Women (Government Policies)
Louise Mensch Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady does not seem to understand that most women do the spending for the children. That is why, originally, Beveridge wanted to ensure that women got some money. Right now—[Interruption.] Government Members obviously do not talk to women in their constituencies about the way in which child benefit money matters massively as part of their income. Of course a lot of that money is spent on children, but however women spend it, the fact that it is they who get the income gives them choices about how it is spent.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Corby (Mrs Mensch) listens to the recording of “Woman’s Hour” from soon after the Government’s announcement of their plan to take child benefit from those on the highest earnings. A lot of women called in to describe how they were on a low income, even though their husbands were on a higher income. They spoke about the difference that it made to have some money that came to them and over which they made the decisions, even if it was then spent on the children and their future.
Mrs Mensch
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for being generous and giving way to me again. My constituency of Corby in east Northamptonshire has a large proportion of lower-income women. The women who come to my surgeries are delighted that higher-income women and families will not be paid this benefit, because they regard it as fundamentally unfair that rich people receive benefits. They cannot understand why it is the Labour party that is protecting benefits that are paid to the rich.
Yvette Cooper
Are those constituents equally delighted by the cuts to child tax credit, the cuts to the baby tax credit that is paid in the first year, the cuts to the Sure Start allowance, the cuts to their Sure Start centres, and the huge cuts that are hitting low-income women across the country? I bet they are not. I bet the hon. Lady did not ask them about those things when they came in and she started talking to them just about child benefit for higher earners.
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Lady talks about fighting for women. What assessment has she made of cuts in legal aid that will have a hugely disproportionate effect on women once family law cases become ineligible for funding? Does that constitute fighting for women?
Mrs Mensch
I believe that the proposal to reduce legal aid funding was in the hon. Lady’s party’s manifesto. She will know, or she should know, that the legal aid system is incredibly inefficient and incredibly costly. Once again, we hear from Labour Members objections to a particular cut; once again, it is a particular cut that Labour also proposed in its manifesto; and once again, Labour Members have no specific proposals whatsoever to offer the women of this country on how they would implement their policy.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, universal credit is an attempt to tackle not the symptoms but the root causes of women’s poverty. According to statistics from the Department for Work and Pensions, it will take an estimated 350,000 children and 1 million people out of poverty. That is genuine progress. We know that women and children suffer in workless households, and we are finally grasping the nettle and tackling the problems that Labour refused to tackle.
As I look through my statistics, I see programme after programme directed at women. We have talked about the massive investments in existing rape crisis centres and the new ones that are being built. We have talked about the increase in the minimum wage—and so many of the 890,000 people affected by the increase to £6.08 will be women. Under Labour, it was perfectly legal for Jobcentre Plus offices to display advertisements for sex workers. It is absolutely appalling that Labour allowed that to continue, but this Government have stopped it.
What about the extra investment in the national health service? Labour is very quiet about the fact that it would cut funding for a service on which women increasingly rely. How bizarre to sit here—
Helen Goodman
Before the hon. Lady gets too high on her horse, may I point out to her that all the ground work and all the legal advice for changing the rules about which jobs could be advertised in jobcentres were produced under the last Government?
Mrs Mensch
May I please tell the hon. Lady that ground work is simply not good enough? For 13 years under a Labour Government, you allowed sex worker jobs to be advertised in Jobcentre Plus. The hon. Lady is embarrassed about that, and so she should be. It is an indictment of her Government that it was ever allowed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I assure the hon. Lady that I was not responsible for sex workers. I should be very grateful if she would put that right.
Mrs Mensch
I apologise profusely for ever having suggested such a thing, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall try to mind my language in future, as my mother taught me to.
It is this Government who are looking at ways of challenging inequalities in the workplace—
Fiona Mactaggart
First, at no point were what the hon. Lady describes as “sex worker jobs” advertised in jobcentres. Secondly, the advertisements were not displayed for the entire term of the last Government. There had been a court decision that jobs in the broader sex industry ought to be advertised in jobcentres, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I pressed for it to be changed. I think that the hon. Lady’s claim that that was an achievement by the present Government is fundamentally dishonest, and that it was equally wrong for her to say that the advertisements continued for 13 years. [Interruption.] I am sure that it was done by accident.
Mrs Mensch
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I must tell her that I reject her assessment. In the Welfare Reform Bill, the Government have introduced legislation to close the loophole. If the Labour Government did not like the direction in which the courts were moving, it was always open to them to introduce legislation and to do so quickly. They would have been supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but they chose to sit on their hands.
I commend the hon. Lady for having done some of the work, but I condemn her party’s Government for not having done it quickly enough. Labour Members cannot escape the fact that it is this Government who have put right that shocking affront to women’s dignity. It is also this Government who are introducing flexible parental leave between parents, and this Government who are working with businesses to bring about transparency in pay so that the massive gap between men’s and women’s wages—which was 16.4% under Labour—can be reduced.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) made an opportunistic reference to plea bargaining and shorter sentences for rape. It may be an idea that will not go very far, but the present Government are at least trying to introduce measures to tackle the appalling rates of rape conviction that we saw under the hon. Lady’s party. We saw zero ideas from that Government, and zero action to tackle those conviction rates.
Emma Reynolds
Does the hon. Lady think that the policy that the present Government have just abandoned of increasing the discount from 33% to 50% would have had an effect on the number of defendants pleading guilty? The Sentencing Council did not.
Mrs Mensch
I believe that it might have had an effect, but I also believe that the root cause is the fact that sentences overall for violence against women, rape and sexual offences are far too low, and that if necessary the House should direct the Sentencing Council to increase those overall sentences. In that wider context, the proposal might have made more sense. Let me point out to the hon. Lady that the entire left-wing press, including The Guardian, roundly condemned her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for his naked opportunism over the issue of sentencing and rape. As with rape crisis centres, it is this Government who are trying to do something about it.
Since December the number of mixed-sex wards has fallen by some 77%, and many women are no longer having to suffer that indignity. There is more investment in the NHS. Sure Start centres are protected under law from arbitrary closure by local authorities, which now have great flexibility to spend their budgets as they wish. Extra intervention means that there will be new health workers to help mothers to breastfeed, and to help the most vulnerable families. Sure Start is being targeted at the women who need it most.
When we look at the overall reforms of the economy, universal credit, the lifting of women out of poverty and the creation of opportunities, we see a Government who are not anti-women but, in fact, relentlessly pro-women, and who are doing all the things that the Labour party failed to do during its 13 years in office. Let me say to Labour Members that if they are not satisfied with the position of women in our society today, they have only themselves to blame.
On the issue of women as on so many other issues, it is the two parties in the coalition Government who are taking action and making progress. When an Opposition Member gets to their feet and levels with the House and the country about where precisely they would make some cuts, they might begin to have some credibility.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
It is only a tiny little budget, but it appears to be the only one that has not been cut at all: the grant for the Prime Minister’s second kitchen.
Mrs Mensch
I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, and we have great fun serving together on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, so I will go easy on him by saying that I will take that intervention in the light-hearted spirit in which it was intended, because the country is in a very serious state, and the state women are in is very serious too. The fact that we have to make these cuts is a serious matter, and it does affect women, yet all we hear from Opposition Members is excuses and all we see is blank paper; there is no admission that they would cut too, and no notion of where they would cut.
In conclusion, how unutterably strange it was to hear a good portion of the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and of the contribution of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—who is no longer in her place—spent trying to defend the payment of child benefit to prosperous women such as me. If that is what they have got to say to the women of this country, it is frankly no wonder that they are sitting on the Opposition Benches rather than the Government Benches. It is this Government who are committed to women; it is this Government who are making progress for women; it is this Government who are committed to tackling the deficit and at the same time protecting women and the most vulnerable. The Opposition have nothing to say, and I am sure their motion will be defeated in the resounding manner that it deserves.
Government Reductions in Policing
Louise Mensch Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this important debate.
In January, I met the acting chief constable of Northumbria police to discuss the significant challenges she now has to face. Owing to central Government cuts, Northumbria police have to identify more than £57 million of cuts to be made over the next three years. That will lead to fewer police on our streets. I recognise that some savings are inevitable, but the depth and extent of the cuts that this Government are imposing on our police force will have a long and lasting effect on our communities and my constituents. My local police authority has confirmed that 318 police officers will lose their jobs, and that 825 support staff jobs will be lost. That is 41% of all support staff. In total, the sad figure of 1,143 jobs will be lost across the region.
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary warned that forces could make savings of up to 12% before front-line policing would be affected. This Government have arrogantly gone ahead with cutting central funding to the police by 20%, while continuing to claim that front-line services will be protected. Despite the cuts, Northumbria police are expected to maintain or even improve the services they provide. The numbers simply do not add up. I believe that this situation is impossible. I fail to see how Northumbria police’s track record of excellence and the quality of service that they provide to my constituents will not be challenged and compromised by the loss of staff.
Before entering this House, I was a trade union official for the GMB, as is stated in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For a number of years, I had the privilege of representing GMB members employed by Northumbria police as support staff, so I understand the jobs that support staff do. I know how hard they work and how dedicated they are to providing an excellent service to the residents of the Northumbria police area.
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady speculate on what the effect would be on Northumbria police of the policing cuts that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has just announced that Labour would have made of 15% over the course of this Parliament?
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Louise Mensch Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I fear that the “Protection of Freedoms Bill” is not really what it says on the tin. People might think that the Bill protects freedom, but I am afraid to say that it does many things that are not apparent in its provisions. In particular, one of the greatest freedoms we need to protect is the right to decide our own laws and, indeed, to ensure that the judiciary complies with the will of Parliament. Unfortunately, on close examination, I found that the Bill’s content is to do with the upholding of European Court rulings. That is where the problem lies, and I fear that some hon. Members may have missed the wood for the trees. This is entitled the Protection of Freedoms Bill, but it would be far better to describe it as the “Subjection to European Rulings Bill”, as one case after another simply endorses decisions taken by the European Court. By that, I mean the European Court of Human Rights in particular.
We recently debated the rights of prisoners to vote, and the result of the Division on the motion was 222 to 15. Unfortunately, I could not be here. I am sorry to have to admit this, but I was working as Chairman of my Select Committee in Budapest. However, I thoroughly endorse what was said in the course of that debate on prisoners’ votes, but there is no reference to prisoners’ votes in the Bill. The Bill has skipped that one; it is waiting for another occasion. The reason is quite simple: the coalition Government know that idea of including prisoners’ votes as one of the freedoms in this Bill would be catastrophic for them. That is not to say that we should endorse the Bill’s reference to other European Court rulings contained in the provisions, but not set out in the Bill. Unless hon. Members have read much of the background material and case law, it is impossible for them to know exactly how much this Bill offends the principle endorsed by this House by 222 votes to 15.
Let me provide some examples. Given that we have only recently come back after a recess, I doubt whether people have had a chance to read the Home Office memorandum on the Bill, and some may be more interested in its detail than others. I find that detail often throws up one or two of the unfortunate aspects of the manner in which Governments—and the coalition Government in particular—operate. The memorandum says:
“This is a human rights enhancing Bill.”
No, it is not; it is a European Court of Human Rights enhancing Bill. I refer to cases such as the S. and Marper case which related to the retention of fingerprints and biometric data. I would like to see such matters properly dealt with in legislation, and the same applies to the stop-and-search provisions, to which the Gillan and Quinton case relates. Why can we not legislate on our terms in this House? Why must we subject the House to legislating to implement the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, when we have no reason whatever for not legislating on our terms? Putting it in statute form means that the matter goes to our courts for an interpretation of that legislation. Then, in the interpretation of the legislation, our own courts, either at first instance or more likely in the Supreme Court, apply the European jurisprudence.
I remind the House of a point that I have tried to make in debates over a long period and of a speech by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, who said that we must beware of the manner in which our legislation is being subjugated to Strasbourg decisions. He warned the judges, “Brothers and sisters, beware of applying the decisions of the Strasbourg court.” [Laughter.] Brothers and sisters, comrades!
The manner in which the implementation will happen is a form of Trojan horse. I would want to see many of the problems that the Bill raises dealt with by legislation, to ensure that people were not unfairly stopped and searched or that children got the proper protection. However, it should not be done through this vehicle. By not eliminating the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act formula, we give ourselves over increasingly to the Europeanisation of our law-making and the judicial claims made in the Supreme Court at the expense of the House. Effectively, we are digging our own grave.
At the same time, I hear and read that the Government are becoming more “Eurosceptic”—I do not know what that word means; Eurorealist is much more to the point.
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend not in danger slightly of over-egging the pudding? I share many of his concerns about European law, but does the Bill not attempt to address some domestic injustices, and should we not support such a step in the right direction?
Mr Cash
As I said, I am extremely glad that many of the provisions are being dealt with, as they needed to be dealt with—but not in this manner. Notwithstanding the Human Rights Act, if it was done as my Bill on terrorism will provide, for example, we could preserve habeas corpus and avoid all the difficulties that have arisen in relation to control orders and pre-charge detentions, on our terms. That is the way we should be going, but that is for another day.
The Bill takes us in the wrong direction. As I said in an intervention on the Home Secretary about powers of entry, the Library note states that
“around one third of these powers of entry derive from regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972.”
The Home Secretary said it was important for us to get rid of many of the 1,272 powers of entry, but, as I pointed out to her then, it is essential for us to get rid of the regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972 as well. I think she would have accepted that, had it not been for the existence of a rather considerable problem: we cannot get rid of the regulations made under the 1972 Act without expressly providing in the legislation that, notwithstanding the Act, we should act in that way. There is an element of what I would not describe as hypocrisy, but would certainly describe as contradiction, in the principle behind the Bill.
I could give many other instances of overlap with the European Court of Human Rights, but I shall merely observe that I think it extremely unfortunate that this is being sold as the Protection of Freedoms Bill when, for practical purposes, it is taking us further and deeper into European integration. I say that without really wanting to have to say it. It would be easy to step back and say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) said just now, that it does some good. Indeed, I have heard many Members say that there is a great deal of good in it. However, as I said to the Home Secretary earlier, although there may be good intentions behind it, we must ask ourselves what kind of law we want in this country.
When the Supreme Court speaks of the rule of law, I ask yet again: which law, and who will enforce it? We already know that there are serious problems, but here is another one. In one of the cases in question, after the House of Lords had made its judgment the Supreme Court was brought in, and, because the European Court of Human Rights had made a decision in the meantime, decided to endorse that decision rather than the decision made by our own courts. Some very difficult questions arise. There seems to be an increasing tendency for the Supreme Court to assent to the manner in which the European Court of Human Rights makes its decisions, effectively moving into a new arena in which what Parliament may decide is overridden, and making decisions that are not necessarily what the electorate expected when they elected us as Members of Parliament.
Let me also mention, in parenthesis, the accession of the European Union to the European convention on human rights. As I discussed the issue during our debates on the European Union Bill, I shall not go over the territory again, save to say that it creates a great deal of uncertainty about which of the jurisdictions will prevail. I regret to say that I believe that what is happening in the Bill is not what was expected to happen. Some commentators may misunderstand it, but the truth is that if we do not get the principle right—the principle of who rules—we will find ourselves drawn increasingly into a web that is growing all the time, involving the sovereignty of the House and decision making.
I believe that this is entirely deliberate. I am absolutely certain that the Home Secretary has been properly briefed. I think that she knows exactly what is in her Bill. I think that she wants it, I think that she is determined to have it, and I think that the coalition is completely and utterly convinced of its merits. Indeed, the Home Secretary said the following in a statement on the judgment in the Gillan and Quinton case:
“The Government cannot appeal this judgment, although we would not have done so had we been able.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 540.]
This is therefore about an attitude of mind: it is about there being a determination to go down a certain route, irrespective of the consequences for how we in this House legislate. I therefore simply say that I think there are many good reasons for adapting some of the provisions that are currently on the statute book, but the key is how we do it. The crucial point is that if we do it the wrong way, all we will end up doing is reducing the right of this House to legislate for itself.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Louise Mensch Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Second Reading debate on what I believe to be a very important Bill. The issues are close to my heart, not just because, like the Policing Minister, I struggled with the tension between visibility, accountability and performance for the three years for which I was Policing Minister, but because I know how important those things are to my constituents in Salford and Eccles and to communities across the country.
There is undoubtedly a problem with the visibility and accountability of police authorities. I believe that the public are entitled to know much more clearly who is responsible for setting policing priorities as well as ensuring that chief constables address the issues that are important to local people in an effective way that achieves the best value for money. It is a complex set of tasks for any police service, but over the past few years we have done pretty well. We need to do more, however. Having a safe community not only transforms life for ordinary people but affects business, investment and economic transformation, and that is why it is so important.
Let me make it clear that I believe that if local people are given the chance to elect their police representatives, they will do so sensibly and rationally and that the spectre of their electing an extremist candidate is unlikely. It is the responsibility of people like us, in this House and elsewhere, to ensure that, in any direct elections, we get involved, campaign on a proper platform, reflect the people’s priorities, offer political leadership and support our citizens in making their democratic choices. I have always trusted the public and they often—in fact, nearly always—get it right.
I have real concerns, however, about the idea of electing a single individual who is not connected to the rest of the local governance arrangements for the provision of public service. I would be interested to hear from the Minister when he responds to the debate whether he has really considered that issue. Evidence shows that what has worked in policing in the past few years is the integration of services—for example, in family intervention projects and tackling antisocial behaviour—and joint working between agencies, particularly between police and the criminal justice system. On Friday, I visited a new pilot in Greater Manchester of intensive alternatives to custody, which involves embedding police officers with probation and family support workers—again, involving integrated services. Approaches such as the co-location of key staff and the sharing of data have been part of the direction of travel that has led to effective policing.
That is the direction in which all public services are moving. As part of the previous Government, I started the Total Place work to bring all public services together. It is called community budgeting under this Government. I do not mind what it is called, but it is the most effective way to provide services. It is designed to break down barriers, integrate staff, set joint priorities, pool budgets and get more for less. If the move to having a single, elected police and crime commissioner means setting the police apart from the rest of that system, I honestly believe it will be a seriously retrograde step.
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the call for elected police commissioners came precisely because the public do not feel that the current system, integrated or not, is serving them? Is not there a need for the public to have a single voice?
Hazel Blears
Indeed, and I am about to put forward an idea that would meet many of those concerns. One way of achieving the greater visibility for policing that the hon. Lady talks about would be having a directly elected person in each local authority area who would be responsible for local policing but would also have a duty to operate within the rest of the local public service framework to mobilise all those resources to make communities safer. Those directly elected local commissioners could act collectively at force level to hold chief constables to account and to provide direct, local links to their communities. I am genuinely concerned about the ability of a single police and crime commissioner to be visible and accountable to 2.5 million people across Greater Manchester in communities as diverse as those in Rochdale, Wigan, Stockport, Oldham, Manchester city centre and Salford. I wonder whether the Minister has considered having directly elected local commissioners. There is all the rhetoric about localism, but then this policy of having a single police and crime commissioner for millions of people. That is not localism.
Identity Documents Bill
Louise Mensch Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julie Hilling
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, because I agree with her absolutely.
If someone buys a service from the Government, of whatever colour, they would expect their Government to continue to provide that service, and if they did not continue to do so, they would expect to be compensated. That is the major point.
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous in giving way. I put it to her that her constituents ought to be complaining to the Labour party, which was in government at the time, because it was made clear to them that we would not be continuing with this scheme. The fault for the costs that her constituents have borne should rightly be laid with Labour Members and the Labour Front-Bench team. Is that not true?
Julie Hilling
The hon. Lady does not quite understand that my party, the loyal Opposition, does not have the power to make payments. If only we did. If only we had the power to say to those who bought identity cards, “We will reimburse this money.”