Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

There is evidence that changes by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to the electronic communications code are making it more complicated, although not impossible, for churches and other community buildings to be used to address shortcomings in the roll-out of digital infrastructure. We should work together and go and lobby DCMS to tackle the unintended consequences of the changes in that communications code.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Lady will be aware of the growing controversy over 5G and of those who worry about its installation. It would be quite wrong if the Church was brought into those arguments in such a way that an unfair burden was put on it.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to join the lobbying party, because this is one more aspect that needs to be seriously looked into. There are gaps in provision under 4G, and the worst possible thing would be for the digital divide to continue or get worse as we move to 5G technology, so I think we should seek an early meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I do agree. In fact, one of the key points of the Church of England’s submission is that there needs to be a joined-up approach more widely, right across Government, to the challenges of keeping freedom of religion and belief. That is why, with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), I visited the former Minister who was jointly responsible at DFID and the Foreign Office to make sure that civil servants receive the right kind of training so that they really understand the threats that persecuted religious minorities face.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Lady will be very aware of the situation in Sudan at the moment, with such a complex outcome following the removal of Bashir. Will she urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to look at the possibility of an early visit there to make sure that Christians in Sudan are protected?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

This allows me to share with the House a bit of good news on a rather serious and depressing subject, which is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, together with Pope Francis, brokered a meeting in Rome of the key players from the Sudanese conflict zone. Those talks made really significant progress in bringing about peace in countries where a war has claimed over 400,000 lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I can give the hon. Gentleman reassurance, and I sympathise with his concern for Asia Bibi. The information we have is that we need to be extremely careful that we do not exacerbate risks to Asia Bibi and her family. The Prime Minister answered a question during PMQs about what the Foreign Office is doing and confirmed that the UK is in conversations with other Governments, including the Government of Pakistan, on how to make Asia and her family safe.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

We had an excellent debate this week on Nigeria, initiated by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Will the right hon. Lady urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to visit another bedevilled part of the world, South Sudan? Although it is a Christian country, many Christians are being persecuted there.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

The Archbishop of Canterbury is very alive to the situation in South Sudan. Every well-read Christian Member of Parliament surely must be. In my tenure as shadow International Development Secretary, I went to southern Sudan, and it is probably one of the most distressing places I have ever visited. The women there told me they had very little confidence of peace being secured, because they fear their men just like to fight.

Fireworks: Public Sales

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Monday 26th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones); her speech covered so much that we do not need to say much at all, so I shall try to keep my remarks brief.

The current regulations effectively cover five areas: restrictions on the periods of the year when fireworks can be used; restrictions on the times of day when they can be let off; the definition of a public place where they may be let off; categories of fireworks available for purchase by the public; and restrictions on the age below which an individual is not allowed to possess a firework in a public place. It is my contention that apart from the fourth of those—we banned bangers and jumping jacks—we have not done very well on the other regulations. I welcome the Minister to her place and hope that she has the measure of what the debate is about. She is a fair person, and I know she will be thinking hard about what she is going to say.

In the major debate on the previous e-petition, on 29 January, the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), argued:

“Even in this debate, in which the same concerns have been raised consistently in almost every speech, there has been a difference of opinion about how we should tackle the issue. Some advocate an outright ban, some want a consultation and some want tighter legislation. It is for the Government to consider all those arguments in the round, form an opinion and ensure that the legislation meets those challenges.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 259WH.]

I take that as reasonably optimistic. The trouble is that nothing has really happened since the beginning of the year, and we are now at the end of it, so I hope the Minister can make some more positive noises.

None of us, I think, has argued for an outright ban; but we are of one mind that the restrictions are not working, and that they must be revisited. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) has left the Chamber, I shall give my pet story, because everyone else has. I have a cat called Scamp, a waif and stray who just arrived one day, so I looked after him. Two things completely faze him. One is the sight of a black plastic bag. It horrifies me to think what someone did to him. The second is fireworks. He disappears through the catflap as quickly as you could see a cat disappear, and we will not see him for two or three hours. He is petrified. Something and someone somewhere have done things to him that we just have to clear from the mind. That is an animal story, but so much of this is about animals, because they are our nearest and dearest and we must take notice of how they are affected. Funnily enough, I met the National Farmers Union today, and said, “What’s the NFU’s view on this?”, to which the NFU, as always, said, “We haven’t got an official view, but if you want to know my personal view, it’s terrifying for many animals.”

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Unfortunately, due to the Prime Minister’s statement I could not be here at the beginning of the debate, so somebody may already have raised the plight of horses, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the horse I will say for the record that already this year there have been 42 firework-related incidents that have affected horses, resulting in two being killed and 20 injured. I particularly wanted to speak in this debate because what is missing in that statistic is, for example, what happened in my constituency over the period of bonfire night, where two mares aborted their foals. Sadly, they will not appear in the statistics because they are unborn. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to look at tightening the regulations to try to make the animals safe.

[Dr Drew]

I totally agree with the right hon. Lady. When I say wildlife, I mean livestock, but we are talking about wildlife as well, because of course it is also affected.

Although the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) talked about the issues surrounding a total ban and although a ban was intimated in the petition, in the speeches so far no one has argued for that. We are just arguing for tighter regulation and an increasing emphasis on official firework displays, rather than what is happening, with people still letting off fireworks at the wrong time, in the wrong place and often gratuitously, ignoring the impact on other people.

In terms of the five questions about how we regulate, doing so at the point of sale is clearly not working, because too many people obtain fireworks for the wrong purposes and misuse them. We will have to look at that. We have the 2003 Act, which has been mentioned; that was updated by the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015, to which the Minister will no doubt also refer. We have heard in great detail about the number of accidents and some of the real problems with fires, arson attacks and deliberate violence against people and property. I am told by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that 45% of dogs in the UK are fearful when they hear fireworks—I am not sure who has asked them, but from their response we can be pretty sure that they are suffering.

We must find a way of working around the traditional festivals, but, as a number of hon. Members have said, 5 November is a date. It is not a week or a whole series of events. There are official firework displays, but we can accommodate them, because we can tell people and warn them when they are going to take place. Outside those important dates, there should be no use of fireworks. I am afraid we are moving toward people not having private use of fireworks, just because if they choose to act irresponsibly they are damaging things for everyone else. We are also talking about bringing decibel levels down, certainly below 120 dB. Some say it should be well below the human pain threshold, which I gather is 97 dB. That also needs to be considered.

Referring to the impact on pets and other animals, which is what most of us are talking about, there is unanimity now among the animal welfare charities that they want more action. They feel that whatever is in place is not working satisfactorily. Whether that is Dogs Trust, the RSPCA or Cats Protection, they are all of one mind and have one stated aim: to have the Government look at how they can at least enforce the regulations better and, dare I say, revisit those particular regulations.

I hope the Minister will say something about what she intends to do, because it is important we hear that today. Otherwise, another year has slipped by with apparently no action. We all know that we get regular complaints about this issue, and if we are not seen to be doing anything about it, people will think that we are not really that effective—so for all our sakes, I hope the Minister will make us more effective.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

Whatever one’s views on marriage, everyone should be equal before the law and, of course, I would argue, equal in God’s sight. The Church of England agrees that no one should suffer discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of age, race, gender, sexuality or any other personal characteristic. I think that it is striking that the Supreme Court found that there was no discrimination in this case, but instead found that the key issue was the right to freedom of expression.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

What additional measures does the Church intend to try to put in place to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to visit a place of worship on their preferred day?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman to know that yesterday the Archbishop of Canterbury made a speech in the House of Lords about religious tolerance. The Church has consistently made the case that people should be able to worship unimpeded in this country according to their faith. The Archbishop said something very telling; he said that society needs to learn how to disagree well and that we need a society where rich beliefs and traditions can rub up against each other and against secular ideology in mutual challenge and respect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

There are no barriers to women becoming ordinands in the Church of England. As I have just explained, there has been a sharp increase in the number of women coming into ministry, and the overall number of ordinands entering training has increased by 14% over the past two years. The number of women under the age of 32 entering training has actually increased by 27%, which shows that it is an increasingly attractive vocation for younger women who look forward to a career in the Church as a female priest.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but will she also consider the impact of the number of churches that new ordinands have to look after? It is a real worry, given the pressure we are putting on these poor people, particularly if they are not full time, in order to carry out their ministry.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

It is obviously a pressure for male and female priests, who might find themselves in charge of eight or 10 very small, rural ministries. The Church has looked at how sustainable that is, and the status of some churches has been changed to that of festival churches, which are open only on the high days and holy days of Christmas and Easter, to try to ensure that the workload is sustainable. It is something the Church Commissioners have very much in mind, alongside training more ordinands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

There is no substitute for a first-hand account. I know that my hon. Friend is knowledgeable about the work that the Anglican Church does with all communities in Israel. I hope that, one day, in the not too distant future, I shall get the chance to go to see this for myself, perhaps with some colleagues who have also not had the opportunity to visit the holy land.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

Earlier this year, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was shut to visitors because of some pressure that the Israeli authorities were putting on because of land changes. Will the right hon. Lady make sure that, through her dialogue with our Church, she talks to the Israeli authorities to make sure that that church is kept open, because visitors want to visit it?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

When the Dean of Jerusalem came to visit parliamentarians in both Houses, he explained in great detail the political background to what is going on. If I share with the House that this gentleman is a Christian Israeli, and actually no less than the son of a carpenter from Nazareth, perhaps Members will see that there was no person better qualified to explain to us, as British parliamentarians, just how complicated the situation is in Jerusalem. I think we have to trust the people who really understand this well to try to work through to peaceful solutions for that part of the world.

Internally Displaced People

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

My own experience of visits to South Sudan is that IDPs get the worst treatment. They stayed within the country, which means that the SPLA—the Sudan People’s Liberation Army—does not trust them, because it organises the refugees. The SPLA blamed the people who remained in the south for being part of the regime of the north, and out of everybody they got the worst treatment.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman’s point will be made over and over again. One of the long-standing principles of international development is that, as far as possible, assistance should be given in the region so that people can remain in the region and rebuild war-torn places. However, when it comes to IDPs, that principle meets with the most incredible difficulties, and that problem must not be underestimated in any way.

The pictures that we see of both Syria and Iraq—sadly, those of us who have been to the conflict zone in Sudan will have seen similar things—show that when IDPs return to their homes, those homes are nothing more than a pile of rubble. Debris fills the streets and makes it difficult to navigate through the communities that IDPs used to live in. Sadly, uncleared and unexploded ordnance can cost lives, and certainly limbs, among those who return to these areas. They remain a very dangerous environment to return to.

The Government of Iraq and the UN agencies are working hard to try to make these areas safe, but given the level of destruction in a place such as Mosul and the high risk of unexploded devices, it cannot happen all that quickly. People are being secondarily displaced by the lengthy clean-up operation; on their return, they find that they cannot stay, and they are displaced all over again to camps or host communities while they wait for the area to be made safe so that they can return and start to rebuild something that looks a bit like normality. In January and February of this year, more than 23,000 people in Iraq were secondarily displaced to IDP camps.

Even for the IDPs who can make the journey home, and whose houses have not been destroyed, their return is often far from straightforward. They often encounter disputes over property; it is a common problem. Often, they are unable to provide the necessary documentation, and the relevant authorities are so overwhelmed by trying to resolve the large number of land rights disputes that many IDPs remain unable to return. Property disputes are an issue shared by refugees returning from other countries in which they have sought refuge, but because IDPs have not crossed an international border, their status is not as clear cut. These issues are therefore more hidden and more complex.

I want to touch on the plight of women and girls as IDPs. In the 100th year of our hard-fought battle for women’s suffrage in the UK, it is entirely appropriate to dwell for a moment on how women are disproportionately affected by internal displacement. They are at greater risk of sexual violence and trafficking. Girls suffer higher levels of early marriage. In many contexts, women have weaker property rights than men, or no property rights. Those things make returning or seeking compensation for land losses even further beyond their reach. For displaced women, even simple activities such as going to fetch firewood or water can see them fall victim to physical or sexual attack.

It is important to note that women often do not find personal security following displacement. Instead, they suffer violence as they flee and frequently continue to experience high levels of violence while living in displacement. I am sure Members will remember the haunting pictures of Yazidi women in the Upper Waiting Hall. They reminded us all, in their brief life stories, of what they have had to cope with. Estimates suggest that at least one in five women IDPs have experienced sexual violence in displacement. In South Sudan’s IDP camps, UN investigators found that 70% of women had been raped, typically by soldiers and police officers. The one place where a woman is hoping to find safe refuge can turn out to be a dangerous environment for her to reside in. Given the great work that the Government have been doing to support women and girls in developing countries, I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could assure me that IDPs are firmly on the Government’s radar. Given the sheer number of IDPs today—there are more than 40 million globally—we must take steps.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

My hon. Friend is doing a good job of demonstrating to the whole House the difference it can make when we, as Members of Parliament, make our constituents in not spots aware of this new agreement. If Members have churches with tall towers or spires, these can be used to bounce the broadband signal into existing not spots. The example, on International Women’s Day, of the church he refers to gives encouragement to all. I know that the Isle of Purbeck suffers from poorer coverage, and I would encourage him to get the churches in his constituency to apply too.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but will she include in the work that the Church is doing churches that have been closed? They are often in the most rural and isolated areas, and their status is sometimes unclear. This could be a very important way in which we could make use of these buildings.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

The Church of England has put its entire assets at the disposal of the Government to help crack the problem of the not spots—that includes its churches, its schools and its land, where necessary. For example, we can beam a signal from a church spire to the brow of a hill—the land may belong to the Church—down into the next village, which does not have a signal, and thereby get coverage. Those assets are all bound up in this accord.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

The hon. Gentleman has always been assiduous in asking about gender balance. I am delighted to be able to say that the intake of female ordinands has seen an increase of 19% compared with last year. Although women make up only a third of the fully ordained clergy in place at the moment, we are moving, like other professions, towards 50:50.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the diocese of Gloucester it would seem that as soon as we fill one vacancy, another arises. Bishop Rachel is working very hard, but the situation can be sorted only if we bring more people forward for training. What is the Church of England doing to enable that to happen?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

We celebrated the introduction of Bishop Rachel as the first female bishop following the change in the law. We now have a female bishop for Newcastle sitting in the Lords, and very recently a female bishop for London was appointed. There is clear evidence of progress, and there is a method of positive discrimination whereby dioceses eligible to be represented in the Lords are encouraged to appoint a woman so that the Lords moves towards better representation of female bishops.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

I ask myself the very same question. There have been several attempts and undertakings, including by the previous Labour Government in 2002. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to do everything they can to make sure that we achieve this change in the law and give fair wind to the Registration of Marriage (No. 2) Bill.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to hear what the right hon. Lady has to say. Will she also talk to the Church about making it easier for people to get married in church and, indeed, to have their children baptised? That would be real equality.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

When answering that question on previous occasions, I have given examples of how churches reach out to the surrounding community so that the thought of getting married is not intimidating. It does not need to be expensive, either—getting married in church is probably the least part of what it actually costs to put on a wedding. I can point the hon. Gentleman towards our materials to encourage people to get married in church.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Drew and Caroline Spelman

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that food banks in Stroud are run largely through the churches, but they are under huge pressure due to the number of volunteers they need and the amount of food that they have to collect. Will she have a word with the Government about the sanctions regime, which is one of the major causes of the increase in food bank usage?

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

As Members of Parliament, it is important that we address the underlying causes. I had a letter from the Trussell Trust just last month, which said that people

“may be reassured to hear that, on average people are only referred to Trussell Trust foodbanks two times in a 12-month period”,

and that the model is

“designed to help people in a crisis”.

As Members, we need to address the nature of the crises that make it necessary for people to get help.