MP calls for cultural change as Commons bar set to reopen after alleged spiking
Westminster needs to 'radically reshape' its culture if it is to tackle sexual misconduct, an MP has warned as Parliament's Strangers' Bar prepares to reopen following an allegation of spiking.
The bar – a popular haunt for MPs, journalists and parliamentary staff – has been closed since January 20 after a woman, reported to be a parliamentary researcher, told staff her drink had been tampered with.
Following a review of safety at the bar, it is set to reopen on February 24 after MPs agreed to a series of new measures to deter further incidents, including installing CCTV and providing extra training for staff.
Labour MP Charlotte Nichols, who has been outspoken on the need improve behaviour in Westminster, told the PA news agency she welcomed the changes as a 'positive step', but said Parliament needed to go further.
She told PA: 'Ultimately it's tinkering around the edges of the actual issue, unless we radically reshape how we deal with the culture in Parliament.'
Ms Nichols added that this included, 'as a minimum first step', implementing the recommendations of the Kernaghan Review of Parliament's Independent Complaints and Grievance Service (ICGS), and parties 'taking much more seriously their responsibilities when it comes to dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct and vetting'.
Published in May last year, the review by former Hampshire chief constable Paul Kernaghan made 26 recommendations including mandatory training on Parliament's code of conduct for all MPs and requiring political parties to refer relevant complaints to the ICGS.
Ms Nichols' comments were echoed by Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect union – which represents some parliamentary staff, who said the changes 'go some way to addressing concerns' but also called for cultural change.
He said: 'In particular, the introduction of CCTV is something Prospect has called for as an important security measure, and one which is present in virtually every other licensed premises in the country.
'It is telling however that these changes are necessary, and indicative that the overall culture at Westminster still has to change.'
As well as installing CCTV, the bar will make covers for glasses available on request, increase the presence of security staff in the vicinity and provide enhanced training to bar staff.
Information on 'drink safety' and links to schemes including 'Ask for Angela' will also be displayed in the bar.
A spokesperson for the House of Commons said: 'The safety of everyone on the estate remains a key priority for both Houses.
'Following a review of arrangements in Strangers' Bar, the House of Commons Commission has endorsed a number of changes that aim to enhance existing safety measures and ensure the well-being of all customers who visit the bar.'
The Metropolitan Police is continuing to investigate the alleged spiking, which is said to have occurred on the evening of January 7.
A spokesperson for the force said no arrests had been made so far.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
When is the government spending review and what might Rachel Reeves announce?
All eyes are on the Treasury this week as Rachel Reeves is set to lay out her spending review to Parliament on Wednesday. She'll announce the Government's day-to-day spending commitments up to 2028-29, and investment spending plans to 2029-30 – but there have been varying reports of what we can expect. Here, Telegraph Money takes you through what we know and what the plans could mean for you. Spending reviews take place every few years, and it is when the Government lays out all spending that can be reasonably planned. The plans account for around 40pc of all public spending, according to the House of Commons Library, with the rest dependent on demands such as the benefits bill. The last multi-year spending review was in 2021 under Boris Johnson's Conservative administration. In the run-up to the review, government departments have been in negotiations with the Treasury to try to secure as much funding as they can. The current review process was launched in December last year, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said it could be 'one of the most significant domestic policy events of this parliament'. However, Ms Reeves has warned that 'not every department will get everything that they want', as she has had to 'say no' to things that she would support in an ideal world. Many departments are expecting a real-terms cut in their funding. The Government previously said that the review is 'zero-based', meaning that decisions will be made based on an assessment of spending line by line, rather than an overall increase or decrease to the current budget. The Chancellor will stand up in the House of Commons on Wednesday June 11 after Prime Minister's Questions, at roughly 12.30pm. Once Ms Reeves has finished speaking the review will be published on the government website, along with any accompanying documents. Some government spending plans have already been announced. Last week, Reeves announced £15.6bn of funding for regional transport, and the Government has confirmed a partial U-turn on the decision to remove winter fuel payments from all but the poorest pensioners. The Treasury has today announced that nine million pensioners will receive winter fuel payments this winter as a result. It has also been reported that the Chancellor will focus on three priorities in the spending review: health, security and the economy. This means spending on the NHS, defence and infrastructure, with Home Secretary Yvette Cooper understood to be putting in a final plea for more police funding. There are also suggestions that the two-child benefit cap may be lifted, and schools are understood to be in line for £4.5bn uplift. Funding these plans may be tricky, however. Ms Reeves has confirmed she will be sticking to the Government's non-negotiable fiscal rules on borrowing. At the same time, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said 'momentum is weakening' in the economy, as they told Ms Reeves that efforts to cut government borrowing must be 'stepped up'. If more borrowing is off the table, it may mean cuts for some departments. The IFS has warned that 'because headline real growth rates [over the period] are relatively modest, sharp trade-offs are unavoidable. Achieving stated objectives in some areas will likely require real-terms cuts elsewhere.' Deutsche Bank is a little more optimistic. In a recent analyst note Sanjay Raja, senior economist, said the bank is seeing more 'resilience than expected' in the UK economy, and their forecasts for growth until the end of 2027 currently sit above the consensus. But, in short, Reeves still needs to find more money. No, there will be no tax rises in the spending review on Wednesday. As tax increases demand new legislation through a finance bill, we won't hear about any changes until the Budget in the autumn – but there is already speculation that any additional spending will necessitate a higher tax burden unless a spur in economic growth helps to boost the Treasury's coffers. Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, said: 'Of course, a lot can happen between now and the Budget and we have a number of economic data points that could influence the Chancellor's decisions come the autumn, but speculation about what may be on the table is naturally already rife. 'Perhaps the most drastic decision the Government could make would be to walk back on its manifesto commitment not to tax 'working people' and consider increasing income tax, national insurance or VAT.' Mr Selby added that ideas for a wealth tax may also be considered, along with speculation of further pensions reform. Another option Ms Reeves could be weighing up is extending the current freeze on income tax thresholds. The Finance Act 2025 extended the freeze on inheritance tax thresholds until 2030 – and the Chancellor will be under pressure to do the same to other allowances and thresholds, too. The latest forecasts suggest eight million workers will be pulled into higher rates of tax by 2028, raising an extra £38bn per year for the Treasury. Extending the threshold would also allow the Chancellor to keep to Labour's manifesto commitment not to raise taxes on working people. Lindsay James, investment strategist at Quilter, said as there were no tax rises in the Spring Statement, investors are expecting to see rises in the autumn Budget if growth continues to 'lag'. Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, made a series of suggestions in a leaked memo – including reinstating the pensions lifetime allowance and removing more inheritance tax reliefs, which were calculated to raise approximately £3bn in total. Chris Etherington, tax partner at RSM UK, added: 'It may already feel pretty claustrophobic at the Treasury, with limited headroom below the fiscal ceiling. The hope will be that economic growth will ease this pressure, and the next few months could be crucial to the Chancellor's plans. 'As it stands, the foundations may need further stabilisation and another sizeable rise in tax receipts to fund that.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
UK ministers delay AI regulation amid plans for more ‘comprehensive' bill
Proposals to regulate artificial intelligence have been delayed by at least a year as UK ministers plan a bumper bill to regulate the technology and its use of copyrighted material. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, intends to introduce a 'comprehensive' AI bill in the next parliamentary session to address concerns about issues including safety and copyright. This will not be ready before the next king's speech, and is likely to trigger concerns about delays to regulating the technology. The date for the next king's speech has not been set but several sources said it could take place in May 2026. Labour had originally planned to introduce a short, narrowly drafted AI bill within months of entering office that would have been focused on large language models, such as ChatGPT. The legislation would have required companies to hand over their models for testing by the UK's AI Security Institute. It was intended to address concerns that AI models could become so advanced that they posed a risk to humanity. This bill was delayed, with ministers choosing to wait and align with Donald Trump's administration in the US because of concerns that any regulation might weaken the UK's attractiveness to AI companies. Ministers now want to include copyright rules for AI companies as part of the AI bill. 'We feel we can use that vehicle to find a solution on copyright,' a government source said. 'We've been having meetings with both creators and tech people and there are interesting ideas on moving forward. That work will begin in earnest once the data bill passes.' The government is already locked in a standoff with the House of Lords over copyright rules in a separate data bill. It would allow AI companies to train their models using copyrighted material unless the rights holder opts out. It has caused a fierce backlash from the creative sector, with artists including Elton John, Paul McCartney and Kate Bush throwing their weight behind a campaign to oppose the changes. This week, peers backed an amendment to the data bill that would require AI companies to disclose if they were using copyrighted material to train their models, in an attempt to enforce current copyright law. Ministers have refused to back down, however, even though Kyle has expressed regret about the way the government has gone about the changes. The government insists the data bill is not the right vehicle for the copyright issue and has promised to publish an economic impact assessment and series of technical reports on copyright and AI issues. In a letter to MPs on Saturday, Kyle made a further commitment to establish a cross-party working group of parliamentarians on AI and copyright. Beeban Kidron, the film director and cross-bench peer who has been campaigning on behalf of the creative sector, said on Friday that ministers 'have shafted the creative industries, and they have proved willing to decimate the UK's second-biggest industrial sector'. Kyle told the Commons last month that AI and copyright should be dealt with as part of a separate 'comprehensive' bill. Most of the UK public (88%) believe the government should have the power to stop the use of an AI product if it is deemed to pose a serious risk, according to a survey published by the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute in March. More than 75% said the government or regulators should oversee AI safety rather than private companies alone. Scott Singer, an AI expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: 'The UK is strategically positioning itself between the US and EU. Like the US, Britain is attempting to avoid overly aggressive regulation that could harm innovation while exploring ways to meaningfully protect consumers. That's the balancing act here.'
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
During the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's imposition of the Emergency, India entered a period where civil liberties were suspended and much of the political opposition was jailed. Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Congress party government quietly began reimagining the country - not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a centralised state governed by command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new book. In Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, Prof Raghavan shows how Gandhi's top bureaucrats and party loyalists began pushing for a presidential system - one that would centralise executive power, sideline an "obstructionist" judiciary and reduce parliament to a symbolic chorus. Inspired in part by Charles de Gaulle's France, the push for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to move beyond the constraints of parliamentary democracy - even if it never fully materialised. It all began, writes Prof Raghavan, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and a close aide of Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a "tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support" and urged Gandhi to seize the moment. Parliamentary democracy had "not been able to provide the answer to our needs", Nehru wrote. In this system the executive was continuously dependent on the support of an elected legislature "which is looking for popularity and stops any unpleasant measure". What India needed, Nehru said, was a directly elected president - freed from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking "tough, unpleasant and unpopular decisions" in the national interest, Prof Raghavan writes. The model he pointed to was de Gaulle's France - concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a single, seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in Parliament and state legislatures, a judiciary with curtailed powers and a press reined in by strict libel laws. He even proposed stripping fundamental rights - right to equality or freedom of speech, for example - of their justiciability. Nehru urged Indira Gandhi to "make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have two-thirds majority". His ideas were "received with rapture" by the prime minister's secretary PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nehru approval to discuss these ideas with her party leaders but said "very clearly and emphatically" that he should not convey the impression that they had the stamp of her approval. Prof Raghavan writes that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Swaran Singh. The chief minister of Haryana state was blunt: "Get rid of this election nonsense. If you ask me just make our sister [Indira Gandhi] President for life and there's no need to do anything else". M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of two non-Congress chief ministers consulted - was unimpressed. When Nehru reported back to Gandhi, she remained non-committal, Prof Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest aides to explore the proposals further. What emerged was a document titled "A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some suggestions", drafted in secrecy and circulated among trusted advisors. It proposed a president with powers greater than even their American counterpart, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new "Superior Council of Judiciary", chaired by the president, would interpret "laws and the Constitution" - effectively neutering the Supreme Court. Gandhi sent this document to Dhar, who recognised it "twisted the Constitution in an ambiguously authoritarian direction". Congress president DK Barooah tested the waters by publicly calling for a "thorough re-examination" of the Constitution at the party's 1975 annual session. The idea never fully crystallised into a formal proposal. But its shadow loomed over the Forty-second Amendment Act, passed in 1976, which expanded Parliament's powers, limited judicial review and further centralised executive authority. The amendment made striking down laws harder by requiring supermajorities of five or seven judges, and aimed to dilute the Constitution's 'basic structure doctrine' that limited parliament's power. It also handed the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states, declare region-specific Emergencies, and extend President's Rule - direct federal rule - from six months to a year. It also put election disputes out of the judiciary's reach. This was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint - a powerful executive, marginalised judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that "by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favour of the parliament." Meanwhile, Gandhi's loyalists were going all in. Defence minister Bansi Lal urged "lifelong power" for her as prime minister, while Congress members in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh unanimously called for a new constituent assembly in October 1976. "The prime minister was taken aback. She decided to snub these moves and hasten the passage of the amendment bill in the parliament," writes Prof Raghavan. By December 1976, the bill had been passed by both houses of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislatures and signed into law by the president. After Gandhi's shock defeat in 1977, the short-lived Janata Party - a patchwork of anti-Gandhi forces - moved quickly to undo the damage. Through the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, it rolled back key parts of the Forty Second, scrapping authoritarian provisions and restoring democratic checks and balances. Gandhi was swept back to power in January 1980, after the Janata Party government collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. Curiously, two years later, prominent voices in the party again mooted the idea of a presidential system. In 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy's term ending, Gandhi seriously considered stepping down as prime minister to become president of India. Her principal secretary later revealed she was "very serious" about the move. She was tired of carrying the Congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver a "shock treatment to her party, thereby giving it a new stimulus". Ultimately, she backed down. Instead, she elevated Zail Singh, her loyal home minister, to the presidency. Despite serious flirtation, India never made the leap to a presidential system. Did Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, hold herself back ? Or was there no national appetite for radical change and India's parliamentary system proved sticky? There was a hint of presidential drift in the early 1970s, as India's parliamentary democracy - especially after 1967 - grew more competitive and unstable, marked by fragile coalitions, according to Prof Raghavan. Around this time, voices began suggesting that a presidential system might suit India better. The Emergency became the moment when these ideas crystallised into serious political thinking. "The aim was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her hold on power. There was no grand long-term design - most of the lasting consequences of her [Gandhi's] rule were likely unintended," Prof Raghavan told the BBC. "During the Emergency, her primary goal was short-term: to shield her office from any challenge. The Forty Second Amendment was crafted to ensure that even the judiciary couldn't stand in her way." The itch for a presidential system within the Congress never quite faded. As late as April 1984, senior minister Vasant Sathe launched a nationwide debate advocating a shift to presidential governance - even while in power. But six months later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation abruptly died. India stayed a parliamentary democracy. India media: Papers remember 1975 emergency Indira Gandhi: The Centre of Everything India's State of Emergency
