With one week to go until we head to the polls on June 23, to vote on whether to stay in or leave the European Union, it’s clear that many people still haven’t made up their minds.

I strongly believe that it is in Britain’s national interest that we remain at the heart of the European Union.   Labour is the party that hates inequality, unemployment and unfairness and loves the NHS and opportunities for all and Labour wants us to stay in the EU.

Because we’re in the EU, businesses in this country can attract investment which creates jobs – over half a million jobs in London depend on our membership of the European Union.

Because we’re in the EU, we can sell what we make, and our services, in every EU country – a marketplace of 500 million people.

Because we’re in the EU, people have better rights at work. The EU guarantees the right to paid holiday, paid maternity leave and rights for part-timers.  It’s the EU that made our governments pass those laws and so long as we remain a member no Tory government can try and take them away.  If we left the EU, there would be a risk to jobs and to rights at work. We need better rights at work, not to be fighting to keep those that we already have.

I’m not going to be put off by people calling it “Project Fear”.  I am fearful about jobs and rights.  Even the leaders of the Leave campaign say that they can’t guarantee that people wouldn’t lose their jobs if we left. We should not be putting jobs at risk.

The leaders of the Leave campaign have never fought for you.  They are the people that brought in the Bedroom Tax and have cut our NHS and council services. They want to scrap business regulations, get rid of the “social chapter”.  What they really mean is getting rid of your right to paid holiday, maternity leave and paternity pay.

Immigration is a big issue, but there’s more immigration from outside the EU than people coming from other EU countries.  If you’re worried about the NHS, or about housing – don’t blame immigrants. It’s the responsibility of Government to support the NHS and to build enough houses. Leaving the EU would make things worse by hitting the economy.

Labour wants us to stay in the EU for jobs, workers’ rights, to improve living standards and make sure we have enough public money to pay for vital services.  I hope you’ll join me in voting to remain in the EU on 23rd June.

We want to be able to walk the streets safely and sleep safely in our beds, but we don’t want the executive to be tempted to abuse their power. I spoke in the House of Commons today in support of a number of amendments put forward by myself and members of the Joint Committee of Human Rights, which I Chair. The committee considered evidence from experts before putting forward these amendments.  You can read my speech below or watch it here.

More about the Committee’s work on this Bill here

House of Commons Library briefing on the Bill here

Amendments to the Bill including those tabled by JCHR Members here

Track progress of the Bill here

Authorising intercept warrants and reviewing those warrants should not be done by the same people.  I spoke in the House of Commons today in support of Amendment 146 which seeks to separate those powers.  The Joint Committee of Human Rights, which I Chair, considered evidence from experts before putting forward this and other amendments.  You can read my speech below or watch it here.

More about the Committee’s work on this Bill here

House of Commons Library briefing on the Bill here

Amendments to the Bill including those tabled by JCHR Members here

Track progress of the Bill here

---CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY---

Thanks Tim.  I strongly believe that it is in Britain's national interest that we remain at the heart of the European Union. I want the people who back Labour to know why Labour backs us being in the EU.

I've been a dyed in the wool member of the Labour Party since I was in my twenties - and, believe me, that was not recently.  I joined Labour because it's the party that hates inequality, and unemployment and unfairness and loves the NHS and wants opportunities not just for some, but for everyone.    It's not surprising that Labour supporters have struggled to catch a glimpse of why Labour backs the EU as the media has been dominated by the row in the Tory party.

But let me say why Labour is convinced The UK is better In.

Because we're in the EU, businesses here can attract investment which creates jobs.

Because we're in the EU, we can sell what we make, and our services, in every other EU country.

And that has meant our economy has grown and there have been more jobs.

Because we're in the EU, people have better rights at work.  The EU guarantees those rights.  It's the EU that made our governments pass laws to ensure employers give paid holiday, paid maternity leave, rights for part-timers.  So long as we're in the EU no Tory government can try and take those rights away.

And let me say what a risk it would be to jobs, and to rights at work, if we came out of the EU.  And I'm not going to be put off by people calling it "Project Fear".  I am fearful about jobs, and women's rights at work, and I make no bones about it.

The leaders of the campaign that wants us to leave the EU say that they can't guarantee that people wouldn't lose their jobs - but it's a risk worth taking.  But it's not their jobs at risk.  We need more jobs not fewer. Let's not make getting a job harder.

And I'm fearful about our rights at work if we left the EU and so are the Trade Unions - and with good reason. Look at the leaders of the leave campaign.  They never fought for your rights at work - they've fought against them.  They say they want to get rid of the "social chapter" and cut "red tape" and scrap regulation.  They're talking about your right to paid holiday, your maternity leave, your paternity pay.  We need better rights at work, not to have to start fighting to defend the rights that we already have.

So I challenge them today - you've said you want to "cut red tape" and scrap "£600m of regulation.  Don't speak in code.  Be honest about it.  Admit that means you would abolish the rights to maternity leave and paternity leave, scrap the laws that stop employers treating part-timers as second class citizens and which make employers pay for holiday leave.

Immigration is a big issue so I want to put out a fact.  There's more immigration from outside the EU than people coming from other EU countries. 

If you're worried about the NHS - don't blame immigrants.  The person from Ireland, or Spain or Portugal is more likely to be the nurse at your bedside than queuing in A and E.  So don't blame the EU for problems in the NHS - that's down to the government

If you're worried about housing, that's not the fault of migrants that's the responsibility of government. It's not the job of the EU to sort out housing - that's the job of government.

Labour wants us to stay in the EU for jobs, to protect rights at work and improve our living standards and now Natalie Bennet is going to say why she wants us to remain in the EU. 

END

This afternoon I Joined Chuka Umunna MP for Streatham, Seb Dance MEP for London Region & Florence Eshalomi AM for Lambeth & Southwark, for a campaigning session in Faraday ward as part of the Labour In campaign.

Labour says Britain is better off in Europe, here are the facts:

1. Over 3 million British jobs are linked to our trade with the EU.
2. Almost half of all British exports in goods and services go to countries in the European Union.
3. British Households would be worse off by around £4,300 a year if we left the EU.
4. British workers are guaranteed protections at work because of the EU.
5. Britain's influence as a world power is strongest as part of the European Union

We were also joined by Councillors Mark Williams (Brunswick Park), Barrie Hargrove (Peckham), Samantha Jury-Dada, Lorraine Lauder & Paul Fleming (Faraday) and a great team of Camberwell & Peckham Labour members.

Along with Neil Kinnock, Margaret Beckett, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown & Ed Miliband I today joined former Labour Leaders to make the progressive case for British membership of the EU, urging every person who seeks a progressive future for Britain to Vote Remain on June 23rd.
 
We argue that the EU has delivered significant benefits for working people, including more jobs, protections at work, and lower prices. If we remain in Europe, those benefits will continue to pay dividends for British people. If we leave, we say: “Labour communities would suffer most: from spending cuts, neglect for the needy and a bonfire of workers’ rights”.
 
It comes as Labour joins the other political parties in urging people to register to vote in the referendum before the deadline on Tuesday (7th June). 
  
The full text of the letter to The Guardian newspaper reads:
 
“Labour's values are inherent to Europe's virtues.
 
“Europe protects people at work; stimulates jobs and innovation; keeps prices lower; leads global action against climate change; makes us safer against terrorism; and magnifies Britain's voice and values in the world.
 
“By strengthening working people's wellbeing through common endeavour, our Party's founding purpose is aligned with Europe.
 
“But make no mistake: this would be lost if we leave. Labour communities would face a double threat: the return of recession, led by a Tory Government with an emboldened right wing.
 
“In such circumstances Labour communities would suffer most: from spending cuts, neglect for the needy and a bonfire of workers' rights.
 
“Those Labour seeks to represent - the hardworking, ambitious majority - have the most to lose if we leave. But also the most to gain if we Remain.
 
“A Britain stronger in Europe can be our future: leading and shaping our world; spreading opportunities by being in the world's largest trading market; investing in our children; protecting our identity but pursuing our interests and ideas in equal measure in a globalised world.
 
“This should be our future. But we need to vote for it. If Labour stays at home, Britain leaves. And a vote to leave is a vote for a profound and permanent loss the whole country would feel, whether through lost jobs or lost generations. Only Labour can save Britain from Brexit.
 
“We have each seen the benefits of Europe. More importantly, as those who have led Labour, we understand our party's values and its people. Each are strengthened by Britain being in Europe.
 
“That’s why we join with our present Leadership in urging every person who seeks a progressive future for Britain to Vote Remain on June 23^rd”.
 
 Ends

Investigatory Powers Bill: Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomes direction of travel, but proposes improvements

Overall the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomes the steps which the Bill takes towards providing a clear and transparent legal basis for the investigatory powers already used by the security and intelligence agencies and law enforcement authorities, and towards enhanced safeguards. But the Bill could be improved to enhance further the compatibility of the legal framework with human rights, says a report published today.

Bulk Powers
On the current state of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights the Committee does not consider the bulk powers in the Bill to be inherently incompatible with the right to privacy (Article 8): they are capable of being justified if they have a sufficiently clear legal basis, are shown to be necessary, and are proportionate in that they have adequate safeguards against arbitrary use. The Committee welcomes the Government’s publication of a detailed operational case [link] and recommends that it should be reviewed by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who should report before the Bill completes its passage, and thereafter every five years on whether there is a continuing need for the bulk powers.

Thematic Warrants
The Committee recognises the value of warrants which extend to people or places that are unknown at the time the warrant is issued (“thematic warrants”), but considers that the clauses concerning the subject matter of targeted interceptions and targeted equipment interference warrants are too broadly drafted: the description in the warrant must be sufficiently specific to enable any person unknown to be identified and to prevent the possibility of large numbers of people being potentially within the scope of a vaguely worded warrant. As presently drafted, anyone who is part of “a group of persons who share a common purpose” can be the subject of a warrant, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the group being defined so broadly (for example, protesters) as to extend to very large numbers of unidentified people.

Modifications to warrants for targeted interception
As currently drafted, the Bill allows for major modifications to a warrant (such as adding the name of a person) to be made without judicial approval, which is the vital safeguard against arbitrariness.  The Committee recommends that major modifications to warrants should not take place without approval by a Judicial Commissioner.

Confidential communications

MPs
A key role of Parliament is to hold the Government to account and the Bill must provide sufficient safeguards to prevent the Government from abusing its powers of surveillance in a way which undermines the legislature’s constitutional role.  Members of the public should also be able to expect their communications with members of Parliament to remain confidential.  The Committee does not believe that consulting the Prime Minister before interference with communications of Members of Parliament provides an adequate safeguard: in addition the Speaker or Presiding Officer of the relevant legislature should be given sufficient notice of the decision to interfere with such communications to enable them, if they so wish, to be heard before the Judicial Commissioner. As well as the House of Commons, this includes the House of Lords, the devolved legislatures and the European Parliament.

Lawyers
More robust safeguards are needed for lawyer-client confidentiality.  Preserving the “iniquity exception” to legal professional privilege – where communications concerned with furthering a criminal purpose are not legally privileged – makes it unnecessary for the Bill to provide for targeting confidential communications between lawyers and clients and the Committee recommends that those provisions be removed from the Bill. The Committee also recommends strengthening the safeguard for legally privileged items which are likely to be included in intercepted communications, with the insertion of a threshold test reflecting the strong presumption against interference.

Journalists’ sources
While recognising the real difficulty of defining journalism in the digital age, the Committee is concerned that safeguards for journalists’ sources (in the Bill) are inferior to similar safeguards in other contexts: the Bill should provide the same level of protection for sources as currently exists in relation to search and seizure under PACE 1984, including an on notice hearing before a Judicial Commissioner, unless that would prejudice the investigation.

Separation of functions: authorisation and inspection
The Committee believes that the new system of oversight should provide for a clear separation of function between the prior judicial authorisation of warrants and ex post inspection and review. The Committee recommends that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner should have a duty to ensure that these two distinct functions are carried out by different Commissioners.

JCHR Chair Harriet Harman said:

“The Bill provides a clear and transparent basis for powers already in use by the security and intelligence services, but there need to be further safeguards. Protection for MP communications from unjustified interference is vital, as it is for confidential communications between lawyers and clients, and for journalists’ sources, the Bill must provide tougher safeguards to ensure that the Government cannot abuse its powers to undermine Parliament’s ability to hold the Government to account.”

More about the Committee’s work on this Bill here
House of Commons Library briefing on the Bill here
Amendments to the Bill including those tabled by JCHR Members here
Track progress of the Bill here

NB Report stage in the Commons Monday 6 June.

Earlier today Kate Green MP (Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities), Seema Malholtra MP (Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury), Angela Eagle (Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills) and I held a press conference at Church House, Westminster to highlight the importance of women in the campaign to remain in the European Union.

Today's debate on the Queen's speech was on 'Europe, Human Rights & Keeping People Safe at Home & Abroad'. Here is my speech from earlier:

"I would like to say a few words about the counter-extremism Bill and human rights. First, however, I pay tribute to the shadow Foreign Secretary for his speech, with which I strongly agreed. It was profound, principled and progressive, and without wanting him to think that I want some sort of promotion—I am so beyond that at this point—I should say I thought it was exceptionally good. He does great credit to our party, to the House and to politics, and I thank him for what he said.

I was glad to hear the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is a weighty Member of this House and speaks as a former Home Secretary, Justice Secretary, Health Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is well and truly a “former”, and I agreed with an awful lot of what he said. In fact, I agreed with everything he said about prison reform and Europe. I find that quite traumatic, because when I was first in the House, he was sitting in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet and was not to be agreed with on everything, or indeed anything. However, today I agreed with what he said. I also now find myself elevated to the status of a “former”, albeit not one as weighty as the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In this House, one thing about “formers” is that we must crack on with our speeches and not make them too long—that was a reference to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), not to the right hon. and learned Members for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and for Rushcliffe.

I want to mention two measures in the Queen’s Speech. The first is the counter-extremism Bill. I have the privilege of chairing the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), who sits on the Committee and has a particular interest in mental health and human rights, is also in the Chamber.

The Government have a duty to protect us—a responsibility that any and every Government take with the utmost seriousness. That is undoubtedly uncontested ground, but when it comes to how to tackle terrorism, specifically the task of countering Daesh-inspired terrorism, ​there is no consensus. The Government’s approach, set out in the counter-extremism strategy, appears to be based on the assumption that there is an escalator that starts with religious conservatism and ends up with support for jihadism, and that religious conservatism therefore is the starting point in the quest to tackle violence. However, it is by no means proven or agreed that extreme religious views, in particular religious conservatism, are in and of themselves an indicator of, or even correlated with, support for jihadism. If there are to be, under the new Bill, banning orders, extremism disruption orders and closure orders, it has to be clear that they are banning disruption and closing something that will lead to violence, not just something of which the Government disapprove.

The second issue is that if the Government are going to clamp down on Islamic religious conservatism in the cause of tackling violence, is that discrimination that can be justified, or will it serve merely to give rise to justified grievance? Everyone seems to agree that the most precious asset in the fight against terrorism is the relationship between the authorities—the police, the schools and the councils—and the Muslim communities of this country. We must guard against any undermining of the relationship between the authorities and the Muslim community, which would thereby make the fight against terrorism even harder. The last thing we must do is anything that fosters the alienation that can lead to radicalisation.

The third issue is the problem of taking conservative religious views in the Muslim community as an indicator of future terrorism if the same beliefs in evangelical Christianity or Orthodox Judaism would not be seen as prompting the need for any action. Are the Government going to discriminate and seek to justify that, or will they be indiscriminate and annoy and concern everybody?

The fourth issue is the question of definition. This was hinted at by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) in his intervention. Even if there was reliable evidence of the escalator from extreme views to violence, if the law, in the form of banning orders, closure orders and extremist disruption orders, is to be invoked, there needs to be clarity and consensus around the definition. It is far from clear that there is an accepted definition of what constitutes non-violent extremism, or, indeed, extremism. In the counter-extremism strategy, the Government describe extremism as the:

“vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.

Now, I am not tolerant of the beliefs of those who are homophobic and I do not respect those who regard women as inferior. Which is the extremism: their beliefs or my intolerance of their beliefs? If we denounce our judiciary as biased Islamophobes, is that undermining the rule of law or is that the exercise of free speech? I have done a certain amount of denouncing the judiciary for all sorts of things in the past, but I would not have regarded myself as extremist—I was just pointing out that they were sexist and needed to be replaced by many more women judges.

The fifth issue is whether it is better to suppress views or to subject them to challenge. Many in the higher education sector say that for their students they believe ​it is better to challenge abhorrent views rather than to repress them, but do we allow the same approach for school-age children? Some have argued that it simply should be seen as a question of child safeguarding, but although there is a consensus around the nature of child neglect, physical abuse or sexual abuse, from which children have to be safeguarded, there is no such consensus around the definition of extremism from which children should be safeguarded. We can all understand the definition of safeguarding; it is just a question of what we are safeguarding children from. In relation to extremism, there is no such shared consensus or definition. The difficulty around these issues should lead the Government to tread with great care. They should publish the Bill in draft and allow extensive debate and discussion. We should listen with particular attention to those who would be expected to apply for and enforce these orders, such as the police, educational establishments and councils, and to the Muslim community.

I completely agree with everything that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said about the repeal of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a British Bill of Rights. We have not yet seen the consultation, but, when we do, it will again be important that the Government tread carefully. They should ensure that human rights remain universal, rather than simply retaining the popular and carving out the unpopular. The legal protection of human rights is important for everyone, even those who are justifiably the subject of public hostility.

The Government should not do anything that makes it more difficult for people here to enforce their rights in the UK courts, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said. I had to trek all the way to Strasbourg to get my rights. Had we had the Human Rights Act, I would have been exonerated seven years earlier and at much less expense to the Government. Neither should they do anything that would disrupt the devolution settlement in Scotland or the peace agreement in Northern Ireland, of which the Human Rights Act is part, as was made clear to us on our visit to Scotland and in evidence submitted to our Committee from Northern Ireland.

The Foreign Secretary acknowledged that this country is seen as a champion of human rights around the world, and the Government should be mindful of how what the UK does affects those in other countries who are fighting for their rights but who do not have the democracy and rights we have. Our adherence to the framework of international human rights standards, which includes the European convention, is a beacon to which those campaigning for rights in other countries look and demand in their own countries. That was made clear to us when we visited the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, where people, whether from Poland or Russia, basically told us, “If you leave the European convention, we’re done for.” If our Government were to abandon the convention, it would have a devastating effect on the progress of human rights in other countries.

No Government like any court telling them what to do. Legislators, elected as they are, do not like to be constrained by unelected judges. Parliament does not like to be so restrained. Governments, having got elected and into government, like even less to be constrained. That feeling is multiplied when the judicial ruling comes from—perish the thought!—abroad, but even the best ​intentioned Government need to be subject to the rule of law. Governments can abuse their power, on purpose or by mistake, so oversight by the courts is essential. International standards, presided over by international courts, are important abroad and to us too. If the Government do not agree with a court ruling, they can gnash their teeth or try to get the court to think again in a subsequent case, but their disagreeing with a judgement does not justify their rejecting the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

In conclusion, it is easy to promise to tackle extremism, to whip up hostility to court rulings and to make “human rights” dirty words, but when it comes to legislating on counter-terrorism and amending our human rights framework the Government need to tread carefully, consult widely and work on the basis of consensus. What I have heard in the debate so far gives me confidence that there are Members on both sides of the House, as there are in the House of Lords, who will make sure the Government do exactly that."

You can read the full debate here.

Earlier today, I joined the Britain Stronger In campaign, alongside the Prime Minister, to talk to Asda workers about how leaving the European Union would see the cost of the weekly shop go up.

Former high street bosses warned that leaving the EU would be catastrophic for consumers.  Marc Bolland, Sir Ian Cheshire, Justin King CBE and Sir Terry Leahy said that renegotiating trade arrangements and changes in regulations would hit customers at the tills.

It’s been very sad to hear about what tenants and residents at Solomon’s Passage in Peckham Rye have been going through after they were told by their housing association Wandle that they would have to leave their homes.

Just 3 weeks ago, the 85 families who live in Solomon's Passage, overlooking Peckham Rye, heard the devastating news that they’ll all have to leave their homes because of fundamental defects in the blocks built only 6 years ago. 2 blocks will have to be refurbished and the residents will have to move out.  And 2 blocks are so badly built they’ll have to be demolished.  Families face months of uncertainty.

I met with them today to offer my help as they face an anxious and uncertain future. Peckham Rye Councillor Renata Hamvas was also at Solomon’s Passage and pledged her support for her constituents. It was clear from everyone I spoke to that trust is a really big issue for everyone at Solomon’s Passage and Wandle really need to work to rectify this.

Please find my monthly report for April & May here

It’s over a week now, but I’m still buzzing that Sadiq Khan is our new mayor of London.

It means it’s a really hopeful time for London.  We can look forward to more homes being built and sold or rented at a price people can afford.  He’s promised to put a cap on spiraling transport fares.  It’s going to be a time for new plans and new ideas.  Whether it’s keeping our air cleaner or our streets safer, or helping new businesses start up and tackling the inequality which still scars London, Sadiq has said he’ll be a Mayor who listens and innovates.  And it’s an incredibly proud time for London.  We’ve elected as our new Mayor a man who was brought up on a Tooting council estate, whose parents emigrated here from Pakistan – his father to work on the buses and his mother to work as a seamstress.  He went to University and set up his own legal firm.  And he’s the first Muslim to be elected to lead our great City – the first of any city in Europe.

I feel proud that our city could enable someone from Sadiq’s background to rise to be Mayor. I feel relieved that he was elected – with Londoner’s rejecting the Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith’s deplorable attempt to give voters the entirely false impression that Sadiq would be soft on terrorism. The Equality and Human Rights Commission should bring out the declaration which all party leaders signed in the 2001 pledging not to allow racial or religious divisions to be used for party advantage.  No party should seek to get their candidate elected by whipping up racial tension. It’s time David Cameron signed it.

I agree with Sadiq that now he’s elected it’s important that he’s “the Mayor for all Londoners”.  He will reach out not just to Labour voters but to those who voted Tory, UKIP or Green – or who didn’t vote at all.  He will engage with people of all faiths, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jews – as he showed at his inauguration at Southwark Cathedral.  You can’t build unity in the city by playing one community off against another.

I shall be supporting our Southwark council leader Peter John as he seeks the backing of the Mayor to build more council and affordable homes.  And I shall be knocking on Sadiq’s door to insist that in City Hall and in everything he does he supports women to make more progress towards equality.

I’m delighted to see the back of Boris Johnson as our Mayor. He’s certainly a big celebrity but I can’t forgive his insult to our African communities here in London when he talked about “picannnies” or about their “watermelon smiles”.  And he neither knew nor cared about people who work hard but struggle to get on the housing ladder or to make ends meet.

I hope, and expect, that the Government whether it’s the Prime Minister, Chancellor or Transport Minister will work with Sadiq.

When I talk to people in Southwark about the EU referendum on June 23rd, most people say they still haven't made up their minds, they want to know more about it and want to think about it further.  It certainly makes sense to find out all the issues at stake because this is one of the biggest decisions that will affect our country for decades to come.  

To contribute to this important debate, here are the reasons why I'm voting for the UK to remain in the EU.  

The EU is important for equality, human rights and has backed equality, and rights at work. Voting to leave would put at risk equal pay, paid annual, maternity and paternity leave and the protection of agency workers.  The EU ensures minimum standards and without this guarantee it would be left just to the Conservative Government, who have never stood up for human rights, and equality or fought to improve living conditions for most people.

The EU is important for jobs, for our businesses and keeping the cost of living down. The EU has a population of 500 million and is the biggest consumer market in the world, putting Britain in a great position for trade and investment. 540,000 jobs in London are reliant on our membership of the EU, 26,000 London businesses trade goods within the EU (worth £4.7billion) and every year £26.5 billion is invested in Britain by other EU countries.

The EU is important for our health service.  And leaving it would be thoroughly bad news for the quality of care that people in Southwark receive. Our health services need people who come from other European countries to work as nurses, doctors and care workers. If we left the EU, and they all had to apply for visas to come here, many wouldn't and our NHS would lose out.  

Kings College Hospital is a centre for medical research and treats a great many local patients.  The UK has received over £700million of EU funding for medical research projects. A further £60billion of funding has now been made available to EU countries with the UK receiving the most approved grants so far. Leaving Europe would turn off the tap of funding for medical research that provides hope to patients.

The links we form in the EU give Britain the power to speak with a louder voice than we would alone. The EU has the world’s largest aid budget, and using the collective voice EU countries have led on efforts to tackle climate change, clamp down on corruption, start to end tax avoidance in developing countries and extend human rights across the developing world. Any contributions that we make towards EU aid spending count towards Britain’s 0.7% spending target.

The way the EU works at present is not perfect but it is better to have a seat at the table than to throw stones from outside with no say. The referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union is on the 23^rd June and you must be registered to vote by the 7^th June. 

I hope you will join me in voting to remain a member of the European Union.

I asked Rt Hon Jeremy Wright QC MP (Attorney General) about the Governments position on the UK's membership of the European Convention on Human Rights:

Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP

The more the Attorney General and the Justice Secretary say that they have not ruled out the UK leaving the European convention on human rights, the more it sounds to me like exactly the direction of travel they intend to take, and I find that chilling. The Attorney General cited the proud tradition of this country in establishing this international system of guaranteeing human rights here and abroad, yet it is that very proud tradition that he appears to be about to kick into the gutter. Does he recognise that we cannot both be a signatory to the European convention and reject the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights? It is not just about having these substantive rights and paying lip service to them; it is about accepting the jurisdiction of the international court to enforce those rights. Does he recognise that every Government in this country needs to have that restraint? All Governments are tempted to abuse their power, and this international system is an important guarantee. Does he recognise, as Conservative Members have said, how important it is for those who are struggling for human rights in other countries to be part of a system that we play a part in guaranteeing? I hope that enough Members in this House and the other place will share that view, so that, if the Government drift towards a position of trying to leave the European convention, this Parliament will stop them.

Rt Hon Jeremy Wright QC MP - Attorney General

You can watch my question to the Attorney General and his answer here.

Many people say that prostitution - men paying for sex with women - has always been with us and always will be.  But I don't agree with that view.  Prostitution is bad for women, men and neighbourhoods and there is something we can and should do about it.

There are a number of contested propositions about prostitution.  Some argue that it is a choice women make and that they should be allowed to make that choice.  They say that just because I don't want to be a prostitute I shouldn't interfere with their choice, their right to sell their body for sex.  I think there are only a very small number of women for whom prostitution is genuinely a free, positive, strong choice.  Most women find themselves in prostitution because of mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction.  Many have had troubled or abused childhoods or have been brought up in the care system.  Many have been tricked into prostitution by human traffickers who have brought them from abroad and then forced them into the sex trade.  These women need protecting and help to lead a better, safer life. If that means interfering with the "right" of the very few women who choose to sell sex or the "right" of men to buy sex, then so be it.

Some argue that prostitutes are "sex workers" and that their "job" should be protected not eliminated.  But prostitution is not the sort of "work" that anyone would like to admit their mother does.  Who wants their daughter to grow up to be a prostitute? - No-one.  Surely we have higher ambitions for women than that they should sell their body for sex.

Some say that I should listen to the voice of organisations like "The English Collective of Prostitutes".  I have, and I don't agree with them because I have also listened to the voices of women who were victims of trafficking whose cases I dealt with when I was Solicitor General in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Some say that it's a way for a woman to earn a lot of money.  Most money in prostitution doesn't go to the women but to pimps and criminal gangs.  

Some say that it's not just about women, there are male prostitutes too.  I think the arguments about protection of women apply in the same way to men who fall into prostitution.

What about a man's "right" to pay for sex, especially if he couldn't get sex anywhere else?  His right to pay does not justify his exploitation of women.  Some say "but if men can't pay for sex they'll resort to rape instead".  Men do not have a "right to sex" and if they commit rape they should be put in prison.

Some say that if you make it a criminal offence to pay for sex you will drive it underground and make women even more dangerous for women.

I think we should follow the example of the Nordic countries where the woman prostitute is treated as a victim and helped and men paying for sex are guilty of a criminal offence.  We should tackle the criminal gangs who deal in guns, drugs and women's bodies.  And I think we should ban the small ads in local newspapers which are advertising prostitution.

The proposed closure of ticket offices at Denmark Hill, Peckham Rye and Queens Road will hit local people who already get a raw deal on public transport. Passenger numbers are going up but not the frequency of train services.

Ticket offices provide reassurance to passengers and provide more services than those offered at a ticket machine. At a ticket office, passengers have access to a wider range of tickets both in terms of price and in terms of the type of ticket they are buying. Passengers, especially those who are vulnerable or disabled, feel reassured by a ticket office. Govia Thameslink must put passengers first.

In her letter today to Govia Thameslink CEO Charles Horton, Harriet Harman MP demanded answers:

Ticket offices provide a range of services to many of my constituents. Denmark Hill station services passengers from nearby hospitals, Kings College and Maudsley. Ticket offices provide reassurance to all passengers but especially those who are vulnerable and may struggle to use ticket machines due to mobility or sight issues.

I am very concerned that the above ticket offices are set to close in June of this year and would be grateful if you could answer the below questions:

1. How many customer contacts does each of the ticket offices have each day
2. If the ticket offices close, will the ticket machines on the platform be upgraded so passengers can purchase monthly, quarterly and yearly travel cards?
3. If the ticket offices close, will more ticket machines be installed to prevent long waits?
4. What provisions will be made for passengers with a disability who struggle to use ticket machines?

Please find my monthly report for February 2016 here.