reform of the other place, we have to question the role of the 26 bishops in this Parliament, unless the Church decides to ordain women bishops.

First, I agree that there should be a moratorium on the appointment of new bishops until this gender discrimination ends. Secondly, if the bishops want to send a clear message that they are engaging seriously with women in the Church, they should end the practice of meeting and voting in private when amending primary legislation, even though their standing orders allow the press and public to be present. Thirdly, it can no longer be right for the Church of England to be allowed exemptions from equalities legislation. We are all meant to be equal before the law, and nobody is above that law.

I have a message for the many friends who have worked so patiently for so many years to see women bishops. They should take up the fight with added vigour and less willingness to compromise with those who will never accept change and who never compromise themselves. They should seek inspiration from British history. Left to itself, the Church will not restart its slow, uncertain process on women bishops until July 2013. July 2013 will mark 125 years since a group of low-paid, exploited, mainly women workers went on strike at the Bryant and May factory in Bow. They won and changed history. One movement that followed the match girls was the suffragettes. The Church of England would struggle to exist without the voluntary work and good will of women all over the country, so what if the women of the Church of England had their own strike? Perhaps it is true that well behaved women seldom make history.

In conclusion, the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate has agreed to meet Members of Parliament and I will certainly be there. I hope that the all-male group of bishops will start to work with and listen to senior women in the Church, who have so much to offer. I hope that the House will support the one-clause Bill that I intend to bring forward in the spring to introduce women bishops. I will finish with the words of a former leader of the Labour party, John Smith, who was a man of great faith. He summed up what most women in the Church of England seek:

“A chance to serve, that is all we ask.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Before I call the next speaker, I apologise to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), whom I have known for a very long time. I was listening and reflecting on this excellent debate and not paying enough attention to what I should be doing, which is chairing the debate. I apologise that she had to prompt me on whom to call.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

This has been an important and poignant debate, with powerful contributions and speeches from every single Member across the House who has been able to speak today. I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate and bringing it to us this afternoon and this evening.

It is clear from what has been said today and from views expressed over the last few weeks that the decision of the General Synod not to allow the appointment of women bishops has generated very strong feelings indeed, among those who wish to see women appointed as bishops in the future and those who want to retain the status quo. As our Prime Minister has made very clear indeed, the Government strongly believe that the time is right to enable the appointment of women bishops. Women already do a tremendous job within the Church of England, including in their role as members of the clergy, so it is very disappointing that a vote taken to address this issue has failed, despite a clear majority of Synod members voting in favour of the proposal.

The role of discrimination law in this matter has been raised. Let me make it very clear that there is nothing in discrimination law that would prevent the appointment of women bishops, should the Synod vote to do so. It is right and proper that the Church of England, just like any other religious organisation, is not exempt from having to comply with our equality law, namely the Equality Act 2010.

However, it is also right and proper that certain exceptions exist within the 2010 Act to recognise the specific nature of religious organisations and the unique role they have to play within our society. One such exception exempts religious organisations from certain parts of the Act’s employment provisions, where

“the employment is for the purposes of an organised religion”.

This exception is used by a number of religious bodies, allowing Roman Catholics and orthodox Jews, for example, to appoint only men as priests or rabbis. Amending the 2010 Act to remove this exception with the intention of forcing the appointment of women bishops would potentially have effects going far beyond the Church of England alone.

[Diana Johnson]

I am listening to what the Minister says. In the light of what was said yesterday about the special legislation being brought forward for the Church of England with regard to gay marriage, how does what the Minister has just said fit in with yesterday’s statement?

[Mrs Grant]

The two issues are completely different and unconnected, and should not be conflated.

Amending that exception would risk seriously affecting the work of various other religious bodies in some extremely sensitive areas. In any case, our law enables women bishops to be appointed; that is not a stumbling block here.

Some Members have pointed out today that changing discrimination law is not the only option. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that, in theory, it would be open to Parliament to legislate on Church of England matters without the involvement of the General Synod, for instance by amending canon law to require the appointment of women bishops. However, Parliament and Church work well together on so many matters. We would not want to disturb that balance by making impulsive changes, given the special relationship that exists between the state and the Church of England as the established Church of our nation.

The Government have made their views very clear on the matter of women bishops: we would warmly welcome their appointment. However, we respect the independence of religious organisations, and it is right that decisions of this sort about internal structure are ultimately matters for the Church of England itself to decide.

I particularly thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), for his earnest remarks about the position in which the Church finds itself today. I am heartened by his acknowledgement of the difficulties and emotions that the General Synod’s vote has generated and his determination to ensure that the Church resolves the issue as soon as possible, and I look forward to hearing from him again in a moment.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

What my hon. Friend has just brought before the House is one example of the kind of views I expect to be submitted to the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that the views of prison governors will be listened to with interest.

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

Of the 43 member countries of the European conventions, which ones maintain a blanket ban on prisoner voting?

[Chris Grayling]

Seven countries have done so. Most recently, Italy was before the Court and has made an amendment to its system. Of course, each country will form its own decision based on the system it has in place and the sovereignty of its Parliament. There has been some suggestion that ours is the only country that has even contemplated failing to implement a decision of the European Court, but I should tell the House that if we look at the record of different members of the Council of Europe for implementing decisions over the years, we see that this country stands near the top of the list.

Policing

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

We have had an interesting debate this afternoon on policing and the flagship coalition policy of police and crime commissioners in the 41 police authority areas outside London. It has been noticeable that we have heard only from Conservative and Labour Members of Parliament in this debate. No Back-Bench Liberal Democrat MP has spoken. Liberal Democrats seem to be standing in only 24 of the 41 police authority areas, despite their voting for the policy, but then perhaps they are still making up their mind on whether they support it or not.

There have been some excellent contributions to the debate, with many from the Humberside area. It is good that the Labour candidate in Humberside, Lord John Prescott, has had so much publicity this afternoon. It is noticeable that the Conservative candidate does not seem to feature very much at all.

Let me turn first to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who spoke with great authority as a former Home Secretary. He reminded us of Labour’s achievement in government. He spoke about the reduction in crime levels, including the 64% reduction in domestic violence that we saw under the Labour Government, and the focus on that particular crime, which for many years had not been seen as a matter for the police. He also talked about the important role that the police play in partnership working and how important it is to ensuring that crime continues to fall.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) raised the important issue of funding levels and the inequity of Surrey seemingly receiving more money than forces in areas such as the west midlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) spoke about London policing, with 463 fewer officers already in the Metropolitan police. She talked about knife crime and the concerns of young people in the capital. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) challenged the slogan used by the Prime Minister on Monday—“tough but intelligent”—in his speech on crime, which I think is the first he has made since becoming Prime Minister. My hon. Friend focused on the lack of intelligence in that slogan and in the policies that the Government have been pursuing over the past two and a half years. He also declared himself as a “proud pleb”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) spoke as a Scottish MP, but from the perspective of someone with fresh eyes looking at what was happening with the elections. He talked about the fact that many people do not know that the elections are happening and about his experience with the police parliamentary scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said that she had been amazed and impressed during the time she spent with the police. She talked about the important concept of policing by consent and the impact of cuts in her constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) also spoke about his experience on the police parliamentary scheme and, again, the effect of cuts in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) spoke about the complexities of policing and the politicisation of the police through the policies that the Government are pursuing. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) talked about the shambles in Wales with the ballot papers and the cost that the taxpayer will have to pick up because of the Government’s failure to count days again, which seems to be a running theme.

Let me turn to the policy of having police and crime commissioners. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) stated, the elections will cost £100 million, plus the £350,000 that will have to be paid to put the ballot papers right in Wales. This flagship policy must be set against the backdrop of the fact that £100 million would pay for 3,000 new police officers. This is at a time when 15,000 police officers are to be cut by 2015, and when we already know that 6,800 police officers have been cut from the front line in the first two years of this Parliament, which is more than experts had predicted would be cut in the whole of the Parliament. There is real concern, too, about the headlong rush into mass privatisation, and the failure to learn the lessons from what happened this summer with G4S.

Over the past four weeks the policing story dominating the airwaves has been a senior Cabinet Minister swearing at police officers and reportedly calling them “plebs”. In the past two and a half years, the coalition has made the job of being a police officer much harder. It has restricted the use of CCTV and DNA, it is weakening antisocial behaviour orders and it has cut funding to work with communities, and young people in particular.

Labour opposed the police and crime commissioner model for very good reasons, but in the coming election we cannot leave policing to the Tory candidates alone, who we know are cheerleaders for cutting front-line police officers. The issues are far too important for us to stand aside. We are opposed, however, to these elections being held in one of the darkest and coldest months of the year. Well the Minister explain why we are having these elections in November? Is this a deal that the Liberal Democrats did because they did not want an election in May, when they were going to do so badly in the local council elections?

For the record, let us be clear: the Liberal Democrats voted in favour of setting up the PCCs, with all the associated election and salary costs. Labour voted against that. Labour would much rather spend the money on front-line policing and cutting crime further, not cutting police numbers. The Liberal Democrats promised 3,000 extra police at the 2010 general election, in full knowledge of the deficit. When does the Minister expect to deliver on that promise?

At the end of 2009, the Liberal Democrats released some research that said the Government should recruit 10,000 more police officers. Their leader, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), said if that were done, an “extra 82,265 crimes” would be solved each year. He said:

“The Liberal Democrats are the only party who wants to catch more criminals by putting more police on the street.”

Given their record and what they have said, it is unsurprising that the Liberal Democrats have chickened out of standing in many of the PCC elections.

In an article in The Daily Telegraph, the former police Minister, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), says that having TV adverts

“cunningly placed during Downton Abbey”

and “The X Factor” will ensure that people go out to vote. How naive. When I was in Nottingham earlier this week with our excellent candidate Paddy Tipping knocking on doors and talking to individuals, nobody knew about the elections. I am very sceptical about the comment of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice that 85% of people will see these advertisements. I repeat the comment of senior police figure Peter Neyroud on these elections:

“If you could have constructed a manual on how not to conduct an election, the Home Office have managed to tick off just about every element of it”.

The Electoral Reform Society has warned that this threatens

“to result in the lowest turnout of any nationwide election in British history.”

We are holding the elections in November when holding elections is much more expensive than at other times of the year. Doing so will also drive down turnout, and the elections are unpopular with the public in any case. Instead of a free post or a Government-backed booklet with information about the candidates to be sent to each voter, individuals can only go on to the Government website. Some 71% of over-75s have never used the internet, and neither have almost 20% of people in Wales. At a time when we want to encourage people to vote, the Government are immediately putting electors at a disadvantage. Belatedly, we are now told that there will be a telephone number that voters can call to ask for information to be sent.

What level of turnout is the Minister looking for to make these elections a success and give legitimacy to his Government’s flagship policy? As we have heard, the Minister said at his party conference that 20% is his aim. Is that correct? Interestingly, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice did not give him much support when he was challenged on this during his opening speech, so it seems that the coalition are split, again, on this matter.

In conclusion, Labour wants to accelerate progress in cutting crime, not make that more difficult. Under Labour, we had more police with more powers, and we sent more criminals to prison. The streets became safer and crime fell by 43%. The coalition has been rowing back on police numbers and police powers. Worse still, the coalition is going to squander £100 million of taxpayers’ money on this shambles of a PCC election, so I ask hon. Members to support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I was just reminding the House that the Government have presided over a 10% fall in crime in the past two years. The latest figures show that crime is lower in England and Wales than at any time since the official survey started in 1981. Chief constables are rising to the challenge of making efficiency savings and providing greater value for money. As Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said:

“The front line is being protected”.

Police reform is working. We have swept away central targets and reduced police bureaucracy. That shows that how the police are deployed, rather than their absolute numbers, is the key to cutting crime.

[Diana Johnson]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Before I give way, let me put it like this to Labour: the best way to measure the success of a service is not whether we have spent more and more money on it, but whether we have got better and better results.

[Diana Johnson]

So does the hon. Gentleman agree with what his leader said—that if there were an additional 10,000 police officers, 82,265 crimes would be solved each year? Does the Minister support that, or was the Deputy Prime Minister talking nonsense—again?

[Mr Browne]

I think that what matters is what one does with the police. The team that wins the premier league is not the one with the biggest squad; it is the one that gets the best results, and that is what we are trying to do in policing.

We see a hallmark of old Labour, new Labour and the exciting latest version that is somewhere in between in the second criticism in the motion: the casual authoritarianism of criticising the Government for

“restricting the use of CCTV”.

Yes, we do believe that there should be some restrictions on CCTV. We are striking the right balance between enabling the police to use modern investigative techniques such as CCTV and DNA evidence, and the police are using those techniques to great effect, but at the same time protecting the right of innocent members of the public to not be subjected to constant and unregulated surveillance.

Labour’s third criticism reveals hostility to the idea of having democratically elected commissioners to increase accountability and give the public greater say in the policing of their community. That was a recurrent theme of the debate. That hostility, it must be said, is not shared by many Labour ex-Ministers, including two recent MPs, Tony Lloyd and Alun Michael, or by the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott. If Labour Members are concerned about the election turnout, perhaps they should start by getting those three to pull their fingers out, get campaigning and explain the rationale for their candidacy. Every Member of this House, elected as we are, should want election turnouts to be strong, and I am delighted that the profile of the elections is rising in Cleethorpes, Brigg and Goole, and Denton and Reddish. I believe that it will rise across England and Wales in the coming weeks.

Labour has to make up its own mind. During the debate, we have heard criticism of the Government on the one hand for spending too much money on PCC elections, and on the other hand, for not spending enough. Whatever the turnout, the House can be sure of this: the new PCCs will have a stronger mandate than the police authorities they are replacing. Many police authority members from all parties have done sterling work on behalf of their communities. We recognise and applaud that, but with the best will in the world, police authorities were hardly delivering public accountability and transparency: in the most recent survey, only 7% of the public were even aware that police authorities existed. We should not be fearful of giving the public a say, and parties in this House should not be discouraging people from participating in a democratic process. I hope that people will find out more and that they will vote.

Justice

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Employment and Support Allowance: Appeals

[Diana Johnson]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people (a) in Hull and (b) nationally have been waiting more than 12 months for an employment and support allowance appeal.

[Official Report, 18 April 2012, Vol. 543, c. 432-33W.]

Letter of correction from Jonathan Djanogly:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on 18 April 2012. The figure for the average waiting times for employment and support allowance appeals in Hull was incorrect.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Djanogly]

It is not possible to provide the number of employment and support allowance (ESA) appeals that are over 12 months old at this time because the data does not form part of the published statistics and so was not extracted the last time the statistics were produced. To ensure the consistency and integrity of data, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) only provides data based upon published statistics. I will therefore arrange for the number of appeals over 12 months old nationally and in Hull to be supplied to the hon. Member when the next social security and child support data are published for the quarter to March 2012.

The following table shows the average time taken from receipt of an appeal until the date of the first appeal hearing at HMCTS for ESA appeals nationally and in Hull. The information covers 1 April 2011 to 31 December 2011, the latest period for which published data is available.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on ensuring quality services for victims after the election of police and crime commissioners.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

12. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on ensuring quality services for victims after the election of police and crime commissioners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Our consultation, “Getting it right for victims and witnesses” closed on 22 April. We are considering the responses to it, which included views on quality, and aim to publish the Government’s response soon. The Home Secretary and her Department are engaged with all stages of the process.

[Diana Johnson]

Mervyn Bishop of Victim Support in Hull recently told me of his concerns about the White Paper proposals, to which the Under-Secretary just referred, to devolve victim support services to police and crime commissioners, with an additional cost of £21 million. With some victims of crime who are now defined as “not in the greatest need” being no longer eligible for support after a crime, what will the Under-Secretary do to ensure that PCCs will target effectively those who are in the greatest need?

[Mr Blunt]

That is why we are in the process of considering all the responses to the consultation. Victim Support has a particular set of organisational interests, because it is a national organisation and most victim services are commissioned nationally. However, I do not recognise the figure of £20 million. We should remember that we are raising another £50 million to add to the £66 million already paid for victim services. That money will come from offenders, which is where it ought to come from. The environment for delivering victim services will be considerably improved, whatever cast one puts on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

I will want to examine the precise duties that the House and the Government have placed on the victim liaison services, both in the probation service and in the police, with respect to that case. The duties of the system to victims have improved, are improving and must continue to do so. They must feel very central to the exercise and administration of criminal justice.

[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?

[Mr Blunt]

Of course, our Administration is generally against ring-fencing, and it can be accepted only in very exceptional cases. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office are looking carefully at the whole area, and the case for ring-fencing is being strongly made. When we have reached a conclusion, I will report it to the House.

Legal Aid

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have secured this very important debate on the effect of the reductions in legal aid on legal aid providers. I refer Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I was a practising lawyer before my election to this House. As a criminal lawyer, I relied on the public purse for much of my income.

The Lord Chancellor offered up 23% cuts without any fight and blindly conceded to the Treasury’s demands without looking at the real impact on justice and legal aid providers. The Government’s own impact assessment states:

“The lack of a robust evidence base means that we are unable to draw conclusions as to whether wider economic and social costs are likely to result from the programme of reform or to estimate their size.”

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As a fellow Hull MP, he will know the importance of citizens advice bureaux and community legal advice centres in providing legal help and advice and of the genuine concern out there that people will not have access to good-quality legal advice. I am sure that he shares the concerns of many people in Hull.

[Karl Turner]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I understand it, 97% of funding to the—

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I am obviously delighted to recognise the valuable work of charities and of the voluntary sector in supporting the rehabilitation of offenders. It is the area of our society in which, if we can engage the voluntary sector in such work, we will find that there is significant extra capacity for people who want to do the right thing to help some of the most damaged and damaging people in society to go straight. We have to ensure that those links work and that people can do the work. As I have said, there will be concerns about whether a charity has the financial resources to underwrite the running of a prison, given the commercial and other risks concerned, but I welcome the general tenor of my hon. Friend’s remarks.

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

20. What his policy is on the use of community service sentences; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

It is for the court to determine whether an offence is serious enough to warrant the imposition of a community sentence. When a community sentence is imposed, we want to ensure that it is effective in stopping offending behaviour escalating to the point at which prison becomes the only option.

[Diana Johnson]

Hull Crown court recently found Lee Bates guilty of illegal moneylending, or loan sharking as most people call it. At least 17 victims and their families suffered from his exploitation, and he got 180 hours’ community service for pleading guilty, but surely such criminals should go to prison, should they not?

[Nick Herbert]

I cannot comment on that particular case, but in general we certainly believe that serious offenders—those offenders who have committed repeat offences—should be sent to prison, and that option remains for the courts. We believe also, however, that community sentences, when they are imposed, should be more rigorous and have a more punitive element, so that we can stop the escalation of offending which results in a custodial sentence. It is that escalation that we seek to avoid.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

We are going to look at the community sentencing framework, as I announced to the House last week. We are absolutely clear that the whole framework has to carry public confidence that there will be effective punishment in the community, while at the same time delivering effective rehabilitation. A sentence that protects the public and delivers restoration to the victim is a key part of our consideration.

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

We have an excellent community legal advice centre in Hull. What are the Minister’s views on the future funding of CLACs and community legal advice networks?

Sentencing Reform/Legal Aid

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I hope soon. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s views, with which I have considerable sympathy. We take very seriously the workings of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and its impact on reoffending and rehabilitation, and policy is being finalised at the moment.

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

Will there be specific provision in the Bill on children and legal aid? In particular, will children in local authority care be able to access legal aid to challenge the local authority’s decisions?

[Mr Clarke]

Again, I am indebted to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. In response to the consultation, we changed the measure in the direction the hon. Lady would like, so the answer is yes.

Child Slavery

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing a debate on this important issue, on which there is cross-party support, concern and willingness to address the problems that still exist and, as the hon. Gentleman said, to end the evil of child slavery once and for all.

The hon. Gentleman gave a powerful and moving account, with both a global and a focused, national perspective, which was helpful. It was also rich in reports, statistics and research, which is always helpful when dealing with an emotive subject such as this. He talked about the three key issues of forced marriages, sexual exploitation and economic exploitation, and addressed the problem of bonded labour, particularly in India. It was good to hear him quote at the end of his contribution the words of William Wilberforce. I am a Member of Parliament for William Wilberforce’s home city of Hull, and we in that city know that the problems of trafficking and child slavery are still with us today and that there is still much more that we need to do.

The brutal trade in trafficked children and child slavery is the modern-day manifestation of the slavery that William Wilberforce and others campaigned to abolish more than 200 years ago. We are concentrating today on child slavery, but it is so near to international women’s day that it is right to point out the overlapping trade in trafficked women around the world who are also kept in slavery.

We have heard interesting and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members during the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has a strong record in championing children’s rights and has been a strong advocate for standing up for the most vulnerable in our society. Her analysis—at the beginning she focused on the international perspective and she then moved on to the issue of trafficking—was very well thought through. What struck me about what she and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said was their comments on the issue of awareness. In many parts of the country, people think that child slavery or trafficking does not happen in their area—people have said that to me in Hull—but when we start to dig down, we realise that there are problems with trafficking all around the country. It was interesting to note the reading habits of the hon. Member for Strangford. He reads The Independent, although he said that he did not buy it.

[Jim Shannon]

Once.

[Diana Johnson]

Perhaps just once. The hon. Gentleman talked about the generation of £5 billion through the operation of slavery worldwide. That is a huge figure and we need to bear that in mind, because some very powerful interests will want to make sure that slavery continues. He also talked about Albania, China and the international issues there. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) correctly reminded us about the victims. We need to ensure that we focus on the needs of those victims.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is the chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking. He has done a huge amount of work on the matter and has followed in the footsteps of the former Member for Totnes, Sir Anthony Steen. Thousands of people—children, women and some men—are brought into the UK each year to work in the sex trade. In 2008-09, the Select Committee on Home Affairs claimed that more than 5,000 people were being trafficked. In 2003, the total economic and social cost of human trafficking for sexual exploitation was put at around £1 billion. Many more people, including hundreds of children, are smuggled into the country each year to be exploited as domestic servants, farm hands or drug cultivators. We know that that is a real problem in the Vietnamese community. Vietnam is the most prominent of the 47 countries of origin for trafficked children and there seems to be a particular focus on young boys between the age of 13 to 17, who act as gardeners and cultivate cannabis plants in various settings.

In the remaining time, I shall discuss the EU directive on human trafficking. We have had lots of discussion this afternoon about why the Government have chosen not to sign up to the directive. The Government have said that they are already meeting the requirement set out in the directive. If that is right, which is in dispute, I ask the Minister to explain what would be lost by signing up to it. If we are doing everything anyway, what is the problem? Many hon. Members and organisations think that the Government are not complying with the directive. That was pointed out by many hon. Members in the debate on human trafficking held in Westminster Hall on 12 October and in the anti-slavery debate on the Floor of the House on 14 October.

As the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole mentioned, a report was published by CARE—a Christian charity—on 7 February entitled, “The EU Directive on Human Trafficking: Why the UK Government Should Opt-in.” The report shows areas where the Government are not complying with the EU directive. They include support for child victims; widening the trafficking definition to forced begging; giving jurisdiction over UK citizens engaging in trafficking overseas; assistance to victims of trafficking in health care and accommodation; the investigation and prosecution of trafficking crime; protection of victims in criminal proceedings; and establishing an independent national rapporteur on trafficking. Such a role would be similar in nature to the one that Lord Carlile played in anti-terror policies.

The Government oppose in particular the measure on guardianship for child victims of trafficking—an issue that is referred to in early-day motion 513 tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough and which has been raised by a number of charities. I would be grateful if the Minister shed some light on that subject. The Minister for Immigration told the House that the Government do not want to be bound by measures that “are against our interests”. It would be interesting if the Minister responding to this debate explained what that means. To whose interests is the Minister for Immigration referring?

The coalition agreement states that tackling human trafficking is a priority. I ask the Minister how much of a priority the matter is for the Government. I am concerned that many measures have been introduced that will weaken the protection of children from exploitation and the protection of vulnerable children, trafficked children and children who are held against their will. For example—the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole referred to this—there have been Government grant cuts to children’s services in councils. We already know that there is a lack of awareness about trafficking and child slavery, and I am concerned that those cuts will have even further impact. There have also been cuts to specialist policing in the area of trafficking. Operation Golf has been abandoned, vetting and barring procedures have been weakened—as set out just yesterday in the Protection of Freedoms Bill—the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been closed, and the UK Human Trafficking Centre and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre have been dismantled. In addition, last year, ContactPoint was abandoned.

On the issues of child slavery and trafficking, co-operation is the wisest policy for the Government to follow. The cost of not pursuing such a policy will be terrible for exploited children and other vulnerable people. Many hon. Members have discussed the need to secure convictions, but we need a comprehensive approach to do so. On 27 January, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), justified not taking a decision on whether to opt into the EU Directive, and stated that

“we will make our decision in due course.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 440.]

That is particularly surprising bearing in mind the stance of the Liberal Democrat party on the issue and its long-standing view on the matter, which it has held for many years.

We all want to do everything we can to stop child slavery and trafficking. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government plan to address the issues raised in this afternoon’s debate.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

First, I should explain that I am responding to the debate on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, who is in Rome today. He apologises for not being able to be here, but I should emphasise that he is on ministerial business. I am pleased to be responding to this interesting and important debate, in which I am happy to be engaging as Minister for Policing.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing a debate on such an important subject: child slavery. Tackling the trafficking of children into the UK is a key element of the Government’s work to tackle child slavery in the UK. Children are brought to the UK to be exploited in domestic servitude or for labour, or to be used for sexual exploitation. The Government view human trafficking as an abhorrent crime. People are treated as mere commodities, exploited and traded for profit.

We have always stated very clearly our commitment to tackling the issue. The overall aim is to make the UK a hostile environment for trafficking and to identify and protect victims wherever possible. Children are included because they are, of course, the most vulnerable among those victims trafficked from various countries. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has done to raise the matter, and the contributions made by hon. Members from all parties. I agree that there is a large measure of consensus on the issue. I shall try to respond to all three of the key issues that the hon. Gentleman raised: forced marriage, the trafficking of children and sexual exploitation, and forced labour.

The UK leads the world in tackling forced marriage and places great emphasis on tackling early child marriage. It is an appalling and indefensible practice and is recognised in the UK as a form of violence against women and men, domestic child abuse and a serious abuse of human rights. There is no culture in which forced marriage should be acceptable. Victims can suffer physical, psychological, emotional, financial and sexual abuse, including being held unlawfully captive and being assaulted and repeatedly raped.

The Government have stepped up their efforts to tackle forced marriage in a range of ways: by strengthening the legislation and providing statutory guidance, practice guidelines and online training for professionals; by raising awareness and understanding of the issues, including among children and young people; and by providing effective one-stop support to individuals through the Forced Marriage Unit, which is a joint initiative between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office.

The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 came into force on 25 November 2008, and offers civil remedies to protect victims or potential victims of forced marriages. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the question of whether forced marriage should be made a crime, which he raised as a potential solution. A national consultation was carried out in 2005 on whether to introduce a specific criminal offence for forced marriage. The majority of respondents felt that the disadvantages of new legislation outweighed the advantages. Many worried that criminalising forced marriage would force the issue underground. Victims of forced marriage can be unwilling to take action against their parents and many respondents felt that the legislation would not be used. Those at risk of forced marriage, or already in a forced marriage, can seek protection through the civil remedies in the form of a forced marriage protection order. Some 271 such orders have been taken out since 2008. The Government said that we would look at the legislation if it was not working, but those figures suggest that the civil remedies are working. Of course, we should keep such matters under review and we will consider any further representations that hon. Members make on the issue, but I hope that that is a reasonable answer to the hon. Gentleman’s particular concern on the issue of forced marriage.

On the issue of child trafficking, on 14 October, during the debate on anti-slavery day, the Minister for Immigration announced the Government’s intention to produce a new strategy on combating human trafficking. The strategy reiterates the Government’s intention to take a comprehensive approach to combating trafficking, both by combating traffickers and by looking after victims. There is a lot of extremely valuable work already taking place and there is a strong foundation to build on. The strategy will maintain the focus on supporting victims, while signalling a greater emphasis on tackling the root problem through more targeted activity in source countries, smarter multi-agency working at the border and more co-ordination of our law enforcement efforts in the UK. We are consulting with NGOs to ensure that their views on the strategy are heard and taken into account. We will certainly take into account the ECPAT report on child trafficking, to which the hon. Member for Upper Bann referred. The strategy will be published in spring and will build on the measures already in place.

Concerns were raised about the EU directive on human trafficking by my hon. Friends the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), and by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on the Opposition Front Bench. I will not dwell on that because much has been said already, but I will restate the Government’s position. The draft directive contains no operational co-operation measures from which the UK would benefit. It will help to improve the way other EU states combat trafficking, but it will make very little difference to how the UK fights trafficking. Opting in would also require us to make mandatory provisions that are currently discretionary in UK law. Such a step would reduce, in the Government’s view, the scope for professional discretion and flexibility and might divert resources that are already scarce.

If we conclude later that the directive would help us in the fight against human trafficking, we could opt in. However, by not opting in now, but reviewing our position when the directive is adopted, we can choose to benefit from being part of a directive that is helpful, and avoid being bound by measures that we judge are against our interests. However, I would not want the fact that we believe that it would not be helpful to opt in to the EU directive—indeed, that it may be unhelpful in some respects—to colour the absolute determination that the Government have to act on the issue.

The Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings came into force in the UK on 1 April 2009. To aid in identification and referral, the national referral mechanism was established as part of the ratification of the convention on 1 April 2009. The NRM is a multi-agency framework that allows us systematically to identify trafficking victims and to refer them to support where necessary.

In addition to victim care and work at the border, the Government have always been clear that we remain firmly committed to instituting a strong enforcement response against those who seek to trade in human beings. It is for that reason that we introduced dedicated anti-trafficking legislation through the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. I say “we”—I think that must refer to the previous Government, although I think there was broad agreement on those provisions. While the Government are committed to apprehending and charging those who commit this crime, we are also keen to ensure that victims, who are used by them for profit, are appropriately safeguarded. Our response must be international. Most victims of the crime are foreign nationals and there is an obvious need, therefore, to tackle the issue at source.

Hon. Members asked about the particular contribution of the Department for International Development. We have worked with DFID, the Foreign Office and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to support a number of initiatives that aim to tackle trafficking at the country of origin. DFID plays a key role in preventing trafficking at source as part of its work in combating poverty and social injustice through long-term development programmes. Additionally, DFID has supported programmes that are specifically focused on preventing child trafficking in such countries as Bangladesh and Uganda.

I would like to mention SOCA and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, as the status of both was raised by hon. Members. Both do valuable work in this area. SOCA has increased engagement through its global network of liaison officers in 40 countries. We intend to build on the work of SOCA by creating the national crime agency and maintaining the fight against serious and organised crime, of which that is an important component. Similarly, in relation to the important work of CEOP, to which I pay tribute, I reassure hon. Members that it is already a discrete part of SOCA. Should CEOP become a part of the successor body to SOCA, the national crime agency, it will remain a discrete part of the national crime agency. We are absolutely determined that CEOP should continue to be supported externally in the way that it currently is, and continue its valuable work. Nothing we will do will threaten the work of CEOP in any respect.

[Diana Johnson]

Has it not yet been decided whether CEOP will go into that new structure? Is that still to be debated?

[Nick Herbert]

We will announce a strategy in relation to serious organised crime in due course and are carefully considering those matters.

On the issue of funding, which was raised by the hon. Lady and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, it is certainly the case that many agencies, including the police, are being required to save money. That must not deter them from their core business of providing front-line services. These are very serious crimes. Agencies and forces must remain focused on those crimes while they seek savings in other areas.

Finally, I would like to respond to the issue of child labour, which was raised by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. We are committed to the elimination of child labour and are working towards long-lasting changes to tackle the underlying poverty that is the root cause of that problem. Children the world over must be given the opportunity to achieve their full potential, as expressed in the UN convention on the rights of the child and other international and regional instruments. All children have the right to an education and should not have to work to survive. Entering the labour force too early significantly limits young people’s opportunities over their lifetime and helps to trap families in poverty from one generation to the next. We are working through DFID. In addition, our commitment to the education millennium development goals of universal primary completion and gender parity at all levels of education, is evidenced by DFID’s work in tackling poor working conditions in developing countries.

I hope that it is clear from my response to this interesting and important debate that there is a concerted effort taking place in this country and abroad, through a number of Government Departments and agencies, to heighten awareness of this issue and to ensure that assistance is given, where appropriate, to our overseas partners. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Upper Bann for securing this very important debate. The Government are committed to tackling this horrendous practice and, whether it is referred to as slavery or trafficking, it is clear that that terrible crime must be combated and child victims safeguarded.