MPs face being barred from attending Parliament if they are arrested for serious sexual or violent offences after the Commons voted to reverse moves to water down the measures.
The House of Commons Commission initially proposed that a risk assessment would take place on whether an MP should be prevented from attending the parliamentary estate if they were arrested on suspicion of committing a violent or sexual offence.
The proposal was later revised so that the threshold for a ban was at the point of charge.
READ MORE: Why didn't Scotland vote Yes in 2014? New survey aims to find answer
But MPs voted 170 to 169, majority one, in favour of a proposal from North East Fife LibDem MP Wendy Chamberlain (below) to revert to the threshold being an arrest.
The division list showed eight Conservative MPs voted in favour of the amendment, including former prime minister Theresa May, while Natalie Elphicke – who defected to Labour from the Tories last week – also supported it.
MPs have previously only been prevented from attending the parliamentary estate by voluntary arrangements with their own party whips under such circumstances.
Chamberlain said: “It is not about the guilt or innocence of any individual MP, but about safeguarding. It’s really important that Parliament is just as safe as any other workplace and that everyone is held to account by similar rules.”
Labour former minister Sir Chris Bryant said: “I’m delighted. This is long overdue.
“Parliament should be no different from any other workplace.”
Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect trade union, said: “This is an important and overdue victory for common-sense and those working on the parliamentary estate.
“We have campaigned tirelessly for any MPs arrested for sexual or violent offences to be excluded from the estate at the point of arrest. These proposals must now be implemented as soon as possible.”
FDA general secretary Dave Penman described the result as a “significant victory” for the union’s members, staff and visitors on the parliamentary estate, adding: “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.”
Labour’s Jess Phillips (above), who also pressed the case for exclusion at the point of arrest, wrote on Twitter/X: “Shit! We won the vote by one.”
She had earlier told the Commons debate: “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.
“I notice these are not the people who have so far been mentioned much today and some of them told me what they wanted me to say.”
Phillips, reading out remarks, said: “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.”
She added: “I’m going to stand here and speak up for them because every single one of them wishes for this to be on arrest.”
Phillips, the MP for Birmingham Yardley, later said: “We seem to act like we’re some sort of superior beings and the people who currently get excluded are often young women, and I’ve dealt with cases who are young men, who never work in politics again.”
Conservative former minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg earlier described the plans for risk-based exclusion of MPs from Parliament as an “extraordinary power grab by standing orders to undermine a fundamental of our constitution”.
He said: “I know Members of Parliament talking about privilege sounds as if they are talking about themselves, but no, it is of our constituents to be represented, and they are not only represented by votes, indeed most of the time they are least represented by votes because they go the way of a government majority with one more or less not making a ha’p’orth (halfpennyworth) of difference.
“But the real representation is in this very room. It is not even in Westminster Hall or in committee, it is in this great cockpit of debate, and taking away that right by a cabal is against the constitution.”
READ MORE: Shona Craven: When Rishi Sunak refers to ‘us’, Scottish voters are ‘them’
Rees-Mogg said he did not have strong opinions about whether exclusions should be made at the point of arrest or charge, but added: “If we want to do this, let us find time or legislation and let us do it properly.”
Conservative former minister Sir Michael Ellis had also said there were constitutional and legal implications to excluding MPs on arrest.
He said: “There is a key principle here, there’s a golden thread that runs through our system that a person must not suffer imposition before guilt has been proven. And it is offensive against the laws of natural justice, and in fact contrary to human rights to do so.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel