Risk-based Exclusion
Chris Bryant Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
On behalf of the House of Commons Commission, I rise to speak to the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I will keep my opening remarks short and try to answer right hon. and hon. Members’ issues at the end of the debate.
The motion before us provides for four things: for the House to approve the updated proposals on risk-based exclusion published on 14 December 2023 and modified by the Commission at its meeting on 18 March; to agree a new standing order to implement the risk-based exclusion policy; to require Mr Speaker to appoint a panel to review the operation of the new Standing Order, to report within six months; and to allow MPs who are excluded from the parliamentary estate to apply for a proxy vote. There is also an amendment tabled in my name on behalf of the Commission, which would enable the risk assessment panel to meet during recess. This is a technical amendment—
Penny Mordaunt
I will not give way during my opening remarks. I will come back to any issues that the hon. Gentleman raises.
This is a technical amendment required to ensure the proper functioning of the panel and therefore the scheme. These proposals reflect extensive consultation with Members, parliamentary Select Committees and other relevant stakeholders. This includes a debate on 12 June last year in which Members raised a number of thoughtful points, which the Commission has taken into account, including the point at which risk assessment is triggered. This is one of a number of measures that are being reviewed and brought forward by the Commission to improve standards of behaviour and safeguarding. I thank all members of staff and hon. Members for their contributions, which have brought the Commission to agree these proposals and put forward today’s motion, and I look forward to hearing further contributions this afternoon.
Dame Karen Bradley
The right hon. Gentleman makes the point I referred to earlier: there are different points in the judicial process at which a charge or arrest is made in the different legal systems of the United Kingdom. We have three different legal systems and charges can be brought at different times.
This is a balanced judgment—there is no right or wrong answer—on the basis of what is being proposed: to remove the right of a Member of Parliament to attend the Palace of Westminster, which is an ancient right we have held for hundreds of years. We are proposing to introduce something unique and different. Based on the evidence we heard and the advice we received from the Clerks and others, exclusion on charge feels like about the right point to make that decision.
Sir Chris Bryant
Where this whole debate has gone completely wrong is by being obsessed with exclusion. It is actually about making a risk-based assessment of what needs to be done, in a certain set of circumstances, completely proportionate to the point and the severity of the crime being considered, to ensure that this place is safe. I really deprecate the fact that this is being called “risk-based exclusion”. I suspect we will be talking about very few people who might be excluded, but if there was a proper assessment of risk at arrest and proportionate measures were taken to ensure that everybody here was working safely, surely that would be the right way to move forward.
Dame Karen Bradley
I can never resist the hon. Gentleman, and that is why I will always give way to him. He makes a very good point. There may be a role for another process that does that, but for the exclusion process it feels that the right point is at charge.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman says that a Member agreeing not to come in is the same as banning a Member from coming in. That is clearly not true.
It would not take very long to turn this motion into legislation, and that would be the proper constitutional way of doing this.
The proposal is, to my mind, entirely ineffective. We know that the powers of arrest of the Serjeant at Arms are pretty much phantasmagorical. I am sorry to embarrass the great Serjeant, who is sitting in his place. He is a most distinguished figure, but the idea that he could turn up and arrest somebody for failing to appear at a Select Committee is pretty much theatre rather than an effective threat. Our ancient powers of imprisoning are no longer there, so what happens when this person, excluded by a small cabal, decides to turn up? What are we going to do? We will have a vote of the whole House to expel him—the proper process in the first place.
Sir Chris Bryant
Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman’s previous remark, I mostly agree with what he says. There is a problem here. When the Standards Committee reported on this, we made the point that exclusion is the very last thing that should be considered. In most cases, a Member in this kind of situation would choose to accept the decision voluntarily. However, we also said that if a Member chose not to, the House should vote on whether the Member should be excluded. Would the right hon. Gentleman be happy with that process?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: any exclusion must be a decision of the whole House. That is our most ancient constitutional right. The idea that it can be stopped by three people—even, Madam Deputy Speaker, one as distinguished as the Chairman of Ways and Means—is not in the spirit of our constitution.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is strange to agree so much with the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg). I think that he is a bit shocked that I agree with him as well—I see that he nods.
Let me return to two central things. First, this is about Parliament being like every other workplace in the country. Of course there are ways in which we are exceptional—we often emphasise those too much, perhaps—but what was fascinating when we debated the original proposals from the Commission in the Standards Committee was that the lay members all said that in every line of work they were in, this would be standard practice. It would happen in various different ways in different organisations, but certainly in every part of the public sector and in any major employer in the land, this process, in some shape or form, would be absolutely standard. We are simply trying to ensure that this workplace, like any other in the land, is safe not just from external threats but from behaviours that could put staff, members of the public and colleagues at risk.
Secondly, the proposal is about assessing the seriousness of the risk in any given set of circumstances—which heaven knows could vary enormously from the case of one person to another—and then taking proportionate and only proportionate measures to mitigate that risk, as any responsible employer and workplace surely should, and as any other workplace would be required to do, in law written by us. It is about the assessment of risk and proportionate measures to deal with the risk; it is not, in my mind—and I think that it is a terrible shame that it has been billed as such—about exclusion. Exclusion should be, as it is in nearly every other business, the very last point to go to. It would be at the extreme end, when an assessment had been made that the risk was relatively extreme.
Many other things could be done that fall far short of exclusion. For instance, one of the oddities about this building and all the buildings on the parliamentary estate is that we often work, as an MP, with a single member of staff, or two members of staff, behind a big oak door. Somebody might want to make a risk assessment if a Member were, I would say, arrested for a sexual or violent crime relating to a member of staff. They might want to make an assessment that that Member should no longer be in that kind of office and that their office should be one shared with other members of staff, other Members of Parliament or in a more visible space. That might be the perfectly proportionate decision to take, and that could be done entirely without the public knowing and entirely as a neutral act.
This is a really important point: the court of public opinion has no formal rules of evidence, operates entirely to its own agenda, and—in my experience—rarely delivers justice or anything that we would think approximates justice. That is why, notwithstanding the point made about how rumour spreads around here, it is so important that any measure taken should be done confidentially. I think that in nearly every case it would be taken with the agreement of the Member concerned. It should also be considered an entirely neutral process. My worry about the obsession with exclusion as the endpoint of what we are looking at is that it starts to look like a punishment rather than a neutral act.
That is why, in nearly every case, if the assessment of the panel were that there was a significant risk that could be mitigated only through a suggestion of exclusion, the Member would be well advised to follow that advice voluntarily. I think they would in nearly any set of circumstances. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for North East Somerset that, in the end, it must be a matter for the House if there is to be forced exclusion; otherwise, there is a danger that we bring the whole process into disrepute and it will not last for more than five minutes.
Sir David Davis
The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points. I have two concerns about the process. The first is about abiding by our long-standing rule of innocent until proven guilty. The second is that the people being penalised by this measure are our constituents, not us. Does he imagine guidelines for the panel that take those two things on board in the way he just described?
Sir Chris Bryant
It is perfectly possible to do that. I can imagine many different circumstances where somebody was arrested for a violent or sexual offence and the panel decided that they would not go down the route of exclusion. The Member would still be able to be present and take part in debates; it is just that certain other factors would be considered, such as saying, “You can’t go on foreign travel on behalf of the House, you can’t go on travel in the UK paid for by the House, you can’t participate in IPU delegations, you can’t use the bars, and we’re going to rearrange your offices.” All of those things could happen entirely without disrupting the Member’s ability to represent their constituents to the fullest possible degree. As I say, this is always about assessing the risk in the specific set of circumstances and mitigating those risks only in a proportionate way. In most cases, my suspicion is that exclusion would be disproportionate and therefore not necessary. That is why it is unfortunate that the motion has been couched in this way.
Dame Karen Bradley
I am slightly confused. The hon. Gentleman is making excellent points—they are all good things that we should consider—but the motion is specific in saying:
“The Panel will decide on appropriate measures to mitigate any risk, and such mitigation may include one or more of the following…exclusion from the Parliamentary estate…exclusion from domestic travel…and exclusion from foreign travel”.
It does not talk about exclusion from bars or changing offices. If it did and we were talking about how we might mitigate risk, we might all be in a different position.
Sir Chris Bryant
The motion does not preclude those things, either. In fact, the first report produced by a Committee was by the Standards Committee when we took evidence. Interestingly, we said:
“First, we propose that the power to exclude Members from the precincts should form only one part of a wider, formalised risk mitigation process. The evidence we heard from comparable bodies, including the police, suggests that interim suspension is normally a last resort.”
Indeed, we went on to say:
“The House Service could, for example, if it were thought necessary and appropriate”—
I would add “proportionate” to that—
“move the MP’s member of staff to an office shared with other staff, or allocate the MP an office which has a higher degree of visibility.”
Of course, all those things could happen perfectly easily without the motion and could happen now.
I have just a couple more points. On arrest or charge, I find it problematic to land just on charge. That is very late—much later than in any other comparable body in the public sector or the private sector in this country. It is not comparable with the law of the land in terms of what most employers would have to do to be a reasonable employer.
It is important that it is proportionate—that is, first, to the crime itself. That is already met by the motion in one sense, as these measures are about sexual or violent offences. The panel might also want to consider whether we are talking about one instance or several allegations. Secondly, has there been one arrest or two arrests? Has the Member been arrested under caution? We get to various other stages long before charge, such as police bail. Are we saying that we should not even consider these measures when somebody is on police bail? That seems odd to me. I would think that is us falling short of our duty.
The panel should also consider the individual’s co-operation. If the individual Member is being very co-operative, that suggests that we would not need to consider taking major further measures. Then—this point was made earlier—we should think about who the person is that we are talking about. If they are a member of staff working in this building, presumably one would want to assess that the risk was higher and therefore one would need to consider further mitigatory measures.
I have two final points—
Sir Philip Davies
The hon. Member talks about bail. Presumably, the police bail could instil a condition that that person should not go within a certain distance of the person who has made the allegation, so this process is not needed. The police are perfectly capable of putting in those bail conditions.
Sir Chris Bryant
But let us say, for sake of argument—it is only for sake of argument; I am not referring to any individual case at all—that the allegation is that the Member of Parliament has in some way sexually assaulted one of their or another MP’s members of staff here. There are other members of staff in the building. So the police bail may refer to whether they can approach the person who made the allegation, but it would not be able to deal with all the other members of staff who operate in the same purlieu here on the estate. That is why taking the proportionate measure is important.
Earlier, I wanted to ask the Leader of the House a simple question about her own amendment—I know it is very technical and tiny—which says that the panel would be able to proceed during an Adjournment. Would it also be able to proceed during a Prorogation? I hope that she can answer that later.
Finally, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset is absolutely right—the Standards Committee made this point several times when this was being debated from the first set of proposals—that, in the end, a mandatory exclusion of a Member should be a decision of the whole House. That would be a relatively easy thing to add to this process. I note that he had an amendment that has not been selected; for whatever reason, I do not mind. If we are moving to exclusion, I think that it would be cleaner if we had a process where, in the main, the Member would normally be expected to—and would probably, I think—co-operate, but if they chose not to, it would be a matter for a motion of the House, which should be taken without debate and without amendment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jess Phillips
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I hope that he took the fact that I was seeking to correct him in the spirit in which it was intended. I will just point out that on the issues of arrest, sexual violence and safeguarding, I am usually right.
Jess Phillips
Yes.
Today, just on this one day, I have spoken to two women who were raped by Members of this Parliament. That is a fairly standard day for me. I notice that they are not the people who have been mentioned much so far today. Some of them told me what they wanted me to say in this debate. I will just read out some of what was sent to me: that exclusion “at the point of charge sends a clear message to victims that not only will we not investigate unless a victim goes to the police, but we won’t act unless they’re charged, which happens in less than 1% of cases, so what’s the point?” That was essentially what that victim said to me.
The Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), told us about all the people she had had in front of her. I wonder how many of the victims of these crimes came and gave evidence, or were given an opportunity to give evidence in private. I am going to stand here and speak up for them, because every single one of them wishes for exclusion to be on the basis of arrest.
The idea that an arrest can happen on a vexatious charge has been raised, which suggests that nobody in this building who has said that has ever dealt with an arrest in a case of sexual violence or serious violence. The amendment to change the motion to “arrest” happens to be in the name of somebody who, as we have already shown, is always right on this, and that of a former police officer, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I know that in this House we are not always keen on experts, but I urge the House to understand that it takes a huge amount for somebody to be arrested. You cannot just ring West Midlands police and say, “Jess Phillips assaulted me”, and they come round and arrest me within the hour. What world are we living in? It is absolute madness. If we do not do this on the basis of arrest, we are saying that we do not trust the police officers in our country.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is not in the Chamber today—I have informed him that I will mention him. He has tabled amendments, and if the one tabled in our name falls, I will absolutely vote for his, so this is not a particular criticism of him. When we were both tabling our motions, I asked him, “What about safeguarding?” He said, “The thing is, we are not employed, so employment law does not come to us.” I asked him whether he had children or grandchildren, and I said, “Would you like it in your child’s school if one of the teachers had been arrested for rape and still went to teach your kids?” He said, “The thing is, we are self-employed.” I said, “Okay. Childminders are self-employed, so would you be happy with a rapey childminder who has been arrested looking after your three-year-old? I wouldn’t be.”
Why do we think that we in this place are so special? Why are we all talking as if all the people who work in this building do not have a right to feel safe when they walk around? The women I spoke to today do not feel safe, and they told me to come and say that. The women who work in the office on my floor all said to me, “Go and say this for us today, Jess.” Why do we think we are so special?
I notice that today the constituents of the hon. Member for Christchurch are completely bereft of representation. The argument that we would be taking away our constituents’ rights does somewhat suggest that no one in this building should ever take a day off on the slip—“Don’t be going on holiday; what about your constituents?”
Penny Mordaunt
May I make some progress? I will allow interventions; I just want to get through the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) spoke about what the Government are doing. We are facilitating a debate. I am glad it has been a genuine debate on an important matter, but this proposal from the Commission has been discussed on a cross-party basis.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) talked about the legal differences between Scotland and England. There are differences between the English and Scottish legal systems, but in both systems charges are brought only when there is a reasonable view that there is enough evidence that that person has committed a crime. Therefore, in both systems the risk-based exclusion scheme would be triggered when enough evidence has been obtained. The situation would be consistent.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) raised a variety of points. Of course, this proposal is one option. It is an option that Mr Speaker and the Commission feel this House should have, but clearly many other things already in existence could safeguard individuals, whether those are voluntary or powers that other people on the estate—for example, the Serjeant at Arms and others—have for excluding people from bars. Other things can also be put in place to safeguard staff.
On the hon. Gentleman’s particular point about Prorogation and Dissolution, the proposal would not apply in those cases. With regard to the former, it is a very short period, so it was viewed that there would not be a practical impact. Again, that can be reviewed in the proposed six-month review. In Dissolution, it would not apply, but it would not be needed because people would be off the estate.
Penny Mordaunt
I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but let me crack through the other points.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) gave some examples that slightly misunderstood what the scheme is doing. We are not talking about a Member being expelled from the House, or losing their place as a Member of the House, but being excluded from the estate for a limited period. It is for Parliament, in accordance with the principle of exclusive cognisance, to organise its own affairs. It is orderly therefore for this House to consider the proposals in the way that it is. He invites us to consider a scenario where a Member of Parliament resigned as an MP and then stood for re-election and asked whether this process would still apply to them. If they were still under charge, yes, it would.
Penny Mordaunt
As I said at the start, the House of Commons Commission and others are looking at a number of things. We have had a review published today on strengthening the ICGS. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the shadow Leader of the House said about ensuring that people are directed towards that scheme, it improves and speeds up and the investigation and operational issues are dealt with. That has greatly strengthened the options that people have on the estate.
Sir Chris Bryant
I may have counted this wrongly, but I think the Leader of the House said on six occasions that this proposal is from the Commission. It is not, is it? It is her proposal. If it were the Commission’s proposal, it would be at arrest, not charge.
Penny Mordaunt
No, it is not, with all due respect to the hon. Member. The Commission originally proposed arrest. We brought that to the Floor of the House. There were concerns before it arrived, and therefore we decided to have a debate, not a vote on it. Three key issues were raised in that debate, and charge versus arrest was one of them. All three issues have been dealt with by the Commission. The House has the chance tonight to vote on proxy voting, the panel, arrest versus charge and the scheme itself. It is for the House to decide that. It is a sorry situation that the hon. Gentleman would paint this to be something it is not. It shows a distinct lack of situational awareness.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend raises an important point and one that I have a great deal of sympathy for. I will make sure that the Chancellor has heard what he says, as the next questions to the Treasury team are not until much later on, and I think that he is doing a great deal of service by continuing his campaign.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Can we have a debate on ministerial transparency? As the Leader of the House knows, ordinary MPs have to register with the House any hospitality that they receive from other parties within 28 days and in considerable detail. However, under the scheme that she still favours, Ministers have an exemption and they do not have to publish anything for several months or provide details at all. She said repeatedly in this House that she would, by last summer, ensure that there was a parallel system for Ministers so that they were not being treated differently from MPs. That still has not happened, so when will it happen?
Can the Leader of the House also explain the retrograde step we seem to have taken now? For instance, in the past we learned that the then Home Secretary registered through the Department that she had gone to a Bond premiere because Bond exercises “executive function”— I note the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) laughing, because he was the one who made that point—despite the fact that Bond is obviously a fictional character. Now, ministerial Departments are publishing the barest details. They do not even say what the tickets are for. Could the Leader of the House, for instance, explain to us what her lunch with Saints and Sinners was all about?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally a stickler for detail, has not noticed that I have been reporting my returns monthly since the start of this year. They are not very exciting, but they are reported monthly, and I think other Departments are also able to do that. I did a speech at the Saints and Sinners Club for charity. Two charities benefited from it, and they are in my entry in the parliamentary Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I know he is keen on this issue and has campaigned on it for a long time. Of course, people do make mistakes—he himself was adrift two years in registering an overseas visit—but I am in favour of parity between ministerial reporting and Parliament—
Penny Mordaunt
I am, and I have been doing that since the start of this year—[Interruption.] I have.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
We all look forward in business questions to more good news from Kettering. I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work he has done in supporting the hospital and in securing the £1.2 million-worth of funding that was given to expand and upgrade its facilities. We can all be proud that the hospital is one of the first in Europe to fit those devices, which will make a huge difference to patients, and I am sure that everyone here would want to congratulate Kettering General Hospital and its cardiac team on that landmark achievement.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is standard practice in schools, universities, the NHS, local government and Government Departments that if somebody is arrested for or charged with a sexual or violent crime, a risk assessment will be carried out, followed potentially, if necessary, by an exclusion or suspension from work, pending further investigations and, if necessary, a trial. The Standards Committee and the House of Commons Commission agreed that we should have something similar for this House, which has been sitting on the stops now for several months.
I understand there are perfectly legitimate questions about exactly how that should operate, but I do not understand why the Leader of the House has not tabled the motion that came straight from the House of Commons Commission, which I would think was her duty as Leader of the House. Secondly, why has she pulled the vote on at least one occasion and still not given us a date to have that vote? We need to burnish the reputation of this House, not tarnish it. Will she please give us a date, as soon as possible, so that we can have a debate and come to a legitimate view on how we can progress this?
Penny Mordaunt
I hope to be able to do that at the next business statement I give. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have had a number of pieces of legislation that we have needed to act on, some of which was not expected, so we have had to find space for that. He will know that as a member of the Commission I take this matter seriously and I would be very happy to bring forward that debate, and I hope it will be announced in my next business statement.
Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I first thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)? I should probably thank her more than anybody in the Chamber because the wisest thing I have ever done in my political career has been to recuse myself from chairing the Committee. She has done an absolutely admirable job. I also thank all the Committee members—as has often been referred to, the Conservative members in particular. I will not go into the other matters that, for other reasons, the Committee Chair referred to, about privilege and whether this should be referred back. I simply point out that I know all the Conservative members of the Committee because they are also on the Standards Committee. They do a wonderful job every single time.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was right to say that it is very difficult to sit in judgment on your colleagues, including your opponents. That is not actually any easier than sitting in judgment on people who have sat on the same Benches as you or have been in the same party as you. But let’s face it: Boris Johnson lied. He said the guidance was followed completely. It wasn’t. He said that the rules and guidance were followed at all times. They weren’t. And I take the plain meaning of his words. You do not have to investigate any further—just the plain meaning will do. He said he had repeated assurances. He didn’t. He misrepresented the facts as he knew them. Meanwhile, people died in isolation, lost their livelihood—we often forget that bit—or missed out on a wedding or another very important moment in their family life because they abided by the rules. They thought that the big truth of the pandemic was that we were all in this together. That is why there is visceral anger. I hear it often from those who think that some people did not abide by the rules and that those were the people who wrote the rules.
This is not a single instance of accidentally mis-speaking either. Many Members have said that of course that happens. We have a proper process, which we have had since 2007, for a Minister to correct the record. Interestingly, the only time Mr Johnson corrected the record as a Minister was when he said that Roman Abramovic had been sanctioned and realised that he had not been sanctioned. So a Russian oligarch is perhaps more important than other matters. Yes, Mr Johnson was careless—reckless, you could say—about the truth, but far, far worse than that, he deliberately, intentionally and with knowledge aforethought sought to cover his tracks. It was a pattern of behaviour, a string of lies. And I do not much care for the version of the debate today which says, “Oh, it was all junior officials and they should be thrown under the bus” or “It was the fault of the police because they did not bother to report it or deal with it.”
Sir Chris Bryant
The thing is that, sometimes when you try to take the spade off somebody when they are digging the hole, they are absolutely determined to take it back and bring a pitchfork and a JCB to the process as well.
Mr Johnson says he has been brought down by a witch hunt, but in all honesty the only person who brought down Mr Johnson was Mr Johnson and I suspect he knows that. I think that this House feels that he should be ashamed of himself and that will be what it concludes later today, but I fear that he remains completely shameless.
Is the sanction proportionate? Of course, it is very difficult to sanction somebody who has already taken the option of running away from this House and from facing the music here or for that matter in their constituency. But that is still important. What we debate today is not an academic matter. That is not a criticism—
Mr Ellwood
We all now know very clearly, if we did not know before, that this is not academic. I am afraid that many people on the Conservative Benches will treat it as academic because Boris has left the building. That is wrong. I have learnt that as well. That is why I am back here. It is important that colleagues follow the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and indeed the Leader of the House and vote to support the motion today.
Sir Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have looked around for some parallels for what can be done about a Member who has already left the House by the time the Privileges Committee, the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Standards Committee or the Independent Expert Panel has adjudicated. The only one I can find is Sir Michael Grylls, the former Member of Parliament for North West Surrey, who was involved in the Ian Greer-Mohammed al-Fayed cash for questions row in the 1990s. He stood down in the 1997 general election so he was not an MP by the time the Standards and Privileges Committee reported on him. It said, categorically, in relation to the question of whether lying to Parliament is a contempt that
“Deliberately misleading a Select Committee is certainly a contempt of the House…Were Sir Michael Grylls still a Member we would recommend a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House, augmented to take account of his deceit.”
That is precisely, following precedent, what the Privileges Committee has done in its report. The truth is that Mr Johnson, as Prime Minister, was a senior and long-standing Member of the House. It was not the first time he got into trouble with either the standards system in the House or the rules. He has shown absolutely no contrition. He chose to attack, intimidate and bully the Committee, which could indeed be a breach of the rules in itself. Everything he did fell far, far short of the standards that this House and the public are entitled to expect of any Member.
I just want to say a few words about the process. The House has always claimed, as the Leader of the House said in her excellent speech, exclusive cognisance; that is to say, apart from the voters and the criminal law, the only body that can discipline, suspend or expel a duly elected Member of the House is the House of Commons in its entirety. I still hold to that principle. It is why any decision or recommendation to suspend or expel a Member that comes from the Standards Committee or the Independent Expert Panel has to be approved by the whole House. It is also why the only way to proceed when there is an allegation that a Member has committed a contempt of Parliament, for instance by misleading the House, is via a Committee of the House and a decision of the whole House. That is why we have to have the motion today and had to have the Committee on Privileges. It cannot, I believe, be a court of law. It has to be a Committee of the House. I do not think some commentators have fully understood that, including Lord Pannick and some former Leaders of the House.
I say to those who have attacked the process that they should be very careful of what they seek. There are those who would prefer lying to Parliament to be a criminal offence, justiciable and punishable by the courts, but that would drive a coach and horses through the Bill of Rights principle that
“freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”
So I am left feeling that those who attack the process simply do not believe that there should be any process for determining whether a Member has lied to the House. As I have said before, I kind of admire the personal loyalty, but I dislike the attitude because it is in effect an excuse for appalling behaviour.
Sir William Cash
I am most grateful to the Chairman of the Standards Committee. He and I took part in the debate, as he will well remember perhaps, on 21 April 2022. I raised the question of “knowingly misleads” because it was not included in the original motion, which was then passed, which led to the reference to the Committee on Privileges. In the course of the debate, I raised—I think with him directly, but he certainly made the remark, for which I pay credit—the fact that intention is at the heart of this question. If we knock out the word “knowingly”, we knock out the intention as well and that is a fundamental question of process on which I will, if I catch your eye Madam Deputy Speaker, want to refer.
Sir Chris Bryant
I am going to ferociously agree with the hon. Gentleman. I said earlier that Mr Johnson knowingly lied to Parliament and that is what the Committee has concluded. There was a point at which people thought they would only consider “recklessly” but they found that he knowingly, with knowledge aforethought, misled Parliament and was deliberately duplicitous. I think the hon. Gentleman’s point is destroyed—
Sir Chris Bryant
If the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) does not mind, I will give way to another Member.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is absolutely right—we must maintain exclusive cognisance—but that does not mean we should not follow a proper process and a fair process, or admit that this is ostensibly political.
Sir Chris Bryant
The word “political” can cover a multitude of sins, can’t it? We are talking about the politics of the nation. I would argue that trying to defend the constitutional principle that Ministers always tell the truth to Parliament and that, if they have inadvertently misled the House, they correct the record as soon as they possibly can, is an important part of ensuring our political health in this nation, but I do not think that the process was unfair. Most of our constituents, if they go to a tribunal nowadays, have no representation paid for by the taxpayer. Mr Johnson had, I think, more than £250,000-worth of representation provided by the taxpayer.
The membership of the Committee was agreed by the whole House when—I think I might be right in saying this—the right hon. Gentleman was Leader of the House.
Sir Chris Bryant
I am wrong; I apologise. However, it is certainly the case that the whole House agreed that membership, fully knowing everything that had been said up until that moment. Three members of the Committee had sat on a previous case in relation to Mr Johnson that came to the Standards Committee. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had found against Mr Johnson, but we, the Committee, found in his favour. I therefore do not think that this was in any sense a biased Committee. Let me also say that anyone who thinks that Speaker’s Counsel, or, for that matter, Sir Ernest Ryder, who ran the whole of the tribunals service in England and Wales, would not stand up for a fair hearing and due process is misleading themselves, and doing so almost recklessly.
Sir Chris Bryant
I am tempted not to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am very hopeful that he will have an opportunity to speak to the House fully a bit later.
Some people have attacked the process for a different reason, and I understand the nature of that attack. They say that Johnson won a general election, and they argue that only voters should therefore be allowed to remove him from office. I passionately disagree with that view, because I hold a different understanding of democracy. It
“does not mean, ‘We have got our majority, never mind how, and we have our lease of office for five years, so what are you going to do about it?’ That is not democracy, that is only small party patter, which will not go down with the mass of the people of this country.”
Members may recognise those words. They are not mine; they are Churchill’s, addressed to the Labour Government in 1947. He went on:
“there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.”—[Official Report, 1 November 1947; Vol. 444, c. 206-7.]
I agree, and that is why I think it important to note that public opinion on this matter is extremely clear. Most people think Johnson lied. A few of them do not think that that matters very much, but most of them do. Most of them think that Ministers who lie should be removed and punished, and being truthful is the one quality that they seek above all else in a Member of Parliament.
Harold Wilson said, in a debate in the House when John Profumo had just been forced to resign for lying:
“The sickness of an unrepresentative sector of our society should not detract from the robust ability of our people as a whole to face the challenge of the future. And in preparing to face that challenge, let us frankly recognise that the inspiration and the leadership must come first here in this House.”—[Official Report, 17 June 1963; Vol. 679, c. 54.]
Leadership means taking a stance. Abstention is a failure of leadership. I believe that today is a good day for democracy. We have remarkably few checks and balances in our system, and the only real check is the collective conscience of the Members of this House. That is the burden of our elected office, and I pay tribute to Conservatives, and people of every party, who have had to face a difficult decision in relation to this. We exercise our conscience on behalf of our constituents. Edmund Burke said that the most important thing we owe our constituents is our conscience. Thereby we tarnish or we burnish the reputation of Parliament. So let us assert today that no one is above the law and the rules apply to all, because every abstention is another excuse. I repeat Wilson’s words: the leadership must come first here in this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I refer him further to paragraph 182, on the line to take. Mr Johnson, as Prime Minister, was advised before Prime Minister’s questions to say that the rules had been followed at all times, and the report goes into great detail as to the authority for that advice—who had told him, whether they were senior enough and whether it was right—but it does not ask whether other Ministers were given the same briefing. Was this the cross-Government line to take, approved, as far as I could be aware, by all officials? Well, I can tell the House that, prior to business questions for the weeks when this was at the forefront of public interest, I was given the briefing that the rules had been followed at all times, with “at all times” emphasised. The only reason I did not say this to the House is because the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, never had the wit to ask me the right question. If she had, the cross-Government line to take was absolutely clear, yet this report concludes that the Prime Minister, as he then was, was not advised by senior enough people—that they were involved in the press office. The idea that Ministers are not advised by people who work in communications shows quite how long the Opposition have been out of government.
Based on this tendentious reading of the facts, we come to the 90-day sanction. It is a vindictive sanction, it seems to me, that the Committee cannot implement because Mr Johnson has left Parliament, so the Committee goes from the vindictive to the ridiculous by not allowing him a parliamentary pass. Of all the trivial sanctions that could be imposed, that seems to be the most miserable. But the Committee emphasises in paragraph 229 that this sanction has been made more savage, more brutal and more vindictive because Mr Johnson impugned the Committee and undermined the democratic process.
On what basis? Is it thought that this House, when it comes to a conclusion, must be obeyed? Is it the case that we must not criticise the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 because it was passed by this great and noble House, or are we, in fact, allowed to criticise, as a fundamental of free speech, that which happens to us, that which is reported about us and that which is said of us? When a person is in court, they are allowed to say that the court has made a mistake. The protections of the junior courts, in which juries sit, are rightly very strict, but we can still say that the court has got it wrong. Indeed, we are allowed to say a court has got it so wrong that we may go to appeal. We do not have to kowtow but, for some reason, the Privileges Committee thinks it is in communist China and that we must kowtow. The report goes on to say that Mr Johnson was
“complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee”
without a single, solitary shred of evidence. It is pure assertion.
This leads me on to the issue of partiality. I was most intrigued by the response of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) to my intervention. She said that she had told the Government, that it had all been approved and that it was fine and dandy. I refer her to paragraph 12 of her own report:
“Our guiding principles included being transparent.”
We suddenly discover, in this transparent approach, that there was a secret agreement that her involvement was all right. Well, I was in the Government at the time, and I never heard that this had happened, so it seems to me that it is important to examine the position in which the right hon. and learned Lady found herself. I note that the Committee does not do this in annex 1, which purports to answer appendix 3. I am sure the House is listening and following very carefully, but appendix 3 is the letter of Mr Johnson in response to the draft report. Fascinatingly, although paragraph 6 of appendix 3, on page 100, questions the impartiality of the Committee, annex 1 ignores that. Annex 1 answers lots of other points, but it rushes over this point, perhaps because the Committee thought it was on relatively thin ice.
Sir Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman called for me to recuse myself from the Committee. Did he ever ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) to recuse herself from the Committee before Boris Johnson started demanding it?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
I said it very publicly, and it is a matter of record that I said it. I assumed people were aware, and people clearly are aware of what is said publicly. I will come to paragraph 14 in due course.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, which seems to me to be sufficient.
Paragraph 9 of the report says:
“we leave our party interests at the door of the committee room”.
That is all very good, and it is to be encouraged, but it does not meet the Hoffmann test, which is important because the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, like the Privileges Committee, was a Committee of Parliament following a judicial or, in this case, quasi-judicial process. I quote from its judgment:
“The contention is that there was a real danger or reasonable apprehension or suspicion that Lord Hoffmann might have been biased, that is to say, it is alleged that there is an appearance of bias not actual bias.
The fundamental principle is that a man may not be a judge in his own cause. This principle, as developed by the courts, has two very similar but not identical implications. First it may be applied literally: if a judge is in fact a party to the litigation or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome then he is indeed sitting as a judge in his own cause. In that case, the mere fact that he is a party to the action or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome is sufficient to cause his automatic disqualification. The second application of the principle is where a judge is not a party to the suit and does not have a financial interest in its outcome, but in some other way his conduct or behaviour may give rise to a suspicion that he is not impartial”.
That is the fundamental point, and it led to the Judicial Committee—for, I believe, the only time in its history—overturning a decision it had made. It is reasonable suspicion.
The judgment of Lord Nolan runs to only four lines. I will read out only two of them:
“I would only add that in any case where the impartiality of a judge is in question the appearance of the matter is just as important as the reality.”
This seems to be fundamental: the Judicial Committee followed a proper process, which the Privileges Committee did not.
I have slightly exceeded the time limit, but I will finish relatively swiftly. Fortunately, the previous two speakers were brief, which is encouraging.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
When I visit schools to discuss my work in Parliament, we often discuss speaking at the Dispatch Box, as I was honoured to do myself last year, although sadly only a handful of times, and what is in those boxes. As we all know, the boxes contain copies of religious texts, such as the Bible. Ministers do not speak under oath, so those texts are important reminders to them about the truth of what they say.
None of us is perfect—we all make mistakes. Ministers are charged with remembering lots of specific facts, figures and wording, such as the difference between rules and guidance, and they may make mistakes. If they do make a mistake, they must correct the record, once they are aware of the issue and have the opportunity to do so; they are asked to do so “at the earliest opportunity”.
In the report, the Privileges Committee considered whether Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, lied to the House, which is a serious allegation. The Committee found him guilty and recommended a substantial suspension. I looked for precedents and found a helpful House of Commons Library briefing that showed there have been only 22 specific referrals to the Privileges Committee since 1979. Of those, only four—an average of one a decade—related to a specific Member or Members of Parliament. In 1994, two Members were sanctioned as part of the cash for questions inquiry, one for 10 days and the other for 20 days. In 2005, a Member was found to have been untruthful, but not to have lied, meaning presumably that it was unintentional. So this case is unusual.
Those examples took place before the Recall of MPs Act 2015. In that light, a 90-day suspension seems rather long, as others have said. It is not just a matter of the suspension itself, which has been served by Members previously; there is also the prospect of a recall. In common with other right hon. and hon. Members, I am concerned fundamentally that Members should not be removed from Parliament by other politicians, except in circumstances highlighted in the Recall Act, such as for criminal convictions resulting in imprisonment that meet the threshold of the Act or convictions for fiddling expenses.
My concern is that the process allows parliamentarians to remove other parliamentarians who have been duly elected, without clear, prior guidance on where those thresholds lie. Currently, there could be a suspension for nine or 10 days, but there is no guidance on when the suspension should last for nine days and when it should last for 10 days. That could lead to suspensions being seen to be politically motivated, as we have seen with the Committee. Whether we agree or disagree with the Committee, nobody has not noted that some people consider the report to be politically motivated. Elements of the population believe that. We need to ensure that everybody, wherever they live or work, and whatever their political allegiance, can see that the process is fair.
The other danger is that this could lead to people playing the man and not the ball; instead of trying to take down arguments made by politicians, Committees could try to take down the person. That would weaken our faith in parliamentary processes. Therefore, I hope the Leader of House will make time for a debate on when the House believes the threshold for a 10-day suspension should or should not be met. It seems to me that that is crucial. Indeed, in the report about the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), the Standards Committee, which is a Committee with a similar membership to the Privileges Committee, suggested that that matter should be given further consideration.
Sir Chris Bryant
I think I speak for all members of the Standards Committee when I say that we are a bit exercised about how the Recall of MPs Act now functions. When deciding on a sanction, nine days looks like the possibility of recall is being deliberately avoided, but more than 10 days looks as if the Committee has decided that it is the end of somebody’s career. We want to look at the matter more fully and we intend to launch an inquiry in the autumn into that precise issue.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman. If the Standards Committee undertakes that inquiry, I hope it will ask Members from across the whole House to contribute, because that is something that needs to be decided by the whole House, not just half a dozen or so members of a Committee, with due respect.
The other issue I want to raise is about Members being critical of the Committee. We are here today because there is a vote in Parliament. That means we have the opportunity to say “yes”—aye—or “no”. The fact that we can say “no” means that it is perfectly legitimate to respect the Committee and to respectfully disagree with the Committee. I have respect for my colleagues and hon. Friends who make up the Committee and who have taken on the unenviable job of making a highly politically charged decision. I am sure they have given that their full due diligence over a long period. The Committee must never be intimidated, bribed, blackmailed or bullied. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in her opening remarks, it is a contempt of the House to seek to intimidate a member of the Committee.
However, a balance must be struck. We are here to debate and discuss, but we are free to disagree and question whether the Committee’s processes and procedures are fair. In my view, it is entirely legitimate to question whether a person who has politically opined on an issue can judge it impartially. It is reasonable to consider, do I agree with the report? Do I think the Committee has given insufficient weight to evidence provided by my hon. Friends the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) or for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) in their witness statements? Do I think insufficient weight was given to Boris Johnson’s evidence, when he said, “How is it obvious that this event was a transgression if it was published in the newspapers and nobody complained?” Are we to presume, for example, that no members of the Opposition or no one among his political opponents read The Times, and that it was not obvious to them?
That said, I understand the Committee is cross that its letter was leaked in advance of the publication of the report. Having looked at what constitutes contempt of the House, I agree that leaking a report or letter is a contempt of the House. For that, the Member concerned should apologise and, if they will not, they should be sanctioned. But due process is important. If someone has done something wrong, they deserve the same due process as those who may be innocent. In my view, we should always assume someone is innocent until they are proven guilty.
Today, we are being asked to vote on a sanction based, in part, on the statement that Boris Johnson was
“complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee.”
That is a very serious allegation, but having read the report, I do not see where that is evidenced. That evidence has not yet been provided. If I understand the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) correctly, she said that evidence would be provided in a future report, when the Committee discusses that evidence. I am happy to take an intervention if she would like to say that it is in the report but I have missed it. I am concerned that we are being asked to vote on a sanction with essentially only half the evidence; I am not able to do that.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The original motion, which was discussed on the Floor of the House on 21 April 2022, in which debate both I and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) happened to speak, should never have been allowed through by default, as I said at the time. I cannot understand how it happened and I have never had a proper explanation. What I do know, as I said earlier to the hon. Member, to others and to the Chair of the Committee, is that it uses the word “misleading” but not the words “knowingly misleading”. There is a vast difference. It is about intention. It is about whether or not Boris Johnson could have lied. That is the crucial issue.
I put down an early-day motion immediately after the Privileges Committee produced its process report, on 21 July 2022. The Committee itself drew attention, as I have, to the divergence from the established convention of deliberately or knowingly misleading the House—I made that point; I am afraid the Committee did not—as set out in the unanimously agreed 1997 resolution of the House on ministerial accountability. My motion therefore called for the 21 April motion to be rescinded. I have not changed my mind, especially as the proceedings have unfolded. My concern is also that the procedure followed has pursued a course that could even tend to undermine democratic and ministerial accountability because that is contained in, fundamentally, a unanimous resolution of 1997, which is still very much alive and kicking. Every day, the words “knowingly misleads” apply to Ministers who speak from the Dispatch Box. It was well said by the great constitutional lawyer Maitland that
“justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure.”
Thus, the procedures should reflect natural justice and the right to fairness in proceedings. I know that the Chair of the Privileges Committee has chaired the Human Rights Committee. One of the most fundamental questions in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights is fairness in proceedings and trials.
The Committee of Privileges is uniquely concerned with personal accusations and complaints, as compared with all other Select Committees, which concentrate largely on departmental policy. Natural justice therefore requires cross-examination by counsel. The rule of law requires that, where there is an accusation of misconduct or of lying, particularly by Members of the House, an individual should be entitled to have his counsel cross-examine the evidence and obtain the names of potential witnesses. Indeed, counsel can be heard in person with the leave of the House and I truly believe that the Committee of Privileges could and should have proposed that itself.
I have already dealt with the question raised earlier with respect to the admission. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda for saying in the debate on 21 April 2022 that “intention” is essential. I am glad that he reconfirmed that point today. In my view, intention cannot be excluded by any presumption of strict liability. That, as I understand it, was considered by the legal adviser to the Committee and he came to the view that strict liability applied. I do not agree, but that is a personal view and it is a view that I take as a lawyer. I do not think that strict liability is consistent with ensuring that the word “intention” is applicable in such circumstances.
Sir Chris Bryant
I have two very quick points. The hon. Gentleman has referred to motions of the House. He will be aware that there is also a motion of the House that says that a Member will always represent themselves and not be represented by legal counsel. Therefore, if we are going to barter off motions, that is also the will of the House universally expressed. However, the bit I really cannot understand is why he goes on about this intentionality point, when page 7 of the report says that Boris Johnson was guilty of contempt by “deliberately misleading the House”. That is intentionality. They have proved it.
Sir William Cash
I will leave that for a moment. I have more to say on that very question.
Only by cross-examination of witnesses can truth be properly established. The 1997 resolution went through unanimously after a series of many Select Committee reports in the 1990s following the arms sales to Iraq saga. There were intensive cross-party discussions and, eventually, John Major and Tony Blair insisted on the words, “knowingly misleads” in the resolution that was unanimously passed; the House agreed to it. That resolution, as I have said repeatedly, prevails to this day. Therefore, no Minister shall be expected to resign, or be forced to resign, unless that can be proved.
The motion of 21 April deliberately left out the word “knowingly”. It was a Labour bear trap for Boris Johnson and the Government. Changing this fundamental principle through a new precedent would, in my view, affect all Governments and democratic accountability in future, and would, incidentally, apply to civil servants, who are also governed, under the civil service code of conduct, by the words “knowingly misleads”. They are the people who have to put together the answers to the questions that are raised on the Floor of the House and, for that matter, in speeches, too.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I will very much focus on the report. To comment on the last two speakers, not necessarily the wildly tangential line that they went down, but the idea that everybody is a bit sick of this and they do not want to be talking about it, quite a lot of people have been in touch with me while the debate has been going on and they are watching the debate. One of the people who got in touch with me is a brilliant woman called Mina Smallman, whose daughters, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, were killed during the period when our country was in lockdown, in a double murder. She said to me:
“Please mention our story and Bibaa and Nicole. Had they broken the rules they would still be alive.”
They went to a picnic in a park, and they staggered it so that there would not be too many people, because they understood the regulations. Because of that, they were murdered. Mina Smallman also said that Sarah Everard was so frightened of the covid regulations that she ended up dead. So there were people in our country who listened to Boris Johnson talking on television, they took away from him what the rules were, as the primary message giver in the pandemic, they understood the rules, and it cost them their lives in a completely different way from that which has been discussed so far.
The idea that Boris Johnson did not understand the regulations—it is a cracking defence on his part because it basically means that he is too stupid. He’s either lying or he’s thick. Somebody said earlier they were not mutually exclusive. I think that is the case in this instance. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
I did not come to this place as a big cheerleader of it. I felt that I was going to think that parliamentary procedure was silly in a lot of regards, and all the Northstead bailiffing has not disavowed me of that in the last couple of weeks. What I found, however, was that I became a total cheerleader for parliamentary democracy. I had not expected to. It has really been quite a shock to me that I became such a cheerleader of parliamentary democracy, but it is because it matters. People in our country putting trust in us to do the right thing really matters. Since I have been here, I have seen the fragility of that, with lies, misdirection and constantly feeling like you are never getting an answer.
Our constituents say over and over again, “Oh my God, just answer the question.” That is the most pressing thing for most people in our country: “Oh my God, just get someone to answer the bloody question”—excuse my language, I am quoting the public. They said it worse; it could have been much worse. So it really matters that the institution of this place be protected, and that it is considered to be truthful and honest.
The only people who are served by the public hating politicians and the institution of Parliament are the people who already hold power. It is so important for the people to feel empowered in the thing that represents them and is there to drive them. If they opt out and say, “You’re all the same: you’re all liars and cheats”, the same people who have always ruled always will rule. They do not mind that people say that.
This is about the importance of telling the truth in this place, and respecting the systems that we all have to live by and that we all vote through; like this Committee, we all voted for that and passed it through this building. It matters so much. That is why I stand here to say that I have watched that degrade and, for the first time, with this Privileges Committee report, I have felt like it has a chance to come back. I have felt that there is a lock on the system and a valve to release the pressure. I have seen for the past five years people—specifically Boris Johnson—lying and deceiving. I have felt, “Oh gosh, it’s okay. The system is bigger than this demagogue. It is bigger than that man who thinks he is bigger and more important than the world.” The system fought back with honour and I thank the members of the Committee for their hard work.
Boris Johnson’s demagoguery in receipt of the report should surprise absolutely no one. It is to be laughed at, frankly, and the public are laughing at it. It looks really desperate. Some of the defences that I have heard today on behalf of Members trying to stick up for Boris Johnson look a little like people dancing on the head of a pin. Frankly, they were laughable and people are watching. I feel very bad that that will be represented as if it is the Conservative party’s view, when there are very decent Members who absolutely will do the right thing and stick up for democracy.
It is a crying shame that, in this moment of release valve, the Prime Minister of our country cannot even express how he would vote if he were to turn up today. In my view, that is a dereliction of duty. Democracy has been degraded. It is important to fight for it. I cannot believe that he could not take five seconds out of parroting his pledges to tell us what he thinks should happen. I praise the Leader of the House today for showing leadership in that regard. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister cannot even express what his view is one way or another.
Sir Chris Bryant
Interestingly enough, he did not express a view on Owen Paterson either.
Jess Phillips
There are many things that are matters of conscience in this place. When I look back on the record and see the Prime Minister of the day has not expressed a view on them, I think it is weak—it is quite a lot of unparliamentary words that I am probably not allowed to say, so I will not say them. I can now say that Boris Johnson is a liar and I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who will be speaking after me, has been completely vindicated by the fact that we can all say that Boris Johnson is a liar. I just wish there had been a united front today. I understand that it is a matter of conscience, and there will always be some people who feel a different way, and I totally respect that. It is a real shame if the House cannot express today how important democracy is to us because of the failure of one leader leading to the weakness of the next.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. He is absolutely right that although there may be provision for one aspect of new infrastructure or public services, that is no comfort if there is no provision for others. He will know that the Health Secretary is looking at using data in a more effective way to ensure that local commissioners are delivering on the needs of their existing communities, as well as planning properly for their future communities. I will make sure he has heard my hon. Friend’s remarks.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I commend the Leader of the House for what she said about the Committee of Privileges. Frankly, every single member deserves a medal, not least because of the intimidation. I took what she said to mean that there will be a motion on Monday to endorse the report, which she will move and therefore will vote in favour of. Could she clarify that?
What I really want is a debate on Conservative Members’ understanding of the concept of time, because the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) said that she was resigning with immediate effect, and the Government said last October that they would publish the legislation on conversion therapy by the spring. It certainly feels like summer out there to me.
Finally, can the Leader of the House tell us why Boris Johnson is entitled to £115,000 a year for life?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his multiple questions—he is getting value out of business questions. I can confirm that, as he would expect, a motion will ask the House to approve the fifth report of the Committee of Privileges. I stress again, let us approach this with the dignity and sobriety that the public would expect on a serious matter, and let us be considerate of how difficult such considerations will be, with regard to personal relationships between colleagues in this place. If we approach Monday’s debate with both those things in mind, we will have done our duty well in this place.
Spring is springy. It is important that, particularly on difficult Bills that deal with pioneering issues such as tackling conversion practices, we bring forward legislation that is in a good state as it goes into pre-legislative scrutiny. I follow the progress of all legislation carefully, and I hope to have some news on that Bill soon, which I will announce in the usual way.
Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire
If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that our criminal justice system could do with improvements, I heartily agree. We are talking about a situation where criminal justice proceedings—an investigation—are taking place, and the police, along with the Crown Prosecution Service, are responsible for that. Even now, they will, at a certain point, let the House authorities know if a Member is being investigated, and we do not have an adequate process for responding to that.
The criminal justice system has many significant flaws, which I would dearly love to help fix, but we have the system that we do. We have to be in a position where we trust that system, as far as we can, to give us information when the police feel that is warranted. We need to look at whether or not this system works. There is plenty of time, not only this evening, but before we have the votable motion and then if we decide to vote for the process to be tested and developed, for further opportunities to do that. I am happy to take away the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman and others, which are reasonably expressed. That is what the debate is for.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wonder about this word “defence.” I understand where the question is coming from, but it might be misplaced. It is quintessentially important that the panel should never be deciding on the innocence or guilt of the individual; that matter is solely for the criminal justice system. The panel is only deciding whether, given the circumstances and the investigation that is ongoing—the arrest or whatever stage it has got to—mitigations need to be put in place to ensure that this is a safe workplace.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank my hon. Friend for expressing it much better than I just did. The proposal is not a replacement for the criminal justice system and it is not a parallel system; it is about finding a way to take on board, when there is a criminal justice system investigation of a serious crime, how we mitigate the risks, in a limited and time-limited way, because we are not like any other workplace. Whether or not it goes on for one month or two years will be the responsibility of whether or not the criminal justice is operating as it should. As I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I would like to get my hands on that system and help to institute some reforms. In the meantime, we are not a substitute for it and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing that so well.
Sir Christopher Chope
In a situation where a specific person who is working on this estate has brought a complaint against somebody that is the subject of investigation but has not yet reached a charge, there is nothing to stop the House authorities making provision to look after that person and perhaps enabling them to be absent from the estate or to move somewhere else on the estate. There is no reason at all why an elected Member of Parliament should be put in jeopardy and face the prospect or the threat of being humiliated in public because he is the subject of an investigation—or she is the subject of an investigation.
Investigations are not the same thing as charges. That is why, in my view, the report we are discussing is ill-conceived and should be sent back and be subject to fresh consultation. Let the hon. Lady not forget that Members of Parliament are not subject to the Disclosure and Barring Service. As long as they are not currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of more than a year, they can stand and be elected as Members of Parliament while still on the sex offenders register. Are we suggesting that we should change the Representation of the People Act 1981 to restrict—
Sir Christopher Chope
Okay, the hon. Gentleman thinks we should change the Representation of the People Act. That is fine. Let somebody bring forward the proposal to do that. Let them do that expressly and overtly and say that there is a certain additional category of people who are ineligible to stand for election or to be elected to this place. What we have here is a back-door attempt to try to achieve that objective without changing the primary legislation.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). He made a thoughtful contribution to the debate, and he is absolutely right: this is not plain sailing. It is not simple. There are complexities here, and there are moments when different principles clash. We just need to make sure that, in so far as we possibly can, we align those principles rather than let them clash.
For me, there are two principles. The first is that everybody who works in Parliament—whether as a chef, a cleaner, a contractor, a journalist, a Member of Parliament or someone who works for a Member of Parliament, or a Clerk—should have absolute certainty that this is a safe place to work in relation to both bullying and sexually inappropriate behaviour. I know there are colleagues who think that it is a safe place, but there are lots of staff who do not think it is. The ICGS is a great thing; I would argue that we are probably the first Parliament in the world that has introduced such a confidential system. It is still in its early days, but it does not entirely have the confidence of all the staff yet. One has only to look at the polling that has been done by the GMB and Unite, or speak to any of the other trade union officials—or, for that matter, those who are not members of any trade union here—to know how staff feel about some of the practices and the way we do our business in Parliament. There is a job of work to be done.
Sir Chris Bryant
Can I just do my second principle and then give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he does not mind? They fit together in my head.
The second principle is that an MP, just like any other member of the public, is entitled to due process and a fair hearing. It is unfortunately true that the court of public opinion is in permanent session, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There are no rules of evidence or proceeding in that court, and everybody involved in it thinks that they are the judge, the jury and the executioner. I want to make sure that everything we do in this House ensures that those two principles are met: first, that it is a safe place to work, and secondly, that there is fair due process for MPs just as for anybody else.
Andy Carter
I am in complete agreement: those two principles are incredibly important. The point I wanted to raise with the hon. Gentleman is one we have discussed before in the Standards Committee. Quite often, there is media reporting that 56 MPs are being investigated in relation to bullying or sexual abuse. Those figures are just completely wrong, and they give a completely misleading perspective on issues in this House. That would be around 10% of Members of Parliament. In fact, that figure relates to the total number of employees on the estate—about 7,000 Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when reporting like that takes place, the Commissioner has a responsibility to correct those figures in order to ensure that the people who work here appreciate that safety and security are important, and so that people understand that those sorts of figures are not accurate?
Sir Chris Bryant
I think it was Tom Lehrer who wrote a song that goes:
“Plagiarise,
Let no one else’s work evade your eyes…so don’t shade your eyes,
But plagiarise, plagiarise, plagiarise,
Only be sure always to call it please, ‘research’.”
The hon. Member must have seen my notes, because what he said is what I was about to say, almost word for word. I am disturbed by his eyesight, frankly. What he says is true. I have rarely been so cross as when I saw reports, repeated in several newspapers, that 54 or 56 MPs —I am not sure which—were under investigation by the ICGS at that time. I spoke to the ICGS, and I knew that the figure was absolutely untrue. I spoke to the journalist concerned, who insisted on publishing the report because they had been told by a Member of Parliament that it was true. It was not true; it was utterly untrue, and it cast the whole of Parliament in a much worse light than is necessary.
As the hon. Member knows, I am one to try to insist on fairness and to ensure that when somebody has broken the rules, they are dealt with properly. My anxiety is that if people keep on writing stories that are untrue, unsourced or no more than gossip or rumour, it will undermine people’s confidence in the ICGS and the system, and that makes it more difficult for us to get a place where we have a safe workplace for everybody involved.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for what she said about what I call the crazy paving of different bodies in Parliament. I am slightly worried that at the end of this process we will add another body to the many bodies that presently govern how we operate. It is difficult for an ordinary Member of Parliament to understand, but it is even more difficult for staff and the public to understand the different sets of rules that we have. Sometimes they do not fit together properly, and that undermines confidence in democracy and therefore is a problem. That is why I hope we can do a big piece of work in the Standards Committee, and I am grateful for what the Leader of the House said about the work she will do, to see whether there are ways we can at least align things better.
I am aware, for instance, that the way a complaint might be dealt with by the police or the ICGS might remain entirely confidential right the way through to the very end, or until charge in the case of the police. In the ICGS, confidentiality will remain right through until the end. For instance, we had an ICGS case that started in the last Parliament. The person knew they were under investigation, they stood for Parliament, nobody in the political party knew that was happening, they got re-elected and the ICGS process finished and that person left Parliament. However, if someone complains to the political party, the party will suspend the Whip immediately and that is publicly known. Somewhere in that, it is not quite right and fair, and that is a place where we need to do a piece of work.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I greatly respect the hon. Member’s work in this whole area, and I agree with his two principles on safeguarding and fairness. What we have been debating and asking about is how the panel comes to a decision. It is a serious decision, because that person who is excluded from this place may well eventually be found innocent, but the reputational damage is so great that he might lose his job as a Member of Parliament. This is therefore an extremely important matter. How can it possibly be fair that that panel, in coming to that judgment, cannot hear from the person himself or herself as to why they should not be excluded? Surely that cannot be a fair system.
Sir Chris Bryant
I will come to that point, but I will take it in a slightly different direction from the one the hon. Member is aiming at, for the simple reason that when the panel meets, it is not deciding whether somebody is innocent or guilty. I presume that in every instance, the Member themselves would want to co-operate with that process, because it will be in their interests so to do. That would mean they would probably take a voluntary exclusion and decide not to be here, which need never come to public attention. We have got a bit obsessed with exclusion in this process when the likelihood of an exclusion is maybe one or two a Parliament at most.
There are other measures it might be sensible to take. For instance, say a Member has been charged, for the sake of argument, with a violent offence in a pub. We might decide that it would be wise for the House to say that that person should not attend any of the bars in Parliament. Say somebody has been charged, for the sake of argument, with an offence relating to a younger member of staff. Although that name would not be known publicly, we might decide that it was sensible to say that they should not be working in an office environment where there are closed doors or where it is just them and that member of staff. We might say, “We are going to move your office. We will put you in a place where you are working in a set of rooms with other people around as well.” That would be a sensible measure.
My point is that what we do would always have to be proportionate to two things: first, the offence we are talking about; and secondly, the stage at which we are in the process. As the hon. Member for Bracknell said, nearly all these things might only apply at charge, but it might apply at police bail. If the police have gone to a court and explained to a judge that they need to take measures, the House might want to take similar measures. My point is that it all has to be proportionate to the potential offence we are talking about, to the risk that there genuinely is and to the stage at which we have got in the process.
James Sunderland
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words earlier. He is making some persuasive comments, but is there a danger with how the House of Commons Commission might be taking this that somehow we need to be proving a higher level of law? In other words, the rights that exist for people generally across the UK will not necessarily be afforded to MPs, because we are intervening here much earlier in the process than other workplaces might be required to do. We are different in this place—Parliament is unique and sacrosanct—but are we not in danger of demeaning ourselves by allowing each of us a lower bar of legal representation and rights?
Sir Chris Bryant
Well, no. The evidence given to the Standards Committee—if the hon. Member has time to read it, I urge him to do so—was that an awful lot of other workplaces do something similar and start considerably earlier than at charge. For instance, there are proper issues for a school, which is probably the only place where we would properly use the term “safeguarding”, and likewise for a youth service. For someone in the police, it is likely that the police would take far more precautionary action than we do, and far more than is even being suggested here. The bit that is different for us is that the scrutiny on us is acute. However, if we spoke to a teacher excluded from school at the point of arrest for a sexual or violent crime, they would say, “It may not have been on the front page of the Daily Mail, but everybody in my local community knows about it,” so there is enormous reputational risk.
One really important point that we must stress time and again is that, in any of these instances, this cannot involve a judgment as to whether somebody is innocent or guilty—that is absolutely the case—and our processes must guarantee the presumption of innocence all the way through to the end of a criminal justice process.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend knows that I take a lot of stock from what he says on this subject, so I would be interested to know this. Is he completely content with the proposal before the House, particularly the aspect I found surprising, which is that it allows for the possibility of a Member to be excluded even prior to their arrest, basically on the word of a report from, for example, the Metropolitan police?
Sir Chris Bryant
Indeed, trust in the Metropolitan police is not high, and that is a problem for the House at the moment. I am aware of friends and colleagues who would like to make complaints to the police but feel that they would not be listened to properly. Vice versa, there are obviously Members of the House who do not feel that the Metropolitan police would deal with them fairly. I think it is a fair point about whether this should be before arrest, but my assumption has been that the moment of arrest, and certainly if somebody is interviewed under caution while under arrest as a suspect, is the point when, again on a proportionate basis—proportionate to the alleged offence, proportionate to the risk there might be perceived to be and proportionate to the stage at which we are—we may want to take action.
I worry that, if we do not do any of this, we will leave ourselves very exposed to further reputational risk for the House. That is my anxiety. The hon. Member for Bracknell raised the question of whether somebody could be excluded without the House voting on it. My anxiety about the House voting on the exclusion of a Member is that that will almost certainly look to the public as though the House has judged that that person, for want of a better term, is a wrong ’un. That is why if my best friend were in this process—if, for instance, they had been charged, and the House authorities thought there was a significant concern and wanted to take action, suggesting they should not come in—I would say to my best friend, “You should just not come in.” Then it would be entirely voluntary, and that would protect the reputation of the House. I think that would be in the best interests of the individual, and we would end up with a fair outcome for the complainant as well.
However, I think the House has to reserve the opportunity that we may be in a situation where somebody is absolutely adamant—saying, “There’s no way you’re preventing me from coming in”—and people may come to the conclusion of replying, “Sorry, but we think you are a genuine risk to other people on the parliamentary estate, and that now trumps anything else. Consequently, if you’re not prepared to accept this, then we will have to vote on it.” However, I think the likelihood of that happening more than once in decade is minimal. I slightly worry about doing a review, because I am not sure how long we would have to allow before we had enough cases to decide whether the review was actually valuable.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
This is a very interesting debate. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that there are several parts to a Member of Parliament’s job? One is representing constituents in this place and voting in this place, but another is listening to their constituents, visiting them, and visiting schools and other places, but there has not been much focus on that part of the job.
Sir Chris Bryant
No, indeed. One of the things referred to in the Commission paper, and we refer to it in the Standards Committee report, is that it is all very well dealing with here, but there is also the constituency office. I think we should be able to include that in this issue. For instance, let us say that somebody has been charged with a violent or sexual crime. I think the House authorities should be able to say to that Member, “I’m sorry, but you should make it possible for all your staff in your constituency to work from home”—that, for instance, may be an appropriate measure—or, “You’re only ever going to able to be in your constituency office with your staff with another person,” or some such measure. It is all about minimising risk. Of course, we cannot have a system in which the House says, “Oh, and by the way, you’re not allowed to go to Tesco” and so on. However, that may be a legitimate process that the police have to go down if they felt there were further risks to other people or to the community.
Sir Chris Bryant
I am seeking to bring my thoughts to a close, but of course I give way.
Sammy Wilson
In his last remark, does the hon. Gentleman not see how we can get these measures creeping? Where is the consistency in saying, “This panel has decided you’re not safe, Mr MP or Mrs MP, to be in the House of Commons because you are a danger to staff” or whatever, but also saying, “At this point in time, you’re not a danger to your constituency staff and you can still go to your constituency office”? This is where the creeping comes in, because is not the logic of this that, if someone is excluded from here, they get excluded from everywhere else where their parliamentary duties take place?
Sir Chris Bryant
I have to apologise because my hearing is going a bit, so I did not catch all of that. There is always an argument about the slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge and all of that—floodgates were mentioned earlier—but my anxiety is that if we do nothing we will be in danger of doing permanent damage to the reputation of the House and creating further anxiety for members of staff who work in the building.
I have just a few small points to make. I think we do need to address what happens in the Lords. I know we have exclusive cognisance, and it is up to those in the Lords what they do, but the ICGS is bicameral—it applies to both Houses—and we ought to have something similar for the House of Lords. I do find it quite extraordinary that somebody who has committed a significant criminal offence and gone to prison can come out and go back to the House of Lords—and, yes, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is right that I would like to change that law as well.
I think there is a significant issue here for the political parties. Members have talked about vexatious complaints, and the most dangerous space for this is potentially within political parties. The Whips often have to do a very complicated and difficult job, and I think the pressure we sometimes put them under in this field is inappropriate. I do not like the fact that, for many years, we always used to push these things under the carpet. I think it is right that we have proper processes, rather than saying, “Oh, it will all just be sorted out somewhere in the party.” However, I do worry about whether there is fairness for people, because the best way to prevent somebody being able to stand in the next general election is to make a complaint against them to their political party. They will then lose the Whip, the party will probably take even longer than any other authority would to deal with something, the person will not be able to stand and they will have lost their job.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about vexatious claims. If we are normally here for a term of about five years and it takes two or three years to investigate whether someone should be charged, does he accept that, if he wishes to exclude people on the basis of complaint rather than charge, wholly innocent people could end up not being able to represent their constituents for two or three years before that decision is made?
Sir Chris Bryant
Of course I do, but I have tried to explain that I think we will mostly be dealing not with exclusion but with other risk-based actions that are about protecting the workplace. I understand the point the hon. Lady makes, but I hope I have tried to deal with it.
Turning to the adjudication panel, I think that is an inappropriate name because it contains a word that sounds like judges and that sounds like deciding whether somebody is innocent or guilty. The Commission has suggested that it should have two members of the Commission—in fact it has suggested that in this Parliament it should be two Deputy Speakers and a member of the Commission. That is the wrong set of people. First, there should not be a named set of people for a whole Parliament because, as sure as eggs is eggs, we will end up with somebody being conflicted because they are too close to the person concerned. Secondly, Deputy Speakers or Speakers are inappropriate as they are in a position of authority over Members and deal with all of them all the time. The lay members on the Commission were not appointed because they understand matters such as these; they are normally appointed because they understand the running of businesses and organisations and finances.
Our preference on the Standards Committee was therefore to have it simply stated that when a case arises a panel be brought together that includes two members of the Standards Committee and one member of the independent expert panel—so, one Member of Parliament, one lay member from the Standards Committee and one member of the independent expert panel—and that if a case ever came to either of those two bodies subsequently, they would then recuse themselves. That would end up with a better and fairer system.
For most of my time in this House we have brushed all these things under the carpet; it is a very beautiful carpet, but that does not mean we have done right. MPs often want to talk about vexatious complaints, but there is another side: lots of people feel unable to bring complaints because this is a place of patronage, power and authority. It does not feel as if we have much power a lot of the time, but many members of staff, especially young people coming to work here—I particularly feel this in relation to young gay men who come to work here—are very vulnerable and it is easy for Members to forget the power and authority they have over other people and abuse it. Although I recognise the need for fairness in relation to vexatious complaints, we must also have a system that enables people to make complaints.
My final point is that I hope we can start this process as soon as possible and have a debate on a substantive motion before the summer recess. I think that was what the Leader of the House was promising, in so far as she is ever able to promise something because other things always come along. My only request of her is that it would be nice to see the motion several days before we debate it, as that leads to better debates because people then know what they are talking about.
Penny Mordaunt
I start by thanking all Members who have contributed to this important debate. I am sure that as we have done so, we have all been very conscious that people will have been listening in—members of staff and colleagues—who are very anxious and concerned about these issues. I hope we have demonstrated to them that we take these matters incredibly seriously and want to do the right thing. I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire): we have had a good and thoughtful debate, which I think has been very helpful to the Commission, and we have done so with great care. In his remarks, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) summed up the care that I think we all take in these matters.
I will attempt to sum up, and particularly focus on some of the tough issues that still need to be dealt with, so with a caveat that I may not be providing answers that satisfy all Members, I hope they will take comfort from the fact that we have at least identified what the questions are. First, many areas of concern that colleagues have raised are not covered by the scheme and would not be affected by it. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for example, spoke about many issues that are live concerns at the moment with the processes that we have. This scheme will not in any way affect what the police do—when a serious allegation is given to them, they already notify the House authorities. Neither does it cover matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) raised about what goes on off the estate. We recognise that we are talking about a limited aspect of the House’s authority.
The scheme does not cover Members’ obligations to their own staff if there are allegations against those members of staff. It also does not cover a situation that might arise where there are concerns about an hon. Member’s behaviour, but those concerns have not risen to the level of information being given to the police and, therefore, the police passing that information back to the House authorities. It is a very narrow proposal that does not deal with those issues, and the Commission is very aware that it does not.
In answer to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who raised the very important question of why this is so complicated, I would say that it is because it relates not just to one workplace; there are hundreds of workplaces. It is about our own constituency set-up, whether that is on the estate or off it. It is about the House as well, and—as has been referenced in the debate—we are not employees. We are also the employer of our staff, and reference has been made in the debate to the fact that that issue is being looked at by the Speaker’s Conference.
Turning to some specifics, I thank the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), for his contributions. He has made some helpful suggestions about the composition of panels, and I entirely agree with him that we sometimes need to zoom out and look at the entire standards landscape, and that how we work with other agencies is important. In his remarks, he gave very helpful examples of mitigations that could be taken aside from exclusion—barring someone from using the bar, drinking on the Terrace and so forth. As a point of fact, we already do that, and it is staff who do that, although the Serjeant at Arms enforces it. We already take some actions.
Sir Chris Bryant
I think normally the final decision is taken by the Administration Committee, so there is yet another Committee in the House that is taking decisions in this field. That is why all of this needs tidying up.
Penny Mordaunt
I quite agree with that point, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that gumption needs to be applied to these cases.
We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) for putting this issue in perspective: it is not the case that all Members of Parliament are rotters. Indeed, in many cases where people’s behaviour has fallen short, there are often reasons behind it to do with an individual’s mental health or some other issues that they are facing. He is right to remember those points.
I want now to turn to the tough stuff. The speeches of the shadow Leader of the House and some of the interventions made on her, and the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) got to the heart of the issue about an individual’s human rights. Is it right that a decision should be taken by an adjudication panel on the basis of a risk assessment without that Member having a say, stating their case or being able to appeal against that decision?
I want to explain why the Commission has put forward that proposal. It was based on a strong principle that no action taken during the safeguarding process should compromise the investigation and the criminal proceedings. That is why it was not deemed appropriate that someone should have the right of reply to that adjudication panel. The Commission should take that issue away and look at it. It was very much envisaged that people would be acting on such things as bail conditions and other things that would help inform that risk assessment.
The other point I would make is that although we are looking at a narrow process in isolation today, that process does not take place in isolation. One would imagine that there will be conversations with the individual’s Whip, advising them what they think they should do in a particular situation. Clearly someone can have representation during the investigation and the criminal process. This is an area that the Commission should focus on, and it has been helpful hearing Members’ comments today.
The second area in which the Commission needs to consider comments made today is with regard to the bar for when the process is triggered. Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), have spoken about charge versus any other part of the criminal process. I say to all Members who have those concerns that I was of that school of thought. I was an advocate for charge precisely because I felt that the threshold for this process needed to be high. However, it became apparent during our discussions—again, I am not seeking to persuade my hon. Friend, but just to explain why the proposal developed—that the question we were being asked to address was about risk. It is perfectly possible for an individual to be a serious risk earlier than the point of charge, so the debate as it was originally framed around arrest versus charge was not deemed appropriate. Again, given what we have heard this evening, we should focus more on this area.
I have nearly finished my remarks. To comment on the comparison that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) made with the armed forces, my shift as Minister for the Armed Forces saw the aftermath of the Brecon three. One thing that I learned from that was that it is difficult to get people to focus on a joint service publication and health and safety rules, but it is easy to get people to focus on taking care of their mates and their duty of care to people who they work with. That is why it is so important that we focus on culture change, as well as the minutiae of particular issues.
The third area where there is a consensus of concern is around the proxy voting situation. I very much feel that Members, whether they are off the estate as the result of the process we are discussing today or through voluntary exclusion because they deem it in everyone’s interest to do that, should not be denied the opportunity to vote in this place. That is important, not only because of the impact on them, but because of the impact on their constituents. I recently visited the constituency of a Member in that situation, and the impact it has, partly because of the length of time investigations take, is devastating to a community when it loses that voice and is disempowered. I understand the concerns raised today, and particularly the concerns of the Procedure Committee, which I thank for the work it has been doing on that.
I want to thank my Commission colleagues who have spoken today—the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), as well as the shadow Leader of the House, with whom I will continue to work closely on all these matters. The speech by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), with her police experience, was extremely helpful. She is right to encourage us to pursue these matters, not leave them in the “too tough” in-tray.
To sum up as best I can for colleagues, I think that the main areas of concern are proxy voting, the human rights aspects, the issue of a right of reply, particularly to the adjudication panel, and whether we should consider the threshold of a charge. I know that the Commission will look at all the points raised by hon. Members and take them seriously, and we will of course come back to the House in good time with good information. In the meantime, I know I speak for all members of the Commission when I say that our doors are always open if people want to raise issues that they may not have felt able to raise on the Floor of the House today.
I think this was a good debate. I hope it has reassured people, if not given them all of the answers, and I look forward to working with all colleagues on these important matters in the weeks to come.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The register of Ministers’ interests says that the right hon. Lady is the Minister of State at the Department for International Trade, but she is self-evidently the Leader of the House, and has been for 205 days. Indeed, the Department for International Trade was abolished 51 days ago. The register is not even an accurate list of Ministers now. No Department has published transparency returns on anything after the end of September, so it has been 180 days. An ordinary MP would have to register everything within 28 days.
The Leader of the House has been saying for some time that she will get this sorted—she promised the House before Christmas. So far as I can see, we are going in the wrong direction, not the right direction. Why can we not have Ministers’ interests published within a week or a fortnight of their being incurred? Why can we not have it done immediately?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are moving to a system that will put the ministerial registration of interests, hospitality, gifts and so forth on the same footing as Parliament’s. [Interruption.] I know that because I regularly meet the officials who are doing this work. They are still on schedule to deliver it, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by this summer.
Once those systems are created, they will enable us immediately to link through so that members of the public, our constituents and others who are searching to see what we need to register should find that a lot easier than under the current system. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it requires a system to be built. That is ongoing. The propriety and ethics team are doing this, and I will keep him updated.
Tributes to Baroness Boothroyd
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
Over the past 24 hours, a number of people have asked me when I first met Betty Boothroyd. To be perfectly frank, I cannot remember, but I know it was at least 48 years ago, because that was when I came into this place, to which she had not all that long been elected. Reference has been made to various parts of her record. I think it was a journalist who said, “Why should Betty wear the wig, she’s got perfectly good iron grey curls of her own?” As has been mentioned, that was very much her attitude.
I well remember Betty going into the Whips Office and hearing nervous traditionalists from the Tory Benches murmur that they were not sure that their party would ever allow a woman into that nest of information and power that the Whips Office always represented. Of course, that has turned out not to be the case, but although Betty was not the first woman Whip, it was thought of as quite a revolution when she went into the Whips Office.
I also had the pleasure of serving with Betty on the national executive committee, although, like your father, Mr Speaker, she and I were not always of the same point of view. But there was a great degree of mutual respect and, as time went on, very real friendship. Certainly when I was Leader of the House of Commons, I met her constantly as the Speaker. She was hugely helpful, sympathetic and understanding, but, as has been mentioned, there was always this very strong determination to see respect for the House of Commons. She was one of the Speakers who insisted that Ministers come to this House to give statements. We are talking about a Labour Government, by the way, and I am sorry to say that not everybody was always as respectful of the demands of this House. I am afraid that that crosses parties and it is true of Conservative and Labour Governments, but Betty was always very clear that the House comes first, statements must be made first to the House and the House must be treated with respect.
Betty was also a staunch and loyal friend. It was not known for a long time that when Mo Mowlam was very ill indeed and having to rest frequently during the day, Betty gave her sanctuary in Speaker’s House, looked after her and generally showed her great affection, as well as friendship.
I remember when Betty was elected Speaker. What has not been mentioned is that one of the reasons her campaign was successful was that on the Conservative Benches it was led by John Biffen, a much respected former Leader of the House who, like others, was held in great affection here. The fact that he, among others, was such a staunch advocate for Betty’s Speakership was one reason she was successful. I felt slightly sorry for Peter Brooke, who perhaps had expected to be crowned Speaker, as the Government’s own candidate. However, it was clear not only that Betty was going to win, but that everybody was going to be very happy about it, except perhaps Peter Brooke, poor man.
Betty was a revelation in the Chair. She had a rich and robust voice that went with a rich and robust character. As people have said several times, she was a performer, and she performed as Speaker—and she performed extremely well. One thing that has not been mentioned so far is that one of the roles of Speaker is, as you will know, Mr Speaker, to represent this House overseas on occasion. I always thought how fortunate we were to have Betty as the emblem and the representative of this House, and how much it added to our prestige as a country to see her in that role.
Betty was dedicated to this House. She was something of a traditionalist. I do not object to that, but I know that some colleagues perhaps were sorry when she did not support all the modernisation changes that were proposed—
Margaret Beckett
No, I do not think that is fair; I think she supported some of them.
Betty was certainly—the word was used a moment ago—an ornament to this House, but she was much more than that. She was a very, very formidable figure. I do not think there is any doubt that, to young women in the outside world, she was a representation of the fact that, yes, women can get anywhere and they can do the job, not only well, but much better than many of the men who have had that post. So I share the view that she will be remembered for a very long time. She will be remembered with affection, as well as respect, and that, I think, she would always have welcomed.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point and putting on record the tremendous success of that football club and how much we owe to Cliff and other individuals who have enabled it to happen. We recently had a debate on community sport, but the issue is raised pretty much every week, so I am sure that if my hon. Friend applied for a debate, it would be well attended.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The position of the Church of England bishops on same-sex marriage is causing very real “pain and trauma” to many gay Christians. I hope the bishops will back reform in the end,
“allowing parishes and clergy to conduct weddings for same sex couples”.
I know the Leader of the House agrees, because I am quoting her words from her letter to her local bishop, for which I commend her. I suggest two ways we could progress. First, every one of us who goes to a gay marriage this year could take a bishop along so that they get to know and share in the love—you are bound to be going to one, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure the Leader of the House is going to several this year. Secondly, the Church of England and the General Synod were established by statute, agreed by the House of Commons. Will she allow time—as I suspect this would be the view of the whole House—for legislation to push the Church of England into allowing same-sex marriages to be conducted by parishes and clergy who want to do so, if Synod does not act?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I know many people will ask why we are concerned about such matters in this place and say that surely it is not a matter for us, but a matter for the Church; I would point them to the large number of letters we all receive, not just from parishioners, but from members of the clergy. I understand why this is a focus for many Members across the House. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), responded to an urgent question on this matter, and I refer hon. Members to that. As politicians, we perhaps more than most appreciate the difficulty of the judgments that the Church needs to make in this respect, but I know there have been meetings this week both in Parliament and with the legal profession about the implications of this decision. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I know this is an issue that many Members of this House will wish to pursue.
Business of the House
Chris Bryant Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. That was an excellent question because often when we talk about international development we just focus on Government money and what is being dished out from the taxpayers’ purse, but our international development relationship across the UK with the rest of the world is much more than that. It is about the money raised at the local pub or at the local women’s institute, and the relationship that those places have with particular projects around the world, which can span many, many years, with deep friendships and partnerships formed. He has given an excellent example of that today and I, too, put on record my thanks to David Hope-Jones for all the work he has done and wish him well in the future.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
In the 18th century, a Government Minister used to stand at the entrance to Westminster Hall at the end of the parliamentary Session and reward MPs who had voted loyally with the Government throughout the year with dollops of cash. Now, I am not trying to give ideas to the Government, and I hope that everybody would accept that that is utterly corrupt. I also happen to think that the operation of the levelling-up fund and of the towns fund is completely corrupt, because it is not based on need, it is not based on the poorest communities in the country and it is not based on levelling up. It is discretionary and it is competitive, which rigs itself deliberately against the poorest communities in the land, as we have seen over the past 24 hours. Can we have a debate in Government time on corruption in the operation of slush funds in this country?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman is the Chair of the Committee on Standards, so he will be very able and equipped to investigate this further.
Penny Mordaunt
It is his Committee; he can do what he likes. I would just say this to him: first of all, we have a number of funds. We have the levelling-up fund, the community ownership fund—
Penny Mordaunt
There are many, many funds. The hon. Gentleman is saying that they are all corrupt. They are all available to view on gov.uk, and you can see where funding has gone.
I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that these bids are not assessed by Ministers; they are assessed independently. They are scored and it is transparent. Good feedback will be given to those who did not progress in this round. Quite often, what happens is that bids that are not successful in one round are successful in successive rounds, because those areas that needed improvement have been done.
Finally, I would say to the hon. Gentleman, because of the way in which he has put his question, that he has slight form in accusing people of doing things that on investigation they have turned out not to have been done. It was very recently that he accused one of my colleagues of manhandling somebody who turned out not to have been handled at all. I would just urge a little caution in how the hon. Gentleman makes such accusations.