Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion
Christopher Chope Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
When, at the time of the Commission’s original proposals, there was a debate about arrest or charge, we decided that that was not relevant. This is about a set of circumstances in which a Member wishes to attend and there is evidence that that individual would be a harm to other people on the estate. That is the set of circumstances that the Commission was asked to consider. It could apply to a variety of cases. Although these proposals are limited to violent or sexual offences, this is not about an allegation made against an individual; it is about the risk assessment made of that individual. I believe that the details of the process involved accompany the papers that have been made available to Members.
We have an incredibly complicated standards landscape with myriad bodies providing oversight of Members’ conduct, yet barely a week goes by without something happening that calls into question our adherence to the rules. We seem to remain in a permanent swamp of complaints, cases and concerns, and the need for professionalism and the need to build trust have never been greater. It is therefore vital that, as well as examining the minutiae of schemes and reports, we focus on the principles that should govern our behaviour and culture, and, crucially, the duty of care that we have to one another in this place, as well as our duty to protect the good functioning of democracy.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
In November 2022, the Commission launched
“a consultation on excluding Members charged with violent or sexual offences from the Parliamentary estate until any such cases are concluded”.
That is a very narrow and specific subject for consultation. There seems to have been a heck of lot of mission creep since then, does there not?
Penny Mordaunt
As my hon. Friend will know, the original proposal that was put together and issued for consultation by the Commission has been altered, which is why we wanted to hold this debate: the spirit in which it was initiated was a wish to listen to Members’ concerns. There is no point in the Commission presenting proposals, whether they have been widely consulted on or not, if they are not acceptable to the House. There are strong and important points of principle here, some of which have already been raised this evening and are at the heart of how we operate as a Parliament. There are also concerns about how to deal with some very difficult situations which, as I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, present difficulties to the House authorities and to Members on the estate as well as our staff. The reason we are having the debate is that this is genuinely open, and I hope we can air these issues and make some progress on the scheme.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire); perhaps she can answer the question why the Commission has changed its remit completely. In November last year, as I said in an intervention, it agreed to launch a consultation on excluding Members charged with violent or sexual offences from the parliamentary estate until such cases were concluded. That was limited to people who had been charged with violent or sexual offences.
The paper before us today says that that remit has been changed because one or two of the 22 people who responded to the consultation said it was too inflexible. What is the explanation for that change? It is said now that, because several consultees mentioned the need to allow for some flexibility in the system, the Commission’s approach is
“focused on the nature of the risk and the severity of the alleged offence rather than the stage of the criminal justice process”.
However, nobody has explained why we are making that change.
There is a fundamental difference between somebody who has been charged with an offence and somebody who has not. The person who has been charged knows exactly what offence they have been charged with. It is public knowledge. Connected with that charge is the ability of the courts to put that person on remand awaiting trial, either remanding them in custody or on bail and, if remanding them on bail, remanding them on particular bail terms and conditions. Sometimes those conditions can include a requirement that the person shall not go within so many hundred yards of a particular place or visit a house of an alleged victim or complainant.
If we stick to the original proposal from the Commission, if somebody has been charged with an offence and, when the bail conditions are considered, representations are made to the effect that somebody working in the House of Commons feels vulnerable or threatened by that person pending the conclusion of the proceedings, conditions can be placed upon that bail that would provide the necessary safeguards against the risk assessment. That process would be dealt with by the courts, it would be subject to appeal if the person concerned did not like the terms of those bail conditions and it could mean that, in certain circumstances, a person awaiting trial would not have the free run of this House of Commons if it meant he would be in close contact, in particular parts of the estate, with somebody who had brought an allegation against him.
That is a perfectly coherent, logical position. I note that one of the people who responded to the consultation effectively said that, if the charge is made and the person is the subject of bail conditions, those conditions could cover the scenario that we are concerned about. Obviously, if the charge is so serious, the person will be remanded in custody, so he will not be able to attend the House at all.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman know how long on average it takes for someone to be charged? What does he suggest might happen in the intervening period to ensure that people are safe, without having a risk-based policy such as that proposed in place? What does he suggest we do?
Sir Christopher Chope
The hon. Lady is prejudging the situation. She is saying that, if somebody makes a complaint and it is taking the police a long time to investigate it, the person under investigation should be jeopardised and treated as though they are guilty rather than innocent. I am not prepared to accept that as a proposition.
Charlotte Nichols
I am worried that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I was trying to get across. I am not suggesting that somebody awaiting a charge is in any way guilty; that is the whole point of the fact that they are awaiting a charge. However, without a system that comes in before the point of charge—which can take a few years—and if measures should be taken to mitigate the risk to others, what does he suggest we do without the proposal we are discussing?
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.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reverse of what the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) says is that a Member could be excluded from this House, the police process could go on for a year or two years, as she has said—and quite rightly; it does happen—no charge could be made at the end of that and, meantime, because we have set the threshold so low, the Member could find himself unable to do his duties?
Sir Christopher Chope
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman completely. That is my concern. Essentially, this proposal opens the floodgates to vexatious accusations that will deny the accused the right to make representations or appeal against any decision to exclude.
The specific proposal before the House is that somebody who is the subject of one of these vexatious accusations would not have the right to make representations to the panel or, if they did not like the outcome of that panel, to appeal against the decision. The Commission goes on to say that the system will depend
“upon the provision of concrete information from the police… In practice, this is very unlikely to happen prior to an arrest.”
Surely, though, if the police have such concrete information, as it is put, there is nothing to stop them bringing a charge? If they bring a charge, the proposals that I have referred to will be triggered, but unless and until a charge is made, the provisions will not be triggered.
Charlotte Nichols
To go back to the question that I asked the hon. Gentleman in my first intervention, is he aware of how long it takes, from the point of arrest, to reach the point of charge? He says that if there is evidence, the police should charge people, and of course we all agree with that, but is he not aware that the average time for that to happen is between two and three years? That does not mean that there is no evidence in those cases for the police to act on.
Sir Christopher Chope
Such a lengthy period of investigation between arrests and possible charge is, I agree, totally unacceptable. It is capricious and oppressive. If that is where our criminal justice system is, there is plenty of room for improvement, but two wrongs do not make a right. Delays in the criminal justice system do not mean that we should intervene in an unjust way against somebody who is the subject of an investigation rather than the subject of a charge. That is a simple point. I think that the hon. Lady is biased in favour of the potential or alleged victims, while I am biased in favour of the person who is innocent until charged and proven guilty.
Certainly, prior to the charge, when there are accusations in the air, it is bad enough that the accused may not have any idea of exactly what will happen. We know from colleagues on both sides of the House that that sometimes has a severe impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the individuals who have hanging over them the threat of a potential charge and the knowledge that an investigation of their conduct is under way. The point I am making is that the police should bring forward proceedings quickly if there is evidence in such cases. Then, the bail or remand conditions would determine the risk assessment, which goes to the heart of this discussion.
Risks relating to risk-based exclusion of MPs should, in my view, be decided by the courts as part of that process. The proposal that we should do that in-house is completely wrong. The Commission’s proposal that two MPs and one non-executive member of the Commission should comprise the adjudication panel is even odder. That would mean that people who are not Members of this House and have not been elected would be able to exclude a Member of this House who has been elected, and that that Member, once excluded, would not be able to appeal. How can that be fair?
The Commission recognises the risk of prejudice to a Member by what it is proposing, and it therefore suggests that, to ensure privacy and confidentiality, Members should be able to vote by proxy, but that proposal is totally flawed. We discussed it in the Procedure Committee—our Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), is unfortunately unable to be here this evening because she is away on parliamentary business overseas—and we found it totally unacceptable, because the proxy system is designed for those who are on maternity leave and those with serious health conditions.
As soon as somebody is in receipt of a proxy not because they are ill, expecting a child or on maternity leave, but because they are accused of having committed a serious violent or sexual offence, the proxy system will be contaminated. How do we know that it will be contaminated? When proxy votes are exercised, that information appears in Hansard, and from what we have been told in the Procedure Committee, we know that some Members have been subject to vilification and abuse for acting as proxies for people who are absent. That is exactly the sort of situation that will arise should the proposals go forward: people will be able to work out who is acting as the proxy for those who are the subjects of suspicion and have been excluded from the House under these conditions, and those exercising the proxy will be vilified. As I say, that will completely discredit the whole proxy system.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that the proxy system is the way to avoid prejudice through lack of confidentiality, but I think that that is wholly ill-conceived. It is certainly not acceptable to members of the Procedure Committee, and it does not fit easily with the proposals that we are bringing forward for the revision of the whole proxy process. We have good, constructive proposals, but they would be completely wrecked if they were confused with the proposal before the House.
If we want to change the Representation of the People Act, let us be open and say, “We do not want people in this House who are on the sex offenders register. We do not want people to be Members of Parliament unless they have been submitted to the Disclosure and Barring Service.” Unless or until we take that route, which would mean changing primary legislation, I do not think that we should mess around by indulging people who make accusations—often vexatious ones—against Members of Parliament. We should not indulge them by saying that, prior to that accusation resulting in a charge, the Member of Parliament will be excluded from his duties in this House.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I will start by repeating the words of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House: the Commission is here to listen, and we will take note of Members’ comments today in further consideration of this issue.
I will try not to repeat the many excellent points that the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House made, but it seems to me that Westminster is very often accused of being an institution stuck in its ways and unable or unwilling to change. The excellent Clerks working on these proposals requested information from Parliaments and legislative Assemblies whose procedures share a common history with the UK, and although it is true that there was a limited number of comparisons, that should not in any way be seen as an argument for not reforming our procedures. Yes, this is a difficult and delicate area, as has been said, but given that some Members of this place like to refer to it as the mother of all Parliaments, should that not be seen as a challenge to go further and lead by establishing best practice, rather than used as an excuse not to change?
Of course, as has been mentioned, the reforms are not just about restoring the image of this Parliament and the public’s faith in democracy, but about real and tangible efforts to protect staff, and indeed other Members, through mitigation measures. In the development of the proposals, there has been a lot of discussion and consultation with a number of organisations and individuals. There has been recognition of the need to give greater priority to protecting staff and the wider parliamentary community from the risk of potential harm while also ensuring continued representation for constituents and fairness to the individual under investigation. The Commission felt that the constituents of an excluded Member should not be deprived of their right to representation in Parliament, so progress in the safeguarding of our staff should go hand in hand with looking again at forms of remote participation.
We all have a duty of care towards staff. Parliament cannot claim adherence to that principle if it fails to reform when so many people working in this place feel concern. They feel that this environment has to change, and we in the Commission have to demonstrate that we hear them. It is crucial that we provide a safe and supportive environment for individuals to voice their concerns, and that there are clear protocols to follow when reporting and taking action. We must also acknowledge the unique environment that we work in: this is not a shared office floor or open office space but a complex host to restaurants, bars and cafés where MPs and staff socialise freely. It is vital that we all feel safe here.
Sir Christopher Chope
Does the hon. Lady think it essential that all people who work in this building should be subject to disclosure and barring?
Sir Christopher Chope
Should all people who work in this building be subject to disclosure and barring checks?
Deidre Brock
I think that this place must recognise that it is the 21st century and that that protections have to be offered to staff. Staff are expressing these concerns to us. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the concerns that have been raised, but we have certainly heard them loud and clear and we are attempting to respond to them. I think that that is an important principle that we should be supporting. We have not finalised what the final report will look like or what the decisions of the House of Commons Commission will be—that is what today is all about. The hon. Gentleman has had his say; I am trying to make my points and I will continue.
It is worth noting that testimony given to the GMB union’s parliamentary staff branch said that while many MPs were wonderful, others could mistreat their staff with relative impunity. The circumstances in which MPs can be excluded under the proposals are not limited to actions against staff, of course, but we must remember that this is an attempt to directly help to keep staff, and indeed other Members of Parliament, safe.
There are other points that I would have made, but they have already been admirably expressed by the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House. In closing, I want to thank very much the Clerks who worked on the report. They worked very hard on the proposals, with great sensitivity. I thank the members of the Commission, of course, the contributors to the consultation and the many other staff who contributed.
I stress again that we in the Commission are here to listen. We are keen to hear the views of other Members on the proposals. It might be that some finer details change in the future, but I hope that everyone in this House recognises that the Commission is attempting to respond to the genuine concerns raised by staff and, indeed, by many members of the public.
James Sunderland
Once again, I find myself concurring with a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying, but my view on this question is that because we are debating it now, the answer is not clear. Ultimately, we have to allow the Commission to make further findings in respect of what the evidence does. My personal feeling is that we have to wait for the charge to be brought before we give enough credence to the evidence. Arrest, in my view, is not enough.
The second issue is how we as a House manage complaints that may be vexatious. We discussed that question earlier, but I would like the Commission to do a bit more work on it. If a complaint has been made and it is entirely vexatious, we have to be able to spot that very early on and deal with it. For example, another Member said during the consultation that
“I am concerned about malicious claims towards MPs, which are constantly on the rise and members being excluded without it being a charge, often these are politically motivated.”
If we follow that logic through, it basically means that any Member can be asked to leave the estate for any reason. Therefore, we have to put in place a process whereby credence is given to an allegation. An arrest may or may not be made, and in my view, it is the point at which the charge is brought that gives that credence to the process. As such, we have to make sure that we can properly define the gap that is in the middle.
I would like to make a further point about management of risk. For me, the important thing in this debate is how we manage the risk-based exclusion, which again is not clear from the Commission. Basically, I want to better understand how we manage the risk: who is responsible for managing that risk? Who is responsible for determining the evidence, if it exists, and who is judge and jury? How do we manage that risk? Who decides, and what factors are involved? In my view, those questions need more work before we can go firm on any vote or otherwise.
The last issue I will address is that of the proxy vote. In my view, a proxy vote has to happen. MPs are elected to do a job, and they must do that job until the point at which they are no longer able to do it—again, innocent until proven guilty. There is a requirement for MPs to exercise their judgment and represent the interests of their constituents throughout the process. Therefore, unlike the earlier recommendation from the Procedure Committee, I am completely happy with the extension of the proxy vote in this case. MPs are still MPs; they are still part of the team and need support. They must not be left on the scrapheap, either. It is important for them—for their own peace of mind and their own validation—to be able to exercise that vote via a proxy. Again, I am not comfortable with the idea that the names of those who have a proxy vote would somehow be published. Those who have a proxy vote should not necessarily be identified as having one, for all the reasons of confidentiality that we have already discussed.
I also welcome the fact that the Commission is now actively considering extending the proxy vote scheme for other reasons. Historically and currently, it has been for maternity and paternity leave, but it should be extended beyond that, to illness and those who may be excluded from the estate.
Sir Christopher Chope
At the moment, there is a question as to whether people who have voluntarily excluded themselves from the estate because of allegations made against them should be able to exercise proxy votes. I think the line has been taken that they should not be able to do so, because of the special circumstances surrounding their case. It would put them on a par with people who are very ill or on maternity leave.
James Sunderland
My understanding is that proxy votes are part of this process. No doubt the Leader of the House will verify that in her summing-up remarks, but as far as I am concerned, it is entirely appropriate that if someone is elected as an MP to do a job, they have to be able to do that job if—for reasons of force majeure or otherwise—they cannot be on the estate. Therefore, I entirely support the notion that a proxy vote should be extended to all those with legitimate reasons to not be on the estate, and I welcome that further work by the Procedure Committee.
The first point of my conclusion is that exclusion should absolutely be a last resort, as I think we have agreed this afternoon. Ideally, it should also be at the behest of the individual. I totally agree that these are unique circumstances, and that what we are discussing deals with the unlikely event that a Member might not voluntarily exclude himself or herself from the estate. My second point is that both the Procedure Committee and the Committee on Standards have suggested that the final decision to exclude could or should be put to the House. I am absolutely clear, as an individual and a Member, that that is entirely right. It is up to us as Members to make the finding in such a case—it is up to us as Members to vote.
Sir Christopher Chope
If it is put to the House on a vote, how will confidentiality be retained?
James Sunderland
That is another element of what the Commission, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader—the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire)—have to work through. Ultimately, I think it is up to us as Members to make that finding on behalf of fellow Members; it cannot be made for us by a sub-panel or a committee. Therefore, that is a further bit of work that the Committee has to go through.
My final point is an obvious one: should a Member be found guilty of a relevant offence, they would most likely receive a custodial sentence or otherwise and be subject to the Recall of MPs Act 2015. That is the point at which we are likely to cease being an MP, and I think that until that point is reached, due respect and credence should be given to all of us as MPs. A duty of care should also be given. In my view, Members should be careful what they wish for. This is a difficult debate and there is work to be done, so let us please not ignore both the duty of care that we have towards staff in this place and our duty of care to each other.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think there is some common ground among contributors to this debate. It is not innocence or guilt that should be in question—this is about our responsibilities. It is about the probability of harm or further harm when sufficient evidence has come to light to merit the involvement of the police. The Leader of the House said that she was here to listen, so let me offer what I believe is probably a counterbalance to some of what has been said today. It is critical to recognise that we are talking about a risk-based exclusion process; this is not about the person who has been accused. We have a responsibility to act because this is about the risk of harm to people in their jobs and in their lives as part of their connection to Parliament.
In parts of this debate, it has almost seemed as if we have forgotten the victims, the potential victims and the risk of harm. That is to our discredit as a House, because we face such a major challenge, and we must be honest about that. I can reassure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will abide by what you said at the start of this debate, but, frankly, it is terrifying to me that you had to ask us not to talk about individual cases. We are all living in an environment where we know how pressing it is to resolve this matter, because we know of the number of cases involved.
I recognise the passion that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) brings to this debate, but I must be honest: I do not think that arguing that somebody who is on sex offenders register can also be an MP is quite the attack on these proposals that he thinks it is. If anything, it shows that, for so long, this place has lived by rules that no other workplace—frankly, no other planet—would think were reasonable. He says that he is biased towards the accused. Well, that should automatically rule him out of this process, in the same way it would if somebody were biased towards the victims. This is about risk. It is about how we interpret risk and our responsibility in this regard.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) is no longer in his place. I listened patiently to what he said and I was very sympathetic to the thoughtful way that he approached this matter, but he kept saying that we need to look at this again, that we need to kick the can down the road one more time. We have been doing that in this place for years—that is what the cacophony of different organisations reflects. Every single time that we kick this issue into the long grass, say that it is too complicated and put it into a box because we cannot deal with it, our constituents think two things: “Hang on, in my workplace we had to deal with this” and “What planet are they on?”
It was 2017 when the #MeToo movement gave people the courage to come forward in this place with what was, frankly, the tip of the iceberg of the challenge we face. It is now seven years later, and we still have not made the progress that we would all like to see.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and I were talking about the importance of the presumption of innocence before being proved guilty. That is why I say that I have a bias in favour of the accused. The accused is innocent until proven guilty, and the hon. Lady seems sometimes to forget that.
Stella Creasy
My concern is the concept of bias, because it means that the judgments that the hon. Member makes are not value-free. We need a process that people can have confidence in and that will act. In the last seven years we have seen time and again that what little reputation this place had has been shredded as a result of our failure to have those processes. It is not about the accused but about the hon. Gentleman’s concept of bias. He could not hear someone’s case without fear or favour if he were on a jury, but that is not what this is about.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about vetting and barring; I used to work for the Scouts, where it was pretty standard to have vetting, barring and DBS checking for our volunteers. It was not seen as an unusual or difficult thing to do. I suspect that most people in daily life would be fairly shocked that Members of Parliament do not have that. They would expect a level of professionalism and safeguarding because of the kinds of cases that we might deal with and the kinds of people who might come and seek our help, and that would not be unreasonable.
The hon. Member needs to take seriously the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) about just how long it takes for cases to be heard and for the police to gather evidence when someone is arrested. We do not construct the system in a vacuum, so we must take account of the fact that, as the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) pointed out, once someone is arrested, they will know that a complaint has been made. That is when the clock starts ticking. We know that this has been going on. In January, the Fawcett Society said that 69% of women MPs and 50% of all MPs—I presume men, too—had witnessed sexist behaviour and sexual harassment in Parliament. They had seen behaviour they thought was inappropriate in a workplace in the last five years.
The permanent swamp of complaints that we are living in means that the concerns are not without foundation. It is up to us all to recognise not just the individual examples but the collective challenge that we face to tackle that culture. It was not just in 2017 that people came forward; in 2018, Laura Cox had an independent review; in 2018, the Women and Equalities Committee made recommendations; in 2019, Gemma White produced a report and Naomi Ellenbogen produced a report for the Lords. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) that it cannot be just about MPs but must be about this place as a whole. The reality of daily life as a Member of Parliament is that they will interact with everyone on the estate, including their staff and the people who come and visit. It is not an unusual concept in any other workplace, but somehow we think we are different, and things are too complicated to make progress. Little wonder the cases still come; little wonder the Deputy Speaker has to issue such a warning.
My worry is that we will deter people from coming forward. We will be unable to address these issues if we do not get the process right, and we will deter people from coming forward if they have to wait until charge. They might continue to be in a workplace with someone they have made a complaint about. The police will have deemed it serious enough to arrest that person and to come to the House authorities about them, yet they still have to be in contact with that person every single day if they want to do their job. We must trust that the police would not come forward with information were they not concerned that we needed to address a risk.
As the people who make the safeguarding legislation, we cannot say, “Sorry guv, this is all too complicated for us, so in this place we won’t have the rules that we ask of other places.” It is right that we do not ask our Whips, who have to do an incredibly difficult job in managing us all at the best of times. As someone who spends too much time around toddlers, I do not envy the Whips, because it feels like a harder job sometimes.
We cannot have a system that is immune to the impact on political parties. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda was right to talk about the interactions that exist and the need to have a process that people feel is fair and firm. Patronage and power are infused throughout this place, and that does not stop when someone is arrested. Indeed, the pressure on the person who has come forward becomes even greater. It is our responsibility to address that.
The Leader of the House said that she is looking to hear views, but let me make a simple plea: why do we not do what we ask of other workplaces in the legislation that we ourselves have put in place? Sexual harassment at work is specifically outlawed as a form of unlawful discrimination by the Equality Act 2010. This is not about narrow points of process—I pay tribute to the Clerks who have worked on the report—but about us doing what we expect of other workplaces. Rather than having multiple processes where people can get clogged in the system and no one has any confidence about who is doing what to tackle an issue, we should have one simple process in which we can interact. It is not so complicated to have interaction between the political parties, the ICGS and this House, if we will it.
Sir Christopher Chope
To what extent is the hon. Lady sympathetic to the plight of those who are on the receiving end of false accusations? My understanding is that she herself has been on the receiving end of vexatious allegations that related to social services and her children. From that, she must feel the enormity of the burden that such false accusations bring upon somebody’s shoulders. Does she not have any sympathy for other Members of Parliament in that regard?
Stella Creasy
I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the point I was trying to make earlier: it is not about sympathy or bias, but about trying to have a systematic process that allows us to act as a House. That matters because every Member of Parliament has responsibilities as an employer. Under the Equalities Act 2010, we have a duty of care to our staff and to the people who work with us here, to make sure we are creating a safe environment. Whatever our private experiences, the issue is how we collectively uphold that. Frankly, if the hon. Gentleman does not do that and uphold his role in safeguarding, then my staff are at risk, as well as other members of staff. We get this right together, or we do not get it right at all.
We can get it right if we choose to, and if we follow the requirements put on any other workplace. Employers have a duty of care and are legally liable for sexual harassment in the workplace if they have not taken reasonable steps to prevent it. We make that a requirement for any business or public agency in our constituencies, which is why our constituents will be watching the debate agog that we cannot get our heads around that idea.
There are no minimum requirements: all employers are expected to have an anti-harassment policy and monitoring of its implementation, and clear processes for reporting harassment, protecting the victims and taking action if harassment occurs. That is why the cacophony of different organisations is a challenge, because it makes it hard for people to see how we are implementing the requirements that we ask of other workplaces. It is also why the risk-based exclusion policy should form part of that process. It should show that we take sexual harassment and serious violence seriously enough to have a process in place, so that if the worst comes to the worst, we can act.
In order to uphold those legal requirements, I would argue that the policy should cover all those who have a pass and all areas in which their status as a passholder means they are in a position of power. Again, we cannot put constituencies into the “too difficult” box if somebody claiming to represent Parliament might present a risk of harm. In reality, people will ask, “What did you do when you knew there was a challenge?” That is what the process is about. We cannot be good employers, upholding our duty of care, if we do not hold each other to account.
We need a process where if a disclosure is made—not tittle-tattle or gossip, but a disclosure—there are formal responsibilities. In any other workplace, that would be standard. If someone reported something to a senior manager, there would be an expectation that they would act on it. Indeed, a senior manager might say, “Do not tell me something if you do not wish me to act.” Frankly, I do not blame people who have gone to the press because they have seen the failures in our process; I blame us for not acting more quickly to resolve the situation. I hope, appreciate and understand the need to have the debate today and I am pleased we will have a motion before the summer recess, but I recognise that it cannot be just about MPs. It has to be about everybody who has a pass and has that status within Parliament.
None of this will change the culture, which we all know needs to change, whereby power corrupts and people use it to abuse. Most do not, but we know some do and consistently will without a system that tackles that. This is not about MPs marking their own homework. It is right that we bring in a third-party challenge from lay members, who are people who have to deal with the issue in their day-to-day workplaces. It is also right that we use the proxy voting scheme to deal with some of the issues that arise. As somebody who has been part of a proxy voting scheme, I argue that it is not the reason why we get abuse from people.
Safeguarding does not have to mean no socialising. It is perfectly reasonable for people to be able to go for a drink together, through the long hours that we do in this place, without that being inappropriate, but the fact that some Members are inappropriate means that we need to act and that we need a speedy resolution process. However, that speedy resolution also means resolving the issues involving multiple bodies. There is a general election on the horizon, and I would wager that most female MPs will say that the first question they are asked by other people—especially women—who are thinking about standing is “Is it safe?” They will ask, “Is it safe for my family? Will I receive abuse? What sort of behaviour will I have to deal with? Will it be like being around a bunch of toddlers?” I suspect that most of us will give an answer that we would not really want to defend.
We can change this. The public only have the chance to elect Members every five years, and perhaps none of us will there by the time these proposals are implemented, but we all have a responsibility to those whose voices are not being heard in our political process, because they look at this place and think we are all complicit. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and I can find common cause in wanting to make it possible, in our democracy, for every voice to be heard. If this is a barrier, we can address it, but let us address it soon, because for too long those voices have not been heard, and for too long the consequences for the House and for democracy have been seen.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I will make sure the relevant Minister has heard the hon. Lady’s request. If she were to apply for a debate, I am sure it would be well attended. Indeed, I recently spoke from this Dispatch Box about the investment going into that part of the United Kingdom. She will know that we have the £94 billion cost of living package to alleviate the strains that households are under at the moment, but she will also know that, compared with 2010, we have 1 million fewer workless households, which is the best way to lift people out of poverty.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Tomorrow some of us will be celebrating the 40th anniversary of our first election to this place. Will my right hon. Friend give Government time for a debate on the comparison between the quality of public services in 1983 and the quality of public services today, and on the impact on those public services of the more than 20% increase in population since 1983?
Penny Mordaunt
I feel that those in the Press Gallery are now producing statistics for my hon. Friend’s 40 years —on the length of time he has spoken in private Members’ Bill debates and so forth. On behalf of us all, I say happy 40th anniversary to him for this week, as it is a tremendous landmark to have achieved. He makes an excellent suggestion for a debate. On the state of public services and their ability to cope with the population size, I can tell him that every time Labour has left office it has left the country in a worse state and every time a Conservative Government have left office they have left it in a better state.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman. He will know why the business that I have just announced includes a debate, at his Committee’s request, on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I hope he knows that I champion the interests of his Committee very much, and I fully appreciate that he will need notice of further time for next week. I undertake to provide that, and to look at what he said with regard to private Members’ Bills.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to give me the specifics of what his office has been told by the Home Office. I get regular updates from the Home Office, because it knows that I and all Members of the House are interested in its performance. I have a letter dated 22 March, which charts how the Home Office is crunching through the backlogs and its performance standards. It has made good progress; for example, it has reduced the number of cases on these matters that it is dealing with from 37,000 at the end of August to just over 4,000 today. If he passes me the details of what his office has been told, I shall test that against the information that I have been given, but the Home Office is working hard to raise the standard for all Members.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and the Leader of the House will know that tomorrow is the 13th and final day scheduled for debate of private Members’ Bills in this Session. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, our hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris)—and, indeed, those on the Opposition Front Bench—for facilitating in this Session the passage of, I think, a record number of Bills to the other place. In the absence of any further sitting Fridays, can my right hon. Friend explain what will happen if any of those Bills that have gone to the other place are amended? How will we be able to deal with those amendments in this place without any further sitting Fridays?
Will my right hon. Friend take into account that there are now two precedents in recent times when the Session went on much longer—in this case we are talking about six months—than was originally scheduled? In one case there were 18 sitting Fridays—in other words, an additional five—and on the other occasion there were an additional four sitting Fridays. Will she ask the Procedure Committee to advise the House on how to take this matter forward?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me and the whole House the opportunity to put on the record our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and all hon. Members who have worked so hard to put through some very important Bills. Since becoming Leader of the House, I have used the communication channels I have to shine a spotlight on a lot of this work, which does not really get much credit and goes unseen. It is very important; we have done some very good things. I have heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and other Members have said with regard to time for private Members’ Bills. Whatever happens in the other place, we will always find a way to deal with it.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can we have an early debate in Government time on how this House can continue to hold the Government to account and scrutinise their actions, when we seem to be in an era of government-by-WhatsApp, which is secretive and irrational, and is denying us our opportunity to hold the Government to account on an evidence basis?
Penny Mordaunt
I would first point out that it is a good week to say that WhatsApp is secretive. This is deeply regrettable, I think. I would just hope that, on such serious matters as the covid inquiry, the Westminster bubble can rise to the challenge of dealing with this in the manner in which it deserves to be approached.
My hon. Friend will know that the Cabinet Office has very clear policies about WhatsApp messages—what can be decided and how those things are captured and stored—and my understanding is that people’s WhatsApp messages have been captured, and are being captured, for that covid inquiry.
Tributes to Baroness Boothroyd
Christopher Chope Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
We all owe a great debt of gratitude to Betty. I was lucky enough to be here during part of her speakership, but unfortunately, as I had lost my seat in 1992, I was not able to participate in her election or her first term as Speaker.
I think it worth reinforcing a point that has already been made. In 1992, the Conservative Government, who had been re-elected, sought in a sense to change the system. Instead of having a Speaker elected from the Labour party, which would have been the norm, the powers that be decided that they wanted a former Cabinet Minister, Peter Brooke, as the Speaker. It is worth paying tribute to all those on the Conservative Benches who decided that that was not to be—that it would not be fair; it would not be right; and, indeed, that they ought to elect somebody who had spent most of her time on the Back Benches rather than in Government.
It is a pity that there are not more people here today, but if there comes a time when there is a vacancy in the future, colleagues should remember that they should follow their own instincts and judgment rather than be driven by the pressure from the Whips or the establishment. Betty Boothroyd really rewarded the trust that people put in her. She was an independent Speaker—nobody would ever criticise her for being partisan.
It is a pity that her successor did not necessarily live up to the example that she set so well. I remember that when she retired, she was a shoulder upon which many of us could shed a tear when we were in despair at what was happening in this place, and I thank her for those words of consolation during that period. I say to constituents who come here that the best Speakers are the ones who hardly ever speak, and she epitomised that. She used the expressions on her face to keep control in this place, and it is a pity that her immediate successor did not follow that same edict.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Leave aside sitting through the night, because so far this week—Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday—this House should have been sitting for 24 hours, but in fact seven hours and 47 minutes of that time was lost. I hope my right hon. Friend shares my concern about this, because so often the Government say we cannot debate things because we have not got any time. Will she ask the Procedure Committee to look again at the issue of second Adjournment debates, which used to be commonplace in this Chamber? That would ensure that this time was not wasted, and if the business was going to go short, it would be possible for people to come forward with a second, third or even, sometimes, a fourth Adjournment debate. We would thereby avoid getting a reputation as a part-time Parliament.
Penny Mordaunt
I will tackle my hon. Friend on the last point he makes. We have put through a huge amount of useful legislation, and he will know that we have plans to bring forward some really critical Bills to receive Royal Assent, we hope, before the summer recess. I am all in favour of innovation, so I shall certainly look at what my hon. Friend suggests. It is actually a refreshing change to have my hon. Friend complain about there not being enough legislation, as his usual default setting is to try to prevent any from going through at all.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady mentions the report produced by the former Prime Minister, and although I welcome debate, I think they are flawed ideas. I shall not call him yesterday’s man, but Labour is increasingly looking like yesterday’s party.
The hon. Lady has painted me as a schoolmarm this week, so I shall role play and give an arithmetic lesson. The Scottish Government have complained this week that they are having to make £1 billion of cuts, despite the fact that they have 26% more funding per head than England, and I just have some suggestions about how she might find that. She might cancel the £20 million on a referendum that is not happening, or the £9 million on the eight embassies they run. She could look at the £300 million they have spent so far on two ferries, which are five years late and £150 million over budget, or at the £52.4 million on the collapsed BiFab company or the £5 million on climate change reparations. She could look at the nearly £600 million they spent to bail out Sanjeev Gupta’s smelting business, or the half a million pounds wasted on a publicly owned energy company that never happened. That adds up to over £1 billion, but instead the Scottish National party is going to have to cut frontline services and capital projects to balance the Government’s books. As the Auditor General has pointed out this week, he has lifted the veil on the scale of the SNP’s financial incompetence. I think the people of Scotland deserve better than that, and that is why I will be putting this clip out later.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can I ask my right hon. Friend why there is nothing in her statement about the disruption to lives and livelihoods being caused by strikes over the next month? We have heard rumours that the Government are going to bring in emergency legislation, but nothing in her statement refers to that, and we are now going to have a recess for about a month. Is she expecting these strikes to disrupt lives with impunity up until 9 January 2023, and what is going to happen after that? Is it not time that the Government got a grip on this?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that these strikes, particularly on transport, are going to be incredibly disruptive for people, especially those who do not have an alternative to using public transport. It is particularly difficult for people who may not be able to see each other over the Christmas period, when families want to come together. The minimum services legislation has already been introduced, but he will know that the Prime Minister is giving this his attention as a priority and is looking at what further things we can do to ensure that the public can rely on basic levels of service across these very important areas.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Spencer
I think we may have tickled a little nerve somewhere. Perhaps there is a little bit of sensitivity here. I encourage the hon. Lady to approach her union bosses with the same enthusiasm and get them round the table to stop the misery that they are about to inflict on the great British public—on students who will miss their exams, on people who want to get to job interviews. Let us get round the table and discuss this, and I call on her to encourage her union bosses to do exactly the same.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and on provoking the Labour party into disclosing its true colours as the strikers’ friend?
Mark Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and encourage him to be here tomorrow to participate in the debate.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Spencer
We have made the calculations on electricity prices so that those who are off-grid do not lose out. The hon. Lady makes passing reference to the support that the Government are offering. We unveiled another £15 billion of support recently, on top of the £37 billion that we are spending this year alone. That is a huge amount of taxpayer support for people. I hear what she says about those in park homes, and I referred to that issue in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). The Government are looking at that and I will make sure that the relevant Minister responds to her directly.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I wish you a very happy birthday for tomorrow, Mr Speaker. As a number of us in this House reflect on having been elected on this day 39 years ago, will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on how the role of Members of Parliament has changed in the intervening period? That would enable us to reflect on the fact that, in those days, we Members of Parliament did not spend all our time trying to chase incompetent government, because we had a competent Government with a smaller and more efficient civil service. That meant that we in this House could concentrate on issues of policy, rather than administration. I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend seems so complacent about the chaos that is affecting our constituents in relation to so many public services that are currently beyond inefficient. It is absolutely an outrage that people have to wait so long. My staff are having to wait ages on the phone or in the queue in Portcullis House, and so on. It is intolerable.
Mark Spencer
I celebrate the 39 years that my hon. Friend has been sitting there holding the Government to account. I and the Government recognise the huge challenges—as we come out of a global pandemic, post-covid—in the NHS and other Departments that we are catching up with. I hear what my hon. Friend says. That is why the Government are focused on getting rid of those backlogs, are up for the challenge and are delivering.
Business of the House
Christopher Chope Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have enormous sympathy on the issue that she is raising. There is nothing more vexatious for our constituents than being fined by officious bodies for doing things that are perfectly normal to do, whether they are private road or private parking companies, who seem to specialise in this, or people chasing for tolls. She is quite right to stand up on behalf of her constituents on this. It would be most helpful if she would set out to me in writing precisely what byelaws need changing and then I can take that up with the relevant Department.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can we have an early debate on the operation—or should I say the lack of operation?—of the vaccine damage payments scheme? In the year in which it has been operating, not a single payment has been made in respect of any victim of covid-19 vaccine. We know from recent inquests and from other detailed material from professors at Bristol University of the link between damage caused by vaccines and the need for compensation for those who are in the unfortunate minority of having so suffered. Is that not fundamental to improving vaccine confidence?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There should be huge vaccine confidence. What has happened with the vaccine programme and the booster programme has meant that this country has been able to get back to normal faster than almost any other country in the world. My hon. Friend and I would particularly note that it is thanks to the fact that we are not in the European Union that we were able to move so quickly. I encourage him to indicate his own confidence in the vaccine and support the vaccine roll-out, because that really has been essential to our economic reopening, to the health of the nation, and to the ability of the NHS to cope with covid. Of course everything else will be looked at in due course, but the success of the programme is fundamental.