Risk-based Exclusion

The Minister moves a motion approving the Report from the House of Commons Commission on risk-based exclusion policies, proposing specific Standing Orders for handling Members charged with violent or sexual offences. She outlines the detailed process including risk assessments by a panel and measures to mitigate risks such as excluding Members from the Parliamentary estate.

The Chair clarifies the debate's focus on specific amendments to the proposed Standing Orders, ranging from modifying the threshold for exclusion to altering processes related to risk assessments and exclusions. She lists several amendments that aim to adjust or remove certain clauses of the proposed policy.

A Labour MP requests an intervention, asking the Minister a question but the specific content of the request is not provided in the text.

Supports the risk-based exclusion motion and acknowledges its importance in safeguarding. Emphasises that Parliament needs to go further beyond informal processes and ensure a fair and anonymous route for complaints. She argues for excluding Members at arrest rather than charge, citing concerns over inadequate safeguards and voluntary arrangements which are currently used. Acknowledges limitations of the current proposals but sees them as crucial steps towards improvement.

Questions Karen Bradley about the inconsistency in treating police accused of misconduct differently from MPs, suggesting that anyone accused should face removal.

Asks if the Committee considered the differences between England and Scotland regarding what constitutes a charge in legal terms.

Critiques the debate's focus on exclusion rather than risk assessment, arguing for proportionate measures based on severity of crime to ensure safety.

Queries whether arrest should be grounds for exclusion if the accusation involves House staff versus unrelated individuals.

Proposes considering a bail conditions application to magistrates court as an alternative to the current proposal. Also raises concerns about proxy voting undermining the impact of exclusion on constituents.

Emphasises that excluding an MP impacts not just one individual but also their 80,000 constituents, highlighting the historical significance and effect of such exclusions.

Challenges the delay in implementing reforms, emphasising that these are about protecting staff and Members from harassment and abuse. Stresses the need for a balance between rights of protection and due process. Discusses the panel's responsibility to assess risk and mitigate harm through various measures without compromising legal processes. Supports bringing back the January version of the motion to align with the House of Commons Commission's proposals.

Mr. Rees-Mogg asserts that the proposed motion is unconstitutional, ineffective, and a violation of constituents' rights to representation in Parliament. He argues that the House's ancient privileges cannot be overridden by Standing Orders without proper legislative action.

Mr. Carmichael interjects, agreeing with Mr. Rees-Mogg on the constitutional aspect but suggests that the proposed procedure would be more transparent compared to previous informal methods of excluding members.

Mr. Bryant agrees with most of Mr. Rees-Mogg's points, suggesting an alternative process where exclusion is a decision made by the House through a vote if a Member chooses not to accept the decision voluntarily.

Mr. Davis inquires whether Mr. Rees-Mogg believes that enacting this procedure would be subject to legal challenge in courts, implying concern over potential judicial scrutiny of the measure.

Mr. Chishti questions why the Government chose to introduce what Mr. Rees-Mogg considers an unconstitutional measure instead of following proper court process and allowing the House of Commons to make the decision.

Agrees with Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg on the importance of Parliament being like other workplaces in terms of safety. Emphasises that the proposal is about risk assessment and proportionate measures, not exclusion as a primary measure. Discusses the need for confidentiality in making these assessments and the potential to mitigate risks without public knowledge or disruption of parliamentary duties. Mentions the importance of considering various factors such as cooperation and the nature of the allegations when assessing risk.

Expresses concerns about abiding by the principle of innocence until proven guilty and highlights that constituents, not MPs, would be penalised by such measures.

Questions the focus on exclusion in the motion, suggesting that discussions about mitigating risk without excluding MPs from parliamentary duties might lead to a different position.

Supports the idea of excluding MPs accused or charged with serious offences but finds issues with the current motion, suggesting amendments to make the process clearer and fairer. He proposes scrapping the panel when an MP is charged and recommends against proxy voting for those on trial.

Amendments proposed for the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, focusing on safeguarding. Acknowledges the need to balance practicality with high standards. Emphasises that MPs are not employees but representatives of constituents, stressing the importance of aligning parliamentary practices with modern workplace norms. Refers to a previous email from Ken Gall about serious disciplinary issues involving police officers and how the House responded proportionately. Argues for excluding individuals arrested on suspicion of rape due to alignment with employer responsibilities towards staff safety, particularly in light of Government statements on preventing harassment. Highlights concerns over politicisation if the exclusion criteria are set too high.

Agrees with the Member for North East Somerset, criticising the proposed Standing Order. Stresses that applying exclusion at charge instead of arrest is more just and necessary to avoid wrongful exclusions. Denounces the view that a panel would consider all options before excluding someone if they were arrested, arguing that it would lead to immediate exclusion due to risk-averse behaviour. Suggests scrapping proxy voting for those charged with serious offences as a fair measure.

Phillips supports the original motion that would exclude Members of Parliament upon arrest, not charge. She highlights cases where women were raped by MPs and points out the lack of representation for victims. She emphasises that waiting until charges are filed is impractical as it rarely happens within two years due to systemic issues.

Interventions made, but no full speech recorded

Supports the Leader of the House’s motion and emphasises the importance of the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.' He draws on his legal background, having served as a Law Officer and practised criminal law for 17 years before being elected. Emphasises that the bar for arrest is necessarily low and argues against punishing individuals based solely on an arrest, suggesting it may encourage malicious complaints.

Supports amendments tabled by Wendy Chamberlain, proposing that the threshold for intervention should be arrest rather than charge. Argues that most employers would suspend an employee following arrest due to safety concerns. Emphasises the need for a safe working environment and stresses the importance of setting high standards to avoid being perceived as out of touch with real-world issues.

Agrees that the issue of sexual harassment and abuse in Parliament should be addressed constitutionally. Acknowledges imperfections in the proposal but emphasises the urgent need for action after seven years of discussions. Highlights inconsistency between parliamentary standards and those applied to other workplaces, advocating for matching ambitions set elsewhere within this House. Stresses the importance of addressing power dynamics and ensuring that victims are protected instead of perpetrators. Criticises political parties for complicity in covering up cases and failing to implement effective measures despite consultation and awareness. Calls for a risk analysis when MPs are arrested for serious sexual or violent offences, arguing it is essential for staff safety and reputation management.

Asked whether procedures would apply to individuals currently under charge.

Inquired about the application of procedures to all Members, including Speaker and Deputy Speakers.

Supported the Commission's proposal but expressed concerns about proxy voting.

Discussed amendment (c) and raised points on the proxy scheme.

Spoke about what the Government are doing regarding the debate.

Concurred with Deidre Brock on the discussion of the proposal.

Highlighted legal differences between Scotland and England in relation to criminal charges.

Raised points about the proposal's limitations, other safeguards available, and procedural issues during Prorogation and Dissolution.

Provided examples that slightly misunderstood what the scheme is doing, and discussed exclusive cognisance principles.

Gave the House the option to vote on his amendment related to potential scenarios of exclusion from the estate.

Discussed issues related to arrest and bail conditions in cases under investigation.

Joined Wendy Chamberlain in discussing arrest-related proposals.

Questioned the right hon. Lady about who advised her on confidentiality matters and what qualifications they have.

Introduced amendments to the Standing Order, noting that amendment (h) is consequential on amendment (o), which the House had already agreed upon. She then put forward further amendments regarding the details of risk assessments and confidentiality. The main question was subsequently put and agreed upon.