Vote piles on the pressure to release Brexit impact studies
AS A SENIOR Government figure sensationally resigned last night the sexual harassment controversweeping through Westminster deepened.
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon’s shock decision to quit the Cabinet came just hours after Prime Minister Theresa May invited Westminster’s party leaders to crisis talks next Monday to discuss plans for tackling sexual abuse and harassment.
In his resignation letter to Mrs May, Sir Michael admitted he had “fallen below the highs standards” required of his high profile role as head of the British armed forces.
Asked whether he was worried that more was to come out about his behaviour, Sir Michael told the BBC: “The culture has changed over the years, what might have been acceptable 15, 10 years ago is clearly not acceptable now.
“Parliament now has to look at itself and the Prime Minister has made very clear that conduct needs to be improved and we need to protect the staff of Westminster against any particular allegations of harassment.”
He added: “I think we’ve all got to look back now at the past, there are always things you regret, you would have done differently.”
Julia Hartley-Brewer, the journalist and radio presenter at the centre of claims about Sir Michael’s conduct – whose knee he allegedly touched repeatedly during a Tory party conference 15 years ago – reacted with shock to the announcement, but added that “I doubt my knee was the reason” for his resignation.
Meanwhile the Prime Minister said MPs from all parties are “deeply concerned” about allegations that have emerged in recent days as she invited political counterparts to talks on setting up a new “transparent, independent” grievance procedure.
“We have a duty to ensure that everyone coming here to contribute to public life is treated with respect,” she told MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions.
Mrs May was challenged in the Commons about suggestions that party whips were using information about MPs’ bad behaviour to keep them in line.
Labour MP Lisa Nandy said she had “brought evidence” to Mrs May three years ago “that whips had used information about sexual abuse to demand loyalty from MPs”, adding: “On three occasions I asked her to act, and on three occasions she did not.”
Mrs May said whips’ offices should “make clear to people that where there are any sexual abuse allegations that could be of a criminal nature that people should go to the police”.
Sir Michael was not under investigation about the 2002 incident, but two of his former ministerial colleagues are the subject of inquiries. Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood is looking into claims made against Mrs May’s de facto deputy prime minister Damian Green.
The Cabinet Office investigation was launched after activist Kate Maltby, who is three decades younger than the First Secretary of State, told that Mr Green “fleetingly” touched her knee during a meeting in a Waterloo pub in 2015, and a year later sent her a “suggestive” text message after she was pictured wearing a corset in the newspaper.
The department is separately investigating whether international trade minister Mark Garnier breached the ministerial code after he reportedly admitted asking his secretary to buy sex toys.
Meanwhile further allegations of abuse in the corridors of power continued to surface.
A former parliamentary intern said he felt “violated” after allegedly being groped by a former MP in 2012.
James Greenhalgh told the BBC the MP was “stinking of alcohol”. The BBC did not identify which party the former MP belonged to. MINISTERS HAVE come under increased pressure to release a raft of documents detailing the potential impact of Brexit on the UK economy after a motion calling for them to be handed over to Parliament passed unopposed last night.
The Government has repeatedly dismissed previous appeals for the studies to be published, arguing that it risked undermining Britain’s position in negotiations with the EU.
However, Labour yesterday attempted to use an archaic Parliamentary procedure to force a “binding” vote on the issue, which the Government chose not to oppose. There was some initial debate about the power this motion has to make ministers act, but Speaker of the House John Bercow last night implied that the Government could find itself in contempt of Parliament if it does not comply.
MPs from across the House backed Labour’s calls for the 58 studies to be released, including a number of high profile Conservative backbenchers.
Speakers included the Health select committee chairman Sarah Wollaston and the proRemain MP Anna Soubry, the latter of whom indicated she would be willing to join Labour in the division lobby if the motion was put to a vote.
Opposition day debates are not usually binding, and the Government has taken to ordering its MPs to abstain. But Labour argued the wording of yesterday’s motion was such that it gave the Commons the power to compel ministers to act.
Opening the debate, Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer suggested that MPs would accept a redacted version of the reports if it meant the Government would be more willing to cooperate. He argued a similar approach had been taken with documents relating to security, and it would be highly unusual if there was no room for flexibility in this instance.
In his response, Brexit Minister Robin Walker indicated that the Government would be wiling to “reflect” on the request – if the motion passed. “I take note of the points [Keir Starmer] made about looking at redaction and summary as an approach,” he added.
Early in the debate, the Deputy Speaker of the House, Eleanor Laing, would not be drawn on whether the motion was binding. But rounding up, Speaker John Bercow stressed that motions of this kind have “traditionally been regarded as binding or effective”, adding that he could consider contempt of Parliament claims if the Government fails to release Brexit impact assessments.
Commenting on the outcome, Sir Keir described it as a “victory for Parliament”. “Labour has been absolutely clear since the referendum that ministers could not withhold vital information from Parliament about the impact of Brexit on jobs and the economy,” he said. “It’s completely unacceptable for the Tories to have wasted months avoiding responsible scrutiny and trying to keep the public in the dark. The reality is that it should not have taken an ancient Parliamentary procedure to get ministers to listen to common sense.”
Liberal Democrat Brexit Spokesperson Tom Brake urged the Government not to redact the reports, adding: “Parliament has now made its position clear. Ministers need to publish these reports in full, not subject them to a Whitehall whitewash.”
A spokesman for the Department for Exiting the EU said: “We take all Parliamentary votes seriously and recognise that Parliament does have rights relating to the publication of documents. Ministers also have a clear obligation not to disclose information when doing so would not be in the public interest. We will reflect on the implications of the vote and respond in due course.”