Stella Creasy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a very powerful case, and we all agree that we want to get the system right. Can we also all agree, because there is not a Reform Member here, that the comments about the system being “hijacked” were completely inappropriate and do not speak for the needs of the children we all want to represent, and that we all in this room condemn that as being without foundation? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

• 10 Sept 2025 · Qatar: Israeli Strike · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is absolutely right to call for a session at the United Nations—nobody can think that attacking the people trying to broker peace is going to lead to a ceasefire—but ahead of that, this country must have made some assessment of the case for the session and the motion. Will the Minister tell us what assessment his officials have made about the civilian casualties and whether this strike is proportionate under the boundaries of the laws of armed conflict, as set out in international law? If we go to the UN, what case will we be making?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace · Hansard source

  More

  Our constituents with links to Poland will understandably be terrified by last night’s development, but they will also be reassured that the Polish people, like the Ukrainian people, do not stand alone. NATO’s supreme headquarters confirmed that last night’s mission involved not just Polish air defence, but Dutch F-35s, German Patriot batteries and Italian early warning aircraft. The EU High Representative has talked about increasing its involvement in the East Shield project, which we are already part of. Will the Minister update this House on his conversations with our European counterparts about last night and on what more we will do to stand with the Polish and Ukrainian people?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests · Hansard source

  More

  I do apologise, Mr Speaker. I was advised that it was three minutes, but that is my fault. Terrorism is different from terrorising opponents, but both should be criminal offences. Will the Minister commit to a review of that section so that we can get it right for the sake of our democracy?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask if the Home Secretary will make a statement on the proscription of Palestine Action and public protest.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests · Hansard source

  More

  Nearly 1,500 people have now been arrested because of concerns about proscription. There is clearly a problem with violence and intimidation in our politics, and we have to get this right because public confidence is falling, too. I am not here as a supporter or defender of Palestine Action and its tactics. I condemn without hesitation abuse, intimidation and attacks on the police and any political opponent. The case for acting on the group itself was and is strong. We have seen a pattern of violence at its events, and it has not dissociated itself from that violence. But we also see police and refugees being targeted for violence alongside those who want to protest about immigration matters—banners that say, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out!”, neo-Nazi groups circling. We cannot ignore the impact on policing on our streets because of these incidents, but this is just not sustainable for our police or our criminal justice system. There is a difference between people protesting using violence and people protesting the use of proscription. If we do not get the response right, if we continue to arrest those in that secondary category, the seriousness of the term “terrorism” risks losing its meaning and becoming diluted rather than strengthened. Proscription was supposed to be about stopping those inciting direct harm and violence. Going after somebody with a poster testing the boundaries of liberty—many of whom are clear that they do not support Palestine Action, but feel strongly about Palestinian rights or free speech—confuses rather than clarifies the Government’s intention. People must be able to protest what is happening in Gaza, and the focus should be on what is happening in Palestine, not Parliament Square. I asked for this urgent question because I think it is for us to act. Legislation on public order focuses on specific Acts; proscription orders target specific terrorist groups. Nothing sits in between. Given that, what discussions has the Minister had with the police about distinguishing between members of Palestine Action and people concerned about proscription itself? [ Interruption. ] The offence of recklessly encouraging support of a proscribed group runs counter to that focus on criminality. If he will not abolish that offence, will he at least set out guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service and the police on any public interest test in using it? The previous Policing Minister—

• 4 Sept 2025 · Early Education and Childcare · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s recognition of the impact of this policy on equality. He will know that this Monday was Mums’ Equal Pay Day. Mums earn 33% less than dads, so from 1 September, mums in this country basically work for free. Affordable childcare is critical to closing that gap. As new organisation Growth Spurt points out, a third of women who are not in work at the moment say that it is caring responsibilities that stop them from working. Will the Minister meet me and Growth Spurt to look at how we can get jobcentres, which do not routinely tell parents about tax-free childcare and the funded hours process, to help in this respect, so that together we can end the motherhood penalty?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I think we all hear the frustration of the Foreign Secretary. He is leading in a way that other nations have not on this challenge, but it is that leadership role that we are looking to as a House. I think we all understand that nations individually have limited impact but that pressure can be brought to bear collectively. Can he tell us, for example, what more he is doing with his colleagues in the world community to stand with the Israeli opposition to Netanyahu and the Israeli hostages calling out his murderous behaviour? The Foreign Secretary comes to the House and tells us that the famine is man-made, which is a war crime. What more is he doing to report the Israeli Government to the ICC or to say that we will recognise Palestine not as a threat but as a statement of positive intent with our colleagues? Above all, how are we working with our colleagues in Europe? The honest truth is, not a single child from Gaza who urgently needs medical assistance has yet come to the UK, but the European Union and World Health Organisation programme is getting children out at pace and at speed. What more could we be doing to work with them so that those children could come within days? They have already been cleared by Israeli officials. No, we must not judge ourselves by other countries; we must judge ourselves by whether we have truly done every single act we can. There is more that we could do.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Borders and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  It was Orwell who urged us to be proud of our countries and to call out the nationalists trying to demand that we express our pride or be called traitors accordingly. Let us be proud of this country and the work it has done to support people fleeing persecution; let us be proud of what we have done to help families from Ukraine and Hong Kong. I know the Home Secretary recognises that safe and legal routes for refugee children to be reunited with their parents are something that we should be proud of. In that vein, if there is to be a delay in providing those safe and legal routes, will it apply to all children, including Ukrainian children, or will we recognise that helping children so that they do not face penalties is our best and proudest action?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) is right; we have been waiting weeks for this statement. The truth is that our constituents do not understand—and neither do we—how we can track our stolen mobile phones to China or Algeria but we cannot track F-35 components in the multimillion-pound arms trade. They do not understand why we have not reported Israel directly to the International Criminal Court for what has been happening to aid workers, and they do not understand why, given that this House voted in 2014 to recognise the state of Palestine, that has not been enacted. I hear the Foreign Secretary’s frustration, and I do not doubt his frustration with his partners, but tonight we could say, “We do not need a conference—we will recognise the state of Palestine.” Will he join us—yes or no?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity · Hansard source

  More

  I think many of us agree with the Minister when she says that it is important that we are able to debate immigration and refugees and how we as a country support them, and that we recognise when allegations of incredibly serious sexual offences are involved that people are rightly concerned. Peaceful protest plays its part, but she will be conscious that the police themselves have condemned the “mindless thuggery” that we have seen in Epping. Also, there are reports that seem quite serious about neo-Nazi groups and their leaflets being circulated. In order to protect peaceful protest, which many of us seek to do, we have to stop the direct targeting of individuals with violence. What assessment has been made of any co-ordination of violence by groups in these incidents?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Global Plastics Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is giving an incredibly powerful speech. Microplastics are also part of what we are wearing, and microfibres are a key part of the problem with plastics. I wonder if, like me, she is interested in what the French have done to get companies to disclose when microfibres are part of the material used in clothing. In order to tackle the “fast fashion” crisis, people need to understand what they are wearing and the damage that microplastics can do to our environment.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Afghanistan · Hansard source

  More

  It is a very shocking story that the Secretary of State has told us today, and I pay tribute to him for his commitment to be transparent about it. Sadly, this comes as no surprise to many of us here and to those in our offices who, over that period of time, had to deal with hundreds of desperately distraught people ringing in to find out what might happen to their relatives. I have to be honest with the Secretary of State: this matter is not closed. I join the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in being desperately concerned that we still have people who would have qualified under these schemes, but who, because of failures like this, fled Afghanistan or tried to go to other countries. We tried to raise this issue with Ministers, but could not get meetings with them, and now we discover that there were secret schemes. The Secretary of State will understand that, right now, MPs’ offices across this country will be hearing this and be worried that, again, they will get those phone calls and have those queries. He is right to say that there must be parliamentary scrutiny. Can he assure us that there will be additional resources to help us support our constituents who come forward and that he will keep an open mind that, even four years later, there will still be cases that are relevant to this scheme that should be heard—people who should be given sanctuary here—if we are to honour our debt to those people who kept our forces safe?

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  Thank God there is somebody in this Chamber trying to actually save the planet! Net zero makes good common sense for lots of our constituents when they recognise that this is not just about climate security—those of us who have faced floods in our constituencies know how expensive that is—but about national security and the cost of living. Moving towards sustainable electricity would put both Rosebank and Putin out of business, but the Secretary of State will know that, on current plans, bill payers will be wasting £8 billion a year switching off wind farms by 2030 if we do not take action. How can we stop this transfer of wealth from citizens to corporations, so that we can invest in community energy?

• 14 Jul 2025 · UK-France Migration: Co-operation · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Home Secretary shares my frustration that we could have been much further along with a returns agreement, because the shadow Home Secretary—the former Immigration Minister—apparently admitted to a Conservative party members meeting in May that, before we left the European Union, his Government had worked out that we would not be able to return people under the hard Brexit deal they were providing. Given the progress we have made by getting a returns agreement, could the Home Secretary outline for us what this will mean for somebody applying from France? This is going to be a safe route, and it is therefore very welcome movement for those of us who recognise the horrors in Calais and the limbo we leave people in. It is important to use this to dissuade people from getting on to a dangerous boat, because there is a legal mechanism they can use to be reunited with their families.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the commitment to work with disabled people. The Minister will know that the difference between consultation and co-production is that every participant has to have a veto of the outcomes in order to co-produce. Otherwise, with the greatest will in the world, it is just another form of consultation. Can he give us an assurance that disabled groups will have a veto over the proposals, to engage the consultation process?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope he is not suggesting that the hard-working families who use PIP to be able to get to work are not voices that we should hear in this Chamber.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  At Committee stage, we often table amendments to try to understand the nature of the legislation. Many questions are being put forward in this concertinaed process. The first is whether we should make policy by phone-in rather than on an evidence base. That is the only justification I can see for new clause 12 tabled by the Opposition, who appear not to understand that no recourse to public funds guides the lives of many migrants in our community. It contains a fundamentally un-British perspective on people who come here and work for many years in our national health service, and who then have a stroke or perhaps develop MS. Under the Opposition’s proposals, we would deny such people the support they have paid into as taxpayers. It is a dog whistle so loud that I fear the dogs in Battersea right now are having a terrible time. We should not make policy by phone-in but by evidence, and I pay tribute to the incredible words of my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who bring their own experiences to this debate. I will speak to new clause 4, which I tabled, as well as to other amendments. Those amendments come from my experience of what makes good policymaking in this place and from my concern that we need to protect our constituents from the vagaries of public policy. I think in particular of a 62-year-old constituent of mine who is physically disabled with a mobility condition called ankylosing spondylitis—I will tell Hansard how to spell that. She works full time and lives alone in a rented flat that has been adapted for her. Removing, messing around with and playing with her benefits—as this Bill would do for millions of people around this country—will not save money; it will simply cost more. My constituent would struggle to get to work and to look after herself, which she can do using the welfare support that she gets under the current system. That means we will face higher costs in the long run. I wish that Members would learn from the evidence on the bedroom tax. The bedroom tax was brought in under the same metric that we heard from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is no longer here—that somehow people who are supported by our welfare system are probably making it up. This is not a moral argument I am making; the bedroom tax did not save the money it was meant to save, because it just pushed costs into other parts of the public sector. That is why it is so important that agree to new clause 4 and weave the principles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into this legislation. It should be guided by principle not prejudice—in particular the principle that we should respect our fellow human beings and our constituents who have a disability. New clause 4 covers the question of co-production, and on this point I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) is not in her place. I want to come back to that question, because there is a very important principle about co-production that we have not bottomed out, and I want to hear from the Minister about it. There is a simple premise that we signed up to in the UN convention, which I hope Members across the House would support, that there should be an adequate standard of living—that is identified in article 28. Crucially, article 19 also sets out that there should be an independent living process for our disabled constituents. That is why in 2017, 2024 and indeed 2025, when the UN criticised the previous Government, we rightly held them to account for it. What do we wish for our disabled constituents, if not an independent and equal standard of living? What do we wish for them, if not the basic human right to be treated equally? We must recognise that the world we live in does not work for them, and we must account for that through our welfare system so that they can live freely and, yes, play a part in the world of work while also living with dignity. It is about very practical things, such as the freedom that comes from someone having a carer who helps them get dressed so that they can go to work. That is supported by our welfare system. It is also about travel costs, especially for those living in my constituency, where Transport for London seems to be hellbent on breaking down all of the stations so that they are not accessible. Covering those costs means that someone can go out to see family and friends. There is also the food that someone might need if they have a condition like phenylketonuria—a metabolic condition that means a person needs a low protein diet. These are not equal experiences, but by using our welfare state to support those people, we can have ensure that they have the human rights we wish them to have. New clause 4 is about giving due regard to the principles set out in the UN charter so that benefits are calculated in a way that means they are sufficient to allow people to live a life of freedom equally alongside their fellow human beings. The payments we make must meet those tests so that disabled people in our communities can meet their living expenses. That is a question that many hard-working people who are struggling at the moment in their lives can recognise well. It is about levelling the playing field. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said, about making fools of us all. Those are principles that I hope the Government will commit to weaving throughout the legislation. That is why new clause 4 matters: it goes beyond the principle of co-production, which I know the Minister has recognised, to the basic principle of how we treat people. That would apply to the universal credit health element of the Bill. If we restricted a benefit, it would call on us to ask why we consider somebody to need X amount at this point in time but Y amount in the future, and to ask whether that will live up to the required standard of living. I want to touch on co-production in particular. Many have talked about it, but people do not necessarily understand what it means. It is not consultation. Co-production means that whoever is included can say no as well as yes. Without a power of veto, all we have is a better managed consultation. Co-production genuinely empowers every participant to shape things, because they can walk out of the room as well as being part of it. The Minister has talked about seeking consensus, but it is not an equal relationship if disabled people are not given the clear power to veto what is put on the table, such that the Government have to work with them so that they do not use their veto. That is the principle of co-production—that is why it is not consultation—and that is what we should be seeking. I have much sympathy for new clause 8—I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is not in his place—because I was here in 2015 when George Osborne used statutory instruments to slash the tax credits that our constituents relied on and 3 million people were pushed further into poverty. I was also here when MPs on both sides of the House expressed frustration about the use of that process. We had to watch the House of Lords clear up our mess and stand up to the Chancellor for using delegated legislation to take £1,300 away from our constituents. I hope the Minister will understand that this is not about this individual Bill or even about his good intentions; I know that he has engaged with all of us. It is about the principle that if we are to change the law, we should be able to amend and adjust that law and scrutinise it on behalf of our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) set out many alternative ways in which we could switch spending to invest in order to save money in the long run. There are many different ways in which we can support our economy to grow; it does not have to be off the backs of our disabled constituents. There is also the important principle here—I know many on the Labour Benches believe this—that socialism is the language of priorities. Our priority must be to empower and enable every single one of our constituents to achieve their potential—and yes, that happens through a growing economy, and also through a welfare state. I hope that the Minister will address the amendments that seek to ask questions about how we get this right. For many of us those unanswered questions are troubling —we cannot bring back answers for our constituents—because they tell us that we may not achieve those things that I have set out. None of us who have lived through George Osborne and the bedroom tax ever want to go back to that again. We want to be able to say to our constituents, who might find themselves in the position of the father of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, that we can absolutely be proud of the system we are building today, just as we are proud of my hon. Friend himself.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 7 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  May I join with many of the others reliving their political youth in welcoming Sure Start and paying tribute to the late, great Tessa Jowell, whose vision for it inspired us all? One of the reasons why Tessa was so passionate about Sure Start is that she knew it would ultimately save us money by investing in families. The evidence now proves that for £1 in Sure Start, we got £2 back. The chutzpah of those on the Opposition Front Bench, who pushed up demand for childcare but failed to invest in it under the previous Government, therefore stands as a stark testimony. My right hon. Friend will know that we still need to put much more funding into childcare. In the spirit of Tessa Jowell, does the Secretary of State agree it is time to recognise that paying people to stay married, as the married couples allowance does, will not be as productive in helping families in this country as putting the £600 million it costs us into childcare and expanding access further?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Government Performance against Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  There has been talk about the previous Prime Minister. As the MP for the constituency where the lettuce that lasted longer than the previous Prime Minister was located, I can confirm that we all know from our constituents that she did more damage. It is good to hear Conservative Members finally talking about the small businesses that are the backbone of the British economy, rather than worrying about the millionaires. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to give those businesses even more certainty and confidence about the road ahead? The EU trade deal that we have done is a brilliant start, but does he agree that there is now a case for also looking at things like alignment by default, so that they can confidently know what kind of future they have under this Government?