Procedure and Privileges Committee

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I am relieved that the committee did not follow the other place by excluding Members on the basis of allegations alone. That has led to palpable injustices—for example, Andrew Rosindell and his constituents; he was excluded for two years because of malicious allegations that nobody who knew him could possibly have given credence to and which were subsequently rejected.

But I am worried that even the proposal the committee does make undermines the sacred principle of innocent unless and until proven guilty, which Parliament ought to uphold more emphatically than everybody else. The report specifically undermines that principle by justifying exclusion on the basis that a charge means that

“the prosecuting authorities must be satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of conviction”.

In other words, we should assume that anyone charged is probably guilty, not innocent. Secondly, the proposal justifies a precautionary exclusion by invoking that,

“the duty of care towards those on the parliamentary estate, including school parties,”—

ignoring that they are always accompanied by adults—

“should be paramount”.

Paramount means it takes precedence over the presumption of innocence or it means nothing.

Why should noble Lords, or those who serve us, have more protection than the general public? The courts have the power to hold on remand people charged with serious offences that make them, in the opinion of the court, a potential threat to the public. Why should we second-guess the courts or give ourselves a higher degree of protection than the friends, neighbours and acquaintances of noble Lords elsewhere?

Finally, this is a solution looking for a problem. As far as I know, no noble Lord charged with an offence has ever molested anyone on the Parliamentary Estate, least of all the school parties invoked to defend this proposal. I hope the committee will think again and put the presumption of innocence first and foremost.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, as a former barrister, may I ask whether it is the committee’s understanding that the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct in our criminal justice proceedings but that in workplaces around the country that face the same issue it is a relevant consideration? There are workplaces up and down the country, such as schools, where you remove somebody from the premises when they are arrested because of the risk they pose.

I wonder whether the Senior Deputy Speaker could answer the question of the regret amendment. Is it the same high bar of offence that you would have had to have committed overseas to be temporarily excluded from the premises here?

Although the Senior Deputy Speaker outlined the potential risk to children, in the manner of work here, one is often stopped in the corridor, as I have been, by staff asking us to deal with this issue, because they work unorthodox hours in a building that is full of nooks and crannies. As well as their safety, I add that noble Lords need to consider the House’s reputation. We are fortunate to be in a wonderful building that is a UNESCO world heritage site. If anybody were charged with arson and were then able to gain free access to the estate, our reputation would be on the line. Could the Senior Deputy Speaker outline those points?

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this short but important consideration of these proposals, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for the amendment. Dealing with that in more detail, the commission considered that the relevant offences set out in the Standing Order would be of significant concern to the Parliamentary Estate regardless of where they were carried out. An automatic temporary exclusion safeguards the parliamentary community—and, indeed, visitors on the Parliamentary Estate—against this risk.

I say carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that, unfortunately, in the last five years a former Member of the House was charged, convicted and jailed for sexual offences against minors. That would have triggered this Standing Order. It is of concern that the Member attended the House on 10 occasions after charge, including just weeks before his expulsion. Up and down the land, in the judiciary, in the ecclesiastical world and in many companies, this sort of arrangement has developed for important reasons that we should respect. I say particularly to the noble Lord, although I think it is not correct to talk about what the other place may be considering doing, that that is why, following the very long consideration of the commission and the Procedure and Privileges Committee, we thought that the level of charge was the right basis on which we should present this to your Lordships.

To answer some of the noble Earl’s questions, we have our own lawyers on hand to advise us, so we would not have to wait for the FCDO, particularly if the House is sitting. There is not a day the House sits when I do not look around at many members of the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee. The fact is that we could meet with nigh on immediate effect.

To turn to some of the points on overseas jurisdiction in particular, there is a possibility that Members may be charged overseas when they would not have been liable to such charges domestically. It is for that reason that the exclusion for charges brought outside the UK would lapse after 10 sitting days or two months, whichever is less. It is important that, for the exclusion to be extended, the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee would have to be convinced that the charges brought against a Member met the definition of the serious sexual or violent crime in the UK. This was deemed to be the most effective way of balancing—again, this is about balance—safeguarding and protecting the parliamentary community and visitors while protecting Members from charges that would not trigger the Standing Order if brought by UK authorities.

The noble Earl expressed concern that charges that were irrelevant or malicious could lead to an exclusion from the estate. As I repeat, 10 sitting days is a maximum. As chair of the Leave of Absence Sub-Committee, I would ensure that the sub-committee met as soon as possible, enabling the exclusion to be revoked earlier if appropriate. As the noble Earl said, the sub-committee may need to take advice but, given the safety issues, which I think are paramount, Standing Order 21A(10) provides an appropriate amount of flexibility. Were there to be evidence of genuine difficulty—I say this because it is not only in the report and the Standing Order—the sub-committee is required to keep this Standing Order under review. If this ever needed to be activated—as I said in my opening remarks, I very much hope it never will be—this is another area we would be able to consider if there were difficulties.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, posed a point about being innocent until proven guilty. That will be for the courts to decide. That is precisely why the exclusion is temporary and why we considered this in the balance at the level of charge. It is specifically designed so that, as much as possible, none of us is judging another Member. That will be for the courts to do following that charge. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, also raised this in the context of the environment and the importance that we have to everyone who works here. That is an aspect of what the commission and the committee considered: we need to be responsible, and we also want to have the right balance in the scheme.

I hope the noble Earl will understand my final words: this will be kept under review as part of the structure. I hope he will accept that we have given this a lot of consideration in statute and in the Code of Conduct, as I said in my opening remarks. We have sought to be consistent in recognising that these things might happen in overseas jurisdictions, but we recognise that and therefore have put in safeguards as best we can in the circumstances. With that, I very much hope that the noble Earl will feel able to not press his amendment.