Risk-based Exclusion
Ben Spencer Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
When the House initially debated the Commission’s proposals last summer, I challenged Members who like to refer to this place as the “mother of all parliaments” to make good on that epithet by ensuring that we lead by example and establish best practice. I repeat that call today. These reforms are, first and foremost, about taking real and tangible steps to protect and support staff and, indeed, other Members through mitigation measures.
In the development of the proposals, as the Leader of the House pointed out, there has been widespread discussion and consultation with a number of organisations and individuals—I pay tribute to all those who have contributed, particularly the House of Commons staff who have worked so carefully and so diligently on the proposals over many months.
My feeling is that this has dragged on for so long, completely inappropriately. At their heart, the reforms are about protecting staff and the wider parliamentary community from harassment and abuse. They have been long called for and very significantly delayed. The motion in January struck the appropriate balance between the rights of staff and the parliamentary community to protection from harm, the right to due process for the individual implicated, and the rights of that individual’s constituents to democratic representation. It seems now though that the balance has been shifted away from the protection of staff by the Government, raising the point at which a risk assessment takes place from arrest to charge.
It is clear that there are a range of views on the correct threshold to begin that risk assessment process. However, leaving to one side for a moment that specific trigger point, it is important to stress that the main responsibility of the panel would be to consider the nature and severity of the alleged misconduct, whether there is a safeguarding concern and to determine the presence of a possible risk factor.
Turning to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), Chair of the House of Commons Procedure Committee, Parliament’s authority, as I understand it—this is something that we have discussed in the House of Commons Commission a lot—does not stretch to constituency offices. All the members of the Commission are aware that that is something that we were not able to take into account. The latest review of the ICGS process, which was revealed this morning, has some really excellent recommendations that will have some effect in tightening it up.
It is worth noting that a number of mitigations will be open to the panel on a case-by-case basis. These might include, for example, preventing one-to-one contact with the Member, preventing Members from accessing bars on the estate, complete exclusion from the parliamentary estate, or indeed taking no action. The panel would also be informed of any existing voluntary arrangement between the Member and their Whip to stay away from the estate.
Crucially, those undertaking that risk assessment process would not, I believe, take any action that could compromise a police investigation or undermine any prosecution. The panel would not be given the name of the Member being risk-assessed. At no point would it be made public that information had been shared by the police about a Member, that a risk assessment had been undertaken, or that a Member had been excluded.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
For me, a lot of this spins on the formation and the training of the panel. One amendment to the motion said that it is anticipated that an MP and probably two Deputy Speakers would form the panel. What training would they need to be able to navigate such complex legal sensitivities? Does the hon. Lady have concerns, as I do, about the role of the Speaker as an Office in this process? In particular, what would happen if the Speaker were a victim in a case, or indeed if the Speaker or the Deputy Speakers were charged? How would the Speaker recuse himself or herself from conflict of interest in that situation?
Deidre Brock
The motion mentions
“the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker, the Director of Parliamentary Security and such other members of the House administration as it thinks fit.”
I believe that would be the case regardless of what we agree on today. As for the Speaker being involved, I am sure that the Chair of Ways and Means as well as the Deputy Chair of Ways and Means have been suggested as possible members of that committee. An amendment has been tabled on whether that member might be a Cabinet or shadow Cabinet member. That does not concern me. We should all believe that all our Members are fit to serve on such a committee and be prepared to do so.
Let me return now to the proxy voting record, which would not state the reason for a proxy being granted. Information would be shared with the minimum number of officials required to implement an exclusion, under a strict commitment to confidentially.
With those essential protections, the SNP believes the motion should be brought back in line with the January version, which would more closely implement the Commission’s proposals. We will therefore be supporting the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). Again, we must not lose sight of the fact that these proposals are about protecting staff or fellow MPs. To raise that threshold further severely limits the ability of these proposals to succeed in doing so.
The length of time that this has taken frankly shames us all. Westminster is often accused of being an institution stuck in its ways and unable or unwilling to change. Please let us ensure that is not the case today.
Business of the House
Ben Spencer Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that we all join the hon. Lady in congratulating her local school. It is a tremendous achievement, and I thank her for raising it. Not only will I ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport hears her asks on pavement parking, but I will encourage him to send a letter to her local school congratulating it on its achievements.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am very proud to represent historic Runnymede and Weybridge. I was in the Chamber yesterday evening when two motions of great concern were passed without a Division. I disagree with SNP Members on many, many issues, but I respect their position in this place as elected Members of Parliament. Right now it is on the record that the motions were passed unanimously, which I believe, given the clear vocal opposition, misrepresents the will of Parliament. [Interruption.] Does the Leader of the House share my deep concerns about the implications of that for our democracy and the rule of law, and does she agree that Opposition days must be upheld and respected in line with convention—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The shadow Leader of the House should not be shouting from the Front Bench. Simply don’t!
Dr Spencer
Does the Leader of the House agree that Opposition days must be upheld and respected in line with convention as an essential part of the democratic operation of this House, and will she work to remedy the injustice of yesterday’s debate?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why the Government took the actions that we did yesterday. It is not to the Government’s advantage to facilitate debates that are likely to be critical of the Government, but it is in the interests of our democracy that we do so, which is why we did what we did to protect the rights of minority parties in this place. As I said in response to earlier questions, I fully appreciate the frustration at how yesterday’s vote was recorded. I have raised it with the Clerks and taken advice. It is a matter for the Chair, and I am afraid to tell my hon. Friend that it will stand as it is.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have to stop the hon. Gentleman there: he is trying to continue the debate, and he is again asking questions that Mr Speaker has already come to the Chamber and answered. Mr Speaker has dealt with those matters, and it is not for me to deal with them any further. I think there will be further opportunities to explore these matters, both in public and in private, and the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party will no doubt have discussions with Mr Speaker, but I will not continue debate on these matters.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
If it is another point of order directly relating to this business, I will take it now.
Dr Spencer
Thank you for taking my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on an issue of substantial constitutional importance. It has been made fairly clear in my question to the Leader of the House, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and several other Members, that there are concerns about the motion yesterday evening. The BBC is reporting that the House approved the motion, and the Labour party is putting out adverts saying the same, yet there is concern as to whether it was a valid vote. It is critical that the public have faith in our democratic process. What mechanism is there to void yesterday’s motion and have a rerun?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Once again, the hon. Gentleman has reiterated matters that have already been considered. On behalf of the people whom we all represent, I plead that this matter should now calm down, and that tempers and anger should not be encouraged to flourish further. These are matters that might have to be further explored, and Mr Speaker and the Leader of the House have both made clear to the House this morning that there will be other opportunities to consider and fully debate them. I will take no further points of order on this matter, recognising that Members on all sides of the House have strong feelings, most of which have been expressed. I now plead for calm.
Business of the House
Ben Spencer Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
No, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not in this category. It is just a reminder to the House that the courtesy works both ways. Is it indiscreet of me to say that I receive the most charming hand-written letters from the Deputy Speaker asking me to follow up with individual Departments, which I have done? They seem to get responses quite quickly when we intervene in that way. It really should not happen like that. I make this offer to all right hon. and hon. Members: if they are having problems of this kind, they should please contact my office and I will follow it up. It is our fundamental right to receive redress of grievance for our constituents from individual named Ministers. When I was at school, if a piece of work was not good enough, it got a little tear at the top of the page and was given back to you. I suggest that that is what Members do to letters they get from officials.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Next week, we have the reporting back of the reviews into social distancing and other measures and the plans and guidance for life beyond 21 June. In answer to my question on 12 May, the Prime Minister kindly confirmed that we would get the opportunity to debate this hugely important guidance before it is implemented. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on when that might be?
Mr Rees-Mogg
No decisions have yet been made and the Government will set out the conclusions of the review ahead of step 4 shortly, at which point I am sure that the House will have the opportunity to consider the next steps. The Government have been assiduous in updating the House throughout the pandemic and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been particularly good at coming to this Chamber in person. That will continue to be the case. Any decision on guidance following the reviews will be based on the latest data and we must allow appropriate time for them to be assessed. We have of course committed—and I reiterate this commitment—to, where possible, make time for votes on regulations of national significance, which may apply to England or UK-wide, if necessary, before they come into force. That commitment remains.
Proceedings during the Pandemic
Ben Spencer Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Listening to the debate, I have to say that I have a new-found affection for the virtues of brevity, so I will keep my points very brief. I very much welcome the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to bring forward a motion ensuring that people can take part in scrutiny measures. However, I implore him to look at proxy voting for people because that seems to cover and resolve quite a few of the voting issues we have been discussing today.