MPs' misconduct cases need professional HR, say former whips

Former senior party whips have told the BBC a "professional" HR system is needed in Parliament to handle sexual misconduct allegations against MPs.

It comes ahead of a debate on Monday on whether to ban some MPs under investigation for violent or sexual offences from Parliament.

Currently, there is no single authority at Westminster that deals with sexual misconduct cases against MPs.

Whips are senior MPs in charge of their party's discipline and welfare.

But they are often expected to handle misconduct cases.

Some allegations are reported to Parliament's Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, some to parties or whips, some to the Commons Speaker or leader of the House, and some to police.

The BBC has spoken to multiple senior MPs and former MPs, who have served as whips for different parties.

Many argue Parliament needs a formal HR system to stop allegations being dealt with in different ways, on a case-by-case basis.

"There should be a better HR system for the employment of members' staff," said a former chief whip, who wanted not to be identified.

MPs currently hire their staff directly, but the former chief whip argued they should be employed in the same way as ministers' special advisers.

"Although they are the appointment of the minister, they are centrally employed, and come under the HR umbrella of the rest of the civil service.

"That would give [MPs' staff] the protection of being able to speak to somebody else other than their employer, where it might be a very small office.

"So their employer is not necessarily the member of Parliament, but the House authorities," they said.

Others the BBC spoke to, who have served as whips, also said they wanted HR "beefed up" to help resolve grievances and other issues, citing a lack of clarity and training for whips on how to handle such cases beyond directing individuals to complaint processes, support services, or even the police.

Former deputy chief whip Anne Milton told the BBC: "In the short period of time I was involved with the allegations against Charlie Elphicke, I was clear that the whips' office was not the place to consider issues such as this.

"You can help people through difficult periods in their life - but the whips' offices are not equipped and don't have the expertise to deal with complaints of this nature."

Elphicke was a Conservative MP who was suspended by the party after "serious allegations" were referred to the police, and was subsequently convicted of sexual assault.

Ms Milton added: "I felt that the House of Commons - because allegations of misbehaviour or sexual harassment or sexual assault bring the House of Commons into disrepute - that the House of Commons needs to deal with that.

"You need a process that should be handled by an external organisation, who are professionals, to investigate allegations swiftly."

She said the whips' office was an instrument of the party leadership - and in the case of the government, its role was to get government business through Parliament.

"The whips' offices do not have the HR skills needed."

Ms Milton said Parliament "absolutely" needed HR professionals.

"Trying to crack the nut of MPs acting like small businesses is quite a difficult nut to crack. But using an external agency to resolve workplace issues is not difficult.

"Neither Parliament nor the whips' offices are equipped to do it. This is highly specialised stuff."

She said whips could remove the whip from MPs, but "that's a political party decision".

"The whips shouldn't be enacting sanctions as part of the complaints process. It may be considered prudent by a political party to withdraw the whip pending an investigation."

Current MPs have also raised concerns about a lack of "HR professionals" to deal with cases like this.

One Conservative MP said: "Where does the buck stop? The whips, the police, the Speaker, there's also the parties. I don't see that there is any formal coming together of those."

Parties often "live in fear of someone saying: 'why didn't you take action?' That's where the judgement comes," they added.

This MP said that, while they still wanted a say in who their staff were, "I do think there's a benefit in more HR support for MPs - I'm not an HR expert."

They compared MPs employing their own staff with Parliament "dealing in effect with 650 small businesses".

Another former chief whip the BBC spoke to echoed the argument for "external supervision", saying the role of the whips was to "look after their flock, not to sit in judgement of them", and to persuade them to vote with their party the "right" way.

On Monday, MPs will debate proposals to bar some MPs under criminal investigation for violent or sexual offences from setting foot in Parliament.

If approved, the plans could allow MPs or peers to be barred from the Houses of Parliament if they are deemed to pose a risk.

The exclusion would apply to the parliamentary estate in Westminster and any parliamentary-funded travel.

MPs are being asked to have their say on the plans, but a formal vote has yet to be arranged.

The Commission has proposed that if the parliamentary authorities were presented with credible allegations of a sexual or violent offence by the police at any point in the criminal justice process, a staff panel would assess the claims.

If the panel undertook a full risk assessment on the basis of information provided by the police, it would consider the nature of the alleged misconduct and whether there were any safeguarding concerns.

If this led to exclusion being recommended, this would be put to an adjudication panel for a decision.

Under the proposals, excluded members would get a proxy vote so their constituents were not disadvantaged.

The BBC has been told there is some disagreement on the plans - with a number of MPs arguing members should not be excluded unless they are charged by police, and others arguing that the threshold for exclusion should be lower.

One former chief whip said excluding people who had not been charged flew "against natural justice".

"Allegations can be made against members of parliament that may be false, and they may be made in a vexatious way."

Ms Milton said she believed Parliament should be able to vote on excluding MPs from the Commons, because it was "quite a serious issue democratically".

"Their [MPs'] job is to hold the government to account. If you're going to withdraw an MP's ability to do this on behalf of their constituents. that's serious enough for the whole House to make a decision."