**Check against delivery**
Thank you for inviting me to this exciting conference. In my 35 years of being an MP I’ve been to thousands of conferences but this is unique - to be here together with women MPs from different parts of the world. It’s going to be fascinating to see what emerges as our common agenda and discuss how we can work together to make further progress. So I warmly congratulate Catherine Martin and her team on this initiative. And it’s hugely to the credit of your Taoiseach Leo Varadkar that he recognises the significance of this and is here today.
Just a few points for us to bear in mind:
* We should recognize how far we’ve come in such a short time. As women we are only recent arrivals in politics. We are pioneers. When I was growing up - I was born in 1950 - the idea was that summit of a girls ambition was to be a get a good husband. And after that to be a good wife serving him. My mother, qualified as a barrister - which was very unusual in those days - but after she married my father she gave up. Her wig and gown was in our dressing up box. The man was the head of the household and his word held sway. Men made decisions and women abided by them. That was very much the case outside the home too. Men made history and women made the tea. The rise of the women’s movement challenged those attitudes successfully. Now there is a general expectation that men and women should be on equal terms. In all walks of life. Now there are women MPs in nearly every country in the world. And our numbers are increasing steadily. When I was first an MP in 1982 I was in a parliament which was 97% men only 3% women. Now we are up to 32%. Still a minority, but now a critical mass.
We should be gratified by our progress but never grateful. No one handed it to us. We fought hard for it. All we’re demanding is the rights that we are entitled to. All we are asking for is equality and we don’t have equality yet. We are in parliaments but women in our countries are still not on an equal footing. We’ve won the arguments. Now we need to change the reality. Equality is a human right. Necessary for the economy and for equal societies are ease with themselves. Equality is the future.
*Our case for women in parliament is the case for democracy and for better decision-making. It is essential for the democratic legitimacy of our Parliaments that they are representative - that voters can see that in their parliaments, making the decisions that affect their lives are people like themselves, who understand them. Parliaments are just not representative if there are no, or hardly any women there. When I was first elected, and our parliament was only 3% women it was simply unrepresentative of the 50% of the population is women. Women’s voices were not heard. So, no-one is doing us a favour “letting us in” to parliament. We are a democratic imperative. Male dominated parliaments can’t be defended on grounds of merit. And it’s not about merit. Parliaments with no, or hardly any, women are not meritocracies, they are discriminatory. Unless you believe that men are just so much better than women - which of course we don’t. And a balanced parliament with a diverse team of MPs is better for decision-making. Homogenous teams are blinkered by group-think and are blind to so much in a changing world.
*Though we’ve fought our way in to parliaments we are as yet, as relative newcomers and not on equal terms with the men in parliament. It is not enough just to be allowed in the building. We must ensure that we share power on equal terms. That means equal numbers in senior positions in government and in opposition. And it means women in those positions being as powerful as our male counterparts. When we were in government in 2010, I was in the minister for women and equality but my bill, the Equality Act, was not passed till the very last day we were in office. It was our very last Bill and nearly didn’t get through despite the fact that I was not only in the Cabinet but was deputy leader of my party. And we need women in leadership. My party, Labour, in 100 years has never had a woman leader. We must next time. Don’t get me wrong I’m encouraging all the brilliant men in our party to press on with their ambition - and aspire to be deputy.
And to reflect the reality that women are now in parliaments we need to change the way our parliaments work - so, for example, we’re pressing for proxy voting for a woman MP who’s just had a baby, and for a new MP dad too. I’m keen to hear how all of your parliaments accommodate women who’ve had new babies and men who want to play their part in their families. I know this is something that the Irish Parliamentary Women’s Caucus is exploring.
*It’s our duty as women MPs to speak up for and make change for women. If we leave it to men, it won’t happen. When I was first in Parliament the political agenda was all “money supply motorways and mines”. We handful of women were urged not to “bang on” about women’s issues or we’d be seen to be narrow, not part of the mainstream, not serious politicians. But we women MPs and in the Women’s Movement more widely, insisted that there should be a change in what is seen as the political agenda - that it should include maternity leave, and tackling domestic violence. And childcare which Colette Kelleher played a leading part in when she was in the UK. Should be part pf the mainstream agenda. Together we insisted on changing the traditional political priorities. Our latest push includes equal pay - we’ve introduced a law to require organisations employing more than 250 people to publish their pay gap and that has exposed the scale of inequality. In the UK everyone swears support for equal pay and denies that they are discriminating. But the figures published for the first time this April show that 8 out of 10 employers pay men more than women - in every sector - even sectors such as retail which wouldn’t exist without women’s work. Why should women on the check out at Tesco put up with £8 per hour when the men in the store room get £11.50. How can people expect unions to be the champion for equal pay for their women when our biggest union, Unite for example pays their men employees 30% more than their women. And the teachers union, NASUWT, pays their men 40% more than their women. And it’s nothing less than an insult to the women at Facebook UK that the men there get bonuses which are 60% higher than the women. Now it’s out in the open and we will be demanding progress year on year.
*We must work in solidarity as women. You can’t do it on our own. That means solidarity between women in parliament and women outside. (I would never have survived in the early days - struggling with 3 young children in a male-dominated parliament - without the support of the women’s movement outside parliament). Our solidarity with movements such as #MeToo is essential. And it means solidarity and working together between women within our parties in parliament - and getting more in because numbers matter. It’s good to see that you now have 22% women in the Dail - but we all still have a way to go. (That’s why we did all women shortlists. You have to use whatever organisational methods are going to really deliver.) And solidarity means working with women across parties - where we can - to make advances for women in our countries - as you did in the recent abortion referendum with such spectacular success. Deep party loyalties make that a bit of a challenge to us in UK - and has been difficult because the first feminists in parliament were all Labour and were opposed by the conservatives. But that is changing with the arrival of the new younger women who’ve arrived on the Conservative side and is hugely effective where it does happen - like through the work of the Select Committee on Equality, like our work on domestic violence. And our cross-party working for proxy voting for MPs on Babyleave, and Stella Creasy who you're hearing from later today working effectively cross party on abortion rights for women in Northern Ireland.
*We must win the support of and work with men. That is easier now with the new generation of men who have very different attitudes from their fathers’ generation. They see women as equal and recognise rights of their wife to succeed in their work, recognise the need to share the upbringing of their own children. Sons of the Women’s movement. But as women we must still set the agenda and not allow men to lead on women’s issues. Remember the women’s movement saying “Women must be the engine of our own liberation”.
*We need to work internationally. We’re all on the same path. We’re all pioneers. We all are seizing the same opportunities and facing the same problems. We’re all struggling to combine work and family, we’re all facing the backlash. We support our sisters in other countries in their struggles and draw support by networking/sharing ideas - which is what this conference is such a great example of.
*We must make “unreasonable demands” - “today’s unreasonable demands are tomorrow’s conventional wisdom”. If something’s right in principle then we must demand it. No asking politely. Not just persuading but insisting. And achieving them by force of numbers. We must guard against self-censorship. We’re not asking for favours. We’re demanding the rights that should always have been ours. And we must defend the progress that we’ve made. In the UK we’ve seen the network of children’s centres which are so vital for working mothers, being cut back. There are many countries in the world where women’s rights are being pushed back. We can never be complacent.
*Don’t expect to be popular - a woman in public life is still counterintuitive. But we must call out abuse and threats of violence. I didn’t when I was first an MP and was subjected to death threats. As a young woman with babies I feared my constituents would think I was not able to fight for them if I was weak and too preoccupied with my own problems. But I now think that was wrong. It’s not about proving we’re tough. Attacks on women MPs are not just misogyny, they are anti-democratic. Our wonderful colleague Jo Cox was murdered for doing her job as MP. We’re elected by our voters and they expect us, and we are entitled, to get on with our job without fear on hindrance.
So, I look forward to hearing your Taoiseach - it’s so encouraging that this agenda has support at the highest level of government. And I look forward hugely to the discussion. But above all I send you solidarity and wish you support in your struggles. We are looking forward to our own conference of women MPs from around the world in November in the House of Commons to which some of you will be coming and we can continue the conversation.
A lot done...a lot more to do!
**Check against delivery** Thank you for inviting me to this exciting conference. In my 35 years of being an MP I’ve been to thousands of conferences but this is unique...
A lot of people living in Camberwell and Peckham have contacted me concerned about environmental principles and governance after Brexit. I agree that leaving the EU must not lead to any watering down of existing standards.
The Government opened a consultation on an Environmental Principles and Governance Bill in May to explore the scope and content of a new statement of environmental principles. The consultation will also consider what functions and powers a new environmental watchdog should have to oversee environmental policy and law.
I am concerned that, under the proposals in the consultation, we may no longer retain the environmental protections we currently enjoy in the EU. The proposed watchdog is a toothless imitation of current EU institutions, which will advise and lay reports to Parliament with formal action only at the end of numerous bureaucratic hoops. I want to see a world-leading environmental body with independent, statutory backing. The consultation closed on 2 August and the Government says it will bring forward a draft bill this autumn.
As you will be aware, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill received Royal Assent on 26 June. I consistently supported amendments to this legislation to safeguard environmental protections. For example, I supported amendments which would have required the Government to pass primary legislation within six months of Royal Assent, establishing a duty on public authorities to apply principles of EU environmental law and establishing an independent body to monitor compliance of public authorities with environmental law.
While the amendments accepted by the Government in lieu of these proposals offered some helpful developments, they did not ensure that all existing EU rights, powers and liabilities that contribute to the protection and improvement of the environment are preserved under UK law.
The Government has since announced that it will introduce a new Environment Bill. However, I am concerned about the lack of information around this Bill. It is important the Government presents ambitious and concrete measures that recognise the scale of the environmental problems we face. We must make the case for a more progressive, more ambitious domestic environmental policy.
I will continue to press for environmental standards to be properly protected and enhanced where necessary and to ensure our principle and governance mechanisms are not weakened on exit from the EU. This is vital to secure the future of our natural environment.
Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to get in touch with me on this important issue.
A lot of people living in Camberwell and Peckham have contacted me concerned about environmental principles and governance after Brexit. I agree that leaving the EU must not lead to...
Great afternoon celebrating the amazing NHS at the Camberwell & Peckham Labour Party Picnic.
Great afternoon celebrating the amazing NHS at the Camberwell & Peckham Labour Party Picnic.
I believe we must meet our obligations under the Dublin regulation to reunite refugee children with family members in the UK and that Brexit must not lead to a loss of rights for refugees.
I therefore supported Lord Dubs' amendment to the Withdrawal Bill which sought to preserve existing rights - allowing those seeking asylum, including unaccompanied minors, to join a family member in the UK. This amendment was passed by the House of Lords in April but in the Commons, the Government rejected it and instead brought forward its own alternative.
This alternative amendment sets out that the Government must seek to negotiate an agreement with the EU to allow unaccompanied child asylum seekers to come to the UK to join a relative, where it would be in the child's best interests to do so. The Government has subsequently accepted changes to expand its amendment by allowing aunts and uncles as qualifying relatives able to sponsor, as well as relatives under 18. These revised proposals were agreed in the House of Lords on 18 June.
Our country has a proud history of helping those fleeing conflict and persecution and we must continue to play our part by taking our fair share of refugees. We could do more to help unaccompanied child refugees in Europe by fully implementing the Dubs scheme. This was a targeted scheme for resettling some unaccompanied refugee children in the UK.
It is very disappointing that the Government ended the Dubs scheme after resettling far fewer unaccompanied children than anticipated. I believe we should restore the Dubs scheme and accept some of the most vulnerable children in the world.
I also believe that refugees should be able to settle, integrate and live fulfilling lives in the UK and that more needs to be done to reunite families, for example by expanding the scope of the refugee family reunion rules.
I will continue to defend the right of refugees in Europe to reunite with family in the UK.
I believe we must meet our obligations under the Dublin regulation to reunite refugee children with family members in the UK and that Brexit must not lead to a loss...
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.
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...
On 1st August 23 year old Siddique Kamara was stabbed to death just yards from his home on the Brandon Estate. His family are devastated. And this is the second murder in the same street within the last 3 months. Rhyhiem Barton, aged only 17 years, was shot dead there on 5th May.
The Police have worked quickly to arrest and charge a man with Siddique’s murder and it is vital that anyone who has any information that can help the police with either crime should come forward. If you do not want to contact them directly you can pass information entirely anonymously to the independent charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
The local community are, justifiably, shocked at this second killing. As I did after Rhyhiem’s death, the day after Siddique’s murder I held a meeting on the Brandon Estate, attended by Southwark Council Leader, Peter John, local councillors for Camberwell Green and Newington, senior members of Southwark Police, the hardworking Brandon Estate tenants' representatives Joy Allan-Baker, June Lewis and Eileen Piper and local residents.
At both meetings the same concerns were raised. With the recent killings, parents are worried about having to leave their children and go to work when schools are on summer holidays. Holiday play schemes are either full or too expensive. So it was important that Peter John immediately pledged £10,000 from Southwark Council to support the summer youth programme in Rachel Leigh Hall. They need to be able to pay youth workers and pay for extra sports activities and with the extra funds they can now do that. This isn’t just a problem on the Brandon. Across all estates there’s a lack of facilities for young people. It’s bad enough after school and at weekends, but it becomes even more of an issue during the long schools summer holiday. With all the government cuts, there just isn’t enough money to provide the services that are so badly needed to keep the children of working parents safe and happy when school’s out.
The community also raised concerns about the lack of CCTV particularly around the low-rise homes where the elderly live. I am supporting their application for CCTV and the Council are acting on it, including lopping some of the trees which provide shady spots where criminals can lurk and where they would not be able to be seen by CCTV.
In both meetings the community and the families have highlighted the role of social media in gang violence. They believe that the internet is being used both to plan and to incite violence and they’re calling for action.
Everyone agrees that the internet is crucial for exchanging ideas and sharing art forms. But the local community believe that much of the drill music and videos cross over a line and are used for criminal purposes.
Siddique Kamara was himself a drill rapper, under the name of 'Incognito'. In an interview earlier this year, he spoke about its effect on crime in London - "You see with the crime that's happening right now, music does influence it. You've got to put your hands up and say drill music does influence it."
The lyrics often glorify gang warfare and include threats against rival gangs or individuals. For example in one track on YouTube, Moscow17 tell rival gang Zone 2 to "check the scoreboard". Another video asks "how you gonna make it even?" Zone 2 then posted a song in response telling their rivals that they would “roll up and burst them”.
I’ve called on Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee to conduct an inquiry into whether the police have enough resources to deal with surveillance of the use of drill music for crime, whether internet providers are quick enough in responding to requests to take down material which is inciting crime and whether more powers are needed to stop the internet being used for gang crime. I’m also liaising with the Youth Violence Commission and am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Knife Crime.
Government cuts both to police budgets and youth services are having a significant effect on the rise of youth violence. Southwark alone has lost a quarter of its police officers since 2010. My Labour colleagues and I are intensifying our demands to government to increase officers on the beat and to restore police and youth service funding. It is time the Government stepped up to treat this crisis with the urgency required to help stop any more young lives being lost to violence and prevent other families and communities going through this heartbreak.
On 1st August 23 year old Siddique Kamara was stabbed to death just yards from his home on the Brandon Estate. His family are devastated. And this is the second murder...
As we mark the NHS turning 70 this month it’s impossible to look back and overstate just how much its creation by the then Labour government meant to people’s lives in Britain in 1948, and still means today.
Before its introduction only people who earned enough could see a doctor or get treatment. For the first time in 1948 the NHS meant people who couldn’t afford to take their sick children or elderly relatives to the GP suddenly found that they could get the treatment they needed and women who hadn’t been able to afford to have their babies in hospital safely could now do so.
70 years on the NHS has grown to 1 million dedicated and compassionate staff, it is a beacon of equality around the world and remains our most cherished national institution. The NHS represents that sense that we all have a duty to each other, we pay in collectively and it is there for us whenever we need it.
But after 8 years of Tory government all around us now we see the effect of the cuts. For example at King’s College Hospital, which is a fantastic and important hospital for people locally, A & E waiting times are missed, cancer treatment targets are missed, there’s been an increase in cancelled operations, and the chair, Sir Bob Kerslake, resigned in December because he said it was impossible to cut the amount government are asking them to cut without affecting patient care.
We see cuts at the Maudsley Hospital pushing down the pay and conditions of those contracted to work there and large numbers of vacancies in nursing staff. Particularly worrying is that when I visited psychiatrists at the hospital they told me that when they have someone who is psychotic and paranoid who needs to be sectioned because they’re at risk to themselves or others in the community, cuts to policing mean there are a shortage of police to go with doctors to safely take the person to the Maudsley and sometimes they have to wait weeks before they get the treatment they so desperately need. During that time that person and their family suffer terribly and sometimes are at risk of violence. The Maudsley team only decide to section someone if they have tried everything else and that person is in crisis. They can’t wait. I have written to the Minister to demand that she tackle these unacceptable delays and am liaising with the police as well.
The Prime Minister, Theresa May, claims the Government is spending more than ever on the NHS. But in reality they have cut £20 billion since 2010 and spend 3% less a year than was spent by the last Labour government. When Labour got back into Government in 1997 we made one of our key 5 pledges cutting waiting times and we trebled investment in the NHS. Soon waiting times were coming down and people were no longer coming to my advice surgery asking for help with cancelled operations or unable to get on a GP’s list. More was invested in community services, mental health and GP practices, crumbling hospitals were rebuilt and staffing was massively increased.
That’s why there’s such a need for Labour to get back into government. To not only protect, but advance the NHS.
The 70th anniversary of the NHS is a time to reflect and recognise that, though healthcare has completely changed, the principles at its foundation are as important as ever. I have made the NHS my constituency priority for 2018 and am working with Labour Southwark MPs Helen Hayes and Neil Coyle and Southwark Council to use this anniversary year to intensify our support for our local NHS and our demands to the Government to give the NHS the money it needs.
As we mark the NHS turning 70 this month it’s impossible to look back and overstate just how much its creation by the then Labour government meant to people’s lives...
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am chair, today publishes our report on enforcing human rights. The report finds that cuts to legal aid and government reforms to the system mean that for many people enforcement of their human rights is now simply unaffordable. This is gravely concerning for access to justice and the rule of law.
Large areas of the country are now “legal aid deserts”, as practitioners withdraw from providing legal aid services since they can no longer afford to do this work.
For rights to be effective they have to be capable of being enforced.
To do this, we must have adequate and equality of access to legal information and advice; a robustly independent judiciary and legal profession; strong National Human Rights Institutions, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and a culture which understands the concept of the rule of law, respects human rights and which is supported by the Government.
At the moment we are seeing the erosion of all of those enforcement mechanisms because of a lack of access to justice and lack of understanding of the fundamental importance of human rights and the rule of law.
The Government must act urgently to address this.
Government, Parliament, the media and the legal profession all have a responsibility to consider the importance of the rule of law, and the role that rights which can be enforced through an independent court system, plays in that.
Government must exercise self-restraint and refrain from criticising the judiciary and legal profession.
This report comes as the Government reviews the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and puts forward recommendations to feed into that review.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am chair, today publishes our report on enforcing human rights. The report finds that cuts to legal aid and government reforms...
Liberal Democrat MP, Jo Swinson, was "paired" with Tory chairman Brandon Lewis so she could be at home with her new baby son Gabriel during the Trade Bill vote. This should have meant neither her nor Brandon Lewis votes so their absences cancel each other out and this does not unfairly impact the result of the vote or discriminate against her because she has just given birth. But despite this agreement Brandon Lewis MP did turn up and voted with the Government.
This shambles should put it beyond doubt that pairing is not the answer for MPs having babies. We’re elected as MPs to vote on behalf of constituents and MPs having babies shouldn’t lose that right. In Prime Minister’s Questions today I pressed Theresa May to urgently bring forward a vote on proxy voting for baby leave. There are loads more parliamentary babies in the pipeline and more crucial votes coming up. It’s time to sort it out. This one is overdue.
Liberal Democrat MP, Jo Swinson, was "paired" with Tory chairman Brandon Lewis so she could be at home with her new baby son Gabriel during the Trade Bill vote. This...
Cllr Jasmine Ali, Southwark Council Cabinet Member for Children and Schools and I met the Executive Head at Harris Academy Peckham secondary school, Rebecca Hickey, to discuss progress at the school and working with local parents to improve first preference applications to the school and hear from students on the important local issues they’re concerned about like youth violence, mental health and energy drinks.
I’m looking forward to the students shortly visiting Parliament to see us at work.
Cllr Jasmine Ali, Southwark Council Cabinet Member for Children and Schools and I met the Executive Head at Harris Academy Peckham secondary school, Rebecca Hickey, to discuss progress at the school and...
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am chair, today publishes our report highlighting serious concerns with the new powers in the Government's Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill currently going through parliament.
The Government have got an important job to keep us safe from terrorism. But it must also safeguard human rights.
The Committee believes that this Bill goes too far and will be tabling amendments in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
New powers are too vaguely defined
Having taken evidence from Max Hill QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and Corey Stoughton, Advocacy Director at Liberty, we are concerned that some of the new powers are too vaguely defined and do not have sufficient safeguards to protect human rights.
Findings of report
The Joint Committee acknowledges the importance of the Government’s power to proscribe organisations but is concerned that criminalizing ‘expressions of support’ for proscribed organisations could prevent debate around the Government’s use of its proscription powers.
Proposes to criminalise the publication of images online which arouse suspicion that a person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation (e.g. a photograph of an ISIS flag hanging on someone’s wall posted to the internet) goes too far and also risks violating the right to freedom of expression
This clause criminalises viewing terrorist material online where such material is viewed three or more times.
The Committee believes that this is a breach of the right to receive information.
The Committee believes that there need to be greater safeguards for the increased period that the Bill gives for the retention of biometric data (such as fingerprints and DNA).
At the same time as it increases the powers to retain data, the Bill abolishes the oversight of the Biometric Commissioner.
This risks violating the right to privacy of persons who have neither been charged nor convicted.
The Committee is concerned that powers to stop and search at ports are defined too widely.
These powers can be used to stop people to decide whether they threaten the economic well-being of the UK.
On these grounds, the Committee has serious concerns that the Bill as it stands does not comply with Convention rights.
The Committee therefore recommends that:
- Clause 1 of the Bill, at a minimum, is amended to clarify what expressions of support would or would not be caught by this offence and to ensure that the offence does not risk criminalising debates disproportionately: for example in a way which would prevent someone putting forward a case for why a particular organisation should no longer be proscribed
- Clause 2 should be deleted or at a minimum amended to safeguard legitimate publications (e.g. for journalists and other legitimate activity which should not be criminalised)
- Clause 3 at the very least, should be amended to ensure that it only captures those viewing material with terrorist intent and to clarify the defence of reasonable excuse
- The increase in maximum sentences for certain terrorist offences must be justified
- The enhanced notification scheme for registered terrorist offenders needs stronger safeguards
- The Prevent programme should be subject to an independent review
- The removal of the Biometric Commissioner's oversight of DNA material and for extending the retention period from two to five years without clear notification and review options must be justified
- The stop and search powers must be circumscribed and subject to more robust safeguards.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am chair, today publishes our report highlighting serious concerns with the new powers in the Government's Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill currently going...
Meeting Southwark Clinical Commissioning Group management team to discuss progress on reducing GP and operation waiting lists, improving children’s mental health services and action they’re taking to ensure that the governing board of local health bodies like the CCG reflect the diverse community in Camberwell and Peckham. There are no black people on their board and I am concerned they must be representative of our community at all levels of the organisation.
Meeting Southwark Clinical Commissioning Group management team to discuss progress on reducing GP and operation waiting lists, improving children’s mental health services and action they’re taking to ensure that the governing...
The Home Office provided ‘no credible explanation’ as to why two children of the Windrush generation, Paulette Wilson and Anthony Bryan, were wrongfully locked up twice, depriving them of their human right to liberty, according to a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights published today.
The Committee, made up of MPs and Peers Chaired by Harriet Harman MP, took evidence in person from Ms Wilson and Mr Bryan, (who have been settled in the UK since childhood) and examined their Home Office cases files. From the outset, the files contained all the evidence that showed that the Home Office had no right to detain them. But the Home Office still wrongly detained them, twice. The analyses of the two case files are set out as appendices to the report.
In evidence to the Committee, the Home Secretary said that he was sorry for what had happened. A senior official from the Home Office called the handling of these cases a ‘mistake’ but could give the Committee no account of any action that had been taken at the department to address the very serious shortcomings in these cases.
Chair of the Committee, Harriet Harman MP, said:
“Our report presents the Home Secretary with an opportunity to address the systemic problems with wrongful detention at the Home Office. Paulette Wilson and Anthony Bryan were both locked up, twice, when the state had no right to deprive them of their liberty. The Department simply ground forward through their processes, clearly traumatising Ms Wilson and Mr Bryan in the process.
“The Home Secretary’s personal commitment to human rights is important. This report should alert him to the scale of human right violations within the powerful department he now leads.
“It is simply not plausible that these cases were just ‘mistakes’. The Home Office did not behave like a department which had discovered it had made a terrible mistake, demonstrating a systemic failure when it comes to detaining individuals and depriving them of their liberty. What happened to these two people was a total violation of their human rights by the state’s most powerful government department. It needs to face up to what happened before it can even begin to acknowledge the scale of the problem and stop it happening again.”
The Committee recommends that:
• The Home Office should review its use of detention for immigration purposes to ensure it doesn’t use it unlawfully and that it is only using these powers where necessary and proportionate.
• There should be a fundamental change in the law, culture and procedures to protect human rights in the work of the Home Office.
• A more humane approach to dealing with people who come into contact with the immigration enforcement system is needed.
• There should be more accountability when initiating or prolonging detention and stronger safeguards overall to prevent against wrongful detention.
• There should be more opportunities to challenge wrongful detention and clear parameters to limit the use of detention.
• Detention should only be used if the Secretary of State is satisfied that he has a power to detain.
• The Government should act immediately to set up a hardship fund to help individuals from the Windrush generation facing financial hardship, as recently recommended by the Home Affairs Committee.
The Committee intends to conduct a further inquiry into the UK's immigration detention system in the Autumn, in which the Committee will consider concerns around the safeguards in the immigration detention system in the UK, including the UK’s lack of a set time limit to immigration detention, which is unusual.
In a recent letter sent to the Home Office, the Committee asked to examine the case files of all those who have been wrongfully detained from the Windrush generation.
Notes to editors:
Harriet Harman MP, Chair of the Committee, wrote to the Home Secretary Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP asking the Home Office to share the case files of individuals who had been detained from the 63 Windrush deportation cases. The Home Secretary previously told the Committee in evidence that the cases of Anthony Bryan and Paulette Wilson – whose Home Office case files were supplied to the Committee- were “appalling and wrong in so many ways.”
Committee Membership is as follows:
Ms Harriet Harman MP (Chair) (Labour)
Fiona Bruce MP (Conservative)
Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour)
Alex Burghart MP (Conservative)
Joanna Cherry MP (SNP)
Jeremy Lefroy MP (Conservative)
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Labour)
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Conservative)
Baroness Prosser (Labour)
Lord Trimble (Conservative)
Lord Woolf (Crossbench)
Home Office approach to Windrush detention cases has been “shocking” concludes Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Home Office provided ‘no credible explanation’ as to why two children of the Windrush generation, Paulette Wilson and Anthony Bryan, were wrongfully locked up twice, depriving them of their...
Today I signed a joint letter to the new Home Secretary, Sajid Javid MP, with more than 150 other MPs, calling on him to confirm that he will continue his predecessor's plans to undertake a review into harassment and intimidation near abortion clinics. We must protect women accessing lawful healthcare.
Government must commit to review into intimidation outside abortion clinics - letter to Home Secretary
Today I signed a joint letter to the new Home Secretary, Sajid Javid MP, with more than 150 other MPs, calling on him to confirm that he will continue his predecessor's plans to undertake...
This morning I visited psychiatrists at the Maudsley Hospital. It was very worrying to hear from them that when they have someone who is psychotic and paranoid who needs to be sectioned because they’re a risk to themselves or others in the community, cuts to policing mean there is a shortage of police to go with doctors to safely take the person to the Maudsley and sometimes they have to wait weeks before they get the treatment they so desperately need. During that time that person and their family suffer terribly and sometimes are at risk of violence. The Maudsley team only section someone if they have tried everything else and that person is in crisis. They cannot wait. I’ve written to the Minister to demand that she tackle these unacceptable delays and I’m liaising with the police as well.
This morning I visited psychiatrists at the Maudsley Hospital. It was very worrying to hear from them that when they have someone who is psychotic and paranoid who needs to...
The crucial EU Withdrawal Bill vote this month was the “meaningful vote” amendment. Since 2016 I have consistently voted for Parliament to have a say on the final deal. In the face of deep government divisions it would have been better from the start for them to face up to the fact that Parliament’s involvement will make a perilous situation better.
Last week, facing the prospect of a humiliating defeat on the ‘meaningful vote’, Theresa May was forced to enter negotiations with her backbenchers and offer a concession. But the amendment she put forward was not good enough and she’s gone back on her word to them. I voted for the amendment which would have ensured that if the PM’s withdrawal agreement is rejected by MPs - or no deal is reached at all - it would be for Parliament, not the Prime Minister, to decide the next steps. I am deeply disappointed that this was defeated by 320 votes to 303 votes.
I and Labour MPs are working to protect the country as best we can and are seeking to enshrine in law a commitment to avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland, to retain workers’ rights and environmental protections and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The crucial EU Withdrawal Bill vote this month was the “meaningful vote” amendment. Since 2016 I have consistently voted for Parliament to have a say on the final deal. In...
Together with Helen Hayes MP, SE5 Forum, South London and Maudsley, King’s College Hospital, Camberwell College of Arts and Southwark Council I am campaigning to re-open Camberwell Station.
This is urgently needed to alleviate delays and dangerous overcrowding at neighbouring stations and especially as there is no tube in Camberwell and Peckham.
Today Helen and I delivered a petition of over 2000 local people’s signatures in support of re-opening the station to Jo Johnson MP, the Minister for Rail.
He told us Transport for London are currently considering the case for re-opening the station and we have written to Commissioner, Mike Brown, to reiterate the intense local concern there is that the station should be re-opened to cope with increasing demand.
Together with Helen Hayes MP, SE5 Forum, South London and Maudsley, King’s College Hospital, Camberwell College of Arts and Southwark Council I am campaigning to re-open Camberwell Station. This is urgently needed...