Tom Nathan and Tommy Newell explain why MPs’ recent vote to introduce risk-based exclusion at the point of arrest – giving House authorities the power to exclude MPs accused of sexual or violent offences from the Parliamentary Estate – is so significant, and outline the FDA’s work to help make this happen.

 

For FDA National Officer Jawad Raza, it was always clear that staff who work in Parliament should be entitled to the same protections as staff in any other workplace across the country.

If somebody is accused of serious sexual or violent misconduct, it is fair to expect them to be suspended from the workplace while an investigation is conducted. MPs, however, have always been the exception. Our representatives in Westminster were held to lower standard of conduct than their own staff.  

Even if arrested and charged, there was no formal mechanism to bar MPs from access to the Parliamentary Estate.  Those facing serious allegations were free to vote, attend select committee hearings and come and go as they pleased.

In a significant win for the FDA and our members, this has now changed. 

In mid-May, MPs voted to introduce a formal mechanism to risk-assess any MP if they are arrested. This has also given Parliamentary authorities new powers to exclude MPs accused of sexual or violent offences from the Parliamentary Estate as a precaution to protect colleagues, staff and visitors. 

“For too long, Parliament’s reputation has been tarnished and the confidence and trust of House staff undermined by the seemingly endless stream of allegations of sexual misconduct,” Raza said. “The introduction of risk-based exclusion at the point of arrest represents action that matches the rhetoric of ‘zero tolerance’ that we have heard from all political parties.”

The FDA National Officer described the vote as a “significant victory for the FDA, our members and all staff and visitors on the Parliamentary Estate. 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”.

Employers have a legal duty to provide a safe working environment and protect staff from work-related violence and aggression, which includes physical attacks.

“there was previously no formal process to compel MPs accused of serious misconduct from entering the estate”

However, unlike the vast majority of workplaces across the UK, there was previously no formal process to compel MPs accused of serious misconduct from entering the estate. Parliament came to rely on voluntary ‘gentleman’s agreements’, in which MPs would agree to not attend but could face no sanctions if they broke this promise. Concerns regarding this approach were not hypothetical. For example, former MP Imran Ahmad Khan attended the House of Commons while awaiting trial, after being charged with sexual assault. He was later found guilty of sexually assaulting a 15 year-old and jailed for 18 months.  Parliamentary staff have been subjected to unsafe working conditions, forced to work alongside an MP who were being investigated for sexual misconduct. And this is not a one-off case.

The road to get here was not a simple one, with the FDA having to overcome many obstacles in its long-running campaign to tackle bullying and harassment at Westminster.

When calls for an inquiry into risk-based exclusion were rejected by the House of Commons Procedure Committee back in May 2022, Raza said that the decision to not even explore the options available was “clearly unacceptable”.

Raza never shied away from the unique constitutional challenges such a policy would have to deal with, but argued that “solutions can always be found”. Indeed, the FDA had faced similar opposition in its campaign for an independent complaints system in Parliament, which eventually led to the successful implementation of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) and Independent Expert Panel (IEP) (see timeline). 

Alongside the FDA’s sister unions across Parliament, the unio continued its campaign which eventually led to the House of Commons Commission launching its consultation on the risk-based exclusion of MPs.

The FDA engaged with the consultation, providing evidence and endorsing the Commission’s proposals, which were published in June 2023. However, implementation faced delay after delay, diminishing hopes the proposals would ever be implemented in full.

In a joint letter to the leaders of the major parties at Westminster in November 2023, FDA General Secretary Dave Penman and Prospect General Secretary Mike Clancy warned that “the trust and confidence of Parliamentary staff – let alone the wider public – cannot be re-established unless the parties themselves commit to take stronger action, and to act with Parliament to ensure the highest possible standards”.

The following month, the House of Commons Commission released updated proposals on a risk-based exclusion policy. Now, the FDA’s focus was on ensuring it would be implemented as quickly as possible, with Raza calling on political leaders to take “ownership of this issue”.

The opponents of the introduction of some form of risk-based exclusion highlighted that MPs are in a unique position. The argument focused on the constitutional and democratic impact of preventing MPs from attending Parliament. For example, how MPs would participate in votes and the electoral impact of vexatious complaints. The successful motion utilised technological and pragmatic solutions – such as using proxy voting to allow democratic business to be carried out – to mitigate these concerns.  

The House of Commons Commission also heard from other public office holders who are subject to risk-based exclusion. The Commission’s consultation took evidence from representatives of the Bar Standards Board and the Church of England on how the handle allegations and exclusion of judges and Bishops. This helped demonstrate that protecting staff was compatible with MPs’ unique position. 

The introduction of risk-based exclusion at the point of arrest is a step towards a safe working environment for all staff. The motion that was voted on in May was brought forward in April by then-Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt. However, the motion proposed that the risk posed by an MP would only be assessed after they were charged with a crime by the police. This would have meant MPs were held to a lower standard than their own staff. 

Thankfully, an amendment that brought the risk assessment back to the point of arrest – put forward by Wendy Chamberlain MP, Jess Phillips MP and others – was chosen by the Speaker. The motion, with the amendment, dramatically passed 170 to 169. 

Prior to the vote, Phillips discussed her conversations with victims of MPs’ misconduct:

“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.”

For Raza, the amended motion passing was also symbolic: “Having voted for a fully independent process for dealing with complaints of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, MPs have now voted to take a further significant step forward to improve the culture of the Parliament.”

Responding immediately after the vote in the House of Commons, FDA General Secretary Dave Penman said: 

“For too long, Parliament’s reputation has been tarnished and the confidence and trust of House staff undermined by the seemingly endless stream of allegations of sexual misconduct. The introduction of risk-based exclusion at the point of arrest represents action that matches the rhetoric of “zero tolerance” that we have heard from all political parties.”

Looking to the future, Raza considers how the FDA can continue to build on this win:

“As Paul Kernaghan recommended in his recent review both the main political parties and the Parliamentary authorities should now draft and agree a formal protocol to share information they receive to highlight, manage and inform the risk assessment.  

“We are also pleased to hear that many new MPs have attended and welcomed training on Parliament’s behaviour code. This should be made mandatory as has been recommended.

“Parliament is in a better place and this is now a good opportunity to build on what has been achieved so far”

“Parliament is in a better place and this is now a good opportunity to build on what has been achieved so far with the ICGS, and ensure these measures continue to improve the Parliamentary landscape.”