I want to thank the Prime Minister for her words here today and also her words on the steps of Downing Street yesterday. At this very difficult and important time she spoke for us all, so I thank her for that. We’re so proud of the bravery of PC Keith Palmer. So sad for his grieving family. But so grateful for what he did to keep us safe, and I’d like to add my tribute to all the police here in Westminster and the parliamentary staff, who acted with such calmness and professionalism yesterday, and I’d like to pay tribute too, to the emergency trauma team at King’s College Hospital, who are caring for the injured.

This was a horrific crime, and it has cost lives and caused injury, but as an act of terror it has failed. It has failed because we are here and we are going to go about our business. It’s failed because despite the trauma that they witnessed outside their windows our staff are here, and they are getting on with their work. It failed because as the Prime Minister so rightly said we are not going to allow this to be used as a pretext for division, hatred and Islamophobia.

This democracy is strong and this Parliament is robust. This was a horrific crime, but as an act of terror it has failed.

Today in the House of Commons I asked the Education Secretary Justine Greening MP to protect Southwark schools from the cuts in her so-called fair funding formula.

Thanks to increased investment and the work of teachers, other teaching staff, supportive parents and the local community, standards in our schools in Southwark have massively increased, but our schools are not overfunded. Surely it cannot be right that, per pupil, we will see a cut of £1,000 per year as a result of this so-called fair funding formula. It is not fair. Whatever levelling up the Secretary of State needs to do in other parts of the country, she should please go ahead and do so, but do not cut schools funding for the poorest children.

You can read the full debate online in Hansard.

As prison officers are cut, prison suicides soar. Today I spoke in the Second Reading of the Prison and Courts Bill in the House of Commons to call for a new law that sets out a maximum ratio of prisoners to officers. This is the full text of my speech:

This Bill gives the House, the Secretary of State and her Prisons Minister the chance to do something which should have been done a long time ago - but which is now urgent.  And that is to end the death toll of suicidal mentally ill people who take their own lives in our prisons.

When the state takes someone into custody we have a duty to keep them safe.  Their life becomes our responsibility.  Yet prisons are not a place of safety.  Last year 12 women and 107 men took their own lives while in prisons, in the custody of the state.

The Bill this Government has brought forward affords us the important opportunity to change the law to prevent these tragic deaths and we must seize that opportunity because the problem is urgent and it is growing.

We all know that the issue of prison reform is not one which brings people out onto the streets, or which tops the agenda at election time. And unfortunately I wish I could agree with the honourable member who has just spoken, much of which I did agree with him on, but actually I think that when it does rise up the agenda it is usually not in the cause of liberalising prison regimes but because of demands to make them more draconian.  That makes the job of Secretary of State and the Prisons Minister - in any government - particularly challenging. Which is why, where it's possible, a cross-party approach to this is important and why the Committee which I have the honour to chair, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is both cross-party and comprised of members from both this House and the House of Lords, is conducting an inquiry into suicides in prison.  

Every single one of these deaths is an absolute tragedy for each individual and their family.

As Mark, the father of Dean who took his own life told our Committee earlier this month, "we don't have capital punishment in this country. Yet when Dean was sent to Chelmsford Prison he was sentenced to death."

And so too it was for Diane Waplington, whose mother and aunt came to Parliament to give evidence to our Committee.  Her suffering had been so intense that to harm herself she set fire to a mattress while in a secure hospital and the response was to send her to Peterborough prison, where she took her own life.

The tragedy of suicide in prison is not new but, as the Government acknowledges, it is urgent.  Last year the number of self-inflicted deaths rose by 32%.

It's not that this is a new problem, or even one where no-one knows what to do.  There have, over the years, been numerous weighty reports which Members of this House, members of the House of Lords, judges and many others have contributed to which have analysed the problems and mapped out the solutions.

Successive governments have welcomed their proposals, changed policy, issued new guidelines - but nothing changes.  Except the death toll - which rises.

*In 1991 we had the Woolf Report.

*In 2007 The Corston Report.

*In 2009 The Bradley Report.

*In 2015 The Harris Report.

It's not that we don't know what needs to be done - it’s just that we haven't done it.

We must recognise the reality here.  There is no point in having more reviews or new policies or new guidance.

What is needed is to make sure the changes we all know are needed actually happen in practice.  And for that to happen what is needed is a legal framework which will ensure that the necessary changes take place because they are required by statute. 

Reports and guidance and White Papers are not enforceable and are not enforced.  Law is.  This Bill is the opportunity to put into law the changes, highlighted by the countless, weighty reviews and inquiries. 

The Joint Committee on Human Rights' inquiry is still ongoing.  But because this Bill is before the House now, I want to ask the Prisons Minister to consider including a number of New Clauses in this Bill in order to put into law the following: 

• Firstly there should be a legal maximum for the number of prisoners per prison officer. 

When there are not enough staff - sometimes just two prison officers on a wing of 150 prisoners - prisoners remain locked in their cell, medical appointments and educational sessions are missed, they don't get to see the nurse for their medication, calls for help go unanswered.  Prison officers don't have the time to unlock them for exercise, let alone sit down and get to know the prisoners and, in the vacuum, the worst of the prisoners take charge.  Staff become demoralised and defensive, prisoners angry and frightened - the most vulnerable at risk. 

You can either cut the number of people going to prison or you can increase the number of prison officers. But what the Government has been doing is cutting the number of prison officers while the number of prisoners has increased. You can see a clear correlation between the falling number of prison officers and the rising number of prison suicides and I've put the graph on a tweet just now which shows it very clearly. Unless the prisoner/prison officer ratio changes, the death toll will continue to rise.  We have got the opportunity to put into this Bill a legal maximum prisoner/prison officer ratio. 

• Secondly a legal maximum time a prisoner can be kept in their cell.  
   
  The Government agree that there should be a maximum time for prisoners to be locked in their cells.  It was in their response to the Harris Review, it's in their White Paper. But it doesn't happen.  A legal obligation is required to make sure it does. 

• A legal obligation for the Prison Service to ensure that each young prisoner or adult prisoner with mental health problems has a keyworker - whether it’s a prison officer or someone else, what matters is that there's an individual who takes responsibility to bring together all the information from the different services inside and outside the prison and, crucially, someone to liaise with the family. 

This is in the White Paper, but I say to the Minister, that unless it's in the Bill, it just won’t happen - it'll remain nothing more than a good intention.

• Next, unless there is a specified reason that it shouldn't be the case, the relatives of a suicidal prisoner should be informed of and invited to take part in the safety reviews of vulnerable prisoners - ACCTs. Of all the people involved, the family knows the prisoner best and care about him or her the most.

The family of Dean Saunders told us that far from being given the chance to contribute to the reviews of the measures to keep him safe, it wasn't until the inquest that they actually found out that in the two and a half weeks he'd been in prison there had been 8 reviews - conducted by staff who didn't know Dean or anything about him.  

• Next, a legal obligation to ensure all young offenders and suicidal prisoners should be able to call a specified and approved member of their family.  
   
  One of the most frightening things for a prisoner who's suffering the misery and fear of mental illness is being out of touch with their family.  A desperate, confused and terrified mentally ill prisoner can't stand on a wing queuing for a phone, can't find their way through pin numbers, or get permission.   Phone technology is perfectly advanced enough now for there to be a system for suicidal prisoners to be able to call home.

• Next, where a prisoner needs to be transferred to a mental hospital, there should be a legal maximum time limit between the diagnosis and the transfer. 
  
  If a prisoner is regarded as so ill that they can't stay in prison and need to be moved to a secure hospital then that must happen right away. Under Mental Health Act Guidance, that's supposed to be no more than 14 days but it often takes many months. That maximum time limit should be laid down in law.

If the Minister says these 6 things are too detailed and specific for law, I would say look at the law that applies to education, look at the law that applies to health.  You'll find there legal provision for maximum staff/child ratios, legal time limits for referrals for health treatment.  If it's good enough for the education and the health service, why not for our prisons.

If the Minister says that these issues don't need to be in law, or they can be or already are in guidance, I say we've done that over and over again and it hasn't worked.  Now, it’s time it must be put into law. 

If the Minister says that these issues are more suitable for Regulations than being on the face of the Bill - I'm sure I'd have no objection to that.  Whether they are in primary or secondary legislation, is not what matters. What matters is that they should be put into law.

And I know exactly what his civil servants will say when he goes back to his department. They'll say it is unnecessary or they'll say it can't be done.  But I would ask him most sincerely to reflect on this point.  Being a Prison Minister is a great responsibility and a great privilege.  And I know he's committed to his ministerial role so I hope that he'll resist the voices which will urge him to do no more than preside over this wretched status quo.  And I ask the House to help the Minister do what needs to be done by putting these proposed New Clauses into the Bill. 

Nothing will bring back Dean Saunders and Diane Waplington, whose heartbroken families gave evidence to our Committee, or any of the other 12 women and 107 men who killed themselves in our prisons last year alone.

But we in this House, and the Minister, have a chance to make this Bill the turning point where we stop talking about the problems which are costing lives and take action. As Prison Minister, he, more than many other ministers, has an opportunity to make a difference and to save lives.  I hope he will seize that chance.  And we must make sure that he does.

Along with Mrs Anita Asumadu, Head teacher of Oliver Goldsmith Primary School, Councillor Mark Williams and Councillor Johnson Situ I met with pupils and parents this morning to tell them about the detrimental impact the Government’s New National Funding Formula will have on their children.

It is expected that pupils in Southwark will lose out approximately £1,024 each and this figure increases to £1,103 for pupils at Oliver Goldsmith Primary School.  Many parents expressed concern that their children will be worse off due to these government funding cuts.

Great to welcome sixth form government and politics students from Sacred Heart school to Parliament today. We discussed local issues affecting young people including lack of affordable housing, crime and university fees.

It is right that abortion is regulated, but this is not a matter for the criminal justice system. I co-sponsored the Bill put forward by Diana Johnson MP to decriminalise abortion and am pleased that today MPs voted by 172 votes to 142 in favour of it passing to Second Reading. The Bill is backed by a range of women's rights groups, reproductive rights campaigners and professional bodies, including:

• Royal College of Midwives

• Women’s Aid

• Fawcett Society

• Maternity Action

• the British Society of Abortion Care Providers

• Birthrights

• Lawyers for Choice

• End Violence Against Women

• Equality Now

• IPPF European Network

• Voice for Choice

• Southall Black Sisters

• Alliance for Choice NI

• Doctors for a Woman’s Choice on Abortion.

The Current Law on Abortion 

Since the 1967 Abortion Act, women have been able to access legal abortions under a limited range of conditions, provided that two doctors’ confirm that the conditions are met and the woman attends a registered abortion clinic. The conditions for obtaining an abortion up to 24 weeks and beyond 24 weeks are set out below:

• Up to 24 weeks, women can obtain an abortion on the basis that “the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family.” 

• Beyond 24 weeks, women can only obtain an abortion if they satisfy one of three conditions: that the termination is necessary to prevent “grave permanent injury” to the woman’s physical or mental health; that it would pose a “risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated”; or that there is a “substantial risk” that the child would be born “seriously handicapped.”

However, abortion remains a criminal act – both for the woman who has an abortion and anyone who helps her to have an abortion – under Sections 58-59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and other legislation, unless explicitly exempted by the provisions of the 1967 Act. The law states that any woman who procures her own miscarriage could be punished by up to life imprisonment – the harshest criminal penalty of any country in Europe.

I share Diana Johnson MP’s concerns about the impact of the law on vulnerable women who may be in a time of intense private trauma.  For example, women in domestic abuse situations, who may be too scared or unable to visit a clinic, are breaking the law if they procure their own miscarriage.

The Proposal to Decriminalise

This Bill does not propose to do away with existing safeguards. Following decriminalisation, abortion would continue to be subject to a significant body of Parliamentary regulation and robust professional standards, which would ensure that services are safe and operate to appropriate ethical standards. This is a much better way to ensure that women are able to access safe abortion services rather than using the criminal law against women and doctors.

There are examples of a range of countries that have already decriminalised abortion, e.g. Canada and there is no evidence that this has led to a rise in late-term abortions. The same is the case in the United States ever since a Supreme Court judgement in 1973. When Trump suggested that women should be punished for having an abortion last year, he backtracked on his claims after criticism from fellow Republicans and even anti-abortion campaign groups.

Maintaining Necessary Safeguards

• This Bill will not remove the current 24-week time limit. With decriminalisation, women will only be able to obtain abortions beyond 24 weeks’ under the same circumstances as now. Professional bodies will have responsibility for enforcing these rules. 

• As now, only properly-trained health professionals, operating to high standards of clinical safety, would be legally able to carry out abortions. Their conduct should be underpinned by a robust code set by their professional bodies, and any cases of malpractice, as now, would be dealt with by these bodies.  

• On top of these disciplinary rules, there are already a range of laws that protect women from unscrupulous practitioners – from Acts prohibiting unlicensed doctors from operating, to legislation criminalising the selling of prescription-only drugs without a prescription. 

• The current law is clear that no woman can have an abortion on the grounds of the gender of the child. With decriminalisation, professional bodies will continue to prohibit this as a grounds for an abortion.

I will continue to back the Bill and monitor its progress through Parliament. The Second Reading is expected on 24 March 2017.

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 for schools like John Donne Primary equates to more than £400,000, or about 10 teachers. 

A group of local parents have formed the Southwark Parents Against Cuts to Education campaigning group. On 9 March they held a public forum at John Donne Primary School to organise against the Tory education cuts. I spoke at the meeting along with John Donne Heads Simon Wattam and Nick Tildesley, Cllr Victoria Mills, Southwark’s Cabinet Member for Children and Schools. Kevin Courtney who leads the National Union of Teachers. The hall was packed full of parents, teachers and local councillors, all united and determined to protect Southwark Schools.

Cutting funding for Southwark schools will be a huge backwards step, undoing the good progress they have made in recent years. Helen Hayes MP, Neil Coyle MP, Cllr Peter John OBE and I have written to the Education Secretary, Justine Greening MP protesting and we will be meeting the Schools Standards Minister Nick Gibbs ahead of the consultation closing on 22 March. Read our letter to the Education Secretary here and find out how to get involved in the campaign.

During the debate on the government’s bill to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, it quickly became clear that the residence rights of EU and EEA citizens in the UK would be one of the most significant subjects that would occupy both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

The moral and economic issues were considered in some detail by both houses. But one question has received rather less attention during the public debate: the legal position both of EU citizens in the UK and of UK citizens in the EU.

These matters were considered by the EU justice committee in the House of Lords and the committee that I chair, the joint committee on human rights (JCHR). In a report published in December 2016, the JCHR noted that if the government tried to negotiate over their residence rights, many EU nationals would be able to go to our courts and seek to establish their rights to remain under article 8 of the European convention on human rights (the right to respect for home and private and family life). Such cases could arise in the unlikely circumstances that the government sought to deport EU nationals in the UK. One could also envisage legal challenges by individuals if the government refused to grant a continuation of their current residence rights post-Brexit. If even a small percentage of the individuals affected launched legal proceedings, this would amount to thousands of cases. This would impose an enormous strain on our court system.

I tabled an amendment on the subject of EU residence rights, which was debated in the Commons, but eventually defeated by the government. However, the Commons now has the opportunity to return to this important question as the Lords has passed an amendment to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) bill to require ministers to bring forward proposals, within three months of notifying the EU of the UK’s intention to withdraw, to guarantee the EU-derived rights (including residency rights) of EU and EEA citizens who are legally resident in the United Kingdom. I welcome this amendment, which should provide the unilateral guarantee recommended by the JCHR.

During the course of the debate in the Lords, Lord Woolf, a distinguished former lord chief justice and current member of the JCHR, made the legal point on residence rights very clearly. He observed: “We are dealing here with residents in this jurisdiction who at present have the right to go to the European court of human rights. We are also dealing with residents in the rest of the European community who also have that right. The present situation in this country is a matter to be dealt with by parliament and not by the courts. I strongly urge us not to force people to seek to go to the courts, as they could in this situation in this jurisdiction.”

Although the government has raised concerns about UK residents in the EU, they too benefit from rights under the European convention on human rights, so it would not be a straightforward matter for EU states to interfere with their residence rights post-Brexit.

People should be entitled to regulate their affairs in accordance with the law that exists when they make decisions

As the Conservative peer Viscount Hailsham QC noted in the debate, for EU citizens who moved to the UK prior to the referendum their decision accorded with the law that existed then and accords with the law that still exists today. If the UK sought to interfere with their rights, that could effectively involve an act of retrospective legislation.

I agree with Hailsham that, as a matter of general principle, legislation and policies that are retrospective in their operation should be avoided. Individuals should be entitled to regulate their affairs in accordance with the law that exists at the time they make their decisions. As he said, to depart from that principle would expose all of us to risk to our freedoms and our ability to make safe choices.

The bill returns to the House of Commons for its final reading next week; I would urge the prime minister not to seek to overturn the residence rights amendment. This would only prolong the uncertainty for the approximately three million EU citizens who make such an important contribution to our country.

You can view the original article as it appears on The Guardian website 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, 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.