Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place as the Labour MP for where we are today. She raises an important matter that should be covered by the children’s wellbeing Bill that was announced in the King’s Speech, which will look at admission and place planning, and giving local authorities a greater ability to do that than they currently have. The next Education questions are due not long after we return from the summer recess, so she might want to raise this important matter then.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I welcome the new Financial Conduct Authority rules on access to cash. One key thing that they set out is that banks should not close their branches before an assessment has taken place and new alternatives have been put in place. In Cupar, we have already seen the closure of the Bank of Scotland, and problems over the summer regarding the replenishment of the remaining cash machines. May we have a debate in Government time about the FCA rules, and how we ensure that communities that have already lost those services get the replacement assessments they are supposed to get?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Lady for that important question. Having sat through business questions many times in the last Parliament, I know that she raised this topic consistently. The disappearance of banks from our high streets was raised with many of us during the election campaign, which is why this Government are committed to having banking hubs across the country, and to a coherent plan for town centre regeneration. I will consider her request for a debate and pass it on to the relevant Minister.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair—congratulations on your election.

It is important to be here today to debate what we can do to improve politics. The public who sent us here expect that. We know that something needs to be done and I hope that the Government will live up to their aspiration to offer change. Last week, the Leader of the House was kind enough to mention our previous work together on the exclusion ban. I am pleased to confirm that I, too, look forward to continuing those cross-party efforts in this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) will speak about second jobs later, so I will focus my remarks on modernisation and the Modernisation Committee.

The Modernisation Committee that the previous Labour Government set up was not uncontroversial and we should recognise that the Committee will not have an elected Chair; it will be chaired by the Leader of the House. However, as an Opposition party member, I have had positive engagement with the Leader of the House. It is important to ensure that the Committee acts in the best interests of the House and does not supersede the remit of other Committees, such as the Committee on Standards, which has lay members at its heart.

The motion is about restoring trust in this place and in our system. We know that that is needed just by looking at engagement in the recent general election. Voter turnout overall was only 59.8%—only six in 10 registered voters either thought it was worth engaging with our democratic system or could do so. In many constituencies, the proportion was even lower—in some, it was as little as four in 10. It is not hard to see why, when we look back at the last Parliament.

I was a new Member in 2019. We came in straight off the back of the divisions of Brexit. Normal life and Parliament were then paused during the height of the pandemic. Just a matter of weeks after we were back in this place following the second lockdown, the former Member for North Shropshire, Owen Paterson, was found by the House to have breached the rules on lobbying, and the then Government tried to change the rules in relation to House business to allow him to escape censure.

Following that, I secured an emergency debate on standards under Standing Order No. 24. For new Members’ information, in order to secure an emergency debate, 40 Members must stand up in support of the application. I am pleased to say that, given the increase in Liberal Democrat numbers, I could muster the numbers from my own party now, but in 2021 I was pleased that MPs from the now Government as well as from the Opposition supported my application for a debate on standards. Looking back at that debate in preparation for today, I saw that I closed with the following remarks:

“This is about trust. It is about trust in the Government that they will represent the House and not the Government in House business, and it is about trust in us as our constituents’ representatives. That trust, once eroded, is very difficult to regain. Trust in our politics has been eroded in this past week. That includes all of us here in this House. On behalf of all our constituents, we must do all in our power to do our best to rebuild that trust as we take the next steps on standards.” —[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 81-2.]

Sadly, that did not happen, despite our best efforts. Personally, I am proud that my amendment to our Standing Orders to stop MPs voting on their own censure motions, as the former Member for North Shropshire did, was passed. With the support of the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who is in her place, the amendment to the exclusion motion was passed earlier this year. I hope that that decision by the House sent a message about the seriousness with which we in this place view safe- guarding. Despite some improvements, we still had rule breaking—and, indeed, law breaking, bullying, sexual harassment, and a string of serious questions about conflicts of interest. It is important to recognise that we are all tarnished by that brush.

The Government’s proposal is also about making this place a modern workplace. It is easy for people to forget that this is not just a place where politics and policy happen, but a place of work—not just for us here in the Chamber, but for hundreds if not thousands of MPs’ staff, as well as the House staff who support us. Indeed, as we start this new Parliament with a new intake of MPs, the churn of staff will be significant.

Websites advertising political vacancies are currently overflowing with opportunities, but I cannot help but wonder after the past few years whether people will want to work here. Can this be seen as an attractive workplace, where people can be not only safe, but secure, and where they can forge a meaningful career? I am sure that we all know people who we think were capable—in fact more capable than ourselves—of being effective MPs, but who took the decision not to put themselves forward for election. On that, I hope the Leader of the House will agree, perhaps as part of the Committee’s work or just generally, to implement the Jo Cox Civility Commission recommendations in relation to the abuse of elected representatives.

I have the pleasure of being Chief Whip to 71 MPs, having welcomed 57 new colleagues to these Benches. I know that the bad behaviour of some caused a lack of trust in all of us. I was pleased to hear the Leader of the House commit the Modernisation Committee to implementing the independent review of the ICGS published in May. I want to draw the House’s attention to the third recommendation, which says that if someone makes a complaint to a party about something that falls under the remit of the scheme, the party has to pass it on to the ICGS to be dealt with, rather than attempting to resolve it internally.

I am very aware that the violins for Whips are very tiny, but those Whips do have a difficult role to play in providing pastoral care and looking at discipline. For me, it makes perfect sense to ensure that, where there has been inappropriate behaviour, there is a guarantee of an independent review. I am pleased to say that what is proposed in this recommendation is already part of the new Liberal Democrat parliamentary party Standing Orders, and I would be happy to sign a public declaration accordingly on that basis.

I also urge the Leader of the House to commit to implementing the next steps recommended by the Speaker’s Conference, which reported last year. I had the privilege of sitting on the Conference and can attest to the time and cross-party work that went into that report. These packages of changes together would create something much closer to a modern human resources system, which will benefit staff and MPs. I think the public do accept that MPs are different, in that we are not employees, but they also expect us to adopt modern HR practices where we possibly can.

The underlying point for me, and something that I hope our new MPs can take on board among the excitement and honour of being in this place, is this: our jobs are unusual, but that does not make us special or different when it comes to upholding basic standards. I say that as a former police officer who was also not an employee during that time. It does not give us free rein to treat others poorly. We must not break the rules; in fact, we ought to be aspiring to a higher standard—to be exemplary—because of these unusual and wonderful jobs that we get to hold and do for our constituents.

We also need to look at the practices and support in place to allow Members to carry out their work effectively. I was disappointed to hear, for example, that the nursery in Parliament can offer places only from 2026. Given that increasing numbers of new Members with family responsibilities are coming here, we need to ensure that we give people the support to carry out that really important job to the best of our abilities.

Let me return now to the motion and the question of what the Modernisation Committee should be considering. Modernisation is not just about standards and behaviour and making this a 21st century workplace, but about making this a modern system fit for policy decisions to be made for the benefits of our constituents. We want a workplace that ensures that democracy works.

The first proposal that I ask the Leader of the House to consider might not be in her party’s best interests as it wants to power through its first 100 days, but in the spirit of putting our democracy first, I urge her to be open to revisiting the Wright reforms and reviewing the determination of House time. The 2009 report recommended that a House Business Committee, made up on a Cross-Bench basis, be able to decide how much time is given to scrutinising Government legislation. That may sound boring and technical, but it could be revolutionary. The Government would still be able to set the agenda and bring forward their manifesto and their legislation, but they could not tell us in the Opposition how much time we should take to properly scrutinise things. The Wright reforms were aimed at ending sleaze and making Parliament and the role of Parliament more meaningful. Those goals remain ever more relevant today.

Implementing this last change from the Wright reforms would make MPs more powerful in representing their constituents. It would connect us in a meaningful way, and allow the public to see that MPs are working on their behalf. It would certainly improve debate—something that I am hoping will improve in this new Parliament. It would make us more open and allow the public to truly understand the nuances and difficulties that have to be handled in legislation. Indeed, in that way, it would also benefit the Government. A modern Chamber of representatives also needs to be fairly elected. How many times have we heard someone sigh on the radio or in the pub and moan that politicians are all the same—that nothing ever changes, and that one candidate will inevitably win, so there is no point in even engaging?

There has been so much optimism in Parliament since the general election and new Members have been returned. I want to ensure that we spread that optimism out to each and every voter—a sense that they matter and that politics and Parliament are for them. A fair voting process is the absolute basic step that we need to take. I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) earlier in the debate. I assure him that the Liberal Democrats have, for the first time ever, delivered a number of MPs that reflects the vote share that they had in the general election. We will await the outcome of the Electoral Commission’s report on the most recent election before we draw any conclusions, especially when it comes to voter turnout.

In conclusion, my party and I look forward to engaging further with the Modernisation Committee, and urge the Leader of the House not to narrow its remit. Modernising this place is a big job, but it is surely a worthwhile one. If we can get that right, we rebuild the trust that underpins our democracy, and make the laws and policies that come from this place all the better for it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I now call Jack Abbott to make his maiden speech.

Risk-based Exclusion

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I start by referencing the foreword to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme report published today, for which I commend Sir Paul Kernaghan. Paragraph 3 says:

“A scheme like the ICGS must recognise the different working cultures and constitutional requirements, whilst at the same time contribute to a non-negotiable objective of helping to deliver a modern environment in which everyone is respected and valued. The Royal Military Police’s motto is Exemplo Ducemus—‘By example shall we lead’. I have taken the view that Parliament’s internal arrangements should also, as far as possible, lead by example. I have consciously sought to make recommendations that are both practical and reflect the highest possible standards.”

I am conscious that that is talking about the ICGS, which is a different process, but sometimes, when we end up talking about dates such as 1340 and 1648, I am not sure people necessarily think that is relevant to today.

My amendments are about safeguarding. I am grateful that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, although she disagrees with me, recognises that that is a key point of contention in relation to the motion we are considering today. When we last discussed these proposals in a general debate, we were talking about proposals in relation to arrest. They have now been changed to charge, and my amendment simply seeks to get the view of the House on what is the right point. I appreciate there is a balance to that.

On the question of consultation mechanisms, we have talked about evidence given to the Procedure Committee, the Standards Committee and the Commission, but I stand here as a member of the fourth party in this House and it is interesting that I have had support for my amendment from other smaller parties as well. It is important, when we are debating these matters, that all voices are heard.

People are always very quick to point out that we are not employees. Indeed, as a former police officer, I was also not an employee then; I was appointed and I swore an oath to serve. However, we do have responsibilities to our own employees as an employer, and I should mention I was a member of the Speaker’s Conference in that regard. I think the public take a view of our employment status, in that they recognise we are not employees, but I agree with those hon. Members who have made the point that as far as possible we should be trying to align ourselves with modern workplaces and practices and with the laws that we pass here in respect of them.

Where MP’s terms and conditions have caused issues in recent years, it is when we have in this place perhaps over-emphasised ourselves as being exceptional and unique, and forgotten that we are not here just simply to represent our constituents and peers; we are representatives of those constituents and peers. We are those people too, and if we do not encourage people to think about MPs that way, we will never get the diversity and representation in this place that we want. I think the public are less concerned about us exercising our rights since Cromwell, and we should be thinking about how we minimise the impact on representation.

I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) that exclusion is one of a series of measures contained in this motion, and may be applicable only in a very small number of situations. It is about risk and it is about safeguarding. I refer to an email I received from Ken Gall from the trade unions here in the Commons—I think the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) referred to it as well:

“Following the publication of the Angiolini report, senior House officials including the Speaker met with the Deputy Commissioner of the Met Police…to discuss the fact that Wayne Couzens…had worked on the parliamentary estate.”

He notes that the House released the following statement:

“The PaDP leadership also now automatically informs Parliament’s Director of Security about serious disciplinary issues, and any officer accused of gross misconduct is automatically removed from working on the parliamentary estate.”

I think all of us would argue that was proportionate, necessary and a risk-based response. However, we are in danger of saying that the risk posed by a man accused of serious sexual offenses is unacceptable when that man is a police officer, but not when the man in question is an MP.

I also want to refer to the comments made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). As part of the safeguarding assessment that we make, we should think about the full circumstances of the case. It may be appropriate to take a different approach when the offence is in relation to somebody who works in the estate, as opposed to someone external.

Why arrest and not charge? Because I want our practices to align with those in other workplaces. It is important to remember that the majority of people in this workplace are not MPs or Members of the other place; they are members of staff. This is their workplace too. My proposal also aligns with the Government’s own external statements of intent, particularly in relation to violence against women and girls. Again, Ken Gall points out that the Government’s response to the Government Equalities Office consultation on sexual harassment in the workplace referred to adequate legal protections and prompting employers to take action to prevent harassment. I am not sure how failing to exclude from the workplace a man arrested on suspicion of rape would not fall into the category of an employer not taking all reasonable steps to protect women. The House is not an employer of MPs, but it is an employer of others.

In my remaining minute, I will talk about the role of the Whips and the politicisation of the process. Voluntary exclusion happens now. The higher the bar is, the more politicisation of the process there will be. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) talked about knowing from a panel exactly who it was. Frankly, we know the people who have voluntarily excluded themselves from the estate on that basis. Having the bar too high would negate some of the safeguarding measures that we might try to take.

Let me say, as a former police officer—the only one taking part in this debate, I think—that arrest on suspicion does not take place just on the basis of an allegation. Yes, some vexatious complaints occur, but what message do we send from this place if we say that our concerns on this are more important than safeguarding? Balance, as the Chair of the Procedure Committee said, is important.

Several members of staff have come up to me today to thank me for tabling my amendment. I ask those who are thinking of voting against it to think about the message they would be sending outwith this place.

[Sir Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), as I so often do. This is a very unsatisfactory process, to say the least. I endorse everything that he said.

We are where we are in terms of this particular motion, and I will mention a couple of things in it, relating mainly to the debate about whether or not the proposed Standing Order should apply at arrest or at charge. I very much agree with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley). She was right to say that the measure would find the right balance by applying at charge, partly because, as has been said, our constituents have a right to be represented in the House of Commons—we should not forget that—but also because of the time these things take. Someone being deprived of being here because they have been arrested even though they have done nothing wrong is not just a hypothetical; it has actually happened, and they were excluded from here for a substantial amount of time. Are we completely blind to those situations? We should be completely aware of that, and we must not allow it to happen again.

I must say that I think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) was unusually naive in his view about what might happen if we had the situation at arrest. He seems to think that if we had a panel meeting at arrest, exclusion would be a last resort, and that a whole suite of other things would be gone through before we got to that. To be perfectly honest, he has been here long enough to know that that is an absolute load of old tripe. He knows full well that the moment somebody is arrested, the panel would say, “We must be risk-averse,” and the person would be excluded straightaway. And I guarantee to him that if they were not excluded straightaway, an awful lot of people in this House would demand that they be excluded straightaway on the basis of arrest. If he does not think that is the case, I am afraid he is completely and utterly out of touch with what goes on.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, given that I have just spoken. What assessment does he think the Whips make on that basis?

[Sir Philip Davies]

Well, the point is that that is a voluntary process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has made clear, if somebody feels that that is not a suitable process, they can come in here. This is about us formally excluding people from here. That is a very different issue altogether—one that we should not take lightly; and one that, I suspect, is being taken too lightly.

Retirement of the Clerk of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Like other speakers, I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, and those we have heard so far today in recognising Sir John Benger and his departure from the House to St Catharine’s. I was elected in December 2019, and my first engagement with Sir John in that first and last sitting week of 2019 was bleary-eyed and tired, here in the Chamber with other new MPs, being privy to the procedures and processes that we needed to follow. I did my best to listen, but I also believe that an MP is not properly an MP in this place until they have stood up at an oral questions session, started to ask their substantive question, and been told by yourself, Mr Speaker, to say “Question number eight—apologies” and sit back down. We all do our best to pay attention to the Clerk and the guidance he and his team give, but sometimes we do not quite manage it.

We of the 2019 intake had been MPs for such a short period of time before covid took place that we were still getting to grips with the way the processes worked. I can certainly speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) by saying that the communications we had from the House via the Clerk ensured that we were as well equipped as we could possibly be as we came back in a virtual environment. It was a very different environment; it is very good that we are back here in this place, but the amendments and adjustments that were able to be made, including those that we have taken forward, are part of Sir John’s legacy.

Since September 2020, I have acted as the Whip for the Liberal Democrats. The Father of the House mentioned that a previous Clerk had “sympathetic understanding”, and I would certainly say that that has been the case for John in relation to me. He has been sympathetically understanding of my sometimes completely daft questions, treated them with respect, and given me the appropriate advice accordingly. I am hugely grateful for that.

We are reflecting on what has happened since Sir John became Clerk of the House. I have reflected on covid, the work that took place to mark the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and the restoration works that this place requires going forward. However, for me—particularly as a Whip—his longest-lasting legacy will be changing the culture in this place, the things that we do not see. As we recognise that the Clerk’s role is to provide non-political, impartial advice, it behoves us as parliamentarians to think about how we change that culture for the better in much the same way.

Privileges Committee Special Report

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The initial Privileges Committee investigation into the former Prime Minister, the then Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, has set a clear and fundamental precedent. If a Prime Minister deliberately misleads this House and, by extension, the public, there will be consequences. I put on record my thanks to the hon. and right hon. Members who served on the Privileges Committee. Considering the weighty matter of whether a former Prime Minister misled the House was clearly a significant task, and it is regrettable that, as the report outlines, the actions of some hon. and right hon. Members made the task harder for Members serving on the Committee. As we have heard, that was not without personal consequences for those Members.

As the Leader of the House pointed out in her opening remarks, there are ways and means of raising issues of privilege. We should remember that the investigation had its genesis in a motion that was passed in this House without Division; not a single Member named in the report voted against the motion. Not only is the Committee cross party, but it has a Conservative majority. It is worth pointing out that there is no Liberal Democrat on the Committee, but I accept as an individual MP that the current process involves a cross-party group of MPs, and they are trusted by this House to investigate with impartiality and to make their findings available for consideration by the House. Those recommendations are then to be approved or rejected by this House. Had Boris Johnson been suspended from Parliament for more than 10 days and chosen to remain an MP, it would have been up to the people of Uxbridge to determine whether they wanted to re-elect him as their MP. Members from all parts of the House must make it clear that we will not tolerate attempts to undermine or attack the vitally important work of this Committee.

We were promised integrity, accountability and professionalism at all levels of government, and I have to note, like the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the current Prime Minister’s steadfast refusal to declare where he stands on this issue, let alone to engage with the substantive content of this report and the previous one. That is an abdication of his duty not only as Prime Minister but as an individual MP. It is unfortunate.

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) said she was pleased that the report was not amended, but there is a sign of weakness from the Government, where they have said “no, thank you” to the offer in the Privileges Committee’s report. It stated:

“It will be for the House to consider what further action, if any, to take in respect of Members of the House referred to in this special report.”

I would go as far as to suggest that had the Government taken the opportunity to make some process clear following today’s report, they might have seen off some of the accusations of lack of due process that we have heard today from Members named in the report and those supporting them. Today should have served as an opportunity to set another precedent and to make it clear that there are consequences for those who seek to obstruct the important work of a cross-party, independent Committee. It is a shame that the Government have not done so. That is why I tabled my amendment.

I accept that my amendment has not been selected, but the clear route forward would have been for the Committee to consider whether contempt had been committed and to return a verdict and, if necessary, a sanction. As the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said, that could have given her an opportunity to make her case in relation to what has been reported. The same process was used for the Committee’s report into the former Prime Minister, Mr Johnson. I also point out that today’s debate does not shut the window on that opportunity. The Government could bring forward such a motion if they wished at any future point; they could bring it forward tomorrow, and I hope they do so.

This place is still suffering from the Owen Paterson decision, because that was the point where the convention of this House to accept Privileges Committee and Standards Committee reports on the nod was broken by the Government. Now is the time for a reset.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Procedure Committee.

Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

There are moments when we know that our parliamentary debates will form part of our nation’s history, and for the wrong reasons, today is such a moment. Everything that we do in Westminster—whether it is about addressing the crises facing our communities, from spiralling inflation to skyrocketing mortgage rates, or about strengthening support for the brave Ukrainians—all our actions, all our words, will only matter if we are trusted. That trust exists only if we tell the truth, especially when we are called to account for our decisions.

Confidence that this is a place where politicians are honest and accountable is completely central to the effectiveness and sustainability of any healthy democracy. Conversely, a culture where lies are ignored, tolerated or even excused is one that inevitably damages democracy. That is exactly the dangerous culture we saw nurtured under Boris Johnson. This is why the Privileges Committee report and its recommended sanctions are so important and why it is vital that everyone supports them in their entirety.

I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and all the members of the Privileges Committee for their forensic and painstaking work in sifting and evaluating the evidence. That evidence might not have been available but for the revelations first made by Pippa Crerar, so I pay tribute to Pippa for her work as one of the most talented journalists of our time.

The Committee’s conclusions are based entirely on evidence, and that evidence is incontrovertible. The attempt by a few people today to traduce the members of the Privileges Committee to delegitimise the process is utterly shameful.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am conscious that the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), said that we should not make too many comparisons with the criminal justice system, but the reality is that, in the criminal justice system, in which the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, we ask jurors to look at the evidence and infer the actions and intent of the perpetrator. Does the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) agree that it is quite strange that some colleagues are looking for an even higher level of evidence than that?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

That is an extremely interesting point, for which, as a non-lawyer, I thank the hon. Lady.

If it is true that attempts were made to bully and, yes, blackmail Privileges Committee members so that they came to conclusions that were not based on the evidence but prioritised Boris Johnson’s personal interests, that is shocking. The integrity of Parliament must come above all else. It takes courage to stand up against such political pressures, but showing integrity and leaving party tribalism at the door is absolutely vital if we are to uphold democracy and protect this place from a further erosion of trust.

Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I want to start by thanking all colleagues and members of the Commission, the secretariat and House staff for all the work they have done to get us to this point. This is not a decision-making evening. This is an airing of the issues and a time for the questions that hon. and right hon. Friends, Members and colleagues quite rightly have. This is a good time for us to get through them. I have been noting down some of the questions that have already been raised, and if I do not cover them in my opening speech, I will also, with the leave of the House, be closing for the Opposition. I hope that the Leader of the House and I between us can cover the questions that Members rightly want answered.

I am grateful to the Standards Committee, which has done a thorough job and made some thoughtful, measured and considered recommendations. I would like to thank those colleagues and staff who responded to our consultation last year and earlier this year, and I would like to thank the trade unions and staff reps who also engaged with the consultation and consulted their members. All of that consultation and feedback has informed our revisions to the proposals, but as yet they are just that: proposals. We are here to listen.

The Leader of the House, the other Commissioners and I have worked closely and constructively and I am proud of the fact that we started out in a very different places—I am not completely sure that we are not still in different places—but we managed to find common ground on the specific area of risk management and mitigation. We have been studying and consulting on this issue for nearly a year now, and I have tried to talk to as many colleagues as possible, not just in my own party but in other parties as well. I have consulted colleagues—I have consulted the women’s parliamentary Labour party several times—as well as promoting the Commission’s consultation to Members, staff, House staff and members of the Lobby. I have also been trying to share the report that we are debating today. I regret that the report was published only a week ago, as I would have liked a longer period of time, but I am glad that we are now able to debate its contents. I hope that all Members who are contributing today have read it. If not, copies are available in the Vote Office.

I want to bring people with us on this process. I do not want the process simply to go through Parliament when it concerns something so serious as to be including but not confined to the possible temporary exclusion of a Member of Parliament. That is a serious business. Three important principles are at stake here. The first is democracy, which matters to every single one of us. Voters have a right to be represented once they have elected us and they get to decide who represents them in this place. Democracy matters. So, too, does the principle of British justice that a person is innocent until proven guilty, which is absolutely fundamental. Concerns have already been raised about whether Members will know the charges against them. Yes, they will, because this procedure can be triggered only if there is a live criminal justice investigation of a Member for a serious sexual or violent crime, so they will know because they would already have been investigated.

That is difficult to balance with the principle of safety at work for Members, for House staff, for Members’ staff, for visitors and for child visitors. We have tried hard to balance those principles, and we have fiercely debated, as I know others have, how we can make them balance. I do not know whether we have them all right, but we want to hear from colleagues about how we can make them better.

Some colleagues have said to me, “In any other workplace, including local government, a senior person being investigated by the police for a serious sexual or physically violent crime or harassment would at least prompt consideration of how to mitigate the risks while they await the outcome of that investigation.” That is not a presumption of guilt; it is an attempt, as any significant workplace does, to balance an accusation and the risks it may pose with the fact that a person has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I want to protect both of those principles in this place but, until now, we have relied on informal processes to deal with allegations. Those informal processes put the person who is confided in, whether they are a Whip or a friend, in an impossible position because, if there is no formal procedure in place, there is not much they can do if there has been no complaint and no allegation to the criminal justice system, because that would be, in effect, acting on a rumour rather than a formal complaint.

I am not saying that any of our processes are perfect. We all know from our case loads the many drawbacks that, in particular, women who are victims of rape go through with endless delays and difficult procedures. I do not think the criminal justice system is perfect, I do not think the independent complaints and grievance system is perfect and I do not think our party systems are perfect, but we are trying to find a way so that, when the House authorities know about a serious sexual crime, we no longer rely on a quiet word here and a nudge there, which does not feel right either for the complainant or for the person about whom a complaint is made.

I have already said that an MP will know if a complaint is made about them, because the process can be triggered only if there is a live criminal justice process, but I also do not want candidates to be put off coming to this place. Being an MP is an amazing privilege. It is an incredible job and an honour. I do not want journalists or staff to be put off coming to work here, and I do not want visitors to feel that this is not a safe place. I think we have to be an exemplar, not just the best we can scrape along with, and I think we are capable of being that exemplar. We have tested that in many different ways, and I think we are capable of doing it now.

What is being proposed is an evidence-based risk assessment and management process, which has come about as a result of consultation. Again, I thank the Standards Committee because, after looking at our initial proposal, it concluded that, although a procedure is necessary, ours was drawn very narrowly in scope and that we should not only focus on the sanction of exclusion. I think it is important to be clear that a range of risk-mitigation responses is proposed by this document, of which exclusion is only one, and that it is only temporary until a criminal justice investigation is concluded.

Some colleagues have also said that they would like the independent complaints and grievance system to feed into this process. As the Leader of the House said, the system will be reviewed later this year. I encourage all colleagues to feed into that review. When we brought in the ICGS, workplace reps in particular, and others too, felt that confidentiality was important to the process, and that there should be a firewall around it. That is where we are at the moment and, until we have had the review, there is no mechanism for it to trigger this procedure.

The Standards Committee made recommendations to widen the scope on the range of mitigations, and we have incorporated a good deal of them in our current proposals, but I look forward to hearing more from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Standards Committee, on where he and his Committee feel we could strengthen it still further.

Like the Leader of the House, I do not want to go into the detail of the proposal, but I will quickly summarise it. If the police feel there is something about which they need to notify the House authorities, whether at charge or arrest, I want there to be a proper process for the House authorities to deal with it, a process that we, as MPs, have considered, debated and voted for. Under the Commission’s proposal, a named group—and they are named in the proposal—of very senior, experienced House staff will consider the initial allegation and investigation that is sent to them, and it will consider whether or not a risk-assessment process is necessary. If the group considers it not to be necessary, the process would stop there; if it thinks it is necessary, based on the evidence supplied, it will then do a risk assessment and make a recommendation—I emphasise this—to a panel. There will be debates in this Chamber, and among colleagues who are not in this Chamber, about whether the panel proposed by the Commission is what they want, or not, but we are proposing a panel with two named Members and one external commissioner. Members, one from the Government party and one from His Majesty’s official Opposition, will outnumber the commissioner on the panel.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

In some respects, I have an issue with describing it as a staff panel. It sounds to me like a risk assessment, and it sounds to me like exclusion is the final option when every other option has been considered. Can the shadow Leader of the House clarify that for me, please?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The panel will be the decision-making body that comes after the four senior members of House staff have considered an investigation and the evidence; have done a risk-assessment process, which they will consult on with relevant external experts; and have then made a risk-mitigation plan, which they will then propose to the decision-making panel. I agree that we use the term “exclusion” too often when, actually, it is only one of many possible mitigations.

When the ICGS was introduced, people made a strong case for it to be confidential, so it will not feed into the process at the moment, but I remind all colleagues of the review later this year.

If this proposal is passed by the House, investigations will initially be assessed by a group of senior House staff and a mitigation plan proposed. The mitigation plan will then go to the decision-making panel, which will make a decision on behalf of us all. It is very important that MPs can be excluded only by other MPs, which is why we came up with this proposal. We have also responded to some people’s concern that we need an external voice. I am keen to hear from other Members about whether we have the right composition.

The mitigations could include exclusion. Before I came to this place, I worked with very violent offenders at different points in the process, usually pre-trial or pre-civil proceedings, and our aim was safety. At the same time as trying to achieve safety, we had the important principle, which Members have raised, of people being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am very conscious that at this stage of the debate lots of things have already been said.

In my three and a half years in this House it has been brought home to me that in decision making in politics there is no right or wrong. It is usually about the least worst option, but doing nothing is also a decision in itself.

The shadow Leader of the House talked in her opening remarks about the three standards, and I think we all agree that they are the principles of this debate: safeguarding, fairness and democracy. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) talked about bias, but for me it is more about balance; all of us will come to individual conclusions about what we give more weight to in finding that balance.

We need to think about reputational risks to Parliament. If we were to ask a member of the public whether somebody under investigation for sexual assault or violent crime should be allowed to come on to the estate—I would like to talk later about the different bits of that investigation—they would think it reasonable that they were not allowed. Frankly, people are uninterested in the complexity and processes that surround our jobs—that we are not employees, that as a Whip I am nobody’s line manager and neither is my party leader, and the different details around allowing us on to the estate. They want to see us being held to account for our behaviours.

When debating matters relating to the House we automatically default to the impact on MPs and thinking about ourselves. That is human nature, but we need to think about safeguarding and how our actions and decisions here are perceived. This is not a normal workplace, but the public’s expectation is that when we can better align with employment practices, we should do so. Our behaviour code references everybody on the estate and I am not convinced we should expect those other people on the estate to be subject to widely different treatment.

One thing that I can bring to the debate is my police experience. I ask the Commission to think about this. I was a police officer for 12 years, and I was sexual offences-trained, so when there was a report of a sexual offence, my job was to speak to the complainer and take the initial statement. Indeed, if the complaint was of a sexual offence nature and it had just happened, my job was to take that person to their medical and to obtain productions. I would also liaise with the criminal investigation department, which would be carrying out the inquiry, to ensure that when it came to take action in relation to the suspect, it did so with as much evidence as possible. That made me think about when a potential suspect becomes aware of the police’s interest in them.

Right from the start, a police officer is making that assessment of the evidence. At an early stage, they might conclude that the evidence is not credible and therefore the investigation will not continue. We also need to be conscious of and remember that while there are 650 of us in this place, 59 of us represent Scottish constituencies, and Scottish law is different. However, the reality is that a suspect may first become aware of the investigation and that the police want to speak to them about a matter at the point of their arrest on suspicion. There is an opportunity to seek clarity about the consistency of that at police level; not only for the Metropolitan police.

I see that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is no longer in his place. It pains me as a former police officer to think about the number of times I have talked in the House about trust and the lack of trust in the police, but we need to think about where complaints might come from and therefore consistency across forces in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to that. Realistically, if arrest on suspicion is the point at which a suspect first becomes aware of an interest in them, that is likely to be the point at which the police first approach the House authorities to make them aware of such a complaint. The suspect will therefore be aware. For me, that takes away some of the debate that we have had, because if somebody is arrested on suspicion of an offence—they may be released without charge following that initial arrest—the police must have had some degree of credible evidence that required them to arrest that person and take away their liberty for a period of time to carry out that investigation. I hope that that threshold would meet some of the concerns raised.

I am now thinking about this issue through my second role and as the only current Whip to have spoken so far. The current system of voluntary exclusion from the estate is just that—voluntary—and inconsistent, because it is taken on a party basis, and sometimes police advice can make parties come to different decisions. If we are interested in fairness for MPs, we need to consider how the current system is not very fair for MPs as well as for complainers. The voluntary process means that much of the decision making is done invisibly by Whips, who as individuals are required not only potentially to enact some discipline but to provide the pastoral support that is so important.

The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who is no longer in his place, talked about the real impact that a complaint—whether vexatious or otherwise—has on an individual. The Whips are the people who are required to provide support. On that basis, we need to consider that the described process in its very specific circumstances will not be taking place in isolation. If somebody is being arrested on suspicion, there is a real likelihood that the party will be aware, and the Whips and parties will be making decisions accordingly based on the same information.

Given that we are talking about safeguarding and the long-term reputation of the House, there should be scope—this is a plea—for parties to discuss ways of taking a more consistent approach to such complaints. We should not be using them as a political issue and saying that one party handles them better than others, because none of us and none of our parties are immune to that. I welcome the announcement by the Leader of the House about the forum, because that might provide an opportunity to bring things out from under the carpet, as the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), appreciated.

The final issue I want to mention is the discussion about the right people to sit on the panels. I absolutely concur with the hon. Member for Rhondda and others who have described what we are talking about: adjudication. I raised it myself in my intervention on the shadow Leader of the House about the staff panel. I think I am in a place where I accept there needs to be somebody who is not an MP looking at the situation from a risk assessment perspective. Again, I think about that in relation to the police. In terms of the internal aspects of the police complaints process, there is a lack of trust about police officers investigating themselves. There is also potentially a lack of trust, whether we like it or not, around MPs passing judgment on ourselves. If what we are trying to do is deal with the complaints that come in and aspire to having none of those complaints in the future because we have changed the culture in this place—culture change is so important—then we have to accept that sometimes we are frogs in increasingly hot water. We become acclimatised to our surroundings and think first and foremost about ourselves as MPs, as opposed to those outwith. We therefore need an ambition that this process is about changing the culture.

To conclude, as MPs we make the laws and we must show ourselves to be accountable. We are discussing this situation because of the actions of a minority. However, those actions mean that the reputation of this House, and attracting the right people into this House, is at risk and we face a continued decline. Not only must we take steps, but we must be seen to take steps. Only then will we start to change the culture and present to the public the face we want to present as Members of this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I agree with the hon. Lady on this one. If we go down the route of saying that an individual should not be in this House because they are a danger to staff, they are not going to be any less of a danger to the staff in their constituency office. That is why the very next paragraph in the report, paragraph 31, states:

“The Commission noted the strength of feeling in relation to the management of risk in constituency offices and agreed to write formally to the Speaker’s Conference”.

So we are going to find, on the basis of a credible allegation—which, by the way, has not led to the police arresting or charging anyone—that an individual could be excluded from this House and eventually excluded from their constituency duties in their own locality. All this will be done on the basis of allegations that have not been tested. It has been glibly dismissed, “Oh, it is not the panel’s role to take over the role of the judicial system. The panel’s job is not to find somebody guilty or not guilty.” All I have to say is that, if the panel makes a decision that someone is not safe to be in this place and should therefore be excluded, even though the panel might try to keep it secret, it will not be too long before that individual is known. That Member will have a proxy vote and will not be seen about the place, and we know how rumours go around.

People might say, “No, no, the panel is not there to find anybody guilty,” but by default that person will be regarded as guilty because very severe action has been taken against them—action so important and so severe that they have been excluded from doing their job—even though they have not been arrested or charged.

It is not just vexatious claims; it could also apply to cases where a person has made a complaint, genuinely believing, “That MP’s behaviour was inappropriate, so I’m making a complaint.” They might be convinced in their own mind—it is not that they are trying to do somebody down—even though the legal test has not been met to justify the allegation.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I refer to my earlier comments about needing clarity on what that credible evidence aspect means, because I believe it is likely to come at a point where a suspect has been arrested on suspicion and put under interview. The credible evidence required for a person to lose their liberty in order to be interviewed would be there.

The challenge is simply that the Commission does not have any power over MPs in their constituency. The Commission only has control over Members on the estate. I agree there is a gap, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Commission does not have that power? That is where the disconnect comes from.

[Sammy Wilson]

I accept that, but the report talks about referring this to the Speaker’s Conference to see what measures could be taken, because it is recognised that there is a logical step here. That is why it is so important to get this right, so that we know when it is safe to trigger some sanctions against an MP where allegations have been made. I think the threshold that has been set, of credible allegations being made to the police—who I believe will act in a precautionary way—is far too low a bar that will lead to situations in which Members could find themselves unjustly treated. The Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), talked about the principle of fairness, which will not be met.

[Sammy Wilson]

Where an individual is excluded from coming here, from meeting constituents here, from talking to lobbyists here and from taking part in debates here—eventually, that exclusion could stretch beyond this House—there is hardly any way to describe it other than as a sanction, because that individual would be prevented from doing certain things that are an integral part of their job.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the current system also fails those where credible allegations are made, as such allegations come to a Whip and a voluntary arrangement to be excluded or to stay away from the estate is made? Does he accept that this proposal is a clarification of the process that currently exists in a more—“underhand” is not the word—low-level way?

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not see it as that, because what individual parties decide to do to safeguard their own reputation is up to those parties, and MPs sign up to that as members of their party. This also shows that parties do take these issues seriously; suggesting that we have an absence of any control or safeguards at the moment is just not correct.

The last point I wish to make is about the length of time that this process can go on. Members have talked about how long a police investigation takes and how long it takes to get to a point where someone is arrested or charged—that process can be much longer. Where allegations are credible and it is clear that there is evidence, the police will act and can act quickly, so that we get to the point of charge. I find it incredible that Members should think that because the police process is long—it might take three years before they decide that there is not a case and they are not going to charge an individual—an individual should be excluded from doing their job for that time, with their reputation being ruined over that period. We must have safeguards and we cannot ignore the fact that some Members misbehave, but we must recognise that we have to be fair to those Members.

Let me go back to something a Member said about how we must put in place processes that safeguard the reputation of this House. It does not matter what processes we put in place—we can have whatever processes we want. If people behave wrongly, the reputation of this place is going to be tarnished in any case. The message we should be taking tonight is that all individual Members have a duty to maintain the reputation of this place.

Every day I walk through the doors of this place, I am honoured to think that many people who do not know me and probably will never see me, because they will never have any problems to come to my constituency office with, put their trust in me to be their representative. If we all took that view of life, perhaps we would not behave in a way that tarnishes the image of the place and we would not need to put these processes in place. I believe that what we have before us tonight is flawed.

Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Yesterday, it was reported that the Metropolitan police have apologised following the discovery of documents relating to the Daniel Morgan murder in a locked cabinet. The independent inquiry released its report almost two years ago and the Independent Office for Police Conduct found that the former commissioner of the Metropolitan police and others had deliberately delayed the disclosure of documentation in relation to that inquiry. Given that we have had previous statements on this issue, can we have a ministerial statement on what is a completely unacceptable situation?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important matter. She will not have long to wait for Home Office questions, which are on 22 May, but I will make sure that the Home Secretary has heard her concerns today.

Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

If a Member needs to correct the record, it is right that they do so in a timely way, and there are established procedures for doing that. The Justice Secretary is a man of his word and, if he has said that he will do something, he will do it. I will leave it up to him how he does that.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Chelsea football club was sold under special exemption in May 2022, and at least £2.3 billion of the proceeds was placed in Roman Abramovich’s frozen UK bank account, with the expectation that the funds will be sent to support Ukrainians. In November, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), said the funds would soon be on their way. In January, there were news reports that the Government were close to handing over this money to a new foundation for Ukrainians, but earlier this month the Minister said

“Setting up an organisation of this scale rightly takes time.”

We have no update. Given that we are almost a year on from the sale, and given that a third of the UK’s aid budget is being used in the UK to support refugees, including Ukrainians, can we have a ministerial statement to clarify the timescale so that the money can go to those who need it as soon as possible?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. It is clear what needs to happen. Given that the next Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions are not until 2 May, I will make sure the Foreign Secretary has heard what she said. The Treasury will also have an interest, as it needs to make sure everything is done correctly. I will make sure both Departments have heard what she said today.

Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s case. I do not know whether she has raised it directly with the Department of Health and Social Care, but I encourage her to do so if she has not already. If she has and would like some assistance in getting a response, my office would be happy to help. We know that the NHS has been under huge pressure because of covid. We also know that the Department of Health’s plans are enabling those backlogs to be cleared. We would expect waiting times, certainly on elective treatment, to come down in the next couple of months.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

There are reports today that the Government have been misleading pensioners into thinking that their universal credit national insurance credits are automatically applied to their NI records. In fact, the system is either broken or has never worked, because they are being applied manually. That is leading to a series of errors, leaving pensioners without the payments that they are entitled to. It is not a legacy issue but one that is happening now. When will the Government make time for this issue to be discussed in this House, to be transparent about what is happening and to set out the steps being taken to ensure that our constituents are not left with shortfalls in their retirement that they might not even be aware of?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard her concerns. Departmental questions are not until early March, so I will ask her to issue a reply and to consider what can be done to inform more Members of this House.