Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion

Reminds the House to maintain good temper and moderation in parliamentary language, as per Erskine May. He states that it is not orderly to criticise the conduct of a Member unless the motion debated directly addresses that conduct.

Raises concerns about the proposals allowing suspension by bureaucracy rather than democratic vote.

Expresses support for the Leader of the House but questions whether the proposals suggest guilt before innocence, contrary to legal principles.

Questions the timing of intervention for exclusion and asks if arrest or charge is necessary prior to exclusion under the proposed scheme.

Critiques what he sees as a broadening of initial consultation topics into areas that fall outside its original remit, expressing concern about 'mission creep'.

As a House of Commons Commissioner, emphasises the importance of hearing from more Members to ensure all views are considered and expresses a duty of care towards staff.

Questions whether accused MPs will have adequate opportunity to present their defence and be informed of the charges against them.

Highlights the risk of reputational damage, especially in cases where individuals are wrongfully accused, and questions how to protect MPs' characters while implementing such measures.

Asks if it is a general principle that only the people should remove Members from this House through democratic means.

Questioned whether exclusion is the final option when every other option has been considered, suggesting that it should not be unless all else fails.

Asked if a person who faces allegations would have the right to make their own defence at every stage of the process, emphasising the importance of due process and fair treatment even in the face of potentially vexatious complaints.

Asked about measures to verify witness credibility before allegations lead to serious consequences, highlighting previous issues where credible witnesses were later found to be unreliable.

Clarified that the panel would not decide on innocence or guilt but would assess whether mitigations are necessary based on ongoing investigations from the police, emphasising the need for a safe workplace while maintaining justice principles.

Asked how stringent measures against Members might be perceived by the public given that information comes with a low threshold and could imply guilt.

Expressed concern about public confidence in the system, seeking assurance on a review process to evaluate how effectively the new measures work over time.

Mr. Chope argued against the proposal to exclude Members from the parliamentary estate before they are charged with an offence, stating that it is prejudicial and does not fit within the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. He also highlighted concerns about the proposed adjudication panel and proxy voting system.

Ms. Nichols intervened to question Mr. Chope on how long it typically takes for charges to be filed after an arrest, expressing concern over the safety of those potentially at risk during this period.

The Commission is here to listen and will take note of Members' comments today. It is a challenge for the 'mother of Parliaments' to lead by establishing best practices rather than using it as an excuse not to change. The reforms aim at protecting staff from potential harm, ensuring continued representation for constituents, and providing remote participation options for excluded members. Staff concerns must be addressed with clear protocols for reporting and taking action. MPs should support 21st-century protections for staff.

Member of the Procedure Committee, highlighting differences between military and parliamentary procedures regarding duty of care. Emphasises the importance of presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Proposes that exclusion should be a last resort managed by Members with a focus on preserving integrity and supporting accused members. Recommends that proxy voting should be extended to cover individuals excluded from the estate due to legitimate reasons, ensuring they can still represent their constituents effectively.

Questions the appropriateness of setting the threshold for exclusion at the point of criminal charge, suggesting it is too high in a civil process context. Emphasises that a charge implies a high likelihood of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Asks about the proposed risk management process if exclusion is delayed until charges are made. Questions whether there could be evidence that would prompt action before a charge, challenging Sunderland's proposal.

Questions the appropriateness of allowing proxy voting for those who have voluntarily excluded themselves from the estate due to allegations. Discusses confidentiality concerns in such cases.

Discussed the importance of aligning principles to ensure a safe workplace, fair due process, and addressing rumours damaging Parliament's reputation. Advocated for proportionate measures and voluntary exclusion instead of House voting on exclusions. Suggested involving the constituency office in risk management strategies.

Agreed with Chris Bryant's principles, noting the misreporting of investigation figures affecting public perception of safety within Parliament.

Questioned the fairness of excluding an MP from proceedings before they have had a chance to defend themselves, emphasising the potential for reputational damage and career impacts.

Asked about the balance between unique parliamentary standards and ensuring legal rights are not diminished by early intervention measures in investigations or complaints.

Chamberlain emphasises the need for balance between principles like safeguarding, fairness and democracy while considering reputational risks to Parliament. She highlights that the public expects better alignment with employment practices regarding behaviour codes. As a former police officer, she discusses the process of dealing with sexual offences and advocates for consistency in how investigations are handled across different regions. Chamberlain also addresses the current voluntary exclusion system as inconsistent and unfair and calls for parties to discuss ways to take a more consistent approach. She concludes by stressing that MPs must show themselves accountable and change the culture within Parliament.

Hodgson, Chair of the House of Commons Finance Committee, supports the measures being brought forward to strengthen safeguarding on the parliamentary estate. She emphasises protecting staff, passholders, and visitors, noting that respondents to a consultation supported exclusion in cases of violent or sexual offending. Hodgson acknowledges concerns about constitutional rights but argues MPs should meet high standards since taking a seat is a privilege. She calls for embedding a culture where people feel safe to come forward and urges colleagues to support the proposals when they are laid before the House.

The debate should focus on the risk of harm rather than innocence or guilt. The current process is insufficient, and there is a need for a consistent safeguarding policy across Parliament that includes all passholders. There must be accountability among Members to uphold their duty of care under the Equality Act 2010 to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

Argued for the importance of the presumption of innocence and questioned Stella Creasy's sympathy towards those who face false accusations, drawing from his personal experience with vexatious allegations against him.

Says that the proposed safeguards and exclusion policies may lead to unjust treatment of Members based on untested allegations, arguing that it is important to set a high threshold for such actions. He expresses concern about the impact of credible information not leading to arrest or charge but still triggering exclusion from parliamentary duties and potential further sanctions in constituencies.

Argues that failing to act on safeguarding measures could lead to a Member reoffending, highlighting the responsibilities of the House as employers. Questions Sammy Wilson's use of the term 'sanctions' and clarifies that exclusion is intended as a safeguard rather than punishment.

Discusses the need for clarity on what constitutes credible evidence in the context of investigations. Questions Sammy Wilson's understanding of the Commission's limitations and clarifies that the proposed measures are meant to formalize existing practices.

Madders takes us back to the Dame Laura Cox report from five years ago, questioning whether sufficient change has occurred in the culture of the House of Commons. He emphasises the importance of being an exemplar of good employment practice and notes that it took too long to introduce the independent complaints and grievance process (ICGS). Madders supports the current direction towards a safer workplace but highlights concerns about ensuring fair representation for accused Members during risk assessment processes. He advocates for a private panel away from public scrutiny to handle such matters, emphasising flexibility in addressing individual cases while maintaining thoroughness and fairness.

Acknowledges the concerns raised by Members but emphasises that this scheme does not cover all workplace issues and recognises it as a limited proposal aimed at addressing specific risks. She thanks her colleagues for their contributions and highlights the importance of respectful debate despite disagreements.

Responds to concerns raised by Members, noting that many areas of concern are not covered by the scheme. She emphasises that this proposal is narrow and does not deal with all workplace issues or obligations towards staff. She thanks Members for their contributions and acknowledges the need to look at the broader landscape of standards.

Intervenes to highlight that another Committee, the Administration Committee, is involved in taking decisions in this field, indicating the need for tidying up the process.