Shadow Cabinet’s ‘summary exclusion’ announcement in practice
Labour’s Shadow Cabinet has issued a statement about a change to Labour’s processes to include what it termed ‘summary exclusion’ in cases of ‘prima facie’ antisemitism by a Labour member:
The Shadow Cabinet is committed to defeating antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, including through greater education in our movement.
We commend the General Secretary and party staff on improving the complaints and disciplinary processes within the party.
As part of tackling antisemitism, the shadow cabinet has today supported the proposal for summary exclusion outlined by the Labour leader, which he will put to the National Executive Committee tomorrow.
The shadow cabinet also supports the proposal to introduce independent oversight of our processes, and will continue to seek to engage with Jewish community organisations to build confidence.
In terms of justice and due process, however, there was no detail in the statement and the possibility of ‘summary’ action will be a concern to members on both counts.
However, the detail available – provided by Formby to MPs today, to a standing ovation from the gathered ‘PLP’ – suggests that these fears can be allayed.
How it will work
Labour MPs have told the SKWAWKBOX that the proposals that will be put to tomorrow’s meeting of the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) mean that high-profile or prima facie extreme cases would be accelerated to a panel consisting of NEC members plus the general secretary. This panel would be able to ‘auto-exclude’ (expel), with any excluded having a right of appeal.
The key points of detail provided to MPs today include:
- an independent barrister expert in discrimination law will advise the panel
- members affected will have a full right of appeal to the National Constitutional Committee (NCC), Labour’s ultimate disciplinary committee
- the panel will only be activated for very clear cases
Crucially, if the NEC approves the proposals in principle tomorrow, the party will undertake a wide consultation before finalising rule change, including a detailed legal consultation to make sure the process will be legally robust, before a final version will go to the NEC for a decision.
The final process is intended to be a clear, legally-safe mechanism guided by genuinely independent legal experts with special expertise in relevant law, protecting both members and the party while dealing with complaints in the optimal timeframe.
SKWAWKBOX view:
As with any rule-change, the devil will be in the detail and can only be assessed once the final version is written and approved, but the initial bones of the process appear to be sound and well thought-out – as the standing ovation Formby received from a wide range of MPs attests.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.