Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Let me take us back five years, to when Dame Laura Cox told us that this place has

“a culture of…deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying, harassment and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed.”

The House of Commons staff who bravely came forward at the time, shared their stories and gave evidence to Dame Laura felt for the first time that they were being listened to and that they had not spoken out in vain. There was a sense that we were beginning a process that would oversee real change in the culture of this place. Five years on, we must ask ourselves: can we be confident that the change in culture that the Cox report said was absolutely necessary has happened?

I came to this place to fight for better working conditions for everyone in this country, including people who work here. It is only right that we should aim to be one of the best places to work. As the shadow Leader of the House said, we should be an exemplar of good employment practice. Frankly, it took too long to introduce the independent complaints and grievance process, and the experience of it to date suggests it has not reached the stage of development where it carries everyone’s confidence. There are definitely lessons to be learned from the experience so far, but we are heading in the right direction. The issue being discussed tonight is part of that journey towards this becoming, as far as is possible, a safe and secure place of work, just as we would want for all our constituents and just as every other employer should be.

A number of hon. Members have talked about how we should be following the lead of every other workplace: if there is a risk in the workplace, the employer has a duty to take steps to minimise that risk. As far as I can see, the only reason there is even a debate about this is not that Members are some special category of people who deserve to be treated differently, but that there is a clear question being ventilated tonight about striking the right balance between ensuring that people are able to work in a safe environment free from fear, and ensuring that people who are here to represent their constituents are not disenfranchised by being forced to leave the estate.

The fact that we are not voting on the proposals tonight shows that there are issues still and that we do not yet have our own house in order on this question, but it is vital that we address it. As the report states, the great majority of Members who responded do not oppose the principle of excluding Members for allegations of violent or sexual acts. Just two Members who responded to the consultation disagreed, citing the principle of innocent until proven guilty. We have heard that mentioned a number of times in the debate, but I think people are conflating a non-prejudicial suspension with a finding of guilt.

In every workplace it is quite possible to suspend someone without having a finding of guilt attached to them. We are not going to be replacing the role of the court. I believe that the risk assessment process and the adjudication panel are as good a way as possible to deal with that question of risk. The panel will have ample opportunity to weed out vexatious complaints—another concern that has been raised. That is another reason why we should accept that the threshold for involvement can be lower than a formal charge.

It is not clear from the report what opportunity there will be for the Member affected to make representations. The Leader of the House suggested that there would be such an opportunity, but I did not see that set out in the formal process in the report. It would be a good thing for the Member affected to have that opportunity to make representation and the adjudication panel would probably be the right stage for that. Of course, if the person who is being complained against can make representations, I would say the victim should be able to do so as well.

I certainly do not think a vote or a debate in this Chamber on the question would be appropriate. We cannot possibly have an informed debate on something of that level of detail without risking a breach of confidentiality, as has been mentioned, and indeed possible inadvertent breaches of sub judice rules. This is not the right forum for matters of that nature to be debated or discussed; they should be left to a private panel away from the glare of the Chamber.

I would presume that, if a Member did have an opportunity to make a representation to the panel, they would deny any wrongdoing. I would hope that, unlike with the ICGS, that denial would not be seen as a reason to double down on punishment. It should be accepted that a denial in the context of a “without prejudice” suspension, coupled with engagement, which we would expect from the Member, could actually lead to a pragmatic solution being found, which would not always necessarily mean a complete exclusion from the estate. It is clear from the report that that is possible.

I know that some will consider that the threshold for intervention is too low if charges have not been brought, but that is the threshold for the process to begin. I think we have probably all agreed that currently police investigations take far too long, but it is simply too long for something that serious to be left hanging in the air. We cannot possibly determine in this Chamber tonight every set of circumstances in which expulsion would be appropriate, so it is right that we set out a process to deal with that and for that process to be robust and thorough enough that we can have confidence it will be fair on all.

However, the key is what the report says about flexibility. The panel will have flexibility to deal with the circumstances of the cases that come before it, and that seems to me the right way to do it. As I have already mentioned, that could include mitigations falling short of total exclusion. The process would be sensitive to the facts of each individual case—that is what would happen in every workplace, and it is what we should do here.

As we have said, an exclusion from the estate does not mean that the Member is completely excluded from the process. They could vote by proxy, and they would be able to submit written questions or write directly to Ministers on particular issues. It is hard to envisage any circumstances in which those measures would not be available. We need to think about the processes that the independent complaints scheme has dealt with so far. The speed and the quality of those investigations needs to be dramatically improved. That is something that we can deal with here; we can set performance targets for it. It is not in anyone’s interest—not the victim, not the accused, not the reputation of this House—for complaints to take 12 to 18 months to reach their conclusions. The police will take as long as they need to, but we should have a far greater grip on how long it takes for internal complaints to be dealt with.

I remind Members of what Dame Laura Cox envisaged for internal investigations. She said that they should

“be conducted by someone whose status, independence, experience and expertise are beyond question,”

and that

“it has to be a rigorous process, a transparent process and one that is seen to be fair to both sides.”

I do not think that we are quite there on that. I will not go into detail on the flaws that I have seen in investigations, but we should be in no doubt that this serious matter must be looked at again, and I welcome the commitment to doing so.

On the proposals before us, I echo what other Members have said: we need a vote on them shortly. We need to iron out the differences of opinion, ideally before the summer recess. As employers here, we have a duty of care towards everyone in this place, and we do not want to be seen as falling short because we are still arguing about the niceties of process. We would not accept that in any other workplace. We have to set the standard on these things, not drag our heels.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.