Election of Speaker

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

These are difficult, even dangerous times for our parliamentary democracy. The country is divided and the House is divided. The public view of this House is at an all-time low. Too often, this Chamber descends into shouting and abuse. Relations between this House and the Government are broken. Many of us work under a hail of threats of violence—against us, our families and our staff. So Members’ choice of the next Speaker is really important.

I know that the House wants a Speaker who will be, and who will be seen to be, scrupulously impartial and fair to every MP from every party. When I was Leader of the House, I was exactly that. But it is not just about being fair; it is about perception. We cannot go on with huge decisions being made by one person, behind closed doors. I would reform the Speaker’s powers to make them transparent and accountable to this House, and I would be fearless in standing up for the rights of the House.

I know that the House wants a Speaker who understands what it is to be a Government Back Bencher and an Opposition Back Bencher, and a Government Minister and a shadow Minister, and I have been all those things. My guiding principle would be that all constituencies are equal and, because of that, all Members are equal and owed equal respect. So as Speaker, I would regard it as my responsibility to help you wherever you are in the House, and however long you have been here, to be the best that you can be.

One thing that I have not been is a member of one of our minority parties. That is why, if I were Speaker, I would want a fourth deputy in my team, drawn from the members of the minority parties, so I would have that perspective right at my side.

I know you want a Speaker who will help Parliament change with the times. I have fought for and won reform: making our Select Committees powerful and independent by giving us the right to elect the Chairs rather than their being appointed by the Whips—I did that when I was Leader of the House; setting up the Backbench Business Committee so that we can choose the subject of debates—I did that, too, as Leader of the House; changing the voting system for election of Speaker to make it by secret ballot—I hope that that was a good idea; and just this year, by working with Members across parties, getting the right for new mothers and fathers to vote by proxy when your baby is born.

I am running for Speaker in these difficult times because I have unparalleled experience and an unparalleled record of reform of this House, but there is one other reason I want your vote. Parliament has changed. It is nothing like the old boys’ network it was when I first came in—when I was one of only 3% women Members among 97% men. Now, there are 211 women in every party in the House, and men here who speak up for women’s rights, too, but, in 600 years, there has only ever been one woman Speaker. I do not actually agree with making reference to the Gallery, but I will break with precedent here and pay tribute to Betty Boothroyd. So, in 600 years, there has only ever been one woman. There have been 156 men. This is my question to the House today: can we show the country that we have changed by putting the second woman in that Speaker’s Chair?

[Dame Eleanor Laing]

Hear! Hear!—[Laughter.]

[Ms Harman]

Many of you are standing down—some after only a short time here, and that should concern us all. I want to thank all of you who have served in this House and to say to all of you who are standing down that I wish you well for the future. Some are standing down after decades here, and that brings me to the Father of the House, Ken Clarke. Ken, you have been a phenomenal, exemplary parliamentarian, and I just wanted to say that and to thank you.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much, Ms Harman. I am genuinely grateful. I have no idea what voter appeal those very kind words addressed to me will have.

All of the candidates have now addressed the House. In a moment, I will declare the ballot open. Before I do, I have to give a clear explanation of the process, which is not actually familiar to any of us. First, Members with surnames beginning with the letters A to K inclusive should vote in the Aye Lobby. Members with surnames beginning with the letters L to Z should vote in the No Lobby. Please enter the Lobbies by the main entrances as the side doors will be locked. When you enter the Lobbies, please give your name to the Clerk at the appropriate desk for the letter of your surname. As usual, surnames have been divided into three streams in each Lobby. When you pass the desk, you will be given a ballot paper. When you have completed it, please place it in one of the ballot boxes at the exit of the Lobby. That should be familiar. [Laughter.] I remind Members that they should vote only for one candidate. It is not a transferrable vote; it is an exclusive vote. The ballot will remain open for 20 minutes. I hope to announce the result of each ballot around 45 minutes after the closure of the ballot. [Interruption.] That, I think, is for counting and the printing of new ballot papers. The House will be alerted by the Annunciator before it is to resume, and Division bells will also be rung.

I declare the ballot open.

Prime Minister's Role in Creating a Safe Environment

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Having called the Father of the House, I want now to call the Mother of the House.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for bringing forward this urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for your comments last night and your comments from the Chair this morning. I agree with everything the Father of the House said. I think that what happened last night was just an ugly spectacle of things that have been happening for months and months getting even worse. We all know that hon. Members from all parts of the House have felt inhibited in doing the work that they are elected to this place to do. It is important—it is essential—that everybody who is elected to this House is able to speak out without fear or favour to say what they believe in. Nobody in this House should do anything that stops any other Member exercising that right. Whether it is threats to people who are remainers or people in balaclavas bursting into a university meeting that was being addressed by the Leader of the House, we cannot allow it in our democracy. Nor can we have a situation where Members are fearful not only for themselves and their own safety, but for their staff and their families.

The Minister has mentioned a number of initiatives. Heaven knows, we have had enough discussion and wringing our hands about these problems over the months in this Chamber. We have had a number of initiatives, but there is a lack of coherence and focus for action. That is why the Father of the House and I have proposed a Speaker’s conference that brings together the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the House authorities and the parties to look at what can be done to ensure that we protect our democracy. It also needs to look at our political culture. We know, for example, that we cannot call each other blackguard, guttersnipe, stoolpigeon or various other things. We need rules of this House that are updated and that protect us and enable us to do our business today.

[Kevin Foster]

I reflect on the productive conversation that I had with the women’s caucus, when the Mother of the House was present. Again, people should be able to speak out. An example was given at that meeting of a female candidate being advised that a solution to the problem was to not campaign on social media. That completely unacceptable solution had been advised by a local council. That would mean that women could not engage in politics in the same way as men, which is completely unacceptable.

The rules of the House may be something you wish to reflect on, Mr Speaker, or that whoever happens to be elected by the House to replace you wishes to work on. Some of those expressions probably are not in common parlance today, by contrast to other statements that are. The Government’s focus is not just on Members of Parliament. This is about all who engages in public life—journalists who face abuse for what they say and others who just want to discharge a public duty or share their opinion in our democracy. We need to ensure that they are covered by any proposals as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, I call the Mother of the House, Harriet Harman.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

It is always a historic moment when a Prime Minister leaves office, especially when the country faces such difficult times ahead, as we do, but the right hon. Lady’s departure marks another milestone, because although we are on to our 77th Prime Minister now, she is only the second woman ever to have held that office. She made tackling human trafficking and the horrors of domestic violence a priority at the heart of her Government, and in that respect her legacy is secure, because everyone in this House backs that work and we will all be committed to taking it forward.

Even the Prime Minister’s harshest critics must recognise her integrity, her commitment to public service and her dedication to this country. Those are qualities that none of us should ever take for granted, but may I offer her a word of sisterly advice? Sometimes, you just have to be a bit more careful when a man wants to hold your hand. I thank her for her service as our Prime Minister, and I sincerely wish her all the very best for the future.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her question. She joined this House in 1982 when there was a female Prime Minister, but there were very few other women in this House. She has played a very important role—one of which she can be proud—in ensuring that more women come into this House as Labour Members of Parliament. She started something that began to change the face of this House, which has been very important. I came here in 1997 as one of only 13 Conservative women—indeed, one Labour Member of Parliament approached me to encourage me to sign a private Member’s Bill list because he assumed that, as a woman, I must have been a Labour Member of Parliament. I am also proud to have played my part in getting more women MPs in this House. I am sure that among the women in this House today there is a future Prime Minister—perhaps more than one.

Later today, as I said earlier, I will return to the Back Benches. It will be my first time on the Back Benches in 21 years, so it will be quite a change from standing here at the Dispatch Box. I am told that over the past three years I have answered more than 4,500 questions over 140 hours in this House—more than I might have expected. In future, I look forward to asking the questions. We are, as the right hon. and learned Lady says, living through extraordinary political times. This House of Commons is rightly at the centre of those events, and that is because of the vital link between every single Member of this House and the communities—the commons—that we represent. That is the bedrock of our parliamentary democracy and of our liberty, and each one of us, wherever we sit and whatever we stand for, can take pride in that. That duty to serve my constituents will remain my greatest motivation. [Applause.]

Intimidation in Public Life

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

As I said, this behaviour strengthens people’s resolve as much as anything. On the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, the accusation that is bandied around that people are traitors is the most ridiculous and absurd accusation that can be made. Whether people like it or not, democracy is being played out, in a rather old-fashioned and very visible way, in exactly the place it should be played out.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward for debate, and I acknowledge his consistent work on it over the years. I think we all agree fully with what he says, the propositions he puts forward and the context in which he places them. This is not just criminality against individuals; even more importantly than that, it is a fundamental attack on our democracy.

How does the hon. Gentleman think we should address this issue? Obviously, there are actions the Government need to take, and we know they are concerned, but in a way the issue is wider than that. It is an issue for all the parties and for the House as a whole, not just for the Government. What does he think about the mechanisms for taking action? One of the things I have considered—I do not know whether he thinks this is a good idea or whether he has an alternative proposal—is that we should have a Speaker’s conference on this issue. That would need the Government’s support. It would bring together the CPS, the police, the political parties—

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Harman]

Sorry, Sir Gary. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that might be a way to go beyond discussion and take action?

[Simon Hart]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for her intervention; I hope she is given a chance to finish off her comments. If she will forgive me, I will come to some of the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and how those might go some way towards finding solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. Some of the testimony we have heard from the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), whom I congratulate on bringing the debate to Westminster Hall, and others, has been truly shocking. I applaud colleagues who have stood up to this behaviour for their bravery.

The issue I wish to raise is not at all comparable, but it is pervasive and insidious: the bullying, harassment and intimidation of women MPs, often from within their own parties. It feeds into a culture of contempt for women that we see online and in other areas of our lives. At best, a blind eye is often turned to it. At worst, they are accused of provoking it, somehow, by being there. I have put up with this for my 22 years in Parliament and have never spoken about it until now. My mind has been changed by seeing some of my younger sisters going through the same thing. If someone like me, who has been here for a long time, does not call it out, who will? If not now, when?

Our problem is not in Parliament—I have had sterling support from both male and female colleagues over the years—but while we have changed the culture of this place and brought in more women, particularly in 1997 with that landmark election of 101 women MPs, we did not sufficiently tackle the culture in our own parties, where there are still people who believe that women do not belong in the public sphere and, if they are to be there at all, they are there to do as they are told.



That is the problem; I have seen it since I was selected. There were people in my constituency who did not want a woman MP. They considered the seat the rightful property of some favoured son. I have never come across a favoured daughter, by the way; it is always favoured sons. It started immediately. A man I had never met went on “Election Call” to denounce me. Untrue stories were fed to the press and I was labelled a militant, which at least gave my union colleagues a laugh because their nickname for me was “the hammer of the Trots”. I was accused of gaining the seat by some carefully unspecified chicanery, despite the fact I won on the first ballot and the count was supervised by the regional director of the party. One semi-literate bully even said that he was thinking of taking legal action; I responded that legal action cannot be taken simply because someone has more votes than their favoured candidate.

[Ms Harman]

And more brains.

[Helen Jones]

However, what did my party do? It invited these people in and recounted the ballot in front of them. You do not treat bullies in that way; if you keep paying the Danegeld, the Danes keep coming back.

After I was elected, I found that council officers had been given an instruction not to bother too much responding to my letters, because I would be a one-term-only candidate. That instruction could have come from only the leader or deputy leader of the council. Even worse, the officers accepted it, rather than saying it was an improper instruction, which it was. I found that my next-door neighbour was frequently invited to council events in my constituency, but I was not. Each time they apologised, and said it was a terrible mistake, but they kept doing it.

I discovered that there was a little clique in Warrington of the self-appointed great and good, who decided most things between them—usually with little reference to the people I represented—and if they were challenged they would react. I started doing mobile surgeries and found that people had been told not to contact me about their problem, because I was not any good. Through the years, I realised that there were more untrue stories leaked to the press—printed without checking, as in most local newspapers—from our friend, the senior source. A “wanted: dead or alive” poster with my picture on it was put through my door and I received a number of pretty vile anonymous letters, which were sent to me and to senior Ministers in the Government.

When I was shadow Minister with responsibility for local government finance, a particularly vile poison-pen letter was sent to leaders of local authorities. I am grateful for the support I received at the time from my colleagues in the shadow local government team. A similar thing was sent to anyone who had the temerity to come and do a fundraiser in my constituency.

By themselves, these events may seem slight; it is their cumulative effect that is the problem. They are not unique. If we are honest, there seems to be a problem with some male councillors who are used to being big fish in a little pond, and do not like having a woman MP. I know of several council leaders who deal with the male MPs in their borough, but not the woman. I know of one council leader who would not speak to a female MP in his borough, even if he were sitting in the station waiting room with her, waiting to go down to London.

In fact, I had a council leader who would not speak to me. Once, when I dragged him to a meeting, he sat in his chair tapping on the arm and refusing to engage. I know of one colleague who was shouted at for writing too many letters, which is known to the rest of us as doing our job on behalf of constituents. I know one colleague who was yelled at because she dared to suggest that the local MPs might convene a meeting on a particular local issue; apparently that was a threat to a councillor. I know of one woman who has been bullied almost beyond endurance by the men in her constituency; she has been shouted down at meetings, her campaigning has been sabotaged, and a group would not contribute funds to her general election campaign.

I know of instances where MPs’ relatives have been sacked by the council, under some spurious pretext. Each time one MP meets a certain councillor she is asked, “How’s your auntie?”, because he sacked her. I know of another MP who held a mobile surgery in a place where there had been very little work done in the past, only to have the councillor for the area ring up and say to her staff, without preamble, “Tell that effing bitch to keep out of my ward.” Was anything done to him? No; no action was taken against him at all.

I have an ex-parliamentary candidate in my area—not in my constituency—called Nick Bent. He is the outwardly respectable chief executive officer of a charity called the Tutor Trust and a trustee of the Oasis Academy. He has sent me so many abusive texts and emails that I have a thick file of them. Among his little gems—there are a lot—were calling me “poisonous and useless” and

“not fit to tie my bootlaces”,

not that I would want to. He usually says that I am going to be deselected:

“You should step down and make way. There are plenty of good candidates. After the election you will almost certainly be deselected, so it might be the only way to preserve a bit of dignity. Just some friendly advice.”

It does not seem very friendly to me, I have to say.

This man has not only abused me: he has abused my staff, my family and my constituency chair, who is well-respected in the area and has done a lot locally. Women councillors in his constituency have been on the receiving end of abusive emails and messages from him. He reduced a young woman organiser to tears during a general election. In 2016, I submitted a bullying and harassment complaint; I had been pretty patient for six years. What happened? It was mysteriously lost. I resubmitted it, but I am still waiting.

Last week, I learned that a whole cache of emails and letters, which are stolen data, have been selectively leaked to the local press. The leak is selective: they have put in the complaints that were made, but not the fact that they were dismissed. People like this constantly make complaints about women MPs; they are spurious, but they do it to try to grind them down. There are letters that I sent in reply, but not the original correspondence. I do not know who has done this, but I know why: it is payback, because I have been supporting constituents trying to defend the last green space in north Warrington from development, and because I have said that the local council was wrong to buy a business park through an offshore trust that meant it avoided paying tax. All these things are clear. They are meant to silence women MPs and to ensure that our voices are not heard in the public sphere at all. They are meant to prevent us from speaking, not for ourselves but for our constituents.

Why do we carry on doing it? In my view, we do it because my constituents deserve it—they deserve my standing up for them. They have returned me at six general elections, so I think I must be doing something right. We should never, ever accept this behaviour as normal, in the same way that we should never accept threats of violence as normal. It is part of a continuum aimed at women MPs. It is time it stopped and it is time political parties made sure it is stopped.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Three days after she became the proud grandmother of Holly, I call the Mother of the House, Harriet Harman.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

Last night’s shambles over the vote of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) should put it beyond doubt that pairing is not the answer for MPs having babies. We are elected as MPs to vote in this House, and MPs having babies should not lose that right. Will the Prime Minister give the House the opportunity to vote on the Procedure Committee draft motion on proxy voting for baby leave? With more parliamentary babies in the pipeline—there is one right next to me—and more crucial votes coming up, it is time to sort this out. This one is overdue.

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I say to the right hon. and learned Lady that the breaking of the pair was done in error? It was not good enough and it will not be repeated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and the Chief Whip have apologised directly to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Joe Swinson), because we take pairing very seriously and we recognise its value to Parliament. We will continue to guarantee a pair for MPs who are currently pregnant or who have a newborn baby. The issue the right hon. and learned Lady raises refers also to this question of proxy voting and the report the Procedure Committee has brought out. We are looking very carefully at that issue. We want to ensure that we can facilitate parental leave in this place, but, obviously, we also have to ensure that there is a proper consultation. We are looking at the interests of not only individuals, but the whole House.

Tributes: Baroness Jowell

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

Tessa Jowell was the embodiment of that old women’s movement saying: “The personal is political.” For Tessa, the personal and the political were completely intertwined. Her devotion to her children and her stepchildren was what underpinned her drive for Sure Start children’s centres, with parenting support at their heart. Her enjoyment of her family and their prowess in sport was what lay behind her wanting to get the Olympics for the UK. She wanted them and the Paralympics to be shared and to inspire every child and young person across the country.

Tessa had a unique personal style. She befriended people who were struggling, had difficulties or were powerless, whom she felt she could support, but she also befriended the powerful in order to get them to back her progressive causes. She was no softie, though. Everybody has quite rightly said how charming and nice she was, but there was steel behind those clear blue eyes. As her constituency neighbour for 23 years, we went to countless meetings together and worked together on countless campaigns. She was always courteous and polite to the police, the schools, the hospitals and the council, but if ever she felt that they were obfuscating or letting people down, she would be tougher than anybody. She was true Labour, as an activist, as a councillor, as a Member of this House and as a Member of the Lords, but she was never afraid to work cross-party for the causes that she supported or to forge friendships across parties. We are so sad for her family, especially David, Jess and Matthew, but I know they will be strong because she will have prepared them for the loss they faced, just as she supported, on behalf of the Government, those who faced loss after the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks. We send them all our sympathy.

All around the country there will be people who are listening to these tributes and who have heard of Tessa’s death who worked with her, who knew her and who will be feeling sad but also immensely proud that they can say, “I knew Tessa Jowell.”

Grenfell Tower

Harriet Harman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I fully recognise the picture that my hon. Friend set out about the inquiry. That is why it is important that it is judge led. The judge will be completely independent and it will be up to them to determine the witnesses who are called and how they manage the inquiry. That is important, because we want people to have the confidence of knowing that, when the inquiry reports, it will bring out the truth. We also want people to have the confidence to know that actions that arise from the inquiry’s findings will be taken and that those responsible will be held to account. On the terms of reference, as I have said, residents will be involved. We are in the process of looking at how that is possible. The judge who leads the inquiry will want to reflect on how they want to speak with and hear from residents. The message that I have had from residents about bringing a survivors’ group together as a single voice is important and will be helpful in this regard.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for her statement. The news she has given the House today—that the cladding was indeed combustible, as testing showed—is chilling, and will be horrifying confirmation of what we all saw on our television screens; but it will be even more frightening for others. There are 58 tower blocks in my constituency, and there are thousands all around the country.

May I suggest that the Prime Minister get a grip on this personally, right away, and that what she does—[Interruption.] I am just going to make a suggestion, if I may. I suggest that the Prime Minister uses Cobra to call together all local authorities and require them, within a certain timeframe, to check the cladding on every one of their tower blocks. If she has done so already, I look forward to hearing that, and to hearing about the timescale. She should also give authorities the resources that will enable them to conduct their inspections within a certain timescale, and commit resources that will enable the cladding to be replaced within a certain timescale when others find that it is combustible. That is exactly what Cobra should be used for. It is not good enough just to congratulate or encourage other councils; the Prime Minister must get a grip on this personally.

The Prime Minister said that the Lakanal House coroner’s inquest findings had been acted on, but I can tell her that they have not. In 2013, the coroner said that those deaths had been avoidable, that there should have been sprinklers, that there should have been a change in the fire instructions, and that there should be greater supervision of contracts and fire inspections. The Prime Minister said that this was an “unimaginable” tragedy, and that those deaths should not have happened. They would not have happened if the Government had acted on the Lakanal House coroner’s inquest rulings.

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me clarify what I said in my statement. I said that local authorities had been invited to send in samples of cladding on similar buildings; they have done so, and some of the samples have been found to be combustible. It was in relation to that testing that I used the term “combustible”. I think it important that I clarify that. As the right hon. and learned Lady suggested, we immediately took the precautionary measure of asking all local authorities to go out, identify blocks with similar cladding, and take measures, together with their local fire and rescue services, to ensure that people in those buildings were safe. Part of that process has involved the testing. As I have said, we stand ready to continue to test for all local authorities that wish to send in samples.

As for the right hon. and learned Lady’s description of the coroner’s report on Lakanal House, the coroner did not, as I understand it, say that there should be sprinklers in every property of this type. What is important, and what underpinned what she said, is the necessity of ensuring that people living in similar blocks are able to feel reassured about their safety. We have taken the steps: local authorities have been working with fire and rescue services. Once the tests on the cladding have been given to local authorities, they are acting immediately to ensure the safety of people within. There are a number of steps that they can undertake, and we expect them to do what is necessary.