Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 4, on page 8, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

This would remove the 200-mile limit on the Home Secretary’s ability to relocate people.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.

Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 9, line 33, at end insert—

‘6B Regulated Activity Measure

(1) The Secretary of State may impose on the individual restrictions on taking part in regulated activity relating to—

(a) vulnerable adults;

(b) children; or

(c) both.

(2) In this section “Regulated Activity” is as defined in Schedule 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults Act 2006.’.

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to prevent an individual on a TPIM working (including voluntary work) with children or vulnerable adults or both.

Clause 14 stand part.

Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 10, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3) Appointments required under subsection (1) may include appointments with persons involved in delivering programmes established under Part 5, Chapter 2 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2014.’.

This amendment would make clear that the Secretary of State can instruct an individual on a TPIM to attend de-radicalisation programmes.

Clauses 15 and 16 stand part.

[Diana Johnson]

Part 2 of the Bill relates to terrorism prevention and investigation measures. This grouping includes clauses 12 to 16 as well as Labour’s amendments, so I intend to use my contribution to address all the issues concerning TPIMs in part 2. The amendments are all probing, as we are broadly supportive of the changes the clauses introduce, especially the U-turn on relocation powers, which clause 12 reintroduces.

The Home Secretary introduced TPIMs in the first Session of this Parliament to replace Labour’s control orders. She claimed at the time that that was a fundamental rebalancing of security and liberty. In fact, there were only two major differences between control orders and TPIMs, or control orders-lite, as they have been called: the relocation power and the two-year limit. She also said that she had been forced to introduce TPIMs because too many control orders were being challenged in the courts. Although judicial oversight was of course a key element of the control orders regime, the courts had continued to find that control orders, including the power to relocate, were both necessary and proportionate in a number of cases, including all those that were later transferred to TPIMs.

I think that every Member of this House would agree that it is always better to prosecute individuals, wherever possible, for terrorist offences. No one wants TPIMs or control orders; we would all much rather see prosecutions for those involved in terrorism activity. However, in a very small number of cases evidence is inadmissible, for example because it would compromise security, and therefore prosecutions cannot be brought. That means we need an alternative measure to deal with the threat those individuals pose.

Inequality

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is reported in The Independent today that John Vine, the Government’s independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, has written to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee expressing concern that the Home Secretary has been intervening to delay and manipulate the publication of inconvenient reports on the Government’s immigration and asylum policy, and compromising the independence of his role. Given today’s news of the continuing mess that the Government’s immigration policy is in, have you, Madam Deputy Speaker, had any indication that the Home Secretary will be making a statement to the House on this matter?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I have to say—I am sure she will be a bit disappointed—that today’s business is not a matter of order for me, and I have not received any such notification. However, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard her point, which is now on the record.

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Offence of exploitation—

‘(1) A person commits an offence if they exploit a person by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or abuse of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person.

(2) A person may be in a situation of exploitation whether or not—

(a) escape from the situation is practically possible for the person; or

(b) the person has attempted to escape from the situation.

(3) The consent or apparent consent of the person of the exploitation is irrelevant where any of the means set forth in section 9(1) has been used.’

New clause 24—Human trafficking—

‘(1) Any person who for the purpose of exploiting a person or persons—

(a) recruits, transports, transfers, harbours or receives a person including by exchange or transfer of control over that or those persons;

(b) by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or abuse of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person,

commits an offence of human trafficking.

(2) The consent or apparent consent of a person to the acts referred to in subsection 2(1)(a) or to the exploitation shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subsection 2(1)(b) have been used.’

New clause 20—Control of assets related to modern slavery offences—

‘(1) In section 40 (Restraint orders) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 after subsection (9) insert—

“(10) In the case of an investigation or prosecution under the Modern Slavery Act the court shall presume that the alleged offender will dissipate his assets unless restrained.”

(2) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Act coming into force bring forward regulations to—

(a) presume a freezing order will be granted within 24 hours in respect of assets where the court is satisfied that—

(i) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that some of those assets have been obtained as a result of an offence under this Act, and

(ii) those assets are over and above those reasonably required for living and business expenses.

(b) confer on the police power to issue a notice on financial advisers and institutions placing a duty of care on those institutions in respect of movement of assets that might hinder an investigation into an offence under this Act.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall within six months of this Act coming into force bring forward regulations to provide that assets recovered in respect of an offence under this Act shall be paid to one or more of—

(a) the police and/or,

(b) the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and

(c) the victim or victims of the offence.

(4) The court will require an asset declaration from anyone subject to a restraint order within 24 hours in respect of any financial interests in assets held in whole or in part in the United Kingdom and in overseas territories. In the event of a false declaration, this will be treated as an aggregated factor in the setting of any future penalty.

(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless laid before in draft and approved by both Houses of Parliament.’

New clause 21—Civil remedy—

‘(1) An individual who is a victim of an offence under section 1, 2 or 4 may bring a civil action against the perpetrator in the County Court and may recover damages and reasonable legal costs.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “damages” shall include the greater of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim’s services or labour or the value of the victim’s labour as guaranteed under the national minimum wage guarantees of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.”

This provision creates a civil remedy for victims of trafficking, to allow victims to pursue a civil claim for compensation directly from the trafficker in the absence of a criminal prosecution.

Amendment 132, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(c) the person exploits another person within the meaning of section 3(4), (5) or (6) of this Act and the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that the other person is being exploited.”

Amendment 135, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(1A) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) it is irrelevant whether a child consents to being held in slavery or servitude; and

(b) a child may be in a condition of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour whether or not—

(i) escape from the condition is practically possible; or

(ii) the child has attempted to escape from the condition.”

Amendment 136, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

‘(1A) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) it is irrelevant whether a person consents to being held in slavery or servitude; and

(b) a person may be in a condition of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour whether or not—

(i) escape from the condition is practically possible; or

(ii) the person has attempted to escape from the condition.”

Amendment 133, page 1, line 17, after “labour”, insert “or is being exploited”

Amendment 143, page 2, line 3, at end add—

‘(5) The consent or apparent consent of a person to the acts referred to in subsections 1(1)(a) or 1(1)(b) shall be irrelevant.”

Amendment 152, page 2, line 4, leave out clause 2.

Amendment 134, page 2, line 30, clause 3, at end insert—

‘(1A) For the purposes of section (1) a person is exploited only if one or more of subsections (4), (5) or (6) of this section apply in relation to the person.”

Amendment 151, in clause 7, page 4, line 30, at end insert—

00 “Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

In section 69, subsection (2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, after “debt owned by the Crown”, insert—

“(e) in the case of an investigation or prosecution under the Modern Slavery Act the court must presume that the alleged offender will dissipate his assets unless restrained.””

Amendment 138, in clause 41, page 29, line 29, at end add—

‘(9) A child is not guilty of an offence if—

(a) he or she was under the age of 18 when the act which constitutes the offence was done; and

(b) the offence was integral to or consequent on the trafficking, slavery or exploitation of which he or she was a victim.”

This amendment aims to ensure a child victim of trafficking is not obliged to prove they were compelled to commit an offence before being able to access the protection of the statutory defence in line with international standards.

[Diana Johnson]

New clause 3 and new clause 4 seek to introduce specific offences for child and adult exploitation, and I would like to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.

The Bill fails to cover cases of severe labour exploitation, and many recent high profile cases show we need specific laws to tackle it. New clause 3 would also help to stop workers being exploited and paid below the minimum wage, which is often a driving force behind local businesses being undercut by unscrupulous employers. The new clause would be a historic measure that would, for the first time, make the exploitation of workers, adults and children an offence. Importantly, it also addresses what has been described as “a lacuna” in the Bill, which fails to recognise the specific nature of exploitation of children in the UK and fails to address the issues that have led to so few successful prosecutions for child trafficking and slavery. This grouping incorporates a series of amendments from all parties with a common aim—to enable more prosecutions for trafficking, slavery or exploitation. This is exactly in line with what the Minister said repeatedly in Committee about getting more prosecutions.

At this stage, the Opposition are focusing specifically on the offences of exploitation, even though in Committee we tabled or supported many of the other amendments that have been tabled today. We support their aims and hope to return to them in the other place.

The Government claim that the Bill will enable more prosecutions. To do so, it transposes existing offences from three pieces of legislation into a single Bill. The Bill maintains the current offence of holding someone in slavery and merges two existing offences of human trafficking into a single offence of human trafficking. To secure a prosecution for human trafficking, it is necessary to show that X was trafficked and that this trafficking was done for the purposes of exploitation. It is important to stress that, because nothing in the Bill deals with the structures of these offences or the very high threshold needed to get convictions. In short, I do not think there is anything here that will enable more prosecutions.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At 10.50 this morning a reporter from The Sun, Tom Newton Dunn, tweeted:

“ISIS will be made a banned terrorist organisation in the UK by the Home Secretary today.”

That was before the Order had been laid before Parliament and before the shadow Home Secretary and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee had been notified of the Government’s intention, which is the normal procedure. As these matters involve national security, and obviously the whole House takes them very seriously, I wonder whether you feel that that chain of events was in order.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise a point of order. Strictly speaking, it is not a point of order for today’s debate. However, I reiterate that Mr Speaker has made it clear to the House a number of times that any business that is to be dealt with in this House should be notified to Members of Parliament first. I see that the Government Chief Whip is in his place and am sure that he will ensure that no discourtesy to the House was intended and that he will reaffirm, and ensure that Ministers stick to, Mr Speaker’s clear preference, which is that this House should always be told first.

Third Reading

Business without Debate

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Friday 13th September 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very sadly, on Wednesday of this week an 11-year-old girl was knocked down in Bransholme in my constituency by an MOD training vehicle, which are used in large swathes of my constituency to train drivers for the armed forces. My office has attempted to arrange a meeting with the senior officer at the Leconfield base, where the training school is based, and I have been told that we cannot have the name of that senior officer. I do not think that that information is a matter of national security, and I would hope that you agree with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that giving such information would allow me to perform my duties as a constituency MP.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

May I say to the hon. Lady that I am sure the House would share her concern and anxiety about the accident involving a child in her constituency? We entirely understand that she would be angry at being thwarted in pursuing her responsibilities as a Member of Parliament on behalf of the family, but I have to say to her that it is not a point of order for the Chair. However, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her point, and I am sure that they will ensure that she is provided with that information in order to pursue her responsibilities as a Member of Parliament.

Church of England (Women Bishops)

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the way in which the Home Office parliamentary unit is refusing to deal with Members of Parliament. This week, my office contacted the unit to seek guidance as to which new Minister was dealing with a particular area, so that I could address a letter to the correct person. The unit refused to assist me. I then sought a copy of the Home Secretary’s speech to the Police Superintendents Association conference, as it was not on the website. Again, I was refused assistance. I also have three named-day questions for answer on 4 September that are still outstanding. The Table Office has advised me to contact the Home Office parliamentary unit, but in the light of the unit’s refusal to deal with me or my office this week, would Madam Deputy Speaker care to comment on whether that would be appropriate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), is in his place, and he will have heard the hon. Lady’s point of order. I will ensure, with him, that the Leader of the House investigates the matter and reports back not only to Mr Speaker but directly to the hon. Lady on the rather strange circumstances that she is experiencing with the Home Office parliamentary unit.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

What did you do in 13 years?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will not shout across the Chamber at somebody who is speaking. If he wishes to intervene, he should do it in the normal way. That applies to all hon. Members.

[Diana Johnson]

The other major announcement is the top rate of income tax reducing from 50p to 45p for those earning more than £150,000. To do that, given the current state of public finances and the economic situation, is simply wrong and unfair. I do not understand why the Liberal Democrats have agreed to that when it will deliver a £40,000 windfall to 14,000 people. That helps the wealthiest, which always seems affordable to the Government. Boardroom pay rose by 49% last year; the bonus season is running riot—we are not all in this together. It is austerity for the many and wealth for the few.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 30.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this we will discuss the following:

Lords amendment 31, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 32 to 47.

Lords amendment 48, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 49, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 50, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 53 to 55, 57 and 58, 60 and 61, 63, 67 and 69.

Lords amendment 102, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 103, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 104 to 113, 117 to 132 and 138 to 145.

[Diana Johnson]

I wish to put on the record the fact that Lords amendments 33 to 36 are very welcome, as they relate to a matter raised in Committee and on Report, and directly with the Prime Minister. Originally, the Government planned that anyone committing a serious sexual offence against a child would not automatically be placed on the barred list unless they had worked with children or planned to do so. We are pleased that the argument we made in Committee has been accepted by the Government and that now, for all serious sexual offences committed against a child, the perpetrator will automatically be placed on the barred list. The original plans were bureaucratic and appeared to the general public to leave children in a potentially vulnerable position, so we very much welcome the Government’s action.

Both Houses of Parliament have debated extensively the vetting and barring part of the Bill. One of the key issues debated at length was what constitutes “supervision” of a volunteer and how that relates to ensuring that children are properly protected. Initially, in the Commons, the Government turned their face against defining “supervision”, but they have now set out a definition, albeit a very weak one, in amendments 30 and 31, which refer to both children and vulnerable adults.

At this stage, I wish to refer to the excellent report by the all-party group on child protection, chaired with great knowledge by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), which also called for a tightening up the definition of “supervision”. Amendments (a) to Lords Amendments 30 and 31 deal with this issue, and it is important to set out why the definition of “supervision” is so important.

Under the Government’s new system, any employer, voluntary sector body or charity will be aware that, from the Bill’s enactment, they will be able to obtain full disclosure of information about an individual only if that person is in “regulated activity”, which is now much more narrowly defined in the Bill. To take schools as an example, we know that all employees in a school will be in “regulated activity”, so full information on teachers and caretakers, including details of cautions, convictions and barred status, and any soft information, will be available. However, we also know that if we delve a little further in a regulated setting, we find people who might have volunteered within the school—to read with the children in an individual classroom a few times a week, for example. They will not be deemed to be in “regulated activity” if they are supervised within the school. Will the Minister clarify whether the school will be committing an offence if it requests information on the barred status of a volunteer who is supervised? The measures mean that schools will not have the right to any information about whether a volunteer had been barred by the Independent Safeguarding Authority. If a school decides to apply for a Criminal Records Bureau check, they will be provided only with very basic CRB check information.

I will return to this point in relation to Lords amendment 48, but first let me address the question of supervision. There is genuine concern that “supervision” is a very loose concept, which can mean many different things to different people, and that could put children and vulnerable adults at risk.

Financial Education

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) who is due to speak in a moment, but I would like to raise an important matter with you. Written ministerial statement No. 11, which relates to the Olympics, security and the Ministry of Defence, is supposed to have been published this morning. It is still not with the House. During Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions this morning, Members were given an opportunity to ask questions about the Olympics. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), I am concerned that the media are trailing several stories about warships and several thousand military personnel being in east London during the Olympic games. Could you use your offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see whether the statement could be made available forthwith?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. Notice was given this morning of a ministerial statement on this matter. I have made inquiries and it still has not arrived. I notice that the Leader of the House and Deputy Leader of the House are in the Chamber. I am sure that they have taken note of the comments that the hon. Lady has made. Perhaps they could make inquiries about this matter. Let us return to the debate. I call Jenny Chapman.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 112, in page 45, leave out lines 22 to 24.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 114, in page 45, line 22, leave out ‘day to day’ and insert ‘close and constant’.

Amendment 115, in page 46, line 27, leave out ‘day to day’ and insert ‘close and constant’.

Amendment 113, in page 46, leave out lines 29 to 40.

Amendment 116, in page 46, line 37, leave out ‘day to day’ and insert ‘close and constant’.

Government amendments 22 and 63.

[Diana Johnson]

We debated regulated activity and supervision in Committee. [Interruption.] These amendments address those issues. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I ask those Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly while we continue our consideration of the Bill. This is a timed debate.

[Diana Johnson]

As I was saying, these amendments deal with regulated activity relating to children and we discussed that, and the closely related issue of supervision, at length in Committee. I should make it clear that these are probing amendments and I will not press any of them to a Division. I would, however, be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the issues that the amendments address.

We have concerns about the current drafting of these provisions. If a person has contact with a child it will generally be in regulated activity, but that is not always the case. For instance, a volunteer in a school classroom where there is a teacher present would not be seen to be in regulated activity so would not be subject to any form of Criminal Records Bureau check or barred status check.

The Sport and Recreation Alliance, Fair Play for Children and other charities have highlighted the problems in using the notion of supervision for deciding whether a person is in a position to exploit their relationship with children. That person could, as I have just said, be a volunteer in a classroom listening to children read, or a volunteer helping the school caretaker, and they are therefore able to build relationships with the pupils as they carry out their voluntary role. The problem is not the activity they are performing, which could well be properly supervised; rather, it is the fact that they are building relationships with children which they might go on to exploit. The charities I mentioned point out that supervision is an inappropriate notion in this context as it ignores this secondary access that can be used to build up a relationship with a child or vulnerable adult. If someone is in such a position of trust, they might later take action that could be detrimental to the child or vulnerable adult.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I am conscious of the time. Does she feel that this measure is about reducing the number of those being checked? If it is, it is flawed. That is one of my concerns. Most employers will carry out a non-regulated activity that will not require the barred list information or an enhanced disclosure. In other words, things will thereby not be done in the way they should to get full disclosure. I know that we are not going to divide the House on this point, but I am very concerned about what it means.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Does the hon. Lady wish to withdraw the amendment?

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 21, 76, 39 to 54, 77, 55 to 61, and 78 and 62.

[Diana Johnson]

The Bill sets out in chapter 2 to outlaw wheel-clamping on private land and to introduce a ticketing regime. We had an extensive debate on this issue in Committee. The major concern that still arises from the way the Bill is drafted is that there is nothing to offer any regulation or protection for the motorist from the problems experienced so far with rogue wheel-clampers. We believe that the rogue wheel-clampers will now move on and become rogue ticketers, and we are not alone in this. We have the support of the RAC, the AA, and the British Parking Association—and I am very pleased to say that today a leader in The Times supports Labour’s amendment on this point.

Our new clause seeks to offer a level of sensible protection for those parking on private land equivalent to the protections offered to people who park on the highway and wish to appeal when they have received a parking fine. For many of our constituents, it is bewildering that the law in each situation is so different. If someone parks on the highway, there is a limit on the fines and an independent appeals process, but if they park in a small private car park, or even a large retail car park, they can face unlimited fines and there is no formal regulated appeals system.

The real reason we need to move this amendment and have this debate is that the coalition Government rushed into the decision to get rid of wheel-clamping, and they did not go through any meaningful consultation with key stakeholders to discuss what the effect of removing wheel-clamping as something that a private landowner could use to protect their land. When the previous Government considered how to deal with rogue wheel-clampers and set out provisions in the Crime and Security Act 2010, those provisions were widely consulted on. Issues that had to be addressed concerned signage, the level of fees that should be paid, the methods available for payment, the evidence required and a full appeals process. They were set out fully in the drafting of the 2010 Act in order to deal with rogue wheel clampers, because it was recognised that regulation was required.

The Government have decided to introduce a ban on wheel clamping on private land, but they have failed to address the real issue now facing motorists, which is what happens when they are faced with rogue ticketers. In this regard, as in so many others, the Government have reacted in a knee-jerk fashion without really thinking through the consequences of the legislation they are bringing before the House.

Point of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 30 June, I wrote to the Prime Minister about serious concerns I had about an answer he gave in Prime Minister’s questions about the protection of children from paedophiles under the Protection of Freedoms Bill. Three months on, I have not yet received a response and I wondered whether you could do anything to encourage the Prime Minister to respond to me, as the Bill will be before the House when we return in October.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I am sure that the hon. Lady appreciates that that is not a matter for the Chair and is therefore not a point of order. Those on the Treasury Benches will have heard her comments and I am sure that the Prime Minister, like all Ministers, will want to give prompt replies to correspondence from Members of this House. If she wishes to take it further, she could go to the Table Office to find out how else she can ensure that she receives a prompt reply.

Royal Assent

McMillan Daycare Nursery (Hull)

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Will Members leave the Chamber quickly and quietly? There is more business for the House to deal with.

[Diana Johnson]

I beg leave to present a petition signed by Kerry Stansfield and Abigail Flavell, both of whom are constituents of mine, and by more than 440 other people who oppose the closure of the McMillan day care nursery, which has been rated outstanding by Ofsted and which is managed by Andrew Shimmin, the excellent head teacher of McMillan children’s centre and nursery school.

The petition

Declares that statements made by Ministers of the Crown to the effect that Sure Start children’s centres across the country have sufficient funding to continue providing the level of service that they have attained in recent years, appear to be contradicted by the reductions that are happening across the country; further declares that the petitioners believe that the resulting reduction in the affordable childcare in children’s centres will discourage some parents from seeking employment and will prove damaging for the long-term development of children.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Ministers to review the funding arrangements for children’s centres to ensure that the valuable investment in the future that they represent is protected.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000929]

Petition

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)

- Hansard -

rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Order. Will Members leave the Chamber quickly and quietly? There is more business for the House to deal with.

Diana Johnson

- Hansard -

I beg leave to present a petition signed by Kerry Stansfield and Abigail Flavell, both of whom are constituents of mine, and by more than 440 other people who oppose the closure of the McMillan day care nursery, which has been rated outstanding by Ofsted and which is managed by Andrew Shimmin, the excellent head teacher of McMillan children’s centre and nursery school.

The petition

Declares that statements made by Ministers of the Crown to the effect that Sure Start children’s centres across the country have sufficient funding to continue providing the level of service that they have attained in recent years, appear to be contradicted by the reductions that are happening across the country; further declares that the petitioners believe that the resulting reduction in the affordable childcare in children’s centres will discourage some parents from seeking employment and will prove damaging for the long-term development of children.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Ministers to review the funding arrangements for children’s centres to ensure that the valuable investment in the future that they represent is protected.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000929]