DRAFT plans drawn up by MPs to tackle sexual harassment in Westminster are too vague and ineffective, critics have warned.
A leaked report from the cross-party working group set up to look at how complaints against MPs and peers should be dealt with, will, campaigners say, let the powerful off with a slap on the wrist.
The final report has yet to be published, and it is an early draft that is in the public domain.
There is supposedly some disagreement between the parties on what should actually be suggested.
Key to that is the proposal that MPs found guilty of sexual harassment be let off if they say sorry. The group, chaired by the leader of the House of Commons, Andrea Leadsom, includes 10 MPs and two staff members.
Pete Wishart is the SNP’s representative on the group but he was unwilling to comment on the leaked report.
The group was set up as the sexual harassment scandal engulfed Westminster, with a number of MPs being suspended and reprimanded over the way they had treated young women.
Other proposals in the early draft include establishing a sexual harassment helpline, and independent investigations. Aside from saying sorry, other punishments could include being forced to take modules on how to change their behaviour.
Leadsom said the working group was dealing with a “very serious matter” and insisted that she would not comment on a leaked document.
“We all recognise the need to change the culture in Westminster,” she added. “The working group will meet as soon as Parliament returns to make further progress in creating an independent complaints procedure. In the meantime, interim support has been put in place by the House authorities.”
Sophie Walker, the leader of the Women’s Equality Party, said the draft measures did not go far enough. She said: “Parties obviously should not be in charge of looking at allegations made against their own MPs, and the report acknowledges that there needs to be an independent process of investigation.
“It also acknowledges that the sanctions on those found guilty need to be toughened, so the fact that the group cannot agree to focus on these as a priority is doubly disappointing. This leaked report proves Westminster is unwilling and unable to confront its sexual harassment problem.”
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