European Scrutiny Committee

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is important to have a debate on this motion. We have heard all afternoon splendid speeches and maiden speeches, have we not? But the thrust of this afternoon has been scrutiny, accountability and responsibility. It seems extraordinary to me that while the other House has a Committee to scrutinise our relations with the European Union—indeed, today it has proudly announced that it has been reformed—and the Government want to reform the House of Lords, we could have a situation in which there is only a Committee to scrutinise relations with the European Union in the other place. We have talked about scrutiny all afternoon. Of the 27 Committees referred to on the Order Paper, the European Scrutiny Committee is the only one that includes the word “scrutiny”, yet it is the one Committee that the Leader of the House wants to do away with. I find that extraordinary.

We have heard from the Government before the election, during the election and since the election about the importance of our relations with our friends in the European Union and how negotiations may take place on a whole raft of important issues. Do hon. Members remember the slogan, “Take back control of our borders, our money and our laws”? Surely the whole point of our debate about our relationship with the European Union is that this is the place where we debate and legislate for laws on behalf of the people, so if we are to take back control of our laws, surely those laws and the negotiations proposed by the Government on behalf of the people should be scrutinised in detail and earnest, as has been proposed all afternoon with regard to other matters.

I suggest to the Leader of the House, the Government and the Whips that we need to reflect on that. I urge the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion, reflect on it from the sedentary position of our sunbeds over the next month and bring it back to the House in September.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Those of us who will be not on a sunbed but in our constituencies do recognise that point. The hon. Gentleman and I will take a different view on the benefits of what the Government are doing to reset our relationship with Europe now that we have left the European Union so that we can finally get the trading benefits sorted and sort out the border tax mess left by the last Government. Does he recognise that there is now a lacuna where people may question where such a debate will happen and what role parliamentarians may play in it, and that perhaps one fruitful thing would be to clarify what will happen to the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which seems to have been dissolved yet was looking at the European laws that we were transposing into UK law?

There are a number of questions that may not be for this evening but are for the future of this Parliament. Given what the hon. Gentleman is expressing, he and I might disagree on the outcomes, but we agree that they are important questions, and we would like to understand what will happen next.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the very short time available to me, let me say, after so many glorious maiden speeches, that I hope that this place can rise to the occasion, in terms of what we do on this Modernisation Committee. The truth is that we do not have any rights as MPs, yet we come here to defend the rights of our constituents. That will matter, because this should be a modern workplace, safe not just for us, but for our staff, and accessible not just for us, but for anybody who comes to see us; and it should not be a place that leads us to divorce, drink, and all the other things that new Members of Parliament may have been warned about.

In one minute, let me tell the House what I think we could do through the Committee to redress the situation and give us some rights. If hon. Members employ young women here, somebody will take them out for a drink to warn them about this place and the people that they should be aware of, but that is not good enough. We must enforce the findings of the Paul Kernaghan review, and we must ensure that where people face bullying and sexual harassment, there is no unfairness, no favour and no political interference, because, sadly, no political party can hold its head up on that score.

We must learn from other jurisdictions around the world, including New Zealand, Australia and Ireland, about making this place family-friendly. That is not just about having a workplace crèche, but about holiday clubs, and knowing what time we will leave here and get home. No one in this place will enjoy doing bedtime via FaceTime, but unless we reform this place to make it family-friendly, that is the future ahead of all hon. Members and their families.

Let me turn to the gender-sensitive Parliament review that we signed up to in the Kigali accord. We must make that happen, not just for the women in this place, but for all the women and men to come. There are so many things that we can do through this Modernisation Committee, which is a welcome development, but the test will be whether we do them. I urge all hon. Members, new and old, to make sure that happens.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Risk-based Exclusion

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I rise to speak as Chair of the Procedure Committee. We have looked at various iterations of risk-based exclusion since we were first presented with the Commission’s proposals in 2022. The decision of when exclusion should apply is not easy. Although I fully support the idea that we should have some form of risk-based exclusion, the point at which it is triggered is a matter for debate. Members on both sides will put forward very persuasive arguments, but I have to say that, based on the evidence heard by the Committee and the safeguards that will be put in place, I err towards the trigger being at charge, rather than arrest.

Charge is a public point, whereas arrest is not public. It is very difficult to see how Members of Parliament who are excluded but not publicly named could maintain their anonymity. People will see that they have a proxy vote, and they will therefore wonder whether they are on baby leave or long-term sick. It will become clear that the Member has been excluded from the precincts.

Charge is public—it is known and it is very clear that it has happened—and it is a very high bar. We have concerns, and there were concerns in the evidence given to the Committee, about when arrest might happen. I appreciate that we are talking about serious sexual and violent offences, and it is unlikely that an arrest would be made on a spurious, vexatious accusation, but it is possible. Across the United Kingdom, arrest can happen at different points, depending on the force and the legal system. Charge therefore makes it clear that there is a very serious allegation that warrants the matter being taken further.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hear what the right hon. Lady is saying. How does she answer the charge that we in this place may be hypocrites—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We cannot be hypocrites in this place. I am sure that the hon. Lady can find a more appropriate word.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

We in this place may be inconsistent in our approach to these matters because, following the case of Wayne Couzens, we agreed that anybody from the police accused of serious misconduct should be removed from the parliamentary estate—that is accused, not even arrested. How do we square the circle that what we think is appropriate for the police is not appropriate for ourselves?

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As I said, this is a balanced judgment; there is no right or wrong answer. I am persuaded by many arguments in favour of exclusion on “arrest on suspicion of”. However, on balance—given the job we do, the role we have and the potential for vexatious complaints—I feel that exclusion at the point of charge is right. I am not saying to the hon. Lady that we will not be accused of inconsistency; we very well might be accused of that—we regularly are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me start by saying that I actually do agree with the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), who is on his phone, that this should be a constitutional issue, and I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir Philip Davies) about the daftness of some of the ways this system works, and with the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). This is an imperfect proposal, but it is now over seven years since we started talking about tackling sexual harassment and sexual abuse on the estate, and since we heard that there had been rapes and sexual assaults in this building, involving people who work in politics and our colleagues, and allegations of such. So the question for us all tonight is: do we keep doing nothing or do we take some action and make progress?

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is right: it is not about exclusion; it is about risk. What are we doing about the risk—a risk that we tell other workplaces they have to act upon? I will not use the term hypocritical but I do offer the term double standards and say that we are at risk of being called inconsistent, inexcusable and unjustifiable if we do not match the ambitions we set for other workplaces here for ourselves.

I say to every MP in this House, “You should want this to be the case, because while we don’t have an employment contract, we sign them for our staff, and therefore the laws that exist about what responsibilities you have as an employer apply to how you treat your staff. The question is whether you can truly look them in the eye and say that this is a safe workplace.” This is a workplace where our young women employees get taken out by each other to be warned about other MPs and, indeed, staff in this place. There is the whisper network, and that would not cut it at an employment tribunal.

These policies are about living up to what we expect of other workplaces. They are about addressing situations such as when someone comes into our constituency surgery and says, “The local headteacher has been arrested but they are still teaching children,” or, “There’s a surgeon at the hospital who has been arrested for sexually assaulting a patient, but they are still in there. What are you going to do about it?” Do we say, “Until they’re charged, I don’t think there’s a problem”? We would not be able to justify that to our constituents; why on earth would we justify it when talking about ourselves?

It is suggested that people are arrested on a whim, but they are not. It comes down to a central point: the cognitive dissonance in this place. We have constant debates about violence against women—how we are going to tackle it and make it a priority. We must recognise that we too often do not believe victims, but we are saying in this instance that because we are special sausages, this will not be a priority.

We have to start believing and acting on those beliefs. The proposal may be an imperfect process, but finally it is a way of saying that we do believe, sadly, that power corrupts. Sadly, there are people who abuse their power dynamics and power relations. We must understand that, as the consultation that started this said, gentlemen’s agreements on what should happen are insufficient.

Political parties—the elephant in the room in this debate today—are complicit, too. There are cosy wrap-ups with the Whips Office to try and manage situations, when almost every single person who has come forward has lost their job—a job they loved in a career and party they cared about. We do not protect the victims; we protect the perpetrators. Every political party needs to look itself in the eye and ask why seven years on, people are saying that the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme process, which is imperfect in its own right, is still better than our political processes. That is why we have debates like this.

We hold ourselves to different standards compared with what we expect in workplaces and our constituencies. Those are standards we should apply as MPs ourselves as employers. That is the issue, if nothing else. We have demanded of the police that in order to keep people safe on this estate, they bar from it anyone accused of a serious violent or sexual offence—not even arrested, which a Member who is no longer in his place said was so easy to get. We have asked for people who have just been accused to be barred to keep us and our staff safe, but we do not ask that of ourselves. It is inconsistent, double standards, contradictory—potentially a word that begins with “h”. Above all, it damages our reputation. This is a workplace where MPs have unparalleled access in our constituencies to people because we are the MP. We do not need to have a DBS check. This is a workplace where no one is required to tell HR if they enter into a relationship with somebody, yet in most workplaces that is standard—and, frankly, it protects people because it recognises the difference between a power imbalance and the inevitable love that comes as a result of delivering too many leaflets on too many long weekends.

This is not a workplace in the modern world and our staff are suffering as a result. Seven years on, the cases keep coming forward. Seven years on, the cases are being covered up. Seven years on, people are losing faith that we will ever get it. So, yes, this proposal is not perfect, but this proposal is a step forward, and Members should vote for it and vote for amendment (o). To get back to what we originally talked about, we should recognise that if someone is arrested for a serious sexual or violent offence, that does mean that there needs to be a risk analysis. If Members do not vote for this, I tell them not to sit in their surgery when someone comes and asks what they should do about their workplace, and not to say to me that they are listening to victims of sexual violence and that they understand why violence against women and girls in this country is still such a problem.

We are not such special sausages that we cannot be complicit in that culture. That is the risk tonight if we do not vote for amendment (o) and at least try to get this process rolling. It is not perfect—it can be amended—but if we vote it down tonight or try to find a way of making it impractical to apply, our staff will not forgive us. Good, talented people will walk away from politics because it is a dangerous environment, and our constituents will simply not understand why we do not hold ourselves to the standards we ask of them as employers and other people.

For the sake of all of us, special or not, sausage or not, let us do something finally about this. Let us put safeguarding at the heart of what we do, and let us try and move into the 21st century for once.

Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland]

The hon. Lady is not wrong and I concur with her point of view, but of course it is entirely possible that when a charge is brought an individual may be found not guilty in a court of law. A charge does not itself define guilt. By that same token, if someone is arrested on a charge, ultimately they have to allow that process to play out until the point at which they are castigated and removed from the estate voluntarily or otherwise. I take her point, but, for me, the Commission has work to do to draw a distinction between the point at which someone is arrested and the point at which a charge is made.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman has just said that somebody can be charged but still be found not guilty, in the same way that somebody could be arrested and not charged. It is about the evidence that is presented. As he said at the start of his speech, we have a duty of care. We are talking about a risk-based exclusion process. It is not actually about the perpetrator, alleged or otherwise. It is about the evidence presented at that time of risk to those who remain. Can he say a little about what he proposes to do to tackle that risk if he wants to wait until charge, based on the evidence presented to the House by the police at that moment?

[James Sunderland]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and, again, she is not wrong. I do not have an answer, but this is the key thing for me: evidence is what is used in a court of law. Are we judge and jury? Is a staff panel judge and jury? Is the evidence presented to a quango body of individuals here enough, without a charge being brought, to exclude a Member from the Estate? As I said, I think there is work to be done between the point of arrest and the point of a charge being brought.

[Stella Creasy]

By the hon. Gentleman’s logic, there is no evidence of risk that could be presented by the police to this place on which we could act. Is he really saying that, or do we need a process that could assess the evidence being presented? Is he that specific about it: there is nothing that he could be told about the risk posed by somebody to people in this place that would cause him to act?

[James Sunderland]

Once again, I find myself concurring with a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying, but my view on this question is that because we are debating it now, the answer is not clear. Ultimately, we have to allow the Commission to make further findings in respect of what the evidence does. My personal feeling is that we have to wait for the charge to be brought before we give enough credence to the evidence. Arrest, in my view, is not enough.

The second issue is how we as a House manage complaints that may be vexatious. We discussed that question earlier, but I would like the Commission to do a bit more work on it. If a complaint has been made and it is entirely vexatious, we have to be able to spot that very early on and deal with it. For example, another Member said during the consultation that

“I am concerned about malicious claims towards MPs, which are constantly on the rise and members being excluded without it being a charge, often these are politically motivated.”

If we follow that logic through, it basically means that any Member can be asked to leave the estate for any reason. Therefore, we have to put in place a process whereby credence is given to an allegation. An arrest may or may not be made, and in my view, it is the point at which the charge is brought that gives that credence to the process. As such, we have to make sure that we can properly define the gap that is in the middle.

I would like to make a further point about management of risk. For me, the important thing in this debate is how we manage the risk-based exclusion, which again is not clear from the Commission. Basically, I want to better understand how we manage the risk: who is responsible for managing that risk? Who is responsible for determining the evidence, if it exists, and who is judge and jury? How do we manage that risk? Who decides, and what factors are involved? In my view, those questions need more work before we can go firm on any vote or otherwise.

The last issue I will address is that of the proxy vote. In my view, a proxy vote has to happen. MPs are elected to do a job, and they must do that job until the point at which they are no longer able to do it—again, innocent until proven guilty. There is a requirement for MPs to exercise their judgment and represent the interests of their constituents throughout the process. Therefore, unlike the earlier recommendation from the Procedure Committee, I am completely happy with the extension of the proxy vote in this case. MPs are still MPs; they are still part of the team and need support. They must not be left on the scrapheap, either. It is important for them—for their own peace of mind and their own validation—to be able to exercise that vote via a proxy. Again, I am not comfortable with the idea that the names of those who have a proxy vote would somehow be published. Those who have a proxy vote should not necessarily be identified as having one, for all the reasons of confidentiality that we have already discussed.

I also welcome the fact that the Commission is now actively considering extending the proxy vote scheme for other reasons. Historically and currently, it has been for maternity and paternity leave, but it should be extended beyond that, to illness and those who may be excluded from the estate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think there is some common ground among contributors to this debate. It is not innocence or guilt that should be in question—this is about our responsibilities. It is about the probability of harm or further harm when sufficient evidence has come to light to merit the involvement of the police. The Leader of the House said that she was here to listen, so let me offer what I believe is probably a counterbalance to some of what has been said today. It is critical to recognise that we are talking about a risk-based exclusion process; this is not about the person who has been accused. We have a responsibility to act because this is about the risk of harm to people in their jobs and in their lives as part of their connection to Parliament.

In parts of this debate, it has almost seemed as if we have forgotten the victims, the potential victims and the risk of harm. That is to our discredit as a House, because we face such a major challenge, and we must be honest about that. I can reassure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will abide by what you said at the start of this debate, but, frankly, it is terrifying to me that you had to ask us not to talk about individual cases. We are all living in an environment where we know how pressing it is to resolve this matter, because we know of the number of cases involved.

I recognise the passion that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) brings to this debate, but I must be honest: I do not think that arguing that somebody who is on sex offenders register can also be an MP is quite the attack on these proposals that he thinks it is. If anything, it shows that, for so long, this place has lived by rules that no other workplace—frankly, no other planet—would think were reasonable. He says that he is biased towards the accused. Well, that should automatically rule him out of this process, in the same way it would if somebody were biased towards the victims. This is about risk. It is about how we interpret risk and our responsibility in this regard.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) is no longer in his place. I listened patiently to what he said and I was very sympathetic to the thoughtful way that he approached this matter, but he kept saying that we need to look at this again, that we need to kick the can down the road one more time. We have been doing that in this place for years—that is what the cacophony of different organisations reflects. Every single time that we kick this issue into the long grass, say that it is too complicated and put it into a box because we cannot deal with it, our constituents think two things: “Hang on, in my workplace we had to deal with this” and “What planet are they on?”

It was 2017 when the #MeToo movement gave people the courage to come forward in this place with what was, frankly, the tip of the iceberg of the challenge we face. It is now seven years later, and we still have not made the progress that we would all like to see.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and I were talking about the importance of the presumption of innocence before being proved guilty. That is why I say that I have a bias in favour of the accused. The accused is innocent until proven guilty, and the hon. Lady seems sometimes to forget that.

[Stella Creasy]

My concern is the concept of bias, because it means that the judgments that the hon. Member makes are not value-free. We need a process that people can have confidence in and that will act. In the last seven years we have seen time and again that what little reputation this place had has been shredded as a result of our failure to have those processes. It is not about the accused but about the hon. Gentleman’s concept of bias. He could not hear someone’s case without fear or favour if he were on a jury, but that is not what this is about.

The hon. Gentleman is concerned about vetting and barring; I used to work for the Scouts, where it was pretty standard to have vetting, barring and DBS checking for our volunteers. It was not seen as an unusual or difficult thing to do. I suspect that most people in daily life would be fairly shocked that Members of Parliament do not have that. They would expect a level of professionalism and safeguarding because of the kinds of cases that we might deal with and the kinds of people who might come and seek our help, and that would not be unreasonable.

The hon. Member needs to take seriously the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) about just how long it takes for cases to be heard and for the police to gather evidence when someone is arrested. We do not construct the system in a vacuum, so we must take account of the fact that, as the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) pointed out, once someone is arrested, they will know that a complaint has been made. That is when the clock starts ticking. We know that this has been going on. In January, the Fawcett Society said that 69% of women MPs and 50% of all MPs—I presume men, too—had witnessed sexist behaviour and sexual harassment in Parliament. They had seen behaviour they thought was inappropriate in a workplace in the last five years.

The permanent swamp of complaints that we are living in means that the concerns are not without foundation. It is up to us all to recognise not just the individual examples but the collective challenge that we face to tackle that culture. It was not just in 2017 that people came forward; in 2018, Laura Cox had an independent review; in 2018, the Women and Equalities Committee made recommendations; in 2019, Gemma White produced a report and Naomi Ellenbogen produced a report for the Lords. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) that it cannot be just about MPs but must be about this place as a whole. The reality of daily life as a Member of Parliament is that they will interact with everyone on the estate, including their staff and the people who come and visit. It is not an unusual concept in any other workplace, but somehow we think we are different, and things are too complicated to make progress. Little wonder the cases still come; little wonder the Deputy Speaker has to issue such a warning.

My worry is that we will deter people from coming forward. We will be unable to address these issues if we do not get the process right, and we will deter people from coming forward if they have to wait until charge. They might continue to be in a workplace with someone they have made a complaint about. The police will have deemed it serious enough to arrest that person and to come to the House authorities about them, yet they still have to be in contact with that person every single day if they want to do their job. We must trust that the police would not come forward with information were they not concerned that we needed to address a risk.

As the people who make the safeguarding legislation, we cannot say, “Sorry guv, this is all too complicated for us, so in this place we won’t have the rules that we ask of other places.” It is right that we do not ask our Whips, who have to do an incredibly difficult job in managing us all at the best of times. As someone who spends too much time around toddlers, I do not envy the Whips, because it feels like a harder job sometimes.

We cannot have a system that is immune to the impact on political parties. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda was right to talk about the interactions that exist and the need to have a process that people feel is fair and firm. Patronage and power are infused throughout this place, and that does not stop when someone is arrested. Indeed, the pressure on the person who has come forward becomes even greater. It is our responsibility to address that.

The Leader of the House said that she is looking to hear views, but let me make a simple plea: why do we not do what we ask of other workplaces in the legislation that we ourselves have put in place? Sexual harassment at work is specifically outlawed as a form of unlawful discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. This is not about narrow points of process—I pay tribute to the Clerks who have worked on the report—but about us doing what we expect of other workplaces. Rather than having multiple processes where people can get clogged in the system and no one has any confidence about who is doing what to tackle an issue, we should have one simple process in which we can interact. It is not so complicated to have interaction between the political parties, the ICGS and this House, if we will it.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

To what extent is the hon. Lady sympathetic to the plight of those who are on the receiving end of false accusations? My understanding is that she herself has been on the receiving end of vexatious allegations that related to social services and her children. From that, she must feel the enormity of the burden that such false accusations bring upon somebody’s shoulders. Does she not have any sympathy for other Members of Parliament in that regard?

[Stella Creasy]

I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the point I was trying to make earlier: it is not about sympathy or bias, but about trying to have a systematic process that allows us to act as a House. That matters because every Member of Parliament has responsibilities as an employer. Under the Equalities Act 2010, we have a duty of care to our staff and to the people who work with us here, to make sure we are creating a safe environment. Whatever our private experiences, the issue is how we collectively uphold that. Frankly, if the hon. Gentleman does not do that and uphold his role in safeguarding, then my staff are at risk, as well as other members of staff. We get this right together, or we do not get it right at all.

We can get it right if we choose to, and if we follow the requirements put on any other workplace. Employers have a duty of care and are legally liable for sexual harassment in the workplace if they have not taken reasonable steps to prevent it. We make that a requirement for any business or public agency in our constituencies, which is why our constituents will be watching the debate agog that we cannot get our heads around that idea.

There are no minimum requirements: all employers are expected to have an anti-harassment policy and monitoring of its implementation, and clear processes for reporting harassment, protecting the victims and taking action if harassment occurs. That is why the cacophony of different organisations is a challenge, because it makes it hard for people to see how we are implementing the requirements that we ask of other workplaces. It is also why the risk-based exclusion policy should form part of that process. It should show that we take sexual harassment and serious violence seriously enough to have a process in place, so that if the worst comes to the worst, we can act.

In order to uphold those legal requirements, I would argue that the policy should cover all those who have a pass and all areas in which their status as a passholder means they are in a position of power. Again, we cannot put constituencies into the “too difficult” box if somebody claiming to represent Parliament might present a risk of harm. In reality, people will ask, “What did you do when you knew there was a challenge?” That is what the process is about. We cannot be good employers, upholding our duty of care, if we do not hold each other to account.

We need a process where if a disclosure is made—not tittle-tattle or gossip, but a disclosure—there are formal responsibilities. In any other workplace, that would be standard. If someone reported something to a senior manager, there would be an expectation that they would act on it. Indeed, a senior manager might say, “Do not tell me something if you do not wish me to act.” Frankly, I do not blame people who have gone to the press because they have seen the failures in our process; I blame us for not acting more quickly to resolve the situation. I hope, appreciate and understand the need to have the debate today and I am pleased we will have a motion before the summer recess, but I recognise that it cannot be just about MPs. It has to be about everybody who has a pass and has that status within Parliament.

None of this will change the culture, which we all know needs to change, whereby power corrupts and people use it to abuse. Most do not, but we know some do and consistently will without a system that tackles that. This is not about MPs marking their own homework. It is right that we bring in a third-party challenge from lay members, who are people who have to deal with the issue in their day-to-day workplaces. It is also right that we use the proxy voting scheme to deal with some of the issues that arise. As somebody who has been part of a proxy voting scheme, I argue that it is not the reason why we get abuse from people.

Safeguarding does not have to mean no socialising. It is perfectly reasonable for people to be able to go for a drink together, through the long hours that we do in this place, without that being inappropriate, but the fact that some Members are inappropriate means that we need to act and that we need a speedy resolution process. However, that speedy resolution also means resolving the issues involving multiple bodies. There is a general election on the horizon, and I would wager that most female MPs will say that the first question they are asked by other people—especially women—who are thinking about standing is “Is it safe?” They will ask, “Is it safe for my family? Will I receive abuse? What sort of behaviour will I have to deal with? Will it be like being around a bunch of toddlers?” I suspect that most of us will give an answer that we would not really want to defend.

We can change this. The public only have the chance to elect Members every five years, and perhaps none of us will there by the time these proposals are implemented, but we all have a responsibility to those whose voices are not being heard in our political process, because they look at this place and think we are all complicit. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and I can find common cause in wanting to make it possible, in our democracy, for every voice to be heard. If this is a barrier, we can address it, but let us address it soon, because for too long those voices have not been heard, and for too long the consequences for the House and for democracy have been seen.

Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is absolutely right to stress the importance of stability, and I think that will be helped by the Chancellor being able to make his statement.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Leader of the House suggests that we should be grateful for the fact that the Prime Minister has made a difficult decision. I presume that she means “grateful for the fact that the Prime Minister has stuck to it,” given the number of U-turns that we have seen over the last couple of days, but that is what the job is—making difficult decisions. There are difficult decisions to be made about what is happening in Ukraine, about the fact that President Putin has nuclear weapons, about the chaos caused by Brexit, about gang crime, about the climate crisis, and about Ebola in Africa; and all that we know right now—unless the Leader of the House tells us otherwise—is that the Prime Minister is cowering under her desk and asking for it all to go away. Is it not about time she did that, and let someone else who can make decisions in the British national interest take charge instead?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The Prime Minister is not under a desk, as the hon. Lady suggests. I can assure the House that, with regret, she is not here for a very good reason. Neither has she taken this decision to win the hon. Lady’s gratitude; she has done it out of a sense of duty, because she knows what is in the national interest.

Business of the House

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will say two things. First, I very much understand my role as being hon. Members’ representative in Government, and I will do everything in my power—I hope Members have confidence in how I have conducted myself prior to this role—to work in a constructive, positive way and with all the courtesies that the House would expect.

I also have a role in this Government to ensure that Whitehall and we in this place move at the speed at which our constituents need us to. I therefore make no apology for bringing forward tomorrow’s debate. It is important that Members of the House are able to raise these important issues, and I will do everything I can to give as much notice as I can of any changes to our legislative programme.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to hon. Members’ comments, I welcome the Leader of the House to her new position. She said that she wishes to be our representative in Government. Can she therefore understand the frustration of many of us that the press is briefing that the business for Monday—the Bill of Rights—has been shelved? Will she do the House the courtesy of telling us whether it has been shelved? If it is happening because the new Home Secretary said that the Government needed to be honest for the legislation to do what they want it to do, the Government needed to commit to leaving the European Court of Human Rights. So will the Bill be brought back with our leaving the European Court of Human Rights—yes or no?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will make a further business statement tomorrow in the usual way. I ask Members to recognise that we are in very volatile times economically. We will need to do things swiftly. Members have been asking for things to happen swiftly on these matters and we will do that. I will make a business statement tomorrow in the usual way and I will answer the very understandable questions that hon. Members wish to raise.

Business of the House

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do of course praise my right hon. Friend’s constituents—they are some of the most civilised constituents in the country, and are brilliantly represented by my right hon. Friend, who always ensures that their concerns are highlighted—and I also compare them with what we must now call the hippie-crites: the people who have been blocking the M25, and who turn out not to be insulating their own homes while lying down in the road to inconvenience and cause danger to others. We know that a lady did not recover from a stroke as well as she would otherwise have done because of the delays caused, and of the risk caused to the police. I commend my right hon. Friend’s constituents for campaigning peacefully, respectfully and in a civilised manner. As he knows, planning decisions are a matter for the local council and are rightly made at a local level, but I am sure that what he has said in the House will be heard by the developer, who will want to maintain community support.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

We know that the Leader of the House is keen to see MPs return to the Chambers of Parliament; and, indeed, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority refused to fund appropriate maternity cover for me on the basis that people needed to be able to speak in the Chamber. In order to speak today, I have had to abandon my baby leave proxy vote—or else be reprimanded by the House authorities for speaking in the Chamber, which makes Parliament one of the few workplaces in the country where, when a new mother comes in for a “keep in touch” day, she is rebuked rather than supported.

I know that some in this place are not fans of mothers, in the “mother of all Parliaments”, but I am sure that the Leader of the House is not among them. Will he meet a cross-party delegation of MPs to discuss how we can ensure that everyone in this Parliament upholds the law on maternity cover and leave?

Business of the House

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer to people with endowments and the difficulty that they face. Having spent a lifetime—before politics intervened—in financial services, I can say that there is never an obviously right time to redeem investments, so the difficulty would be the Government intervening and setting a new time and that time not necessarily being any better than the existing time. I think that my giving financial advice from the Dispatch Box would be singularly unwise, but I will take up his point with the Treasury.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The Leader of the House has said that MPs being in Parliament will enable proper scrutiny. If that return to Parliament has to be physical, can he tell us what provision will be made for MPs and their staff who have childcare or caring responsibilities? I know that he is not a fan of the nanny state, but not all of us have nannies.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Not all have six children, either, which I am very lucky and fortunate to have. I absolutely understand, therefore, child caring responsibilities—all my children are quite young. The nursery in the House of Commons is open. Members of Parliament are key workers and therefore schools are available in England for their children. As regards MPs’ staff, they do not need to come back to Parliament. Speaking for my own staff, they are working extremely well and extremely hard from home. This is the first time that I have ever had the opportunity to thank them publicly for the remarkable work that they do for my constituents in North East Somerset. I am sure that many feel the same about their parliamentary staff, and they do not need to come back to the parliamentary estate.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill (Business of the House)

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment (a), in paragraph (7) after subparagraph (b) insert—

“(ba) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair for separate decision;”.

Amendments (a) is about ensuring that whatever happens today the House can know that it was fair play. Last night, the Leader of the House told this place that, while we could not see the Bill before today, we could see the programme motion. A whole one copy was made available in the Table Office after 10 pm, and it showed that what the Government were trying to do was, in simple terms, rig today’s debate by removing the part of the Standing Orders that allows the Chair of proceedings the right to select any amendment, new clause or new schedule for vote.

To do that late at night, without any consultation with the Opposition and in the hope that nobody would notice, is frankly—I hope the Leader of the House understands this concept—not cricket. It is to admit that, rather than win the case for this Bill as it stands, the Executive want no challenge to it at all, and that, whether one thinks it is a good Bill or not, should be worry for us all. If we let this lie now, it will become standard practice in future.

This is not the first time the Government have tried such a measure when backed into a corner. They also did it on 24 October last year with Northern Ireland legislation. Thankfully, the Government saw sense and agreed to restore it, which is what amendment (a) would do today. It does not amend the Bill itself and does not encourage any particular selection; it simply reinstates the concept of fair play in this House by restoring our Standing Orders as they would be for any other legislation. In doing so it repairs both our rulebook and, frankly, our reputation.

Letting this programme motion through without the full list of rules is like letting Lance Armstrong keep his medals or Maradona benefit from the hand of God or accepting Major Ingram as a winner of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”—[Interruption.] That reaction is the point in case. Let us not confirm the reputation that the public already think we have of backroom deals, cheats and liars. Whatever one thinks of this Bill , let it be won by fair play today, let us use the rulebook that has always been used, and add amendment (a) to this programme motion.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Business of the House

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The matter he raises is indeed a big and important issue, and I completely respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with some knowledge on these matters, is dissatisfied with the amount of debate that there has been. However, his business question suffers from the notable disadvantage that it does not relate to the terms of the business for tomorrow, upon which the statement has focused. However, he has perhaps given an augur of his intent for any business statement that might take place on Thursday, in the course of which I feel sure he will ventilate his concerns further. I hope that is helpful.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have to be honest with the Leader of the House: when, last week, Parliament rejected the programme motion but not the withdrawal agreement Bill on Second Reading, it was not an invitation to get quicker with programme motions. How can he publish a programme motion for a Bill that he says is going to go through all stages in the House in one day tomorrow but not the details of the Bill so that we can properly scrutinise it? Does he not understand that the biggest challenge that this House is giving to this Government is that we want to see the detail before we do the deal?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This Bill will be so short that it will be very easy to scrutinise in the limited time available. The Benn Act and the Cooper-Boles Act were both passed in a very short time and they were longer Acts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to that is yes, that must be so. The Leader of the House indicated that the procedure in this case at Committee stage is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, and others taking the Chair. However, the principle that amendments should be able to be considered is entirely valid. In the light of the timetable, or rather the shortage of notice, it is perfectly reasonable, as far as I am concerned, for colleagues to submit manuscript amendments. I think it would be helpful if those were submitted as early as possible and certainly before the expected start of that proceeding, which the hon. Gentleman and others can guesstimate. Clearly, it would not be until after Question Time and any urgent questions or statements, but it would be wise for Members to press on with the submission of any amendments that they wish to table. Those will and must be dutifully considered at the appropriate time.

[Stella Creasy]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your exacting interpretation of what good scrutiny is, I think it is worth placing on record that the programme motion the Government have tabled tonight explicitly excludes amendments being tabled by Members who are not members of the Government and Ministers, because it does not include one of the normal parts of our Standing Orders. Could you, Mr Speaker, perhaps give some guidance to those of us who are deeply concerned to see the Government play this trick yet again, having seen them play it with Northern Ireland legislation in months gone by, on how we might remedy it, so that the House can come to a view tomorrow as to whether changing something as serious as the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 in this way will be done with effective scrutiny?

[Mr Speaker]

Tabling is one thing; selection for a separate decision is another. If the hon. Lady has a concern about the latter, which I think she has and am advised that she has, then she can table an amendment accordingly in an attempt to protect that potential for separate decision. This has all happened very quickly, but I am sensitive to what the hon. Lady has said, and a view will have to be taken by the Chair as to what is orderly and in the interests of Members of the House.