A controversial move in the UK Parliament now requires MPs to be formally charged with a violent or sexual offence before being banned from the parliamentary estate, triggering criticism over workplace safety.
A revised proposal in the UK Parliament now stipulates that Members of Parliament (MPs) will only be banned from attending the parliamentary estate if they are formally charged with a violent or sexual offence, a significant modification from the initial plan which would have triggered exclusion upon arrest. This development follows discussions and feedback within the House of Commons Commission, which includes figures such as Commons Leader Penny Mordaunt and Labour’s Lucy Powell.
The adjustment means that a risk assessment to consider banning an MP will now commence at the point of charge based on information provided by the police, instead of at the moment of arrest for a serious offence. This move has sparked criticism from various quarters, including some senior Tories and unions representing parliamentary workers, like the Prospect trade union. They argue that the change constitutes a step back in ensuring the safety of staff and members on the parliamentary estate, aiming to protect them from potential risks posed by individuals facing serious allegations.
This policy shift has particularly disappointed those advocating for more stringent measures to safeguard individuals within the parliamentary workplace from accused persons. Critics assert that the revised policy dilutes efforts to maintain a safe work environment, especially after instances where MPs under investigation returned to the parliamentary estate.
Despite the criticism, the Commons Commission is proceeding with the formal arrangements for the ban, aiming to establish the threshold at which an MP could be banned. The issue came under intense scrutiny following calls from Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer for swift action to exclude MPs arrested for serious crimes.
The controversy surrounding the revised proposal centers on balancing the need for a safe working environment on the parliamentary estate against the rights of MPs who have not been convicted of a crime. The debate over the appropriate threshold for exclusion—arrest versus charge—reflects broader concerns about workplace safety, due process, and the reputation of the parliamentary institution.
MPs are expected to debate the proposed changes in the upcoming days, with further communication from the government anticipated.
