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.

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?

Brayards Estate Tenants and Residents Association Community Hall was the venue for the Brayards Estate coffee morning.  Many thanks to TRA Chair Lorraine Beck for arranging the venue and for all her hard work as Chair.

30 tenants and residents attended to talk about the issues that affect them most ranging from housing and immigration to anti-social behaviour and air/noise pollution.

Local Nunhead Councillors Fiona Colley, Sunil Chopra and Sandra Rhule, representatives from the Nunhead Safer Neighbourhood Team and representatives from Southwark Council also joined us to listen to tenants and residents’ concerns.