Hannah Spencer is right: MPs should not be drinking on the job

Spencer said she was shocked to discover that some MPs drink before votes because Parliament is “our workplace”. It was a perfectly reasonable point. Yet instead of answering the substance of her question, the Prime Minister brushed it aside with a political jibe.

Frankly, she has a point. In any other occupation, drinking on the job is a sackable offence. You would not ask a judge to imprison someone whilst under the influence; nor would you ask a doctor to treat a patient whilst tipsy. Yet Parliament continues to permit alcohol consumption within the very institution responsible for making the laws the rest of us must obey. That should concern us far more than it apparently does.

This is not an argument for prohibition – most people enjoy a drink. The issue is not alcohol itself, but the culture surrounding it and what that culture says about institutions exercising power.

As a lawyer specialising in abuse claims, I spend much of my professional life dealing with institutions that fail the people they are supposed to protect. One of the things you learn very quickly is that unhealthy institutional cultures rarely announce themselves openly. They emerge gradually through tolerated behaviours, double standards and environments where accountability becomes blurred.

The prevalence and availability of alcohol in any institution is a huge flashing light when it comes to safeguarding. Alcohol affects judgement, lowers inhibitions and creates an atmosphere where poor behaviour is minimised and inappropriate conduct becomes easier to excuse.

Worse still, it can create cultures in which people become reluctant to challenge wrongdoing because those in authority engage in the same behaviour. That is how unhealthy institutions sustain themselves.

I see this repeatedly in abuse cases. The issue is often not simply that wrongdoing occurred, but why warning signs were ignored for so long. Why did nobody intervene earlier? Why did colleagues stay silent? Why did institutions fail to act when concerns were raised? Very often, the answer lies in cultures where bad behaviour has become normalised.

One example is the Armed Forces, where alcohol has long been embedded in military culture. I am currently involved in military cases where former personnel describe environments in which heavy drinking was simply accepted as part of daily life. That atmosphere can then lead to poor decision-making, bullying and abusive behaviour, alongside a reluctance to report problems because those in authority are often doing the drinking too.

Military guidance itself recognises that alcohol misuse can erode operational effectiveness. Quite right too. Any serious institution understands that judgment matters, so why should Parliament be different?

MPs legislate on criminal justice, safeguarding, policing, war, housing and poverty. They make decisions that affect millions of people. Parliament should therefore hold itself to a higher standard than ordinary workplaces, not a lower one.

Instead, Westminster often behaves as though its drinking culture is part of its charm – an eccentric tradition everyone else should simply tolerate because politics is supposedly a uniquely stressful profession. I find this utterly unconvincing.

Many professions are stressful. Police officers deal daily with traumatic material. Junior doctors work punishing hours. Social workers and abuse lawyers routinely encounter violence, exploitation and distressing cases. Yet those professions rightly recognise that drinking whilst carrying out professional duties is unacceptable.

Legislation should be a sober business. That does not mean MPs cannot enjoy a drink after work – of course they can. But Parliament should stop pretending that alcohol consumption during the working day, before votes or while conducting parliamentary business is somehow normal or harmless.

Hannah Spencer’s question deserved a serious answer, not derision. Because if lawmakers cannot meet the standards expected of ordinary workplaces, the public is entitled to ask why those lawmakers believe the rules apply differently to them.

____________________

Malcolm Johnson is Head of Abuse Claims at Lime Solicitors.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk