Vote means MPs’ ban from Parliament is after being ACCUSED of crime
A Commons’ vote means MPs’ ban from Parliament is after being accused of crime – not after being charged – by a margin of just one vote.
MPs voted by 170 to 169 for MPs accused of serious sexual or violent offences to face a ban from attending Parliament, in spite of a government motion calling for the ban to be invoked only if alleged offenders are charged. It was a free vote; nobody was whipped to follow a party line, so MPs were able to act according to their consciences.
This Site discussed the issue in an article last week:
Original plans were for Parliament to be able to exclude MPs at any point in a criminal investigation, such as on arrest – but Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt has watered-down these proposals, saying they would only be banned if they had been charged by police.
This runs against the findings of the House of Commons Commission, which carried out a consultation on the plans and called for exclusions to happen at any time after an arrest, after concerns were raised about the length of time that could elapse between arrest and charge.
Mordaunt says her reason for rolling back the plans is that MPs are concerned about the detrimental effect that having no voice in Parliament would have on communities.
This Writer is not convinced by that argument. Who wants to have someone accused of sexual offences speaking for them in Parliament?
Also, the civil service union Prospect has condemned Mordaunt’s revision as a “massively retrograde step” that will “dismay all staff at Westminster”.
Reading between the lines, it suggests that civil servants who work for our MPs are worried that Mordaunt is offering offenders an extended opportunity to prey on them.
That last point seems to have been borne out by the words of former shadow domestic violence minister Jess Phillips, who 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 one per cent of cases. ‘So what’s the point?’ was essentially what this victim said to me.”
From now on, if an MP is arrested for a serious sexual or violent crime, a risk assessment will be carried out by a panel appointed by the Speaker. The identity of the MP concerned will not be given to this group.
The panel will decide on appropriate measures, including exclusion. Other MPs may not lobby the panel in order to influence its decision.
I find it curious that Charlie Elphicke, who was charged with sexual offences but was not banned from Parliament until he had been found to have tried to interfere with the judge in his case, was not mentioned at all in news reports of the debate.
Monday’s vote was highly topical because his ex-wife Natalie defected to the Labour Party from the Conservatives last week, calling back to public attention her husband’s crimes, along with his attempts to influence justice – and her own.
I stated last week that we should all pay attention to what our own MPs do, and it should inform our decisions at the general election.
You can find out what your MP did by checking the vote here. Interestingly, Natalie Elphicke supported the call for a ban after arrest rather than charge.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
“Who wants to have someone accused of sexual offences speaking for them in Parliament?”
More to the point, nobody elected john woodcock (aka Lord walnut) to the Lords.
OK, so he wasn’t arrested for sexual offences, but he resigned his party membership to escape investigation of sexual harassment, and pretended it was down to “antisemitism”.
Now he’s telling parliament they should ban lawful protest!
Of course someone will argue about the definition of ‘accused’ Does a single person making a single accusation mean the MP is excluded? Does it have to be a police matter? Surely ‘being interviewed’ by police doesn’t constitute an accusation therefore? The police might take no further action after all. Being charged? Surely that IS an accusation? Getting a court date, definitely an accusation. The vote means nothing until they have fully defined the word ‘accusation’..