Southwark Fair Funding for All Schools are holding a public forum for parents, teachers and head teachers to oppose the Tory education cuts at John Donne Primary School, on Thursday 9 March, from 7pm.
I will be attending, along with Councillor Victoria Mills, Southwark Council's Cabinet Member for Children and Schools, and John Donne Headteachers Simon Wattam and Nick Tildesley.
The Tories are about to make the first real-terms cut in the schools budget for over two decades, the steepest our schools have faced since the 1970s. Over half of schools up and down the country are facing cuts and it is unlikely any area of the country will be spared. But the cuts are particularly bad for schools and families across Southwark.
Schools in the borough are expected to lose up to 3% of their budgets per year over the next two years as part of Government cuts – which equates to more than £300,000 for some schools. Cutting funding for Southwark schools will be a huge backwards step, undoing the good progress they have made in recent years.
We invite all local parents, teachers, and heads to join us this Thursday to oppose these Tory cuts. You can find full event details here.
You can read my recent letter to the Education Secretary challenging funding cuts to Southwark schools here.
Southwark Fair Funding for All Schools are holding a public forum for parents, teachers and head teachers to oppose the Tory education cuts at John Donne Primary School, on Thursday 9 March,...
Our high streets, pubs and local businesses are what give London its character. But from rising rents to Brexit uncertainty, it’s an incredibly difficult time for people who work hard running small businesses, and many have contacted me worried about their future in south London.
Instead of giving firms the helping hand they need, the Tories are planning the biggest business rates increases for seven years this April. And it is small firms in London who will be the biggest losers - businesses will pay based on how much their property is worth, rather than how much money they make, so inner London areas such as Southwark and Lambeth, where property values have increased dramatically, will be particularly badly hit.
At the last revaluation in 2010 no businesses faced an increase of more than 12.5% in the first year, but under this Government’s plan many in south London are facing cliff-edge rises - firms in Southwark will have on average 29.6% added to their bills.
The Federation of Small Business warns that micro businesses employing fewer than 10 people will have to find £17,000 a year on average to cover business rates from April. One constituent who runs a photography business in Peckham tells me he just does not know what to do to cover the shortfall, and it is likely he will close his business after four years, potentially declaring himself bankrupt in the process.
For independent cafes and pubs that just get by each month, these increases are simply unaffordable. It is not right that internet giants such as Asos and Amazon who have large warehouses outside of city centres get a cut in their business rates, at the same time as some south London pubs could be hit by a 40% rise.
Public service providers, such as Southwark Council will also be hit – having to pay an extra £1.25m to the Government for their own offices at a time when the Council is struggling to fund social care and emergency housing.
The Government say they plan to reform business rates so that local councils keep 100% of the revenue, but this will be in exchange for other government funding. Currently 70% of the growth in business-rate revenues will be kept by central government.
I along with my Labour colleagues Neil Coyle MP, Helen Hayes MP and Southwark Council will be writing to the Chancellor to urge him to listen to London businesses’ concerns. Business properties with a rateable value of less than £15,000 will receive 100% relief, but this urgently needs to be raised to a more realistic level to reflect London’s inflated property market.
In the longer term, this outdated system must be reformed to reflect today’s economy, ease the burden on high streets and ensure online businesses pay their fair share. From Brexit to business rates, many of businesses’ most pressing concerns are currently going unanswered. Labour will continue to hold the Government to account, call for an emergency transitional relief fund and stand up for local traders.
Our high streets, pubs and local businesses are what give London its character. But from rising rents to Brexit uncertainty, it’s an incredibly difficult time for people who work hard...
Harriet Harman: Government must protect the rights of EU nationals to remain in the UK
Everyone in Southwark will probably know someone who's an EU citizen and whose life has been thrown into disarray by the EU referendum decision last June. As part of our EU membership, EU citizens have been allowed to come and live here. Some, such as those from France and Spain, have been here for decades. They have children and grandchildren living here. They work in and are part of the local community. It is unthinkable that they would be deported and their families split up because the UK has decided to leave the EU.
Worry amongst EU citizens here is palpable. All MPs have seen it in our advice surgeries. One of my constituents, an Italian woman, has been here for 30 years. She cannot work anymore because she is unwell, and her residency rights are now at risk. Another constituent from France told me she felt like ‘a second class citizen’, and for the first time in 25 years she felt unsure of her future and unwanted in the UK.
It is not just EU nationals and their families who are worried for their futures, so are the employers for whom they work. How will our NHS find the nurses we need if they seek work elsewhere through fear they will not be allowed to stay? It is not as if we are training nurses and midwives ourselves. With the Tory cuts to nursing bursaries, the number of student nurse applications has fallen by 23% this year.
People from countries which have more recently joined the EU, such as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, are working in sectors that could not manage without them—in our care homes, agriculture and our tourism industry. Employers in food production are already reporting more difficulty in getting the workers they need.
The Prime Minister has been sending out mixed messages. On the one hand, she says that anyone who is lawfully here has nothing to worry about. On the other hand, she says she cannot commit to giving them residency rights because their future must be part of the Brexit negotiations.
It is wrong to use the lives of 3 million people and their families as a bargaining chip. They cannot be used as a human shield as the Government battles it out in Europe on behalf of our UK citizens in other countries. It is because of the Brexit decision, not the fault of EU citizens here, that UK citizens will lose their residency rights in other EU countries. We must decide what is fair and right for EU citizens here, and do it.
That’s why as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) I tabled an amendment to the Article 50 Bill to protect the rights of EU citizens who were lawfully living in the UK at the time of the referendum in June, of which there are many in Southwark. Disappointingly the Government voted this down in the Commons, despite support from MPs across all parties.
Labour Peers and Lords members of the JCHR will now work together to press for an EU residence rights amendment throughout the Lords’ debate on Article 50 this week. I will continue to monitor the amendment’s progress and do all I can to secure EU citizens’ rights before Brexit negotiations begin.
** Since this article was written the Government was defeated by 102 votes (358 to 256) in the House of Lords on the amendment to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK post-Brexit:
“I welcome the House of Lords decision last night to protect the rights of EU citizens. This implements a recommendation made by JCHR in its recent report on Brexit and human rights. I urge the PM not to seek to overturn this amendment and thereby prolong the distressing uncertainty for the 3 million EU citizens who make such an important contribution to our country, including the NHS, agriculture, universities and many other sectors.”
Harriet Harman: Government must protect the rights of EU nationals to remain in the UK Everyone in Southwark will probably know someone who's an EU citizen and whose life has...
Today Southwark Council were prosecuted at Southwark Crown Court for their failure to maintain fire safety standards in Lakanal House. I attended the court hearing, along with Dave Lewis of the Sceaux Gardens Tenants and Residents Association.
3 women and 3 young children tragically lost their lives in the Lakanal House fire in Camberwell on 3 July 2009.
They were Dayana Francisquini aged 26, her daughter Thais, aged six, and son Felipe, aged three; 31-year-old Catherine Hickman; and Helen Udoaka, 34, and her 20-day-old daughter Michelle.
The fire was caused by an electrical fault in a television in a 9th floor bedroom. It spread unexpectedly through the block, in large part due to unsafe renovation work by the council, who own the building, and their failure to carry out a fire risk assessment following this work.
From 2006 Southwark were legally responsible for fire safety checks at its flats, but by July 2009 the council had carried out no such checks at Lakanal. A proper inspection would have spotted that vital fire-stopping material between flats and communal corridors had been removed.
Investment to improve Lakanal House for the tenants living in it instead turned it into a deadly fire trap. The council failed in their responsibilities and they have pleaded guilty. No-one would have died if the work was checked and if they had re-assessed the fire safety of the block after the work was done.
No-one would have died if the Fire Brigade had instructed people to leave their flats. It was clear to me when I rushed down there on the night of the fire that compartmentalisation in the building had failed, and the fire was spreading.
The Fire Brigade, too, were responsible because as the fire spread and the safety measures failed, they failed to change their instructions to residents.
Those who ignored the Fire Brigade’s instructions to stay put escaped with their lives. Those who accepted the instructions to stay in their flat died. The Fire Brigade say they too have learned lessons.
This prosecution sends a strong message not just to the London Borough of Southwark but to all landlords, public and private, that their tenants’ safety must be an absolute priority.
Nothing will bring back the 3 women and 3 young children who died in this tragedy, or undo the pain that has been caused to their families and friends. But there are lessons to learn and improvements that can and must be made.
In court today we heard that since 2009 Southwark has reviewed its approach to fire risk assessment across every block in the borough. They have spent £62m on their fire risk programme for social housing and now have a skilled and experienced in-house fire safety team. The Council and fire brigade said they are meeting regularly to discuss operations and safety, and the fire brigade assists Southwark in advising residents on fitting smoke alarms.
For more information contact Rachel Smethers – firstname.lastname@example.org
020 7219 2057
Today Southwark Council were prosecuted at Southwark Crown Court for their failure to maintain fire safety standards in Lakanal House. I attended the court hearing, along with Dave Lewis of...
My cross-party letter with 47 Peers in today's Financial Times, on why the Government must guarantee EU citizens' residence rights:
On 27 February the House of Lords will debate the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. This provides an opportunity to guarantee the residence rights of the 3 million EU nationals who were lawfully resident in the United Kingdom at the time of the referendum. It is unthinkable that these individuals would be deported, or families divided, as a result of the vote.
Having taken evidence, Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) concluded that providing them with a unilateral guarantee was both morally and legally the right thing to do. These people need certainty. They work here and are part of our community. They are critical to every part of our private and public sector, including the NHS, our universities, agriculture, creative industries and finance.
If the Government tried to negotiate over their residence rights, many would be able to go to our courts and seek to establish their rights to remain under the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to family life). If even 10 per cent did that, there would be 300,000 cases. There is no way that our court system could cope with such a challenge.
We call on the Government to end the uncertainty and accept the new clause on the residence rights of EU nationals, proposed by members of the JCHR, cross bench Peers, and others, on a cross party basis. Clearly, this will not be Parliament's final word on the matter and further issues will require resolution (for example, health insurance and rights of residence for those who arrived following the referendum).This does not prevent Parliament providing reassurance by preserving existing rights under EU law. This is the right thing to do and would ensure that negotiations with the remaining 27 EU Member States were commenced in good faith and on a positive note. It would be entirely wrong for the UK Government to seek to use these individuals as a bargaining chip.
Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP QC (Chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights)
Rt Hon Lord Woolf CH
The Baroness Hamwee
The Baroness Prosser OBE
Rt Hon Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
The Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws QC
Rt Hon the Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon GCMG KBE CH
Rt Hon the Lord Beith
Rt Hon Baroness Blackstone
Rt Hon. the Lord Bruce of Bennachie
Rt Hon. the Baroness Featherstone
Rt Hon. the Lord Foster of Bath
Rt Hon. the Baroness Kramer
Rt Hon. the Baroness Northover
Rt Hon. the Lord Stunell OBE
Rt Hon. the Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The Lord Alliance CBE
The Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
The Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
The Baroness Doocey OBE
The Baroness Falkner of Margravine
The Lord Fox
The Lord Goddard of Stockport
The Lord Greaves
The Baroness Harris of Richmond DL
The Baroness Jolly
The Lord Jones of Cheltenham
The Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
The Lord Lee of Trafford DL
The Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC
The Lord Liddle
The Baroness Maddock
The Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames QC
The Lord Oates
The Baroness Pinnock
The Lord Razzall CBE
The Lord Rennard MBE
The Baroness Scott of Needham Market
The Baroness Sheehan
The Lord Shipley OBE
The Lord Smith of Clifton
The Lord Strasburger
The Lord Taverne QC
The Lord Teverson
The Baroness Thornton
The Lord Tope CBE
The Baroness WALMSLEY
a My cross-party letter with 47 Peers in today's Financial Times, on why the Government must guarantee EU citizens' residence rights: On 27 February the House of Lords will debate the EU...
*** Check against delivery ***
This is about 3m people and their families - EU citizens whose future here has been thrown in to doubt by the decision in June that the UK should leave the EU.
There's nothing about the cloud of uncertainty that they now live under which is their own fault and we can if we agree this new clause, put their minds at rest and let them look to the future.
Hon members on all sides of the House will know the people whose lives we are talking about here. Some, like those from France and Spain have been here for decades. They have children and grandchildren living here. They work and are part of their local community. It is unthinkable that they would be deported, families divided, because we've decided to leave the EU. So let’s put their minds at rest and assure them, and their families, that our decision to leave the EU won't change their right to be here. Their anxiety is palpable, like the Italian woman, my constituent who came to see me
Some, like those from the countries that came more recently into the EU like Poland, Romania and Bulgaria are working in sectors that couldn't manage without them, in agriculture, in care homes and in our tourist industry.
This ongoing uncertainly around the status of EU workers is already causing greater exploitation of vulnerable EU workers. Last week, in appearing before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Margaret Beels, Chair of the Gangmaster's Licensing Authority said that evidence is coming in to them that gangmasters are telling fearful EU workers that they can't complain about not being paid or being subjected to unsafe conditions because if they do they'll be deported as they no longer have the right to be here.
It’s no good the government issuing warm words. They need certainty. They work in every part of our private sector, they contribute to our creative industries, they are artists and musicians. They work in our public services. If you've been in hospital recently you will very likely woken to find a Spanish or a Portuguese nurse at your bedside. If you've got an older relative in a care home you'll very likely seen them being cared for by someone from Eastern Europe.
It’s not just they and their families that are worried about the uncertainty that is hanging over them. So are employers for whom they are working. How will our NHS find the nurses we need if they are not allowed to stay. It’s not as if we're training them ourselves. This year, with the cuts in bursaries, nursing student numbers have fallen by 23%.
This new clause is quite simple. It says that if you were a lawful resident here before the referendum decision on June 23rd, then your rights of residence will remain unchanged.
We need this clause in the Bill because the government has been sending out mixed messages. On the one hand they say no-one who's lawfully here has anything to worry about. On the other hand they say that they can't commit to giving them residency rights because their future must be part of the negotiations. I just cannot feel that it is any way right to use the lives of 3m people and their families as a negotiating chip. They and their families are not pawns in a game of poker with the EU. They cannot be used as a human shield as we battle it out in Europe. We must decide what is fair and right for them and then do it. If the government rejects this new clause then EU citizens will be right to draw the conclusion that their right to continue to live here will be snatched away if our government doesn't get what we want for our UK citizens living in each of the other countries of Europe.
This new clause is not only the right thing to do as a matter of principle, its legally necessary. The government cannot bargain away people's human rights. The right to family life is guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If the government tried to bargain them away, EU citizens living here would be able to go to our courts and seek to establish their rights to remain under Article 8. If even 10% of those here did that, that would be 300,000 court challenges. There is no way our court system could begin to cope with that.
This new clause arises out of the inquiry of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I hope that the government will accept it. But if not I urge members of all parties to support it
*** Check against delivery *** This is about 3m people and their families - EU citizens whose future here has been thrown in to doubt by the decision in...
My amendment to the Government's Article 50 Bill with the Fawcett Society regarding rights of women has been picked for debate on Wednesday 8 February 2017. Thanks to all the MPs who backed it.
Text of the amendment:
Before issuing any notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking to have regard to the public interest during negotiations in:
Maintaining employment rights and protections derived from EU legislation,
Ensuring EU co-operation to end violence against women and girls, tackle female genital mutilation and end human trafficking will continue unaffected,
The desirability of continuing to recognise restraining orders placed on abusive partners in EU Member States in the UK and restraining orders placed on abusive partners in the UK across the EU.
establishing a cross-departmental working group to assess and make recommendations for developing legislation on equality and access to justice.
This is an amendment designed to secured additional assurances from Government on a number of important issues for women and for women’s rights.
Fawcett Society Briefing on Article 50 Bill Amendment
The Fawcett Society is the leading UK charity campaigning for Gender equality and women’s rights. In 2016 we launched the #FaceHerFuture campaign to defend women’s rights and set out a progressive agenda post-Brexit. The campaign is supported by over 20 women’s and equalities organisations.
We welcome the fact the Government has already committed to maintaining employment rights from the debates on worker’s rights in the EU on the 7th of November when the Secretary of State for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy Greg Clark MP stated:
“This Government place a great deal of importance on the fundamental protections that workers in the UK have. Whether protection from discrimination or unfair dismissal, equal treatment—working full time or part time— or the right to a minimum wage or to paid holiday, the Government are committed to safeguarding those rights…
“No one listening to this debate should think that we have any intention of eroding the rights that we enjoy in this country through our process of leaving the European Union. In fact, the opposite is true. We will be using the legislation before this House to entrench all existing workers’ rights in British law, whatever future relationship the UK has with the EU…
“The intention is that all workers’ rights that derive from the EU will be brought into British law”
And David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union stated:
“The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government will not, as a consequence of our withdrawal, allow any erosion of rights in the workplace, whether those rights derive from EU or UK law. She has further made it clear that the Government are determined to deliver an economy that works for everyone, and fundamental to that is the preservation of existing workers’ rights.”
In her speech on 17th January 2017 the Prime Minister herself said:
“under my leadership, not only will the Government protect the rights of workers set out in European Legislation, we will build on them.”
However, concern remains that these commitment will become difficult to honour through the Brexit negotiation process and beyond. This is because there will be political pressure on the Government to use the opportunity to deregulate the economy, pressure which may be hard to resist. The Prime Minister has also indicated she would if necessary make Britain a low tax low regulation economy. We do not believe that this is compatible with safeguarding women’s rights.
While it is possible for any legislation to be repealed at a future date, we are concerned about the use of ‘Henry the VIII clauses’ in the Great Repeal Bill which will give powers to the Secretary of State to repeal legislation at a future date without further debate.
We are seeking early assurances that Henry VIII clauses will not be used for any equality and employment rights legislation. Can the minister give that assurance?
What are the particular rights that we are concerned about?
Part-time workers’ rights – will part-time workers’ rights remain unaffected by Brexit. In particular access to pay and leave entitlements, pensions.
Pregnant workers’ rights – 54,000 mothers at work each year are made redundant or feel they have to leave their jobs as a result of pregnancy discrimination. We welcome the Government’s recent response to the Women and Equalities Select Committee inquiry in to pregnancy discrimination where a commitment was given to introduce additional protections from redundancy, but we also need assurances that comprehensive protection for pregnant women at work will continue unaffected by Brexit.
Health and safety at work, time off for ante-natal appointments, maternity leave and pay are all important entitlements for pregnant women at work.
Will the minister guarantee that no protections for pregnant or part-time workers will be repealed, and in particular will not be repealed using using Henry VIII clauses when they bring the Great Repeal Bill to the House.
Equal pay for work of equal value– this is an important aspect of our equal pay legislation that derives from European law. It enables women, often on low incomes, to challenge pay inequality where they can identify a male comparator in a role which they can argue is of equal value to theirs. Two important live equal value cases at the moment:
Reading Council – women cooks and care workers challenging unequal pay.
ASDA – Leigh Day case representing women shop floor workers vs male warehouse staff
Will the Minister guarantee that equal value will remain an intrinsic part of our equal pay legislation going forward?
EU co-operation to end VAWG
Policing and justice
The EU leads cooperation between Member States in the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) – what is termed ‘law and order’ in the UK. The Treaty of Lisbon incorporated 135 police and criminal justice cooperation measures – previously agreed between 1995-2009 – into the main body of EU law. The Lisbon Treaty has introduced shared criminal law provisions and aims to harmonise and improve the effectiveness of AFSJ measures in the EU.
In 2013 the UK Government chose to ‘opt-out’ of these measures – including the European Arrest Warrant, an arrest warrant valid in all member states – and subsequently ‘opted-back in’ to a number of measures, mainly to enable cross-border police cooperation and data sharing. The UK may remain able to cooperate in these measures after Brexit, and it will be vital to ensure that victims’ rights and needs are put first during any negotiations on the future of the UK’s involvement in the AFSJ with the EU.
Following the UK’s exist from the EU we would want to ensure the UK maintains strong police cooperation, data sharing in tackling crime – including VAWG.
The EU sets policy priorities for AFSJ through multi-annual programmes. Most recently, the Stockholm Programme 2010-2014 included requirements to develop criminal legislation and measures that support victims and has resulted in the following:
The EU Victims’ Directive (2012/29/EU) establishes minimum standards for the rights, support, and protections for victims of crime in the EU, which were expected to be implemented into national laws by November 2015. The Directive establishes clear rights for victims and obligations for Member States – including specifically for victims of violence. It includes new and strengthened measures for:
Victim support: including referrals to victim support organisations.
Specialist support services: such as minimum provision of shelters, and targeted and integrated support for victims with specific needs – including victims of domestic violence.
Individual assessments for victims: to identify vulnerability and special protection measures required by women and children.
Protection of victims: contact with offenders must be avoided (e.g. all new court buildings must have separate waiting areas).
Obviously the Great Repeal Bill will mean all existing victims’ legislation will be replaced – but we will want to ensure that this is fully safeguarded in domestic, primary legislation.
The EU Protection Order (2011/99/EU):
The EPO protects victims against perpetrators by enabling a person who is protected against a perpetrator in one EU country – such as with a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) in England and Wales – to retain that protection when they travel or move to another Member State.
The EPO means that restraining, protection and barring orders issued in one Member State are quickly and easily recognisable across the EU through simple certification, and guarantees the rights of the victims of violence outside their own country too, wherever they are in Europe. Previously, survivors would have to go through complex procedures to get their protection recognised in other EU Member States – and enter a different procedure for certification in each country. The EPO means that survivors are able to travel, or live, in other EU member states more safely.
The EPO ensures that women who have suffered domestic violence are protected from the perpetrators if they travel or move anywhere in the EU. Predictions about the consequences of Brexit for policing measures are speculative and will depend on the outcome of negotiations.
It is generally accepted that the UK will want to continue with certain parts of EU policing and justice cooperation – and we would argue that it is essential that the UK continues to opt-in to the EPO agreement following Brexit.
After we have left the European Union, will the Minister be able to confirm that the EU protection order states will be in effect in the UK to protect British citizens and European migrants from abusers, and vice versa, that British courts will be able to issue restraining orders that can protect British citizens and legal residents when they travel to the European Union?
Gaps in equality legislation and access to justice
Concerns remain that eg Section 14 (dual discrimination) and Section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates) of the Equality Act 2010 have not been commenced.
In the absence of section 14 a disabled woman, an older woman or a Muslim women cannot bring a discrimination claim based on their actual identity, only one aspect of their identity. Our legislation does not provide appropriate protection.
Additionally, many people who experience discrimination are also prevented from having access to justice by time limits and employment tribunal fees of £1200. When ET fees were introduced discrimination claims initially fell by 80%. Recent data shows ET applications are 43% down since the introduction of fees. The number of successful sex discrimination claims is also down.
The Fawcett Society has launched a review of our Sex Discrimination legislation. Will the minister give an assurance that they will establish a cross-departmental working group to work with the Fawcett Society and others to ensure that gaps in our existing legislation are addressed and women’s rights are safeguarded going forward in order to seize the opportunity to make the UK the best place to be a woman.
My amendment to the Government's Article 50 Bill with the Fawcett Society regarding rights of women has been picked for debate on Wednesday 8 February 2017. Thanks to all the...
Today I tabled a cross-party amendment to the Government's Article 50 Bill with the support of Joint Committee on Human Rights members Karen Buck MP and Jeremy Lefroy MP to ensure human rights clauses feature in all of the UK's future trade agreements with the EU Member States.
Full text of the amendment:
New Clause 165
"Trade agreements and human rights
Before issuing any notification under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking that the Government will seek to ensure that the human rights standards included in future trade agreements with the EU and any other States with which the United Kingdom enters into trade negotiations are at least as high as those in current trade agreements".
Today I tabled a cross-party amendment to the Government's Article 50 Bill with the support of Joint Committee on Human Rights members Karen Buck MP and Jeremy Lefroy MP to ensure human...
New funding formula "will take funds from areas like Southwark which have the greatest need".
Schools are rightly one of the most important issues for people living in Southwark.
The teachers and support staff in our primary and secondary schools are working hard but there is still a long way to go. Parents, pupils, teachers and the local community all want our schools to continue to improve but now the progress that has been made is under threat. As happened with the Tory governments of the 1980s and early 90s, once again the Tory government is cutting back funding for schools.
They are harming every area of education for our children and young people, from closing 107 childcare centres across London since 2010, to slashing over £800m from university budgets. And now they are cutting school funding.
The Tories are about to make the first real-terms cut in the schools budget for over two decades, the steepest our schools have faced since the 1970s. The National Audit Office reports that there will be an 8% cut in funding per pupil in mainstream schools. This is in stark contrast to when Labour was last in government – we increased school funding, especially for students from the poorest backgrounds and in the 10 years from 2000 to 2010 funding went up 5.1% every year.
Over half of schools up and down the country are facing Tory cuts and it is unlikely any area of the country will be spared. But the cuts are particularly bad for schools and families across Southwark.
The National Union of Teachers has calculated that students in my constituency of Camberwell and Peckham will be the second worst hit in the country – schools are going to lose around £1,006 for every pupil, falling from £6,601 to £5,596. And Camberwell and Peckham is second only to Bermondsey and Old Southwark – who are the worst hit with estimated cuts of £1,051 per pupil.
Cllr Peter John, Leader of Southwark warns “headteachers will be forced to make difficult decisions, including increasing class sizes, reducing curriculum choice and cutting down on extra support for all pupils.” The NUT are anticipating losses to school staff. Southwark schools already have problems recruiting teachers, particularly heads and deputy heads.
The Government say they are addressing unfairness in school funding between different parts of the country. But the result will be to take funds from areas like Southwark which have the greatest need.
The Council and our schools need more support from central government. As a country we should be enabling all children to learn and fulfil their potential. That requires investment.
Cutting funding for Southwark schools will be a huge backwards step, undoing the good progress they have made in recent years. That’s why I along with Southwark Council will be writing to the Secretary of State to urge her to reconsider and to request a meeting to discuss the impact of the cuts. Labour will oppose these cuts all the way.
New funding formula "will take funds from areas like Southwark which have the greatest need". Schools are rightly one of the most important issues for people living in Southwark. The...
Today I tabled an amendment to the Government's Article 50 Bill with The Fawcett Society to protect women's rights regarding the workplace, domestic violence, female genital mutilation and trafficking post-Brexit:
Text of the amendment:
Before issuing any notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking to have regard to the public interest during negotiations in:
- Maintaining employment rights and protections derived from EU legislation,
- Ensuring EU co-operation to end violence against women and girls, tackle female genital mutilation and end human trafficking will continue unaffected,
- The desirability of continuing to recognise restraining orders placed on abusive partners in EU Member States in the UK and restraining orders placed on abusive partners in the UK across the EU.
- To assess and make recommendations for developing legislation on equality and access to justice.
We're encouraging all MPs to sign. For more information contact Rachel Smethers - Rachel.email@example.com 0207 219 2057.
Full list of signatories:
Yvette Cooper MP
Jess Phillips MP
Stella Creasy MP
Caroline Lucas MP
Rushanara Ali MP
Luciana Berger MP
Roberta BLACKMAN-WOODS MP
Tracy Brabin MP
Sarah Champion MP
Vernon Coaker MP
Mary CREAGH MP
Gloria De Piero MP
Stephen Doughty MP
Angela Eagle MP
Julie Elliott MP
Helen Goodman MP
Kate Green MP
Lillian Greenwood MP
Margaret Greenwood MP
Helen Hayes MP
Margaret Hodge MP
Kelvin Hopkins MP
Rupa Huq MP
Diana Johnson MP
Mike Kane MP
Barbara Keeley MP
David Lammy MP
Rt Hon Fiona MACTAGGART MP
Seema Malhotra MP
Gordon Marsden MP
Stephen McCabe MP
Alison McGovern MP
Lisa Nandy MP
Yasmin Qureshi MP
Naz Shah MP
Virendra Sharma MP
Andrew Smith MP
Stephen Twigg MP
Valerie Vaz MP
Today I tabled an amendment to the Government's Article 50 Bill with The Fawcett Society to protect women's rights regarding the workplace, domestic violence, female genital mutilation and trafficking post-Brexit:...
Dear Member of Camberwell and Peckham Labour Party,
I'm writing to you to set out why I will be voting for the triggering of Article 50 to begin the process of the UK leaving the EU. As I write these words I can hardly believe that it has come to this and the magnitude of the implications of the UK leaving the EU.
I have always been a strong supporter of our membership of the EU. We have, for decades, come to take for granted the many benefits of our membership, from the macro-economic to family holiday travel, from protection of the environment to rights at work and so much more.
There are many reasons that we have come to where we are, many having their origins many years ago. But we would not be in this situation if we had won the general election in 2015. It's always a disaster to lose an election (look at the NHS whenever there's a Tory Government) but this election saw the Tories elected with a manifesto commitment for an IN/OUT referendum.
I campaigned for Remain not only in our own constituency but also around the country. As I met people who were Labour supporters but thought we were for OUT I even went on the IN campaign bus with the Tory Prime Minister to show that Labour was for IN.
But, by the narrowest of margins, we lost. Camberwell and Peckham voted overwhelmingly for IN. As did the majority of Labour voters across the country. But two thirds of Labour MPs now represent constituencies that voted for OUT and the message from those Labour colleagues is we must acknowledge the strong feelings of their constituents.
Now the Government is bringing the Article 50 Bill to the House of Commons tomorrow and there is no "right" answer, only a series of bad ones. When you are in Opposition it is invariably the case that the Government shapes the context, and in this we can only be reactive to an agenda we didn't set. That's why we need to be in government again.
Though we lost the referendum, how the Government go about the business of leaving still matters hugely. If we abandon our economic ties with the EU by leaving the single market/customs union at the very time Trump is retreating into protectionism, we will lose our markets for our exports. The jobs that will be lost and the people who will suffer most will, as always, be the least well off. As tax revenues fall the Tories will have the excuse they want to cut public services. If we continue a fight which is lost (Article 50) we will not be able to fight on the important issues which are still at stake.
The Labour front bench will table amendments to protect jobs and rights at work. As chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights I've tabled an amendment to protect the residence rights of EU citizens (of which there are many in our constituency). And with the support of the Women's PLP I'm tabling an amendment The Fawcett society have drafted to protect the rights of women.
I know that my Southwark colleagues, Neil Coyle and Helen Hayes, will be voting against triggering Article 50 and that many of you who have already written to me passionately believe that I should do the same. I understand your views - our principles are shared. So I hope that no one will leave our Party as a result of the front bench position to support Article 50 and my decision to support it.
This is not where I would have wanted us to be. It is the price of losing. Now we need to fight for the least worst Brexit and then, crucially, let’s make sure we do everything we can to win next time.
Dear Member of Camberwell and Peckham Labour Party, I'm writing to you to set out why I will be voting for the triggering of Article 50 to begin the...
Today along with other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights Chair I tabled an amendment to the Article 50 Bill to protect the residence rights of EU nationals in the UK.
This follows the Joint Committee on Human Rights report The human rights implications of Brexit (PDF 577KB) (December 2016), which stated:
"We recommend that the Government address the issue of residence rights urgently. This could be done by providing an undertaking to the effect that all of those legally resident at a reasonable cut-off date would be guaranteed permanent residence rights". (para 53)"
Text of the amendment
Effect of notification of withdrawal
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the continuation of those residence rights enjoyed by EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016, under or by virtue of Directive 2004/38/EC, after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union."
The amendment would not grant any new rights, but would simply seek to preserve the current residence rights of those EU citizens lawfully in the UK at the time of the referendum vote on 23 June 2016.
It links to the triggering of Article 50, since the loss of residence rights based on EU citizenship is a natural consequence of Brexit. The amendment is designed to avoid any potential legal claims under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which could occur if EU nationals in the UK were not permitted stay in the UK post-Brexit).
Government urged to safeguard EU citizenship rights
In its separate report, Brexit: acquired rights (PDF 634KB) (Dec 2016) the House of Lords EU Committee recommended:
"We urge the Government to change its stance and to give a unilateral guarantee now that it will safeguard the EU citizenship rights of all EU nationals in the UK when the UK withdraws from the EU. The overwhelming weight of the evidence we received points to this as morally the right thing to do. It would also have the advantage of striking a positive note for the start of the negotiations, which will be much needed. (Paragraph 147)"
Today along with other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights Chair I tabled an amendment to the Article 50 Bill to protect the residence rights of EU nationals in the...
Today I visited Old Kent Road Fire Station to discuss fire safety, support for victims of domestic violence and fire brigade funding cuts with the Southwark Borough Commander for Fire Richard Welch. Thanks to all at Southwark Fire Brigade for the vital work they do.
Today I visited Old Kent Road Fire Station to discuss fire safety, support for victims of domestic violence and fire brigade funding cuts with the Southwark Borough Commander for Fire Richard Welch....
Camberwell & Peckham people have had a raw deal on transport services for years. Today I met SE5 Forum & Helen Hayes MP to campaign to re-open Camberwell Station. This is important especially following the disappointment of the decision for the Bakerloo Line extension. I’m writing to the Transport Minister to demand a meeting to call for the re-opening of the station.
Camberwell & Peckham people have had a raw deal on transport services for years. Today I met SE5 Forum & Helen Hayes MP to campaign to re-open Camberwell Station. This is important... Read more
This morning I joined Brunswick Park Ward Councillors Mark Williams and Ian Wingfield, and the local campaign team in Brunswick Park to talk to residents in Benhill and Samson Road.
Lots of issues were raised including the NHS, housing, aircraft noise & Brexit.
This morning I joined Brunswick Park Ward Councillors Mark Williams and Ian Wingfield, and the local campaign team in Brunswick Park to talk to residents in Benhill and Samson Road. Lots of issues were raised including...