Business of the House

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

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?

--- 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.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I may, I should like to seek your advice. For the last six days, an organisation calling itself the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK has been waging a campaign of intimidation and harassment against me and, by extension, my constituents in Walthamstow—from turning up in our town centre with a 20-foot banner of my head next to an image of a dead baby of about the age of the baby I am currently carrying myself, proclaiming that I am working hard to achieve such an outcome; to buying from Clear Channel billboards advertising in my constituency, displaying near schools graphic and scientifically incorrect pictures of foetuses; to libelling me on national radio as someone who wishes to see abortion up to birth; to its Stop Stella campaign, which explicitly encourages people to target me as a hypocrite for being pregnant and advocating the right of all women to choose when to be.

Walthamstow residents have made clear their distress at this behaviour, and so have I. The organisation has made its point. It disagrees with me; I understand that and have asked it not to continue. Despite that, it has already stated that it will keep returning and targeting me until I stop campaigning. Already, I have received numerous threats and abusive messages that directly quote its material.

As you would expect, Mr Speaker, I have sought police assistance against this harassment. I am sad to report that, as yet, none has been given, including from the parliamentary authorities, although Sadiq Khan and Clare Coghill, the leader of my council, have been fantastic allies. I also have proposals for the Domestic Abuse Bill, which I hope Ministers will look on kindly, to recognise this form of abuse. As I have always said to bullies, “It’s not my time you’re going to waste.”

One of the troubling things about importing this kind of campaigning into our politics—the organisation has said that it will extend its protest to other MPs, and it is clearly influencing debate in this place, as some even in this Chamber have said that I wish to kill babies—is how it is funded. This organisation claims, in its constitution and accounts and in a statement it made to the BBC last October, to be a charity, yet the Charity Commission has refused to register it. Nor is it clear whether it has repaid the gift aid it has previously claimed under the auspices of this charity status. If not, given that it knew that it was not registered with the Charity Commission, this group has facilitated tax evasion, which of course is a criminal offence. Nor is it clear whether it is complying with the rules for third-party campaigners in the run-up to an election, or whether it is accepting illegal foreign donations, given that it is part of a network of such organisations across the world.

Sadly, I understand that the organisation has also threatened to sue journalists who ask about these matters, so we cannot have clarity about who is funding this sustained campaign of intimidation from an organisation whose counterparts in other countries have picketed maternity hospitals with baby coffins and incited such hatred and radicalisation that it has resulted in violence, including a mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado.

Given the calls for a general election, the Charity Commission, the Electoral Commission and, indeed, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs must prioritise investigating such organisations and tackling the potential consequences for our public debates. I am sure we would all want to know whether all taxes are paid, all donations declared and all donors legal.

I am not sure, however, where we as parliamentarians can start in holding such a company to account for its toxic culture and approach, and in the absence of police action. We cannot uphold free speech on any issue if we do not also hold to account those who seek to abuse it and the laws on campaigning. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, you will have some suggestions for me so that we can ensure that no MP and, indeed, no other woman has to go through what I have been going through in the past few days.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. At the outset, I know she will understand if I say that in respect of some of the other matters to do with tax treatment and funding that she mentioned, I cannot comment. It is perfectly reasonable for the hon. Lady to set out those matters, but they do not require a response from me and it would not in any way be authoritative.

However, as far as what I regard as her major point is concerned, I will be absolutely explicit in my response. I believe that campaigning of that kind, with the intensity involved and the explicit public threat, to its apparently endless continuation, is vile, unconscionable and despicable. There is a major difference—it is important that we should be clear about this—between putting a point of view with considerable force and insistence on the matter of abortion or any other matter of public dispute and putting it in extreme and provocative terms, and in doing so saying, “We will go on doing so until you stop exercising your right as a Member of Parliament to campaign for what you want. Give in to our intimidation, our threats and our bullying, or it will be the worse for you.” That to me, colleagues—I hope that I carry the support of the majority of the House in saying this—is rank, unacceptable and displays, if I may say so, and I will, an absence of any moral compass. Anybody who thinks seriously about these matters cannot seriously think that that is right. It would be wrong in any case, but for the hon. Lady to be subject to that treatment when she herself is pregnant, and those intimidating and harassing her, ultimately unsuccessfully, know that to be so, is double appalling.

With reference to what the hon. Lady said—and it is a challenge, which I take in good part—about thus far an absence of support from the House authorities, I am very disappointed to learn of that. I cannot comment on the particulars. What I do undertake to do is to meet the hon. Lady within 24 hours, if she wishes to meet me, and I will, as appropriate, be accompanied by people in this House who are best placed to advise. I am delighted that the Mayor of London and his team are supporting her, but she is entitled to proper and unstinting support from the House authorities. If she feels that that is not the case and there is more that we can do, or there are things that we have not done at all that we should be doing, I am determined that she should get that help.

The hon. Lady is respected across this House as an extremely dedicated, articulate and principled campaigner for her causes. Nothing on earth can be allowed to prevent her from continuing in that vein. Although it is not a matter of order within the Chamber, it is right that she should seek the support of Parliament’s spokesperson, as she wants to reinforce her right to go about her business in a legitimate way. She has that right, and I stand absolutely with her in insisting on the continued exercise of that right.

Knife Crime Prevention Orders

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is almost uncontrollably excited. I think we must hear from her.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have to run to a Delegated Legislation Committee, but I am keen to take part in this debate.

The Minister is right when she says that people living with this in communities like Walthamstow do not want a back and forth across the Dispatch Box. They are not interested in who got sent letters or in the parliamentary process. They do not really care about hashtags.

A few short weeks ago, Jaden Moodie was murdered by knife crime in my constituency. On Saturday, another young man almost lost his life after being stabbed while in my constituency. What people in my constituency see is an absent Home Secretary. What they see is Labour Members dragging Ministers to the Dispatch Box and holding Westminster Hall debates about the issues of knife crime and youth violence. What they see is an absence of police on our streets, having lost 200 in the last couple of years alone in our borough. They see an absence of youth workers in a struggling community, and they are asking me who cares about this. They are asking whether this place cares about the lives of those young people. When they see corporation tax being cut and no funding for youth services, I fear they see the answer.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us wait to see. If I have a ruling, it would be a great courtesy if the Leader of the Opposition were here, and I very much hope that he will be. I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Calling anybody a “stupid woman” is not acceptable. Can I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson)—that also what is important, if we want to encourage a wide range of people to get involved in politics, is that we have cool heads, accessible processes and an honest way of proceeding? Right now, the most important thing for this House is to be able to go away and look at the evidence and get on with doing our job, so Mr Speaker, please can you tell us how we move on to the next bit of business?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is—[Interruption.] Order. I do not need the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) continually ranting—[Interruption.] Order. Don’t argue the toss with me, Mr Hoare. I will call the points of order when I am —[Interruption.] I will call them when I am ready. What I say to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is that the best way in which to proceed is to move to the statements, and I will treat of further points of order in the circumstances. Do not forget, I was not aware of this alleged evidence, and it has been brought to light by points of order, but the sooner the points of order come to an end, the sooner we can proceed with the next business of the House of Commons.

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely our role in repealing sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I make the application not just in my name, but in the names of the members of the cross-party group who agree that it is time to reform abortion laws: the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

The impact of the Irish referendum has been felt around the world. Of the 2.1 million people who voted, 1.4 million voted to repeal the eighth amendment of the Irish constitution, which prevents abortion. In doing so, however, they have thrown a spotlight on the situation in Northern Ireland, where a million people are affected. It is a situation in which, if a UK citizen is raped and seeks a termination as a result, she faces a longer prison sentence than her attacker; it is a situation in which the mother of a much-wanted child who is given a heart-breaking diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality is forced to travel overseas for treatment; and it is a situation in which UK citizens are currently on trial, including the mother of a 15-year-old girl who is on trial for buying her abortion pills. That situation is a direct consequence of legislation passed here in the House of Commons, which is why the House of Commons must act.

The Offences Against the Person Act is more than 150 years old. It puts abortion in the same category as homicide, destroying or damaging a building with the use of gunpowder, child stealing, rape, and defilement of women. It is the most common procedure undergone by women of reproductive age in our constituencies, yet even in 2018 they are shaped by that criminal legislation, to their own detriment. Stopping abortion provision does not stop abortions; it simply increases the risk that a woman will have to make a degrading and lonely journey overseas, will be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy, or—worse—will buy pills online that may not be safe, with the threat of prosecution if she seeks medical help. It is little wonder that the United Nations has said that we must act, and that the Supreme Court is ruling on our human rights obligations this week. Devolution—even if it is functioning—does not relieve this place of our responsibility to uphold human rights, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere.

We must be clear about the consequences of keeping sections 58 and 59. Extending the Abortion Act 1967 does not address the impact of those pills, or the paternalism that means that women are not trusted to make their own choices. Nor does it impose a particular rule on Northern Ireland; it will remove the impediment to Northern Ireland’s making its own legislation. Members who may agree that it is a woman’s right to choose, but who wish to see the Assembly choose, can be reassured. Repealing the 1861 Act gives us the opportunity both to respect devolution and to respect women. The people of Northern Ireland cannot be held hostage to the ups and downs of the Brexit negotiations, the deals done in a hung Parliament, or the stalling of talks in Stormont. By repealing the Act, we as the UK Parliament can show women across the United Kingdom that we trust them all with their own healthcare, wherever they live. I ask Members to stand up with me, and join me in saying that this is the 21st century.

[Mr Speaker]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s application. I am satisfied that it is proper for the matter to be raised, and indeed discussed, under Standing Order No. 24. Has the hon. Lady the leave of the House?

Application agreed to (not fewer than 40 Members standing in support).

Customs and Borders

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I emphasise that if there are further interventions, which are legitimate in parliamentary terms, the time limit will have to be cut for remaining speakers.

[Stella Creasy]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Our car industry imports 60% of its components, so a British-made car probably has a German exhaust, Spanish-designed seats and French windows.

We have talked a lot about trade, but I also want to talk about people. It is clear that leaving the customs union will damage the lives of thousands of people in Northern Ireland and Ireland. We know that to be clear because we have no alternative. Ireland has 208 border crossings—more than the EU has with the rest of Europe. There will clearly be change. The consumers who may get cheaper goods are the same workers who will face the race to the bottom that will result from leaving the customs union and entering into the mythical free trade deals that we are being offered. We have heard that £25 billion annually will be lost to GDP.

Please, Minister, on this day of all days, listen to Ma Creasy and eat the frog—admit that the customs union is the best option, not just for our economy and British business, but for all our futures.

[Mr Speaker]

Happy birthday to Mummy Creasy.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

1st reading: House of Commons
Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Foreign Secretary’s contributions, he suggested that in my contribution to the urgent question I had called for military intervention in Ghouta. Actually, I simply called for him to pick up the phone to the Russian president. I wonder if there is a way to correct the record to make it clear what I said.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has found her own salvation. The Foreign Secretary is nodding approvingly from a sedentary position, which I think is confirmation that he accepts the truth of what the hon. Lady has said. There is a satisfactory conclusion, and I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary—[Interruption.] He may come to the Dispatch Box if he wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stephen Kinnock. Not here—where is the feller?

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

I am hoping—

[Mr Speaker]

We are eagerly hoping to hear the hon. Lady’s question, but Question 1 will do for a start.

[Stella Creasy]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for showing that time does not always mean talent. I am hoping he can help answer a question that my constituents keep asking: how much is all of this going to cost us? Departments do not seem able to answer that, and I have been asking them. Some of them think they are not paying anything at all, whereas others think everybody else is paying. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy says it has received extra cash to pay for the impact of the Brexit negotiations; the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport says it does not know how much any of this is going to cost; the Department for Communities and Local Government says it is expecting the Treasury to pick up the tab; and the Ministry of Defence says it is not spending anything because it expects there to be a deal and so no funding is required. This is a bit of a mess, so can this Secretary of State commit to publishing, by Department, by year, details on how much money has been put aside for the cost of negotiations and whether that money is from the Department or from another budget?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know the hon. Lady is an academic doctor, but it is not necessary to treat Question Time as the occasion for the presentation of a thesis.

Economy and Jobs

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stella Creasy to move amendment (d).

[Stella Creasy]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to all the Members who have supported the rights of Northern Irish women to have equal access to abortion. I am delighted by today’s announcement from the Government and satisfied by the commitments that I have had from the Minister responsible to work with the sector. On that basis, I am happy not to move the amendment today. Let us send a message to women everywhere that in this Parliament their voices will be heard and their rights upheld.

[Mr Speaker]

We come next to amendment (g).

Amendment proposed: at the end of the Question to add:

“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech does not rule out withdrawal from the EU without a deal, guarantee a Parliamentary vote on any final outcome to negotiations, set out transitional arrangements to maintain jobs, trade and certainty for business, set out proposals to remain within the Customs Union and Single Market, set out clear measures to respect the competencies of the devolved administrations, and include clear protections for EU nationals living in the UK now, including retaining their right to remain in the UK, and reciprocal rights for UK citizens.”—(Mr Umunna.)

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 33), That the amendment be made.

Health, Social Care and Security

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has just announced a consultation on access to abortion in English hospitals, but as far as anyone is aware, no such consultation exists. Can you inform us whether there will be a written statement on the consultation, given that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the issue and no information has been given, and whether we will be allowed to test the will of the House on the matter?

[Mr Speaker]

I have had no notification on that subject, but knowing the hon. Lady as I do, I feel sure that she will return to it before long.

Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to accommodate more colleagues, so extreme brevity would be hugely helpful.

[Stella Creasy]

In the light of your request for brevity, Mr Speaker, let me be clear that there is a common thread through my points and the amendments that I have tabled: inclusivity, which Members across the House probably support in principle, but in practice, the devil is in the detail of the amendments, and that is why I want to speak.

First, on sex and relationship education, I welcome the moves being made by the Government. It has taken seven years, but finally we will right the wrong whereby while composting and compound interest are on the curriculum, consent is not. I ask the Minister to look at the wording of new clause 1, its explicit reference to same-sex relationships and the importance of being clear during the consultation that we will make sure that children are able to talk about every relationship that they have or may come across in life, and be taught to value them equally. That matters, because 95% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children say that they were not talked to at school about same-sex relationships. When that is so much part of the modern world, it is important that we include it in the modern training that we give our children.

Not least, I want to raise the concerns of teachers from Walthamstow, who said to me that they still live under the spectre of section 28 and the idea that there are things that they cannot talk to children about. The Minister knows my concern that use of the word “appropriate” in his legislation may raise that worry for teachers, so today I look for him to say explicitly that he expects same-sex relationships to be part of the curriculum; that he expects that when bullying is talked about in schools, homophobic bullying will be addressed, at both primary and secondary level; and that we will find a sensitive and religiously inclusive way to cover issues around same-sex relationships, in line with the Equality Act 2010. We should not trade off making progress on some areas of society—through bringing in an ability to talk about consent and domestic abuse—against not making progress on gay rights in other sections of our society. The Minister will point to the 1996 wording that the legislation echoes, but we had section 28 in 1996; this is 2017. Let us make sure that when we make progressive legislation, it is truly progressive.

It is important that we have inclusivity when it comes to child refugees. That is why I want to raise amendment 1 and speak in support of new clause 14 and amendment 2. In October, I asked the Prime Minister to tell us what had happened to the 178 children of whom her Government had been notified who would qualify, under the Dubs amendment, to come to our country but had gone missing from France. Six months on, I am still waiting for a response, but those 178 children are just a fraction of the 10,000 children who have been reported missing in Europe over the refugee crisis. Some 120,000 unaccompanied children—orphans—have come to Europe since 2015. The Dubs amendment is designed to help those children. We agreed as a House that we would do our bit for them, but what kind of a “bit” are we doing? We are talking about 350 children, which equates to 0.002% of all unaccompanied child refugees in Europe. When we debated Dubs, we talked about 3,000 children, which would be just 0.025% of them.

It is right that people should be concerned about what other countries are doing and that we hold the French, Greeks and Italians accountable for their treatment of these children, but Turkey alone is taking 2.8 million Syrian refugees; how can we hold our heads high if we do not do our bit as well? The Dubs scheme is about us doing our bit.

New clause 14 is explicit about safeguarding the children who have applications for transfer—the children in the camps now. I agree with Members who talk about pull factors; the pull factor is safety. We are talking about Afghan children running from the Taliban, Sudanese children running from rape and murder, and Oromo children running from political persecution. They are pulled to our shore for safety. Closing the Dubs scheme will not stop that pull factor, but it will make the traffickers the most attractive proposition those children have. Crucially, amendment 1 and new clause 14 identify our responsibility for involvement in the safeguarding process; we should involve not just the Home Office but the Department for Education. That is where amendment 2 comes from.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have been advised by a scholarly source that “pullulating” means to breed rapidly or abundantly. We are immensely grateful to the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) for his dexterity in the English language.

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

Like me, the Minister will no doubt be concerned that only one in five of those new start-up businesses is led by women. I know that she is keen on Twitter accounts, but let me give her a better idea of something that her own Department came up with, although sadly her predecessors refused to implement. Will she commit to monitoring selling to businesses led by women in the supply chain, and help to get British women back into business?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the Minister’s views on Labour party policy would be of great interest and possibly a source of edification, but they are not relevant now, because this is about Ministers’ responsibility for Ministers’ policies and those of the Government. The wry smile of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggests that he is well aware of that fact.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are a lot of very noisy conversations taking place, including on the Opposition Benches, but I am sure that Members will wish to be quiet to hear Stella Creasy.

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

11. What steps he is taking to increase information-sharing between Government and businesses on cyber-attacks.

Finance Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger): be quiet, and if you cannot be quiet, get out. You are adding nothing, and you are subtracting a lot. It is rude, it is stupid, it is pompous and it needs to stop—whoever it was.

[Stella Creasy]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was merely reflecting that if we could tackle the way in which tax avoidance is affecting the developing nations, we might not need to have an aid budget in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We all heard the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) say, “Lock ’em up for longer”. If he was worried that his tone was untypically muted, his worry was groundless.

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

20. What the Government’s strategy is for victims of crime.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for that. We cannot have an extended exchange on this particular matter, but because he referred—perfectly properly—to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who was jumping up and down, if she wants to raise a point of order, I am very happy to hear and respond to it.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be happy to go through the details of those questions with the Deputy Leader of the House, but it simply is not true that they were transferred within 24 hours. Indeed, we were given days on which we would get answers but we were getting none and when we spoke to the Departments, they had no idea about the questions. I think that further investigations are merited and I hope you will support that, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

There is now a dispute as to the facts but that cannot be the subject of extended points of order. I strongly suggest that the complaining Member and the responsible Minister or the Deputy Leader of the House should get together and try to sort this matter outside the Chamber.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. I understand from the advance notification and from what he has just said that there was a technical problem with the recording of his Committee’s meeting last week. There is not really a procedural solution that I can offer him or the House, but I am advised that all necessary steps are being taken to avoid a recurrence. If no harm was done, I am sure that the Committee and its illustrious Chairman will be relieved. In essence, he asked me a hypothetical question—whether it would have been a contempt, and so on and so forth. I think that he is capable of working out such matters for himself. On this occasion, I hope that he will understand it if I adopt the approach of the late Lord Whitelaw, which was that on the whole, judging from experience, he preferred to cross a bridge only when he came to it.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to ask for your help as a new MP baffled by the actions of Government Departments that may wish to avoid scrutiny in this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and I tabled questions for today’s Culture, Media and Sport Question Time on the impact on participation in sport of the proposed abolition of school sport partnerships, which were accepted by the Table Office and drawn in the ballot for answer. Subsequently, the DCMS summarily moved them to other Departments for answer, and having seen today’s Question Time, we may understand why it chose to avoid them. Could you help me understand how that occurred, and would it be possible to look at the current procedures to help prevent Ministers from using them to park matters that they are too embarrassed to deal with, and indeed from further diluting scrutiny of their actions by making such questions eligible only for a written answer?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. That is a very unfortunate sequence of events, and I am afraid that there are really only two points that I can make to her today. First, the decision as to whether to transfer an oral question from one Department to another is exclusively a matter for the Government. It is not a matter for, for example, the Chair.

Secondly, as I have had reason to state on several previous occasions, I strongly deprecate the practice of late transfer of oral questions by Government Departments. It could have been done earlier. It is very unseemly and very discourteous to Members, and whatever the motivation behind it, it will inevitably fuel the type of suspicion that the hon. Lady has eloquently articulated this afternoon. I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the House is on the Treasury Bench and will have heard that point. I hope that it will not be necessary continually to repeat it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stella Creasy

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Unfortunately, that question suffers from the disadvantage that it bears absolutely no relation to the question on the Order Paper. We must have another go, so I call Stella Creasy.

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

The tender document for the national citizen service pilot sets out the Government’s refusal to meet the total costs of the programme. Just how much of the bill does the Minister expect the voluntary sector and young people themselves to meet?