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
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
This Is Not the Time to Lecture Protesters
The protest of the protests has overwhelming evidence that the demonstrations in Los Angeles are largely peaceful, we're nonetheless hearing the paternalistic refrain that protesters should 'obey the law'—as if they're feral children in need of reminders about the norms of civic society. The sages of the punditocracy have rather predictably conflated mass anger with mass mayhem, even suggesting that the best strategy is simply to go home and hope for the best. 'As unsatisfying as it may be for some citizens to hear, the last thing anyone should do is take to the streets of Los Angeles and try to confront the military or any of California's law-enforcement authorities,' Tom Nichols pleaded in The Atlantic on Sunday. Fearing Trump is searching for a 'pretext' to use force (as if Trump requires a pretext), he cautioned the protesters: 'Be warned: Trump is expecting resistance. You will not be heroes. You will be the pretext.' Yes, please don't resist. By all means, take to the streets—but do so in a perfectly orderly, law-abiding way. If you encounter the military, National Guard, or law enforcement, tuck tail and run. Better yet, sit quietly in your living room and watch it all play out on TV. Because otherwise you risk giving Trump a pretext to crack down even harder on undocumented immigrants, to militarize entire cities, and even to take control of elections. This line of reasoning, which can be readily found among the center-left and center-right commentariat, makes a number of fatal mistakes. We all know (or should know by now) that Trump doesn't actually need a pretext to do whatever he wants to do. And for many Angelinos, whatever Trump attempts to do next is hardly front of mind; as far as they're concerned, the worst-case scenario is happening to them right now. ICE is snatching up family members, neighbors, friends, and co-workers at their workplaces. The terror has already reached their doorstep, even if it has not yet reached the pundits'. Nichols suggested that the greatest victory for Trump's opponents would be for government forces to arrive with rifles in tow and find the streets empty, so that they would wonder why the president had sent them there. 'This kind of restraint will deny Trump the political oxygen he's trying to generate,' Nichols argued. The logic is confounding, to say the least: If only the protesters completely capitulate, then Trump will be humbled. It will appear as though there was civil unrest and violence before he sent in the military, and then peace in the immediate aftermath of him doing so, but somehow this will make Trump weaker? Nichols's Atlantic colleague David Frum seemed largely in concurrence, arguing that Trump's actions in L.A. constitute, per the essay's headline, a 'dress rehearsal' for future deployments, when the president might use the military to challenge elections. Any perception of widespread disorder, Frum argued, could serve Trump's purposes. 'If Trump can incite disturbances in blue states before the midterm elections,' Frum contended, 'he can assert emergency powers to impose federal control over the voting process, which is to say his control.' The problem, though, is that Trump is already doing this: He issued an executive order in March outlining such a plan and providing justification for the trimming of voter rolls. If we don't show that we're willing to fight back, peacefully but forcefully, there may be no midterm—at least not a wholly legitimate one. The pleas for protesters to be law-abiding—which have come not just from pundits, of course, but many elected Democrats too—may seem noncontroversial, but it's the kind of preaching that inadvertently advances Trump's narrative about chaos in the cities of Democratic-run states. It implicitly accepts the prevailing media narrative of violence and destruction, even though only a tiny fraction of protests, largely in one small pocket of Los Angeles, are responsible for the images being shown 24/7 on cable news. It's also a bit ironic given Trump's very own lawlessness. He's constantly pardoning MAGA members who've committed serious offenses, including the January 6 attackers; has suffered no true legal consequences for his own lawlessness; is, by any reasonable measure, the most corrupt president in history; and recently called on border czar Tom Homan to arrest California Governor Gavin Newsom for allegedly obstructing federal immigration enforcement. Trump's very sending in of the National Guard and Marines—now totaling 4,700 soldiers—likely violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits using the military for general policing purposes. Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act, as he's threatened to do in the past, but he's forgotten about that one so far. (It would be outlandish to argue that the protests constitute an insurrection, but the letter of the law has never concerned him.) This is not to excuse any violence on the part of protesters. Yes, there have been arrests for violence, including some serious ones, like a man arrested for attempted murder. But out of 114 people arrested on Monday night, 53 had committed the 'crime' of failure to disperse. In other words, they were arrested for protesting out of designated protest zones—zones often used to make sure protesters are little seen and less heard. As the protest continues, you can be sure that more arrests will be of this nature, especially now that Mayor Karen Bass has instituted an 8 p.m. curfew. Yet, while we definitely want to avoid violence, we should not want to avoid tension. In fact, we want the 'creative tension' that MLK called for in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail—a form of direct action that brings injustices to the surface. There's a history of this: the Boston Tea Party, the Selma march, the AIDS die-ins, the lunch counter sit-ins—all were deemed illegal, as were various Vietnam protests. The Kent State and Attica tragedies, meanwhile, both occurred after the National Guard was called in—legally—supposedly to keep order. Requiring protests to be perfectly lawful is a way of precluding all protests. It makes every protester responsible for every other protester, and justifies the use of restrictions like delineated protest zones, orders for dispersal, and the curfew Bass has now instituted. People who set cars on fire or throw rocks at police should be arrested, but they shouldn't be used to mischaracterize protests that are the result of justifiable anger at Trump administration policies that have destroyed families and communities. Likewise, while safeguarding property and people's businesses should be important, safeguarding the right to protest should be considered absolutely essential, since without free speech there is no democracy. Measures taken to curtail that right should only be instituted with great diligence and only in circumstances where a clear and extraordinary danger to the public requires it. That's not what we're witnessing here; the federal government isn't stopping the danger, it's creating it. It is Trump who is causing the conflagration through his instigation and escalation, which was surely the goal the entire time (predictably, top Trump aide Stephen Miller was the architect of the ICE crackdown in Los Angeles). The monster isn't attacking from outside; it's in the house. And that house is the White House. Newsom, hopefully done playing footsie with bigoted Trump acolytes like Charlie Kirk and recovering his backbone somewhat, has acknowledged this fact. On Tuesday, he accused Trump of putting everyone in danger by inflaming an already combustible situation. He called it a 'perilous moment,' wherein 'a president who wants to be bound by no law or Constitution [is] perpetuating a unified assault on American tradition.' With watery, intense eyes, he added, 'California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes.' Now's the time to stand up and fight. Otherwise, we'll watch democracy die on the operating table in front of us. A plurality of Americans oppose Trump's military campaign in L.A.; their numbers will likely grow if he escalates it and expands it to other cities where protests are spreading. But if protesters were to stand down, out of fear that any potential conflict with law enforcement empowers Trump, then that would make an inept buffoon of a leader appear to be strong. Some pundits may prefer that we all just sit home and hope the whole Trump problem goes away. But I prefer the doctrine of the famed AIDS activist and gay rights leader Larry Kramer, who said simply, 'Shove it in their faces.'
News24
3 hours ago
- News24
Fiscal framework passed with DA's support
On Wednesday at 14:00 both Houses of Parliament - the National Assembly (NA) and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) - will consider the 2025 Fiscal Framework and Revenue Proposals. This framework outlines economic policy and revenue projections, setting the overall limits for government spending.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
FACT CHECK: Are politicians' claims about Scottish education data really true?
Today in the Scottish Parliament, education secretary Jenny Gilruth clashed with Scottish Labour education spokesperson over the state of Scottish schooling and the opportunities available to young people. Both made a number of specific claims as they 'traded statistics' and sought to defend their respective positions – but were their assertions true or false? Pam Duncan-Glancy said that 'attainment in schools is declining' and that 'the attainment gap is widening.' She then went on to give a number of specific examples to back up her claim. '…overall positive destinations are down…' True. The percentage of pupils in an initial positive destination for 2023/24 was 95.7%, down from 95.9% the previous year, confirming a decline of 0.2 percentage points. '…more pupils left school with no qualifications than ever before…' False. The number leaving with no qualifications at or above SCQF level 3 has been increasing and is now higher than almost every other year, but is still lower than the figures from 2009/10. In 2023/24 a total of 2.4% left school with no qualifications at level 3 or higher, which is up from 2.2% in both 2022/23 and in the final pre-pandemic year of 2018/19. In 2009/10 the figure was 2.8 percent. '…fewer pupils left with one pass or more at SCQF levels 5 and 6…' True. The percentage who left school last year with at least one level 5 qualification was 83.5%, which was a decline from the 84.8% recorded the previous year. The number achieving at least one level 6 qualification (which includes Highers) fell from 57.9% to 57.4%. Both figures are now at their lowest level since 2012/13. '…and the gap in attaining a pass or more at those levels is up…' True. In terms of those leaving with at least one level 5 qualification, the gap between the most affluent and most deprived pupils is now 22.7 percentage points, which is higher than at any point in the last decade. For level 6 qualifications the gap is 38.4 percentage points, which is the highest it has been since 2015/16. '…Modern Apprenticeship starts are down…' True. Between April 2023 and March 2024 a total of 25,507 Modern Apprenticeships were commended. In the previous year, the number recorded was 25,365. '…youth unemployment is up…' True. School leaver data shows that 4% were unemployed after three months, which is an increase of 0.2 percentage points on the previous year. Labour market statistics covering October 2022 to September 2023 also show that unemployment for those aged 16-24 increased by 0.7 percentage points compared to the previous year. In response to these claims, Jenny Gilruth pushed back and argued that the situation with attainment and opportunity in Scottish education is much more positive. '…the proportion of pupils achieving the expected level in literacy and numeracy across primary and secondary schools reached its highest level ever in 2023/24…' Partly true. The figures that Jenny Gilruth talks about have never been higher, but some are equal to the levels recorded in previous years. In primary schools, 74 percent of pupils met the expected standard in literacy, and this is indeed the highest level ever recorded. In numeracy, 80 percent of primary pupils reach the expected standard, which is the joint-highest level recorded alongside the figure for last year – although if we stop rounding to whole numbers, the data does show a small increase in the most recent year. In secondary school, 88 percent of S3 pupils meet the expected standard in literacy, which is the same as the level from the previous year, and just one percentage point higher than the levels recorded for 2016/17. If we look specifically at Reading levels (which are one of three components of literacy scores) we actually see that there has been a decline since 2018/19. For numeracy, the number achieving the expected level is 90 percent, which is equal to the figure for 2018/19 and higher than other years. It is important to note that the government changed the way it records this information when Nicola Sturgeon was First Minister, so when Jenny Gilruth refers to the 'highest ever' levels she is discussing data that only goes back to 2016/17. '…the poverty-related attainment gap between young people from the most and least deprived areas meeting standards in literacy has also reached record levels…' True. (It is reasonable to assume that Jenny Gilruth meant 'record lows') For primary literacy the gap is 20.2 percentage points, just beating the previous low of 20.5 percentage points; amongst secondary pupils, the literacy gap is 12.7 percentage points, which is just over half a percentage point lower than the previous record of 13.3 points. '…the gap in relation to our secondary pupils achieving third level in terms of literacy and numeracy has reached record lows too…' True. The attainment gap for secondary school literacy is 12 percentage points, while the previous low was 13.5 percentage points in 2017/18. '…the percentage of those in a positive destination three months after leaving schools is 95.7% - that's the second highest since records began…' Partly true. The percentage in a positive destination was 0.2 percentage points higher last year, but otherwise the 95.7 percent recorded for 2023/24 is higher than all previous years with the exception of 2021/22, when the figure was also 95.7 percent. '…the ACEL data tells us a much more positive story…' True. This refers to Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Levels (ACEL), and is the source of the claims about literacy and numeracy levels in primary and secondary schools. This measurement system was introduced by the Scottish Government after Nicola Sturgeon promised to close the attainment gap and asked to be judged on her record for doing so. As part of these changes, the government scrapped the objective, national data that was previously generated by the Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy and introduced a system that is much more subjective, far less precise, and much more open to manipulation. ACEL data does tell a much more positive story, but many would argue that this is because it was designed to do that very job. '…when we look for example at examinations data as well we are seeing a trajectory post-pandemic of improvement…' False. The pass rate for Highers has declined in each of the past three years and in 2024 stood at 74.9 percent. This is 0.1 percentage points up on the figure from 2019, but is significantly lower than the rates recorded in the rest of the pre-pandemic period (2016, 2017, and 2018). The overall Higher attainment gap is now larger than at any point since the new qualifications were introduced nearly a decade ago. At National 5, the overall pass rate is the lowest ever recorded and the attainment gap is higher than it has ever been. The same is true for Advanced Higher. In terms of overall examinations data, things have been getting worse in the post-pandemic period, not better. Data sources: School leaver data (positive destinations and leaver attainment of qualifications) Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Levels (Literacy and numeracy) Modern Apprenticeships statistics Youth unemployment labour market data Examinations data
