Sammy Wilson
MP for East Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · United Kingdom
“I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Foreign Secretary has said that his concern is for the behaviour of some settlers on the west bank, and I think we all share that, but does he accept that the fear of losing votes to the Green party and the independent Members on the Bench behind me is also…”
“It is a sad state of affairs when ordinary people feel compelled to take direct action against illegal immigration into our country as a result of successive Governments failing to stop the invasion of our country by illegal immigrants, aided by criminal gangs.”
“The Chancellor has rightly identified trade frictions as a major impediment to economic growth. As a result of the Windsor framework, the internal market in the UK has been severely disrupted by EU-imposed restrictions on trade, which mean customs unions, mountains of paperwork and physical barriers. What steps does the right hon.”
“We would not need these regulations were it not for EU regulations having to apply to a certain part of the United Kingdom because it is regarded as part of the EU, regardless of the democratic vote of the British people to leave the EU. This is not about protecting biodiversity.”
“Because they are now subject to all these additional regulations. If they do not abide by those regulations—we have already seen this—those goods can be seized, destroyed, re-exported or detained by DAERA in Northern Ireland. That is not something which is just a maybe; it happens currently.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The Minister outlined why these regulations were necessary and gave what, to most on the Committee, would be an acceptable argument: they are to protect biodiversity in Northern Ireland and to ensure that diseased plants are not accessing the Northern Ireland market.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,500 lines we hold for Sammy Wilson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 90.
“This was despite the fact that there are stacks of schools that do not have “Integrated” above the door, but that are more integrated than some integrated schools. That will result in additional pressures on the education budget. I am not so sure that some of the decisions made by the Executive on how the money is spent are always the best. There is one in the area of education and in the area of health as well. I know I am going to incur the ire of some of my own colleagues, and maybe some other hon. Members, by saying this, but in Belfast we have four major hospitals. Four major hospitals for a city of—what? Some 300,000 people? Are there really not better ways of spending that money to ensure proper health provision? Yet we spend it— [ Interruption. ] And that is exactly the debate that has to be had.”
“I think the point that I made was an indication of that. It is not just about getting money so that we can spend it willy-nilly and not care about how it is spent. It must be spent in the best way possible. If we take education in Northern Ireland, for example, we have five different sectors, and in some cases a surplus of desks and, therefore, unnecessary schools that could be closed, amalgamated or whatever. The irony of this—this is where I take issue with some of the decisions by the Northern Ireland Executive—is that one of the last acts that the Assembly undertook was that, despite the surplus of places in existing schools in Northern Ireland, special provision had to be given to opening new schools that had “Integrated” above the door.”
“Furthermore, since the Minister indicates that the Barnett consequentials that should be coming through will not come through this year because of the overspend in previous years, when it comes to the payment of nurses, teachers and so on, there will be greater pressures on the budgets of various Departments across Northern Ireland. I do not know whether those are reflected in this budget. That is why it must be accepted that, until the Government are prepared to look at measures that create the grounds for the formation of the Executive again, this issue will rest with the Secretary of State and he will have to take responsibility for it.”
“That is the whole point. Ministers have had the Bengoa report, as the hon. Lady says, for years. They have never acted on it. Indeed, some of the health reforms that were acted on and some of the politically difficult changes that were made in Health were made by a DUP Minister. We have given the lead on trying to deal with some of the spending issues. However, even with those savings, there are still the issues of fairness, of whether the Budget is sustainable, and of why we are not implementing in Northern Ireland the kind of budget reallocations that are implemented in other parts of the United Kingdom. We will find the issues arising from this budget coming back to the Floor of this House time and again, because Departments are not going to be able to work within the existing budgets.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that a financial allocation made on a purely needs basis would provide the resources to start addressing some of those needs? For example, if there were a high number of people claiming unemployment benefit because they had mental health problems, money could go into the health service to deal with those problems and get them into work, or for people unemployed because they did not have skills, the money could be used on technical education to give them the skills so that they could get back into work. The vicious circle that has been spoken about could be addressed by having the resources to deal with that.”
“There is no doubt that fuel costs are driving up inflation, especially in rural areas. I think the fuel price checker has had a dampening effect in Northern Ireland because the supermarkets are always aware that that they are being looked on. However, does the Minister accept that his Government also have a responsibility? Net zero policies, with all their associated taxes—whether it is the emissions trading scheme, green levies or fuel duties—drive up prices, too. The Government have a role to play in reducing inflation as well as in transparency on supermarket prices.”
“Sex and relationships education is not some mechanical thing. The Catholic Church notes that the Department says, for the purpose of legislation, that the education should be “age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate,” but the Church points out: “In every major democratic jurisdiction, issues such as abortion, gender bioethics, human sexuality, are highly contested scientific and ethical issues, subject to democratic debate and shifting electoral and legislative positions.””
“Church representatives play active roles in school management boards, and the result is that relationship and sexuality education, although a recommended part of the primary and post-primary statutory curriculum of the Department of Education, is underdeveloped…it is at the school’s discretion to implement the contents of the curriculum according to its values and ethos.” That is the crux of the issue, and that is why all members of the Committee should be concerned about the issue. Because what does the Department now say? It says that what goes on in schools is not good enough. Why, and what is the specific complaint? Because schools, boards of governors, teachers and parents insist that this part of the curriculum has attached to it some of their religious values—what their faith dictates.”
“Schools have the teaching, there was action being taken in the Department of Education, and the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment was already preparing new materials. Work was being done. Here is the crucial thing: the objection was that what was happening in schools had a value base to it. Schools, teachers and various parents were demanding that this education should not be a valueless exercise. Quite frankly, the reason it is sensitive is that values do get attached to it. I will read out the answer from the CEDAW report: “Most children in Northern Ireland attend denominational schools, either Catholic or Protestant.”
“Consultation is even more important because, as the Secretary of State says, we do not have the legislative Assembly, in which these things could be debated. I thought that would have strengthened the case for consultation, not weakened it. That is why I say that he has trampled over this issue like some rogue elephant, not concerned at all about the impact that it has. Thirdly, the measure does not respect faith. Let us look at why the Secretary of State has said that it is so essential. It is not that there was not action being taken. Schools already have relationships and sex education. The question is whether it is adequate, or whether it meets the standards that CEDAW has demanded. The Education Minister—in fact, even CEDAW has accepted this—was already starting to do work.”
“The Presbyterian Church has pointed out that its members on boards of governors will be implementing this guidance. At the end of the day, if there are legal cases, complaints and accusations that the law was broken, it is not the Minister, the Department of Education or the education authority, but the boards of governors that will be held responsible. Whether that is in Catholic maintained schools, state-controlled schools, voluntary grammar schools or integrated schools—whatever it happens to be—they will be the people held responsible, yet they have not been consulted about any of this. There is a very strong case for consultation. A judge has instructed—or suggested—that there should be consultation, and each of the providers has also made a case. Since they will be responsible, why were they not consulted in the first place?”
“Since the curriculum and the guidance here is up for review, whatever comes in in Northern Ireland could be out of sync with what happens in England. We have not been treated the same as England. When the abortion legislation went through, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children took a judicial review. In that review, the judge made it quite clear that although there had been consultation on the principle of abortion in Northern Ireland, there had been no consultation on education and how it would work out in the education system. The judge specifically said that the Secretary of State would be mindful of the opportunity for consultation, but he has ignored that as well. There has not been any consultation with the various stakeholders, who have made a very strong case for consultation.”
“If it leads to the House being circumvented and safeguards for parents not being in place, there is every reason to ignore it. We have not only circumvented the procedures of this House but not had any consultation. Members have asked about the differences between what will happen in Northern Ireland and what happens in England. The first difference is that when the guidelines were introduced in England, there was full consultation. They were made on the basis of consulting all interested parties. That will not be the case in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we do not yet know what guidance will be given to schools, or what the opt-outs for parents are likely to be. We do not even know whether the regime in Northern Ireland will be similar to the regime in the rest of the United Kingdom.”
“These regulations came into effect on the day they were laid, with the paltry excuse of, “Oh, we have to adhere to a timetable because we have to work towards the 1 January 2024 deadline.” That deadline was not imposed by anybody. It was a decision made by the Secretary of State. It is really odd. If that decision was made to ensure that the regulations come into effect in schools, does he really think that a new curriculum and everything else will come in the middle of a school year? The idea that this had to be done by 1 January, and that was the justification for circumventing parliamentary procedure, is just not sustainable. Indeed, the other House has already asked the Government why there is a need for the 1 January deadline.”
“In fact, maybe I should thank him because in the last local government elections he probably added about 5% to our vote because the way he dismissed people’s concerns angered them so much. Again, we are seeing this tonight. This is a sensitive issue yet the regulations were brought in with speed and without consultation. It does not respect the deep faith that people—parents, teachers and school boards of governors—have, and it does not even provide for a parental opt-out. In fact, the Secretary of State has already admitted that the parental opt-out might not be available by the time this comes into force. Why the speed? In fact, on this sensitive issue, we have even circumvented the normal process in this House. Normally regulations are laid before Parliament and come into effect after 21 days.”
“First, the Secretary of State hit the nail on the head at the beginning of his speech: this is a sensitive issue. Yet he has trampled all over it like some kind of rogue, rampaging political elephant, not caring two hoots about the sensitivities. I will justify that statement in a moment. Secondly, there is no point harking back and saying, “Well, if you wanted to do this—if you want it done in Northern Ireland and if you want the Northern Ireland input—get the Assembly up and running.” Many people take that view. The Assembly is not up and running because this Government have decided to dispense with the central pillar of the Good Friday agreement—namely the need for the consent of both communities, with the Secretary of State arrogantly dismissing the concerns of the Unionist community.”
“Believe you me, Secretary of State, if you think that by introducing it you will get a debate about how we should all get back into Stormont so that these things cannot be imposed on us, it will not work. The exact opposite will be the case. This is seen as pure vindictiveness. It has no justification. It is full of problems that have not been addressed and that, significantly, the Secretary of State did not address in his opening speech. I hope that he will address the issue of where the fairness is in this. Where are the safeguards for people who hold strong views on these issues and who will be affected by this legislation that he has introduced?”
“I can see why he is so vague about what is appropriate, about what opt-outs there will be for parents, and about the rights of those who feel that their faith is affected by value-free relationship and sex education in schools. I do not want to emphasise the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford, but progress is being made in the Assembly. I do not know when it will be up and running—I suppose that it will take longer than the Secretary of State hopes, because of the inactivity in dealing with real concerns about the Windsor framework—but why is this the most pressing problem for it? There is no legal case, as far as I know. There is no uprising by the population. I never had a letter or email about this issue until the Secretary of State introduced this legislation. Why is priority being given to this legislation?”
“It is not enough for the Secretary of State to say, “Well, there will be eventually.” If the grounds are so curtailed, it will not be an opt-out anyway, will it? And if the grounds are so wide, why is he introducing the legislation? He could find in some rural areas that parents totally refuse to do it. What about a small school with two or three teachers where all the teachers say, “This goes against our faith and our beliefs. We feel that we cannot give a class on abortion without injecting some values into it”? Who will teach it in that school? Will that school be penalised? Will the teachers be penalised? What will happen? Those are all questions that have been glossed over. I can see why the Secretary of State did not want consultation. I can see why he wanted to tighten the timetable in this House.”
“What will be the sanctions for those schools whose teachers or boards of governors say, “This is totally against our ethos. We can’t do this. We have got to bring our values into it”? What are the sanctions going to be? Does he want to make them all criminals? That has just been ignored in all this. The last issue is the whole thing about parental opt-out. The Secretary of State has said, “There will be parental opt-out provided for, we’ll have consultation on it and we’ll bring in guidance.” That will not be in place for 1 January, so the education could be in place—schools could be required to teach it, parents could be required to have their children go to it—and there would be no guidance on the grounds on which people can withdraw their children from it.”
““You want an abortion? You can have an abortion. You want to find out where you can get it? There’s all the addresses where you can get it. Does it matter what the reason is? No, it doesn’t, because we can’t teach anything about values.” That is why—my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford has said the same—I have had so many teachers, parents and boards of governors say to me, “This legislation can’t possibly be allowed.” The Secretary of State knows that this is sensitive, but he is prepared to walk over it all. I would like to hear from him how he intends to square the circle that, on the one hand, this has to be value-free, but on the other hand it is riven with value views. How does he square that circle? Whose side will he fall on?”
“Friend the Member for North Antrim pointed out, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 prevents that. It says that there should be equality of religious belief, political belief and so on. Section 76 says, “And you cannot discriminate against people on that basis.” That is the essence of our opposition to the regulations. What is appropriate? Who is going to decide what is appropriate? The Secretary of State says, “Oh, there’s going to be significant consultation,” but since he has already agreed that the outcome must be that what prevails in schools at present can no longer prevail, then the outcome of the guidance is very clear: teachers are going to find themselves constrained in what they teach, how they teach it and the values that they attach to it—in fact, they will not be allowed to teach them. This will be some mechanical thing.”
“In a society where we have strict laws against discrimination, it is contradictory. I want to challenge the Secretary of State. Where does that leave the likes of St Killian’s, a Catholic school in my constituency? I have great admiration for the work that it does. I commented on a speech made at its prize distribution one year—I go every year—and the principal said to me, “Why are you surprised that the speaker, in front of all the parents and children, should make such a value-based speech? After all, an important part of our education is not just to teach them to be good mathematicians or biologists or linguists, but to teach them the values that we hold dear and that their parents hold dear.” The impact of the regulations is that those people are discriminated against. As my hon.”
“It is going to get hotter! Here is the crux of the matter: if the Secretary of State insists on having valueless sexuality education—if that is the objective—then he is challenging those who teach it, he is challenging the parents whose children receive it and he is challenging the ethos of the schools. This is where the problem arises. In responding to the complaints of CEDAW—it does not like values being brought into this; it wants it to be value-free—the Secretary of State is saying to teachers, parents and the people who control various schools across Northern Ireland, “Your views don’t count any longer. They can’t count.” Either values are reflected in education or they are not, and we are going to demand in the curriculum and the guidance that people do not bring their values into it. In a free society, that is wrong.”
“The report said that outsourcing was one of the things that CEDAW complained about; it said that the outsourcers were bringing in the values as well.”
“On the Court case, the judge’s comment was that education was not covered in the consultation on abortion, but there would be an opportunity for that to be covered when the Secretary of State brought forward regulations. He did not consult with anyone, even though the Court indicated that he should.”
“Quite rightly, this Question Time has been dominated by questions about inflation and the cost of living. One policy that has not been mentioned is the Government’s net zero policy and the inflationary costs included in it, from green levies of £12 billion to the cost of strengthening the infrastructure and the favourable treatment given to renewable energy firms. While the Minister may condemn the Labour party for its £29 billion green policy spending plan, what is the cost of the Government’s net zero policies to consumers? Are they not picking their pockets dry?”
“How can our aid budget be targeted in such a way as to help those who are victims or potential victims? Secondly, it seems that some Governments—either because they do not have the resources or do not have the willpower—are not pursuing these terrorists in the way they should. What discussions has the Minister had to ensure that those Governments take action where possible, and get help from our own Government in doing so?”
“I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this urgent question. I know that he has been diligent in highlighting these issues, as have so many organisations—such as Open Doors—that have also highlighted the persecution of Christians and other minority religious groups across the world. I chide him in just one way: do not fall into BBC-speak. These people are not militants, but terrorists. They are terrorists who have blood on their hands and engage in the cruellest activities to promote their cause. May I ask the Minister two questions? First, we have a foreign aid budget, and this is not just about Uganda, but Nigeria and other parts of central Africa where these occurrences are happening almost daily.”
“I was a serial protester in Northern Ireland, so I understand the importance of people being able to express their peaceful opposition to whatever it happens to be. Regardless of the regulations that the right hon. and learned Lady puts in place, some police officers seem to have a sympathetic attitude towards some of these causes. Is she not concerned that some courts are prepared to allow people to walk out of court, having committed acts of criminal damage, without imposing any sanction? How does she believe these regulations will change that mindset?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman not find it even more amazing that the Labour party opposes this legislation when many of the protests impact on the poorest in society? I remember being in Canning Town tube station when two idiots jumped on top of the roof of the tube, and the guy beside me said, “If I don’t get to work today, I get my wages docked. I am not earning a great deal of money but I will lose money because of those two guys.” Thankfully, they pulled them off, which was a good idea, but this is the impact. Ordinary people who cannot afford the disruption are the victims of it.”
“For many of these people who are out protesting—Just Stop Oil, for example—it is not that they are appalled at the fact that we use fossil fuels, since they sometimes fly halfway around the world to join those protests. It is simply because of their sanctimonious attitude that their views are more important than others’, and that they are entitled to disrupt the lives of ordinary people.”
“I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this House legislated a long time ago to ensure that people who engage in those activities are fully regulated by the law, and the Parades Commission has been set up for some time now, and causes great anxiety at home with some of its rulings. So there is that legislation and Members across this House, including members of his party and the Labour party who are protesting about this legislation now, were quite happy to legislate for the Parades Commission to regulate the Lambeg drummers, the fluters and those who celebrate the glorious 12th in Northern Ireland every year.”
“They go out of their way to have a detrimental impact on other people in order to, as I have heard some of them say, make them listen, to make them wake up and to make them pay attention to their cause, even though, as I pointed out in an intervention, sometimes that cause is totally hypocritical. For example, they protest against taking oil and gas out of the ground, yet are quite happy to drive miles to their protest. Some even fly on private jets to join protests, yet seem to have no idea or awareness of the hypocrisy of their actions.”
“The one thing I do know, however, is that when we engage in protest, we have to recognise that if we step beyond the bounds of what is allowed, we have to take the consequences. It is as simple as that. There have to be consequences, because protests cannot be unlimited. They have to be balanced against the impact they have on the lives of people who are not interested in the protest or maybe even oppose it, but who are nevertheless affected by it. That is why this legislation is necessary. Over the last number of years, we have increasingly seen protest methods used by people who are entirely selfish. Sometimes they represent a very small minority—usually protesters are minorities anyway—but are determined to have their cause listened to. They do not even make any bones about it.”
“I am a Protestant. I have sought to live up to that title throughout my political involvement. I have taken part in many protests, as Protestants should. That is why we got our name: protesting about various things. I have been involved in noisy protests, disruptive protests, protests about the closure of schools, about traffic running through streets and about the Housing Executive knocking down houses, and protests about major political decisions made in this place that were going to disadvantage Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom. Sometimes we did not need megaphones, because we had our previous party leader. I suspect that some of the protests we engaged in may well have fallen foul of this legislation.”
“Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about parades in Northern Ireland. This House supported the parades legislation for Northern Ireland, which is quite draconian. In fact, it can ban a parade that may take three minutes to pass a flashpoint, because sometimes people have come from 50 miles away to be offended by it. If they protest, the Parades Commission can make a ruling against the parade. So, we can see an inconsistency in attitudes across the House.”
“I saw the frustration it caused many commuters. We see it on our television screens time and time again. The Government are, I believe, obliged to do something about it. There is a certain hypocrisy and inconsistency about some of the arguments we have heard tonight. It has already been referred to that there are those on the Labour Benches who are quite happy to say that someone who glues themselves to a road or causes physical destruction to paintings in an art gallery should be tolerated, but someone who stands outside an abortion clinic and prays should not be tolerated. That kind of inconsistency shows that this is not so much about the methods that the Home Secretary is introducing today, but about who they are targeted at. I think that is the important thing. I was challenged by the right hon.”
“Well, let us take the Extinction Rebellion protests we had here. Stars were flying in from America to join them. They did not feel any qualms about it. They did not even see the hypocrisy of it. For some protesters, the important thing is that other people should be affected by their concerns—that they should be able to live a lifestyle and engage in actions that have no impact on them but that do have an impact on others. People go out of their way consciously to cause disruption to others and cause anger, frustration and sometimes a detrimental impact. They protest about the quality of air in London and the burning of fuels, and what do they do? They cause traffic jams where people are belching out smoke from the back of their cars and burning petrol. Yet it seems that we should tolerate that. Unfortunately, it has been tolerated.”
“Although I am always more sympathetic to protesters than I am to the legislation against them, I think that this measure is necessary tonight and we shall be giving it our support.”
“However, having seen some of the attitudes not just of police officers on the ground, but of some of those in command and in the courts, my worry is that regardless of what legislation we introduce here tonight, the interpretation of what is happening will come down to what the officers or the judges think of the protesters’ case. That is where the real difficulty lies. As a protester, I do not want to see us living in what one Member has rather exaggeratedly described as a fascist regime. This is not fascism. This is about a Government having to make a decision as to what we do in a democracy to allow people to make their point even if we do not like the point that they are making, and to stop people being impacted by the protest even though the protester has made it quite clear that that is their main aim anyway.”
“A number of Members have made the point that that leaves interpretation for the police. Has the community been affected? What has been the cumulative effect? Is the protest too noisy? But that is true in every situation where a policeman or policewomen on the ground has to make an operational decision. Do I take this drunk out of the pub, or do I allow him to stay there? Do I talk to him and let him walk away, or do I stick him in the police van? Of course those operational decisions will always be with the police.”
“It is easy to give an assurance that the panel is not there to decide innocence or guilt. However, the fact that it decides on the basis of information from the police, with a very low threshold, does convey in the public mind some suggestion of guilt. Otherwise, why would such stringent measures be taken against a Member?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reverse of what the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) says is that a Member could be excluded from this House, the police process could go on for a year or two years, as she has said—and quite rightly; it does happen—no charge could be made at the end of that and, meantime, because we have set the threshold so low, the Member could find himself unable to do his duties?”
“In his last remark, does the hon. Gentleman not see how we can get these measures creeping? Where is the consistency in saying, “This panel has decided you’re not safe, Mr MP or Mrs MP, to be in the House of Commons because you are a danger to staff” or whatever, but also saying, “At this point in time, you’re not a danger to your constituency staff and you can still go to your constituency office”? This is where the creeping comes in, because is not the logic of this that, if someone is excluded from here, they get excluded from everywhere else where their parliamentary duties take place?”
“An individual is going to find themselves unable to do their duties in this House, on the basis of credible information that has not even reached the point of the police thinking it serious enough to arrest them, question them and charge them. They cannot do their job. They can proxy vote, but that is not the main job of an MP. The main job of an MP is to listen to constituents here, to take part in debates, to express views, to go into Committees and to try and shape legislation, but they will be excluded from doing all that. The report indicates that “the Commission is not proposing any changes to what Members can and cannot do while absent from the estate”, but the logic is that we cannot stop there. If we think that someone is a risk to individuals here, they will be a risk to individuals elsewhere as well.”
“We have evidence of the police being given allegations—the Carl Beech case and Operation Midland are good examples—and of individuals being dragged through the dirt, with no charges ever being made but reputations being ruined. We cannot ignore the fact that if we take a cautionary approach because people are afraid of what might happen if we do not act immediately, individuals in this House could find their reputations damaged. Let us look at what the impact will be. We have heard tonight that this is not about exclusion and that this process might never be used, but the very title of this debate, “risk-based exclusion”, indicates where this is going.”
“I suspect that once the panel gets credible information, as it is described, from the police, there will not be too much willingness on the panel’s part to sit back and say, “Let’s look at these allegations a bit more closely”, especially if the individual concerned does not even have the opportunity to argue the case to the panel that the allegations are totally spurious. Of course the allegations might be genuine, but we know that there are a number of people out there who do not like our politics, who do not like MPs full stop or who think we are all a bunch of wasters, and there are also some disturbed individuals, and they will make allegations.”
“An allegation has been made against such-and-such a well-known person.” It would be a very brave police officer who said, “Let us just leave this for a moment, see what further evidence there is, and investigate this case.” The danger is that if the allegation is correct, and if something even worse happens and that gets into the press, the first thing journalists will ask—and, I suspect, the first thing that some Members will ask—is “Why did the police not tell us?” There will be what is almost a default position at the very first line of defence. Should we take the precautionary attitude, even though we have not investigated the matter fully, rather than take the risk that this could be a bad individual who could repeat the offence and hurt someone else? Let us report it to the panel.”
“I do not know what was in the minds of the people who eventually wrote the report, but I suspect that behind their concerns was the question, “Are we being seen to be too lenient, or having a desire to cover up the offences of people who do wrong in the workplace?” We should look at the threshold that is being set here. When the police have credible evidence, it is reported to the panel. We know what happens, especially in high-profile cases. Let us put ourselves in the place of a senior police officer. An allegation is made, and is passed upwards. “Do you know what has happened in Westminster?”