Commons approves plans to exclude from parliament MPs arrested on suspicion of serious offence

Published

6 months ago

May 14, 2024

admin

MPs arrested on suspicion of a serious offence face being barred from parliament under new plans approved in a vote on Monday night.

It comes despite the government putting forward a motion that recommended MPs only face a ban if they are charged with a violent or sexual offence – a higher bar.

On Monday night, MPs voted to reverse government moves to water down the measures on “risk-based exclusions” to ensure members can be excluded from parliament at the point of arrest for serious sexual or violent offences, in line with the original recommendation from the House of Commons Commission.

The commission’s initial proposal was later revised by the government to raise the threshold for a potential ban to the point of charge.

But in a surprise move, MPs voted 170 to 169, a majority of one, in favour of an amendment by Lib Dem MP Wendy Chamberlain and Labour MP Jess Phillips to reinstate the original intention of the policy.

MPs were given a free vote on the matter, meaning they were not forced to vote along party lines.

Politics latest: Court ruling ‘blows PM’s claims about Rwanda plan out of the water’

The division list showed eight Conservative MPs voted in favour of the opposition amendment, including safeguarding minister Laura Farris, former prime minister Theresa May and backbench MP Theresa Villiers.

Ms Villiers was herself recommended for a suspension from the Commons for one day in 2021 after she and several other Conservative MPs breached the code of conduct by trying to influence a judge in the trial of former MP Charlie Elphicke, who was convicted in 2020 of sexually assaulting two women and jailed for two years.

The result means those who have been arrested on suspicion of a violent or sexual offence will be banned from parliament, pending the approval of an independent panel.

Mike Clancy, the general secretary of the Prospect trade union, said the outcome was an “important and overdue victory for common-sense and those working on the parliamentary estate”, while FDA general secretary Dave Penman added: “Parliament is a workplace for thousands and these new formal procedures give staff the safe working environment they deserve and would expect in any other workplace.”

Ms Phillips, who advocated for the case for exclusion at the point of arrest, wrote on X: “Shit! We won the vote by one.”

In the debate preceding the vote, she told the Commons: “Today, just on this one day, I have spoken to two women who were raped by members of this parliament; that’s a fairly standard day for me.

“Exclusion at the point of charge sends a clear message to victims that not only will we not investigate unless a victim goes to the police but we won’t act unless they’re charged, which happens in less than 1% of cases. ‘So what’s the point?’ was essentially what this victim said to me.”

No hiding place for suspected Commons sex pests

Jon Craig

Chief political correspondent

@joncraig

In a dramatic knife-edge vote, MPs have voted that there should be no hiding place for suspected Commons sex pests.

Former prime minister Theresa May led a small group of eight Conservatives voting with Opposition MPs to defy the Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt.

To the fury of many Opposition MPs, Ms Mordaunt wanted MPs accused of serious sex or violent offences to be barred from parliament only when they’re charged.

It was officially a free vote. But the vast bulk of MPs voting to delay a ban until a charge were Conservatives, including several Cabinet ministers.

That was brave, so close to a general election. Surely those MPs who voted against a ban upon arrest will be attacked by their political opponents at the election for being soft on suspected sex pests?

The timing of the vote was perhaps unfortunate, coming amid renewed controversy earlier this week over sex pest Charlie Elphicke, the former Conservative MP who was jailed for sex offences.

At the weekend his ex-wife Natalie, who defected from the Conservatives to Labour last week, was accused of lobbying a former justice secretary, Sir Robert Buckland, on his behalf, an allegation she dismissed as “nonsense”.

And despite missing the weekly meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party earlier, Ms Elphicke duly voted with her new colleagues for a ban which would have almost certainly penalised her ex-husband had it been in force.

After the vote, leading supporters of the arrest ban were jubilant and stunned by the closeness of the vote. “Incredible!” Labour’s Stella Creasy told Sky News. Mr Rees-Mogg, however, condemned the proposal as a “power grab”.

It’s a historic vote. It doesn’t matter how close it was. Accusers will argue they’re now better protected. And MPs who supported the tougher ban argue that it brings the Commons into line with other workplaces.

Well, up to a point. MPs still have many perks and privileges that other employers and employees don’t. And Parliament still has a long way to go before its working practices and grievance procedures are brought fully up to date.

The exclusion policy was put forward following a number of incidents involving MPs in recent years and concerns about the safety of those working in parliament.

Currently, party whips decide if and when an MP accused of an offence should be prevented from attending the parliamentary estate.

Under the new plans, a risk assessment will take place when the Clerk of the House is informed by the police that an MP has been arrested on suspicion of committing a violent or sexual offence.

The risk assessment will be carried out by a risk assessment panel, appointed by Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle.

Commons leader Penny Mordaunt cited the “large” number of “vexatious” claims lodged against colleagues as a reason to require a member to be charged before exclusion.

Former minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg used the debate to describe the exclusion plans as an “extraordinary power grab by standing orders to undermine a fundamental of our constitution”, while Sir Michael Ellis, a former attorney general, said: “A person must not suffer imposition before guilt has been proven.”

Politics

NHS league tables and cancelled pay rises for managers among government health reforms

Published

4 hours ago

November 13, 2024

admin

NHS league tables and cancelled pay rises for managers among government health reforms

NHS league tables revealing failing NHS trusts and cancelled pay rises or dismissal for managers who don’t turn things around are to form part of the government’s plans to improve the health service.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting is confirming new measures he hopes will boost failing hospital trusts and encourage successful ones.

The changes form part of the Labour government’s strategy to reduce waiting lists “from 18 months to 18 weeks”.

Politics latest: ‘Eye-watering’ climate target announced by PM

Health and the state of the NHS were consistently among the most important issues for voters at this year’s general election – with Labour blaming the Conservatives for “breaking” it.

As health is a devolved area, any reforms proposed in Westminster would only apply to England.

Chief among Mr Streeting’s proposals is a “league table” for NHS trusts.

An announcement from the Department for Health and Social Care said: “NHS England will carry out a no-holds-barred sweeping review of NHS performance across the entire country, with providers to be placed into a league table.

“This will be made public and regularly updated to ensure leaders, policy-makers and patients know which improvements need to be prioritised.”

It also promises to replace “persistently failing managers” – with “turn around teams” being sent in to improve trusts running sizeable deficits or offering poor service to patients.

The government says “senior managers” who fail to make progress will not be eligible for pay rises.

There will be “financial implications” for more senior figures such as chief executives if their trust does not improve.

On the flip-side, those trusts that are deemed to be “high-performing” will get “greater freedom over funding and flexibility”.

Senior leaders at these trusts will also be “rewarded”.

The government says the current system is not incentivising trusts to run a budget surplus, as they cannot benefit from it.

Mr Streeting said: “The budget showed this government prioritises the NHS, providing the investment needed to rebuild the health service.

“Today we are announcing the reforms to make sure every penny of extra investment is well spent and cuts waiting times for patients.

“There’ll be no more turning a blind eye to failure. We will drive the health service to improve, so patients get more out of it for what taxpayers put in.

“Our health service must attract top talent, be far more transparent to the public who pay for it, and run as efficiently as global businesses.

“With the combination of investment and reform, we will turn the NHS around and cut waiting times from 18 months to 18 weeks.”

Concerns from health representatives

Amanda Pritchard, the chief executive of NHS England, said: “While NHS leaders welcome accountability, it is critical that responsibility comes with the necessary support and development.

“The extensive package of reforms, developed together with government, will empower all leaders working in the NHS and it will give them the tools they need to provide the best possible services for our patients.”

Further plans on how monitoring will be published by the start of the next financial year in April 2025, the government said.

Matthew Taylor, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation – a body that represents all NHS trusts – said healthcare leaders welcome the “government’s ambition”.

However, he said he was concerned league tables and reducing pay may “strip out” the nuance of what’s going on.

👉 Listen to Politics At Jack And Sam’s on your podcast app👈

Mr Taylor said: “NHS staff are doing their very best for patients under very challenging circumstances and we do not want them feeling like they are being named and shamed.

“League tables in themselves do not lead to improvement, trusts struggling with consistent performance issues – some of which reflect contextual issues such as underlying population heath and staff shortages – need to be identified and supported in order to recover.”