Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion

Charlotte Nichols Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

As a member of the Procedure Committee, this subject is of great interest to me, as it is to all members of the Committee. My position may not be completely beholden to that of the Committee’s Chair, so I declare that interest straight away.

For three and a half years, I have spent much of my time in this place inadvertently comparing the two institutions in which I have served: the Ministry of Defence, and the Army in particular, for 26 years and this place, as an MP since 2019. They are quite different as institutions. I shall make just a few comparisons that are, I think, useful to the debate.

First, if a member of the armed forces is accused of a crime, serious or otherwise, there is a presumption of innocence. That should be at the heart of this particular debate, as we heard earlier. The MOD has a “leave no man or woman behind” policy. It is very important that an individual who is charged or under investigation for a serious complaint is not excommunicated. The MOD deals with that often by managing it in-house or, if necessary, by moving the individual to another unit so that they can continue their responsibilities and duties elsewhere. It is important, of course, that they are not separated from the chain of command. Why? Because it is important that the chain of command gives them the moral, legal and welfare support that they need, although they may well be separated from members of the unit who might be involved or who made the accusation. It is important that we manage it in the right way, and I think that that responsibility is important in the House, too.

I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, as well as the Commission, for the effort that has gone into the report so far. We are 95% there and I am very happy with the recommendations as they stand, but I just want to draw attention to a couple of things that I think can be improved. The important thing for me is that we have a clear duty of care to all those in this place, no question about it, but that duty of care also exists towards the individual who might be accused of a particular offence. That is the theme I want to focus on.

I will be quite honest. I have been appalled at times by the ease with which we hang colleagues out to dry here in Westminster—not mentioning any names at all. When we come to this place, it is a big thing. We work hard to get here. Reputations are important and the way in which colleagues have been asked to leave the estate, or asked voluntarily to do so, for things that have been alleged is quite a brutal process. We have to respect the fact that that colleague might also need some support. We are, of course, a team, whether we are the Conservative party, the SNP, the Lib Dems or Labour, and we as Members have a responsibility to each other irrespective of the colour of our cloth.

When the headlines hit, phones can go silent. Colleagues are in the spotlight. They are vilified on social media and they are on their own. We must also remember that we are all colleagues, and all those who are not currently on the estate are also colleagues. Let us not forget that. Reputations are in tatters and it may be impossible for someone to recover from that, even if they are completely innocent of all the charges.

I think that we can do better in this place not just for the staff who are here, but for the accused. For me, the basic tenet of the entire debate is that colleagues have to be innocent until proven guilty. Yes, we are MPs; yes, we have to maintain a certain standard; but it cannot be the case that we are guilty until proven innocent. We must be innocent until proven guilty. That must lie at the heart of how we take this forward as a House.

I want to raise just three core tenets for the process. The first is the make-up and scope of panels. In this place, they have to be run by Members. For me, Members cannot be subjugated by a staff panel, irrespective of what job we are trying to do. Therefore, this must be managed and run by Members for the benefit of Members. When it comes to voting, it is up to this House to vote on which way we want to take it, not up to staff panels to do that on our behalf.

The second tenet is that the point of assessment for exclusion cannot be proposed at any point in the justice process, as is currently in the Commission’s report. In my view, it needs to be dependent on a charge being brought. In my view, just being accused of something is not justification enough for separating a Member from this place—we must be innocent until proven guilty. The report says:

“If charged, were it considered that a member was dangerous to the public, then he or she would be held on remand, and therefore, unable to be present on the estate…To exclude a member who has not even been charged, whatever accusations might be made, would be a fundamental denial of the principle that people are innocent until guilt is properly determined.”

That came out loud and clear in the report and, again, lies at the heart of the matter. A criminal charge, in my view, is the right threshold, although I accepted earlier there are difficulties with the point at which an arrest may be made and the time that it takes between the arrest and the charge. I do not have an answer for that particular issue.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I want to make the hon. Gentleman aware that a charge in criminal law means there is a high likelihood that a jury, reasonably instructed, would find the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. That is what a charge means in law. It is not, “There is a case to answer. We’ll see you in court.” That is what it means. Does he not think that in a civil process, which this is—this is a workplace, it is a civil process—setting the point at which we as a House might act at that point in the criminal process is just too high?

[James Sunderland]

The hon. Lady is not wrong and I concur with her point of view, but of course it is entirely possible that when a charge is brought an individual may be found not guilty in a court of law. A charge does not itself define guilt. By that same token, if someone is arrested on a charge, ultimately they have to allow that process to play out until the point at which they are castigated and removed from the estate voluntarily or otherwise. I take her point, but, for me, the Commission has work to do to draw a distinction between the point at which someone is arrested and the point at which a charge is made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am glad that this is just a general debate, because I suspect that were there to be a vote at the end, many Members, even those who have grave doubts about these proposals, would feel almost compelled to go through the Aye Lobby, for the very reasons that have been given by some of those who have spoken this evening. We have heard that we must restore the image of Parliament, that we must respond to the concerns of our constituents, and that we must consider the reports in the press about this place. I suspect that many people would have thought to themselves, “Although I am not satisfied with all the proposed safeguards, rather than put my head over the parapet and go through the No Lobby, I will go through the Aye Lobby”, and I think that in the context of what we have before us, that would have been wrong.

Of course this should be a safe working environment, and of course a blind eye should not be turned to Members of Parliament who disgrace themselves, disgrace this place and disgrace their constituents through their behaviour. We have a moral duty—apart from our political duty—to ensure that that does not happen. Let me explain my main concern, which we have already heard expressed by others this evening. This started off as an exercise: what do we do if people are charged? I have looked at the evidence, and some, although not a majority, asked, “What about before charge?” I suspect that there was a bit of running for cover. If some people are saying, “You are covering up until the person is charged”, the goalposts have been moved. I do not know what was in the minds of the people who eventually wrote the report, but I suspect that behind their concerns was the question, “Are we being seen to be too lenient, or having a desire to cover up the offences of people who do wrong in the workplace?”

We should look at the threshold that is being set here. When the police have credible evidence, it is reported to the panel. We know what happens, especially in high-profile cases. Let us put ourselves in the place of a senior police officer. An allegation is made, and is passed upwards. “Do you know what has happened in Westminster? An allegation has been made against such-and-such a well-known person.” It would be a very brave police officer who said, “Let us just leave this for a moment, see what further evidence there is, and investigate this case.” The danger is that if the allegation is correct, and if something even worse happens and that gets into the press, the first thing journalists will ask—and, I suspect, the first thing that some Members will ask—is “Why did the police not tell us?” There will be what is almost a default position at the very first line of defence. Should we take the precautionary attitude, even though we have not investigated the matter fully, rather than take the risk that this could be a bad individual who could repeat the offence and hurt someone else? Let us report it to the panel. I suspect that once the panel gets credible information, as it is described, from the police, there will not be too much willingness on the panel’s part to sit back and say, “Let’s look at these allegations a bit more closely”, especially if the individual concerned does not even have the opportunity to argue the case to the panel that the allegations are totally spurious.

Of course the allegations might be genuine, but we know that there are a number of people out there who do not like our politics, who do not like MPs full stop or who think we are all a bunch of wasters, and there are also some disturbed individuals, and they will make allegations. We have evidence of the police being given allegations—the Carl Beech case and Operation Midland are good examples—and of individuals being dragged through the dirt, with no charges ever being made but reputations being ruined. We cannot ignore the fact that if we take a cautionary approach because people are afraid of what might happen if we do not act immediately, individuals in this House could find their reputations damaged.

Let us look at what the impact will be. We have heard tonight that this is not about exclusion and that this process might never be used, but the very title of this debate, “risk-based exclusion”, indicates where this is going. An individual is going to find themselves unable to do their duties in this House, on the basis of credible information that has not even reached the point of the police thinking it serious enough to arrest them, question them and charge them. They cannot do their job. They can proxy vote, but that is not the main job of an MP. The main job of an MP is to listen to constituents here, to take part in debates, to express views, to go into Committees and to try and shape legislation, but they will be excluded from doing all that.

The report indicates that

“the Commission is not proposing any changes to what Members can and cannot do while absent from the estate”,

but the logic is that we cannot stop there. If we think that someone is a risk to individuals here, they will be a risk to individuals elsewhere as well.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I agree in principle that some safeguarding measures should be taken outside the House, but the right hon. Gentleman is failing to recognise that this is about our duties as a House. What would it mean, in a context where we had chosen not to act to put some sort of safeguarding policies and procedures in place, if someone who we chose not to exclude—were that proportionate and reasonable—went on to reoffend? This is about what our responsibilities and duties would be as employers and as a House, if we allowed that to happen.

[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.

[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.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I want to pick up the right hon. Gentleman on his use of the term “sanctions.” Again, when we talk about a risk-based approach and about mitigating some of those risks, exclusion is not a sanction. Exclusion is a safeguarding proposal that is done without prejudice, in the same way that, in any other workplace, people can be suspended while an investigation is carried out, for safeguarding purposes. We have 650 individual employers, as well as the House itself, so does he not think that we have the same duties and responsibilities around safeguarding as any other workplace?

[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.