Ms Stella Creasy
MP for Walthamstow · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“I thank the Foreign Secretary for his clear-sighted commitment not only to talk about a two-state solution, but to actually try to act to achieve it, as the only foundation of a safe Israel and a free Palestine.”
“Could he reassure the House that we will not acquiesce and bend to such pressure, and that the only action that could ever be acceptable to us to make us contemplate reversing this ban would be a halt on the E1 development and a permanent end to settler violence?”
“I start by paying tribute to the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for all the work she did on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on these issues. I know that she will do a brilliant job in this role.”
“I do not really understand the technology, but I know that he does, and I understand and share his fear accordingly. We come here today to debate this Bill because we all know that trust is a bygone issue in our politics.”
“We would welcome her having that conversation, which might be more illuminating than whether she is concerned about Zach Goldmsith’s leaflets. I add my support to the amendments tabled by my hon.”
“From today, if we do not take a stand with this Bill to tackle the ways that money has infiltrated our politics, the risk is that they will think we are acting in the interests of our own back pockets.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,976 lines we hold for Ms Stella Creasy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 100.
“We recognise that extra national insurance costs may have consequences, be they recruitment freezes, reduced staff training or even closures, at a time when we want the sector to expand. Indeed, the majority of nurseries have staff vacancies, so they need extra people already.”
“Many Members agree that we need to invest in that childcare and will be pleased to see this Government trying to address the balance. The damage done under the previous Government meant that 83% of nursery providers said the funding they received did not cover their costs. That is why closures increased by 50% in the last couple of years. This Government have already increased the funding for our nurseries, but while that takes account of increases in wages costs, it does not take account of the increases in national insurance. I tabled new clause 4, which is about having a review of one element of all that, to ensure that we do not cut off our nose to spite our face when trying to get more people into work.”
“That is particularly true of the childcare sector because it is a people-intensive industry. Staffing costs make up 75% of a nursery’s running costs, compared with 30% for the average restaurant. Because the previous Government systemically failed to invest in childcare, the majority of childcare has been provided by the private sector. Some 85% of places are delivered outside the state sector. There is little flexibility on numbers in the sector, because ratios—the number of people looking after little people—matter. These are not businesses with small numbers of staff; an average nursery has 14 members of staff, which means the additional costs will be about £36,000 to £39,000 a year. Around £14,000 of that will be national insurance.”
“If we do not have fundamental root and branch reform of how we fund the provision of childcare, that will cost about £72 million extra a year on hiring staff alone. That is the challenge we face if we want to get this right. I know how hard the Minister is working to get the economy growing again. I know he is going to hear pleas from every single sector about the impact of the national insurance changes; nobody should be under any illusion that they are not difficult changes. I make a plea for the childcare sector because I believe that in the end, it will pay for itself. If we are able to get more people back to work, especially mums, who all too often end up bearing the burden of childcare, we will be able to raise more taxes and there will be more investment as a result.”
“I have worked with the hon. Lady on various issues, and I hope she will give me the latitude to expand my argument and set out my proposals, which we could move forward on together as a House. I do not doubt her sincerity, but I also recognise the fiscal destruction of the previous Government that we need to deal with, which means we need to tell the British public the truth about what needs to happen. Making unfunded promises is as bad as not promising to act. Parent surveys show that a real difference is made when 30 hours of childcare is offered. That amount of childcare enables families to make choices about getting back into work. If we want to get to 30 hours by September next year, we need 60,000 additional childcare places and 29,000 extra members of staff.”
“I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that I am talking about a specific function of the way in which the childcare sector operates and the fact that it generates public Exchequer funding when we get people back into work. My argument here is that we invest to save. This is specifically about childcare. I am sure the hon. Member has read new clause 4 in depth, by the look on his face.”
“If the Minister will not accept new clause 4, I hope he can tell us what work the Treasury is doing to ensure that childcare as a form of economic infrastructure can grow and support this country as it recovers from the last 14 years of Conservative Government. We know that all those who will be affected—in the choice to work, to stay in work and to stay open and run a nursery—are literally the ones who have been paying the price of having a Conservative Government. We do not wish to make them pay all over again. The Conservatives broke Britain. We now need to be honest about the work and the investment that it will take to repair it.”
“Above all, we need to raise those questions and ask how we can ensure that we do not see a curtailment of childcare in this country, because the reality is that fees will then go up, making it even harder for parents to use it. That is what the Pregnant Then Screwed surveys are showing us: 90% of parents who have a place are terrified that costs will go up in the coming year, and 60% say that if that happened they would reduce their hours or leave work altogether. This is a tough time, this is a tough Budget, and there are tough decisions to be made. We are not shying away from that and I am proud to be a member of a political party in government that is getting a grip of this country’s needs. However, I am also determined, as I am sure is everybody on the Back Benches, to make sure that we do that in the best way possible.”
“That accounts for a small amount of the structures in place at the moment, and there is a risk that we will not see the investment in expansion because expansion in previous times has come through the private sector. My concern, if I am frank, is that this is a perfect storm of our own making. With the best intentions of investing money from the Budget in childcare, we may inadvertently make it harder to expand childcare. That is why we need a review, because it is not clearcut that that will be the outcome, which is why I have tabled new clause 4. I also urge Ministers to look at business rates, which currently add around £21,000 to the average nursery. We found support in the Budget for those in retail and hospitality. We could look again at the childcare sector on the same basis.”
“As it is about companies that receive less than 50% of their income from public funding, while many childcare providers were originally in that position before money started going into them, the irony is that many fewer will be in that position in the coming years as a result, meaning that they will be denied the opportunity. Childcare provision in educational settings will be able to benefit, so it is not a total denial. That means that if we are looking to expand childcare, in the current environment and without looking at how we can make that an equal opportunity for all childcare providers, that will have to be done through the state sector, which means having to find nurseries that can be provided in spare classrooms or childcare settings within an educational setting.”
“However, the challenge is right now, with the majority of childcare providers not qualifying for the employment allowance because of the way in which the sector operates and because it has been ignored, dismissed and derided by previous Governments. The majority of positions are produced in the private sector. That means they do not qualify. There is perhaps an unintended irony in all that, however, which is that investing in more childcare, as we are doing, means that many of those small businesses will not be eligible for the employment allowance.”
“He will therefore understand why I suggest that we as a Parliament could look at how we address those issues. Right now, the sector is concerned. I do not think that is a surprise to anyone. It may be a damascene conversion for the Conservative party to suddenly care about it, but there is a concern across the sector about not going backwards. Clause 3 will increase the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 and will reduce the current £100,000 threshold. It might be perceived that for some small businesses, particularly in the childcare sector, that would be a potential way forward in reducing some of the impact of the changes so those businesses can continue to expand.”
“I share my hon. Friend’s frustration, because 10 years ago this place voted to recognise Palestine as a state. Many of us took part in that debate. Does he therefore agree that we now need to take that vote to the United Nations? That is where we must recognise Palestine.”
“It is so refreshing to have a Home Secretary who is actually targeting those who exploit refugees. I understand what she says about the evolving situation in Syria, and I welcome what she has just said about new country guidance. May I press her a little bit more, though? She will understand and recognise that the Syrian community in this country, which many of us have been proud to welcome and support, is unsettled. There are 6,500 claims in process. When does she expect to have a refreshed assessment? We know that the situation in Syria is very uncertain at the moment. Can she please give our Syrian community some comfort about the direction of travel?”
“He has talked about an indefinite ban until 2027—not a rolling ban, but an indefinite ban—and he has talked about recruiting participants to a study that might begin its recruitment in 2025, but he has not said when the review will begin or when we will get the data that he feels is missing and that Dr Cass identified as needing to be provided so that we can move the debate forward. If time is of the essence and puberty is the matter, we need to give these young people a route map forward.”
“The Health Secretary is right when he says that young trans men and young trans women in this country need us all to do better on their behalf, particularly in the debate and how we move forward—there must be more light, not heat. He is also right when he says that time is of the essence. I think we all share his concern that all medicines must be regulated properly and that we should all understand, for every patient group, the risks and benefits of any medication. However, can he give us more clarity, and give those who will be listening to this statement in fear a sense of where this is going?”
“When it comes to equal citizenship in the Union, we must reject the Bill to uphold the rights of all.”
“I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman’s passion. He also needs to be honest with this Chamber that the laws he is talking about include human rights laws, and the basic, equal treatment of everybody in Northern Ireland. His legislation would rip up the very foundation of democracy, which is that everybody is equal. Does he not need to be honest with this Chamber that the 300 laws he is talking about include equal human rights?”
“The hon. and learned Gentleman and I share a common concern, then. My constituents in Walthamstow do benefit from the protection of their human rights, because we are still members of the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, equal access to those human rights is what the Good Friday agreement was based on. The effect that his legislation would have on article 2 of the Windsor framework would breach those principles, so if it went through, would there not be less of a connection between constituents here in England and constituents in Northern Ireland?”
“He has not chosen to go to the Court in Strasbourg—that would be his right and I would support him in doing so—but why would he deny the right to remedy to the rest of his fellow residents of Northern Ireland, as the Bill would, when he says he thinks it was wrong for that right to be protected by the European Court of Human Rights in the first place?”
“I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I hope he will recognise that it is not laughter on the Government Benches, but bemusement at the inconsistency. He opines about his anger that a third party can make law in Northern Ireland. Many of us tried to untangle the inconsistencies in the Rwanda legislation. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I tried in vain to raise it with the previous Government. The critical issue was the right to remedy and the rights it gave people in Northern Ireland to petition a third party if they thought their Government was overbearing on their own basic rights. The hon. and learned Gentleman has himself used those rights: he has chosen to go to the Supreme Court and that is why we are here today.”
“Importantly, this House was charged, along with the Irish Government, to uphold the Good Friday agreement. In any legislation that comes along, it is right and proper that we ask how to do that, alongside our colleagues across in Ireland. This legislation touches on so many elements of that agreement, so today’s debate is also about us doing the important job that we pledged to do all those years ago, to improve and maintain peace and stability in Northern Ireland.”
“I wish I could understand—perhaps my hon. Friend can help me out with this. If, on the one hand, the European Union is a source of colonisation that has this disrespect towards the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, but, on the other hand, as part of a trade agreement we would simply trust each other to mutually enforce each other’s rules without any level of oversight, at what point do we start trusting these colonisers, as opposed to recognising that as part of an international trade treaty, we both have to stick to the same set of rules and see them upheld?”
“Many of us are passionate about equal rights; that is why we have concerns about this legislation. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) would not engage on the subject of the impact that the Bill would have on human rights in Northern Ireland. We all know about our democratic rights. When we talk about equal citizenship, we are talking about the ability to be represented, about rights being upheld, and about a right of remedy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would rip up those rights in Northern Ireland by ripping up article 2 of the Windsor framework? The Bill would deny people in Northern Ireland rights that his constituents and mine have, because we have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights if we feel that an overbearing Government are breaching our rights.”
“But in looking at what we do next, understanding that breaching international protocols has consequences is as important as thinking about what we do when we breach those international protocols, as we did with Brexit.”
“My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and it is one that he and I have lived and breathed as Members elected prior to 2024 and indeed prior to 2019, when the legislation at the heart of this matter was constructed in this place. We were on the Opposition Benches at the time and we all had to look at the concept of international relations and what would happen because of the Brexit votes. It was striking that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) promoting this legislation talked as if that had never happened. We have been there before in all of this. There are no perfect solutions; that is part of the challenge that Brexit created for all of us.”
“Those who advocated for it may wish to reflect on that, but we can go forward by trying to tease out better solutions. They will not be perfect, but they could be better. This legislation is not the solution, but I will offer a hand of friendship across the Chamber to find better solutions, if he is game.”
“The right hon. Gentleman actually knows that I have a lot of sympathy for his frustrations, because none of us should ever say there is a perfect solution to the challenges that he presents. That was always why many of us were concerned about the idea of Brexit, but we know that Brexit has happened. Once it happened, it created a series of problems. Does he recognise that there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat that he is setting out, and that this legislation actually takes us back to those old arguments? By working together in this United Kingdom Parliament, we could look at how we get a better SPS deal, and at how we deal with the problems that the border operating model has created, so that all our constituents can benefit. We cannot go backwards; Brexit has happened and created all these problems.”
“Many of us believe that there is a libertarian argument for a third-party court to uphold the rights of citizens, whether that relates to contract law and what they are sold or to their basic human rights. Is he saying that his resolution is that the right for citizens to petition a third party to protect themselves against the Government should be removed from the people of Northern Ireland?”
“The right hon. Gentleman is right. He and I may disagree about how to resolve it though, which is what I want to ask him about so that I do not misunderstand him. That disagreement was about the right to remedy being removed from people in Northern Ireland seeking asylum; in other words, it was the right to petition to an external court to uphold your rights. This Bill removes the domestic legal effect of article 2 of the Windsor framework and breaches paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 4 of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement, which require that individuals be enabled “to rely directly” on the provisions of that treaty. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is right?”
“New research from the Centre for Responsible Credit shows that 7.5 million people in this country are going without the debt advice that they need. We are in a cost of living crisis, so services are severely stretched. The Money and Pensions Service underestimates need by excluding people who are behind with their bills. That means that the financial levy that it proposes is not what it needs to be. Since a third of those who need financial help borrow from buy now, pay later lenders, and given the delay in regulating those companies, will the Minister meet me to look at the funding model of the financial levy and what more we can do to ensure that those profiting from exploiting our constituents pay to repair the damage?”
“It is clear that the Government are working hard to get this right, but may I press the Minister on the point about the employment allowance? What he says about doubling the threshold is welcome, particularly when it comes to childcare provision, and we all want an expansion of childcare places. He will be aware that the employment allowance doubling that he is talking about will apply to state-provided childcare places, but not to private and co-operative nurseries. Some 85% of places are in private and co-operative nurseries, so will he look at extending the employment allowance that he is giving to state nurseries to private and co-operative nurseries, so we can support the expansion of childcare?”
“Member for South Shropshire feels that, in his experience, one reason he got to that point was that nobody intervened early enough; indeed, they tried to stop the conversation rather than recognise how traumatic it would be for him. It is therefore not just about providing counselling when something horrific has happened, but about recognising how horrific it is to lose a parent at such a young age—full stop. That would make a real difference.”
“This petition tells us about the need to recognise that children are traumatised in that way—they are traumatised by the loss of a parent whether they see it or not—so we must get counselling in. That seems so obvious, but it is not consistent. The counselling services are there, so it is a question of joining them up. I hope that the Minister can take that back to her Department. I have also seen, for children who have lost parents to terminal illness, that counselling is not an expected part of the conversation about what we can do. It has come up only in relation to whether we can keep the child in school, but that seems too late. I would wager that the hon.”
“It seems obvious that those children would be traumatised. One child was there when it happened, but we are still struggling to get them counselling; it is not a given. The school does not have any understanding of what needs to provided. That does not mean that people at the school do not want to help, but it is so out of their worldview that that could happen, so counselling is not in place. The family have been trying to push for it for some time, but it is still a work in progress. Ironically, we have now discovered that a child can get counselling if they view a murder or are a witness, but not if it has just happened to a member of their family or to a parent.”
“We are speaking for thousands of people in this country, of all ages, who have lost a parent. In my short contribution, I will raise with the Minister some examples that I have dealt with as a constituency MP. They are the cases that nobody ever wants to see. When a young child comes through our door in that position, it takes all our courage not to burst into tears when we hear their heartbreaking story, but that becomes even more of a challenge when we realise that services are not built to wrap around them. It seems so obvious that we must do everything we can for this young person, because an awful thing has happened to them, but that is not a given. Sadly, I have dealt with several children who, as Mark lost his father, have lost their parents to murder—horrific, public murders in my local community.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. It is a privilege to be part of a debate that reflects Parliament and politics at its best, which happens when we see the injustices and the suffering that have befallen those whom we represent, and we seek to make sure that they never happen again. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) for eloquently opening the debate, to Mark and John, and to the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson). Time passing does not make it easier for them; it makes it more important that we have not yet dealt with the situation that they are in. I am grateful to have heard about their experiences and to contribute to this debate with those experiences at the centre.”
“These petitions call on us to act on scenarios that sadly happen more than we might realise, and which we do not know the full extent of. I know the Minister shares my concern and compassion for people in that position and will want to do all she can. We must help her in lobbying her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice for a better dataset of the children in that position. I know that is a view we hold across the House. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage for introducing the petition so eloquently.”
“I hope that the number is infinitesimal, but for the two I came across in Walthamstow, I have never felt more impotent as an MP. We were trying to stop them living in horrific circumstances in which they had lost all support, funding and assistance, while we as a community were gathering together school uniforms for them and the foodbanks had to be there every single day. I would be horrified if there were more children in that position, but since we do not know, we must do more to gather basic data to understand what is happening to some children in this country. We hope that it is a scenario we never have to deal with, but we sadly know that it is not the case. That is why it is so important that the House, as it does at its best, hears the stories and sees the reality of the messiness of human life, and acts.”
“That means the Minister’s job is doubly difficult, because she will not know how many children have no guaranteed guardian to pick any of these issues up, whether that is counselling or their financial position. It seems obvious that, as corporate parents, we ought to know how many children are in the position of sadly losing both parents. I make a plea that we make counselling a given. It must not be something to be asked and fought for and sought out, whereby hopefully the local Member of Parliament knows about Victim Support or another charity, even though those charities do brilliant things. We must organise counselling for every child who loses a parent and do that through schools, partly to take some of the weight off the parent who is grieving. We must also start to act as corporate parents and record how many orphans there are.”
“I asked the Ministry of Justice about children who have legal guardians, because that was what these family members had become for those children. It was sorting out their status that then opened up doors for the children, which took far too long—more than a year. We do not have a record of how many orphans are in this country. Think about the worst thing that could possibly happen: someone loses one parent and then the second, or maybe even loses both together. The state does not know how many of those children there are, so I asked the Ministry of Justice about the numbers of children being allocated a legal guardian because both parents had passed away. The Ministry of Justice told me, in answer to a written question, that while it thought that the information was held in court records, it was not uniformly gathered.”
“There is another scenario I want to raise with the Minister, which addresses the first petition about data. I recently had a case that really floored me, of two children who lost their mother and then, shortly afterwards, their father—it was just extraordinary. We relied on their family members to help them, but because those family members did not have immigration status here in the UK, the children, who were British citizens, lost all their rights and were living in absolute, abject poverty. My community in Walthamstow brilliantly picked them up to try to help them while we resolved their immigration status, but the children’s rights here were gone as soon as their parents died. It got me thinking about how many other families might be in that position.”
“I first became involved in many of these issues when I worked with the brilliant Widowed and Young with parents who were not married, where the impact was that families would lose an income provider who was not recognised. The children were clearly suffering, but in those cases the mums, and in one case the dad, were having to think about all the practical things, such as bills and how to keep a roof above their head. They did not have as much time to be with their children, which in itself caused grief and harm to them. We managed to get the allowance for bereaved widows extended to non-married partners, but we did not really look to challenge the idea that somehow, after 18 months, a child and a family should have recovered to the extent that there would be no impact. That affects our ability to help children.”
“One of the reasons it is important to have counselling in schools is that, when I think about the partners who I have worked with who have lost somebody, we want to try to take as many burdens off their shoulders as possible and recognise that they are dealing with grief too. This debate focuses on children, but there is a need to join up the welfare system to support families. They have lost somebody—they have lost an income provider—and often, the time that the remaining parent wants to spend with their child is taken away because they have to work to try to make up the loss of income. We should be able to join that up.”
“Alaa’s friends and family, whom I have the privilege of representing as my constituents, just want their brother, uncle and son home safe. Previously, the Foreign Secretary—who has worked hard on this issue and, as he says, has raised it with the Egyptians—has talked about what we could do if the Egyptians will not restore consular access. They still have not done that, so could the Foreign Secretary update us? I know this House speaks as one in standing and demanding that Alaa be freed and able to come home to his family for this Christmas, but what more can and will the Foreign Secretary do if the Egyptians will not restore consular access for the family?”
“My constituents are very proud that one of our own, Samia Dumbuya, was part of the Future Leaders Network working with the UK Youth Climate Coalition at Baku. I know that the Secretary of State will agree that young people need to be at the heart of what comes next following COP. They welcome the proposed NDCs, but they now need a direct and dedicated place in making them happen. Can he tell us what formal mechanism for the oversight and delivery of the reduction of emissions by 81% by 2035 he envisages for the young people of the UK?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is making a very powerful case and many of us share her deep concern for the children in Gaza. Does she recognise, as I do, that the time has probably now come for the UK to use its full range of diplomatic powers to express its concerns, particularly regarding the comments in the last 24 hours by Finance Minister Smotrich, who has called for Israel to permanently occupy Gaza as a means of getting the hostages home? The hostage families do not want that; Israeli communities oppose it. So, does she agree that it is time for us to stand with all those Israelis and Palestinians against that kind of extremist language, because it does not help the people of Gaza and it will not end this crisis?”
“Having spent 14 years watching children’s services struggle in the way the Secretary of State outlines, with serious case reviews often being the moment of intervention, I heartily welcome the emphasis on early intervention, and what she says about the responsibility that we all have. She will know that there has been much discussion about the concept of corporate parenting. What is her thinking on that, and what role does she see for us as Members of Parliament? At the moment, relationships across the country are clearly too inconsistent. That is to the detriment of safeguarding, and indeed of our young people.”
“Members from across the House have long called for financial regulation of “buy now, pay later” companies. Because of the delay in regulating those companies, a third of people seeking debt advice do so because of them. The Woolard report in 2021 identified the urgency of the FCA regulating the industry as soon as possible. I welcome the Government’s commitment to regulating them, but I am bemused, as many are, as to why it will take until 2026 for the regulations to take effect and for our constituents to be protected. Everybody knows that regulation needs to happen, and what the regulations are, and the FCA has been waiting since 2021 to do it—so why are we giving these legal loan sharks two Christmases-worth of presents, and allowing them to exploit our vulnerable constituents in this cost of living crisis?”
“With winter on its way, as the Minister said, it is vital that we are clear about the importance of aid and of challenging all who obstruct it. The Israeli Finance Minister said that the starvation of 2 million people in Gaza might be “justified and moral” in order to free the hostages. Let us be clear: the hostage families do not think that. The Israeli National Security Minister backed the protests against aid convoys reaching Gaza. I understand why the Minister says that she will not give a running commentary on sanctions, but if we do not have sanctions now, what else is open to us to send the clear message that aid must get to Gaza immediately?”