Child Prisoners and Detainees: Occupied Palestinian Territories

Debate between Diana Johnson and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Diana Johnson]

I want to come on to deal with the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. I think that every Member—[Interruption.]

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Up until now we have had mutual respect, and I think that should continue.

[Diana Johnson]

I think that every Member of this House would agree that the involvement of children in conflict is absolutely wrong. Before I go on to deal with some of the specific issues around the Israeli response to Palestinian child prisoners, I want to refer to the 2005 assertion from Amnesty International:

“Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly shown total disregard for the most fundamental human rights, notably the right to life, by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and by using Palestinian children in armed attacks. Children are susceptible to recruitment by manipulation or may be driven to join armed groups for a variety of reasons, including a desire to avenge relatives or friends killed by the Israeli army.”

Moving on to the issue before us today—the treatment of child prisoners—in 2012 the Government convened a group of eminent lawyers with expertise in human rights and child welfare to investigate what was going on. I commend the Government for doing that and I commend all the lawyers involved, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Baroness Scotland. The report concluded that Israel’s treatment of Palestinian child prisoners amounted to a series of breaches of the rights of the child, including article 2 on discrimination and article 3 on the child’s best interests. More concerning still, the lawyers encountered significant evidence that Israel may be in breach of the general prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The following year, in March 2013, UNICEF released a report, “Children in Israeli Military Detention”, which prompted the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to express,

“its deepest concern about the reported practice of torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian children arrested, prosecuted and detained by the military and the police, and about the State party’s failure to end these practices in spite of repeated concerns expressed by treaty bodies, special procedures mandate holders and United Nations agencies”.

UNICEF made 38 recommendations to improve the treatment of child detainees. Many of these overlapped with the 40 recommendations from the UK legal delegation, which covered the five clear areas of arrest, interrogation, bail hearings, sentencing and the investigation of complaints. Those were all important recommendations. In response, there have been a few welcome military orders issued by the IDF, including military order 1711, which reduces the time a Palestinian child can be detained prior to appearing before a military court judge, and military order 1745, which requires interrogations to be conducted in a language the child can understand, and to be recorded. However, this order does not apply if a child is suspected of committing a security offence such as throwing stones, and that is of concern.

A 2014 UNICEF working group on grave violations against children gathered 208 statements from detained children and found that, among other things, 171 reported being subject to physical violence and 144 reported being subject to verbal abuse. Of the 38 recommendations made by UNICEF in March 2013, only five were deemed to have been addressed by March 2015, although 15 were partially addressed and 14 were under discussion. It is important to note that Israel has rejected only one recommendation outright. The British Government need to do much more to hold the Israeli Government to account in terms of what they are doing to meet the recommendations that have been made.

In a recent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), it looked as though there was little tangible progress in implementing the recommendations that have been set out. Nor can I say there is much evidence that the Government are prioritising the issue. Although I welcome the efforts of our ambassador in Tel Aviv to raise the issue, I think Ministers can do far more. In conclusion—

Legal Highs

Debate between Diana Johnson and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Online sale of these substances is worrying. Just this morning I read a description of a drug on pills4party.com:

“DEX powder–new generation of legal high”

produces a

“pure dose of euphoric energy and keeps you charged for all night long. DEX powder is perfect alternative to cocaine that gives you more than the Snowman Experience without any hassles.”

I am sure, Mr Chope, that you are fully aware of what the snowman experience is, although many of us find that rather baffling. That shows how these substances are being marketed for consumption by young people. Nobody can be under any illusion that they are not being marketed as recreational drugs. I have heard of internet sellers sending out free samples of new drugs that have emerged on the market. It seems to me that they are treating our children as guinea pigs.

Until a little while ago, Amazon was selling legal highs on its site, but due to work by the Angelus Foundation I think that it has removed them. Many local authorities have attempted to use trading standards legislation to close head shops down where there is a problem, but such attempts are rarely successful. Indeed, last year a prosecution was thrown out by the judge, who, although sympathetic to the need to close such shops down, said that the legislation simply was not fit for purpose.

One idea, which was used in Leeds, involved solvent legislation, but of course that applies only to selling solvents to someone who is under 18. By extending the solvents legislation, as has been done successfully in Ireland, we could give local authorities the powers they need to close head shops down. I should be grateful if the Minister said what he thought of that idea, which was proposed in an amendment tabled by the Opposition to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. The Government saw fit not to support that amendment.

I was struck by the menu of ways to tackle the problem that the hon. Member for South Swindon proposed. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of those ideas.

My final point, which I have raised in many debates, is that there should be a proper drugs prevention strategy. The lack of one is the Government’s biggest failure. Legal highs have emerged as a new phenomenon, and the Government have done little to tackle the myths that have allowed those substances to take hold in the past few years. Even after a number of deaths, and the horror stories that we have read about and heard about today, some people still think that “legal” means “safe”. That misconception needs to be tackled head-on.

The Minister will claim to have invested in relaunching the Frank website and even to have launched a public awareness campaign last year, but it was too little, too late. In four years, just £67,000 has been spent on a one-off, limited campaign that generated just 75,000 web page views. That is feeble, when we consider that more than 650,000 young people have tried these substances.

Mr Chope, can I just check that the time for this debate has been extended to 4.15 pm?

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

For the avoidance of doubt, it continues until 4.14 pm.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful, Mr Chope. I did not want to eat into the time available to the Minister.

I pay tribute to the Angelus Foundation, which has done its best to get educational materials into schools and communities. It feels frustrated that the Government have not taken up the mantle on education in schools, in particular, which I think most hon. Members would think is important. Will the Minister talk to Public Health England, which also has a job to do in getting a message out?

A two-pronged approach is needed on prevention and education in schools, giving children the life skills they need. I know that it has been a long-standing commitment of the Liberal Democrats to have compulsory personal, social and health education in schools and, as a Liberal Democrat Minister in the coalition, I hope the Minister might be able to persuade the Education Secretary that that is a good idea.

Those are the four points that I want the Minister to address. I look forward to the review being published shortly, so that we can finally have a policy that gets to grips with this dreadful problem, which is growing and developing in all our constituencies.

Tribunals (Maximum Compensation Awards) Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Christopher Chope

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I am sure that I could have included it in the Bill, but it is implicit that having a lower maximum figure in the case of unfair dismissal and an absolute maximum figure—there is no maximum figure at present—in the case of discrimination cases will reduce the bargaining power in a situation such as that my hon. Friend outlined. He described it as blackmail. We know that companies can sometimes be threatened with being taken to a tribunal and subject to all sorts of allegations it will find difficult to answer, so they pay up to an aggrieved ex-employee.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to look at the employment tribunal annual reports for 2007-08 to 2009-10. They set out the median compensation awarded in race, sex and disability discrimination cases. In 2009-10, the median for race discrimination was £5,392 and for sex discrimination it was £6,275, which are well short of the millions referred to in MailOnline.

[Mr Chope]

Obviously I cannot quarrel with the statistics that the hon. Lady quotes, but the issue is causing the coalition Government concern. That is why on 11 May the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announced that the Government would look in detail at the case for reforming compensation for discrimination:

“Compensation levels for cases of discrimination are unlimited and employers worry that high awards may encourage people to take weak, speculative or vexatious cases in the hope of a large payout. This can lead to employers settling such cases before they reach a Tribunal.”

The Government therefore seem to think that there is a problem.

I see my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration on the Front Bench—we could have done with his wisdom on asylum cases in the previous debate. I hope he will be able to bring some of that wisdom to bear on this subject in particular, as I had the opportunity to talk to an official from his Department who said that the Government were carrying out a review of the subject. The point that I made to my hon. Friend’s official was that that is all very well, but how will it deal with the rulings in the European Court of Justice. In the ECJ case Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2) (1993) IRLR 445, the court decided that the cap that had previously been put on discrimination compensation did not provide an adequate remedy under European Community law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I stand to oppose the Bill. There was little hard evidence in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for the Bill. The evidence available from employment tribunals on the levels of compensatory awards shows that they are nothing like the figures that he gave. Of course, there have been some high-profile cases in the papers, but the compensation awarded in the vast majority of tribunal cases is less than £10,000.

The Bill intends to limit compensation in wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal and discrimination tribunal cases. Most people recognise that it is important to have employment regulation that is fair and treats employees properly. The Opposition do not believe that setting the arbitrary figure in the Bill of £50,000 as the maximum that can be awarded in compensation, without having a wider debate about the employment, legal and equalities issues, is the proper way to set employment policy. Issues such as compensation, fines and penalties for health and safety, rights on leave and dismissal, and many others should be dealt with in a far more integrated way.

As a constituency MP, I saw the Hull trawlermen suffer hugely from not having proper employment rights; they had no redundancy rights and had to fight for pensions. I am therefore very aware of the need for good, clear employment protection legislation. When I worked in law centres before I entered the House, I often acted for people who found themselves in great difficulties with employers who had not treated them fairly and properly.

Of course, before 1997, to get unfair dismissal protection one had to be in employment for two years and there was no statutory right to annual paid leave unless it was in one’s contract. From 1997, the Labour Government opted into the social chapter, brought in the right to paid annual leave, reduced the period for unfair dismissal protection to one year, brought in the statutory right to paternity leave and improved maternity leave. It would be a retrograde step to start to unpick the straightforward and basic employment protection rights we now have in this country.

I will return to the compensation levels that I referred to in my intervention. When we make laws in this country, we must do so based on evidence and consider carefully what that evidence shows. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Christchurch, £4,903 was the median award in 2009-10 for unfair dismissal claims in tribunals. That is nowhere near the millions that he talked about.

[Mr Chope]

My Bill does not talk about medians, but would limit the excessive awards. She will be aware of a disability discrimination award of £729,347. My Bill would prevent that from happening again.