Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I beg to move,
That, with effect from 25 October 2024, paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members be amended to leave out:
“a) advice on public policy and current affairs;
b) advice in general terms about how Parliament works; and”.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we shall discuss the following:
Motion 5—Modernisation Committee—
That—
(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to be called the Modernisation Committee, to consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices; and to make recommendations thereon;
(2) The Committee shall consist of not more than 14 Members, of which 4 will be the quorum of the Committee;
(3) Members shall be nominated to the Committee by a motion in the name of the Leader of the House;
(4) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the Committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament;
(5) The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report from time to time; and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee’s order of reference;
(6) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.
Amendment (b) to motion 5, in paragraph (2), leave out “14” and add “18”.
Amendment (c) to motion 5, in paragraph (2), after “Members” insert—
“which shall include the chairs of the Procedure Committee, the Committee of Privileges, the Committee on Standards and the Administration Committee; the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards may take part in proceedings of the Committee, may receive Committee papers and may give such other assistance to the Committee as may be appropriate;”.
Amendment (d) to motion 5, in paragraph (2), leave out “, of which”.
Amendment (e) to motion 5, after paragraph (4) insert—
“() The Committee—
(a) when it announces an inquiry, shall consider relevant reports from the Procedure Committee, the Committee of Privileges, the Committee on Standards and the Administration Committee and shall invite those Committees to report on the issues within the terms of reference of the inquiry;
(b) shall not consider matters that fall within the functions of the House of Commons Commission, as set out in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978; and
(c) shall seek the views of the Speaker on matters within its order of reference;
() The recommendations of the Committee shall be subject to a motion in the name of the Leader of the House;”.
Lucy Powell
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your election as Chairman of Ways and Means. I look forward to working with you in the coming weeks.
Over the past two weeks, it has been fantastic to watch so many new Members hit the ground running in representing their constituents, and it has been a pleasure to see returning Members resume their business, bringing their considerable experience and wisdom to the Chamber.
This new Parliament offers a chance to turn the page after the sorry and sordid record of the last. We face a crisis of trust in politics, politicians and Parliament. As we know, it is a great privilege to sit in this House: to be an MP represents an opportunity to change the country for the better. Underpinning that privilege is a set of solemn responsibilities. Chief among them is the responsibility that we all have to embody the highest standards of public service. Those standards are articulated in the seven principles of public life, which apply to all those who operate in public life and that inspire and inform the code of conduct for MPs. It is perfectly reasonable for a constituent to expect that when they cast their vote in a general election, their candidate will be sent to this House to serve them, not themselves. An MP’s first priority, therefore, must be to their constituents, and the rules of this House must reflect that obligation.
This Government were elected with a mandate for change and the Prime Minister pledged to return us to a politics of service. Today, we take our first steps to deliver that. In line with the Government’s manifesto commitment, I am proposing a tightening of the rules on second jobs for Members of this House in the first instance. Under current arrangements, Members must not provide, or agree to provide, paid parliamentary advice. They must also not undertake services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. The rule prohibits Members from advising, in return for payment, outside organisations or persons on, for example, how they may lobby or otherwise influence the work of Parliament. However, the guide to the rules contains exemptions. The exemptions mean that advice on public policy in current affairs, and advice in general terms about how Parliament works, are not considered parliamentary advice.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
During the election campaign, I made a solemn promise to my constituents that I would not take on a second job, apart from being chief of staff to my two-year-old son. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to end public policy and current affairs advocacy roles, so that we all have time to spend on the greatest job of all—representing our constituents?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is exactly the purpose of the motion. I hope he has time to do his other job of being a great parent.
However, the exemptions potentially act as loopholes, allowing a Member to use their privileged position and knowledge for personal gain. That may encourage not only a potential conflict of interest but a conflict of attention, with too much of a Member’s time and energy spent on things other than constituency or parliamentary business. I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for his advice on this matter and for the diligent provision of guidance to all Members on adherence to the code of conduct.
The motion puts an end to the exemptions. It sends a clear signal to the public that an MP’s first priority is to their constituents and to the country. It is a first step. These changes shall come into effect three months from the date this motion is passed, which will allow Members the chance to make any necessary changes to existing contracts or arrangements.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the statement that the Leader of the House is making. Does she agree that being an MP is an honour and a privilege, and should be a full-time job; and that the problem of second jobs goes wider than the limited issues she is addressing in her motion today? An example of the sort of behaviour that in my view should not be permitted would be an MP acting as managing director of a financial services company headquartered in a tax haven, in which case they might have a conflict of attention, potentially assisting people to avoid tax when of course we should all be serving the public interest. Will she act urgently to put forward further measures to prevent the type of behaviours that I have drawn attention to?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady makes a really good point. Absolutely, this is about conflicts of interest and conflicts of attention. As I have made clear, and will further make clear in my opening remarks, this is a first step. We need to look at some of those other areas to give our constituents confidence that this will eradicate the kind of behaviour that she describes.
This House has considered such issues before. Most recently, the Committee on Standards reviewed the code of conduct in the previous Parliament. The independent Committee on Standards in Public Life also looked at the matter several times, issuing recommendations in 2009 and in 2018 on MPs’ outside interests. I thank them for their work. Today’s change forms part of an ongoing conversation that I trust will continue as we begin to rebuild public trust in this institution.
We will go further. The other motion before the House will establish a new Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons, fulfilling another manifesto commitment. The Committee will be tasked with driving up standards and addressing the culture of this House, as well as improving working practices.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I am one of many newcomers to this Chamber. I first spent time in the Chamber on Friday afternoon, when some irregular things happened. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is the conduct of Members in this Chamber, as well as issues around second jobs and conduct outside, that has given politics and all of us here a bad reputation? If we are to solve these problems, we should recognise that when people turn on the television or watch Parliament live, they want to see people listening respectfully—not heckling, shouting out or calling names.
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Part of what we are beginning today is about restoring respect for one another, both in Parliament and in politics. I have been really encouraged by the enthusiasm that new Members like the hon. Gentleman have for this agenda. I hope he will continue to be involved.
The Modernisation Committee will also look at reforms to make Parliament more effective, bringing recommendations and responding swiftly to the views of the House. It is intended to bring a more strategic lens to these matters and, where necessary, address the pace of change. This is not to cut across the important work of existing Committees, but to highlight interdependencies and facilitate closer working. I describe it as a clearing house, drawing on all the good work of other Committees.
The Government want to build consensus for any reforms, and bring the House together by consulting widely. The deliberations of the Committee will be transparent and published, so that the thinking that has informed any recommendations for change is made clear to Members—a very important aspect of the Committee. I intend to listen to colleagues, regardless of their party affiliation, as we take this work forward, drawing on the diverse range of views and experiences represented in this House.
I turn to the amendments on the Order Paper. I hope that I can provide reassurance to Members about some of their concerns. The existing Committee structures in this House—including the Procedure Committee, the Committee on Standards, the Committee of Privileges, the Administration Committee and of course the House of Commons Commission—will have a vital role to play in the work of the Modernisation Committee. Indeed, it will draw heavily on their work and their recommendations. However, the pace of change that we have witnessed in recent years demonstrates the value that a Modernisation Committee will have when it comes to enacting recommendations. The risk-based exclusion of Members, improvements to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme and the introduction of proxy votes to cover serious long-term illness or injury are prime examples of the glacial pace at which we often move.
The purpose of the Modernisation Committee is not to duplicate the important work carried out by existing Select Committees, but rather to highlight and consider their recommendations in the round. As the Standards Committee noted in its May 2024 report, the standards landscape in Parliament brings together an array of actors and regulatory bodies whose arrangements are often considered in isolation from one another. My hope is that the Modernisation Committee will be able to bring a broader perspective to these issues, and will work closely with the existing parliamentary Committees whose reports and evidence will shape its work. The new Committee will have the ability to collect evidence, and for Chairs to guest on it where relevant. I will be sure to rely on the expertise and experience of all Members.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend explain the relationship between the Modernisation Committee and the ethics and integrity commission that is being set up?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend, who has done much good work in this space over the years. The Government’s ethics and integrity commission will focus more on Government members, Ministers, civil servants and others, whereas the work of the Modernisation Committee will focus particularly on the House of Commons. There may be a relationship at times, but they will have a different remit and scope. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question satisfactorily.
As the proposed Chair of the Committee, I reassure the House that my door will always be open to Members and staff across the House. I see it more as a task and finish Committee—that was a good comment that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made to me the other day—that will take a strategic look at recommendations from other bodies and Committees, but not duplicate their work.
I note amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), which is about the engagement of smaller parties and their role on the Modernisation Committee. I hope that I have gone some way towards providing reassurance on aspects of that issue. I want to be clear that I want Members across the House to be heard, but the Committee also needs to be an effective body that delivers change. If the Committee is to work swiftly and generate momentum behind proposals for reform, it needs to be of an appropriate size. If each party were represented, as the hon. Member’s amendment requires, the Committee would have to grow considerably. That would not be proportionate with other Committees of the House, which I do not think is reasonable.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Given the likely breakdown, does the Leader of the House understand that only three parties will be represented on the Committee? It would be possible to flex that slightly, and have voices from more than just three parties on the Committee, while still keeping it relatively small.
Lucy Powell
I understand the hon. Member’s concern. It is an unfortunate case of the mathematics that apply across all Select Committees. On other occasions, in past Parliaments, her party has benefited from the formulas that are used. Beyond formal membership, however, I reassure the House that I want to commit to regular and meaningful engagement with any and all parties represented in this House and with Members who want to contribute.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
This, to me, seems a little bit unfair. A political party that is represented in this House and got over 4 million votes at the last election will have no representation whatsoever on these Committees, yet a party that got 3.5 million votes will have plenty of representation on them. Does the Leader of the House think that is fair?
Lucy Powell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, his party has four other Members in this House; the House is considered in terms of its Members, not in terms of the popular vote. What he describes is a consequence of formulas that are long-standing and have brought about effective representation on many Select Committees.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I understand the mathematics—one party has over 400 Members, another has more than 120, another has 72, and so on—and I understand how Committees are made up, and how the Government and the Opposition work. However, when it comes to more parochial things, and while I am ever mindful that the Government have the right to a majority, does the Leader of the House agree that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee should include more representation from regional areas?
Lucy Powell
Perhaps there is an opportunity for a wider debate on the make-up of Select Committees. I can see some of the issues, but I reiterate that the Modernisation Committee needs to strike a balance between being effective and making fast progress. It needs to be representative, but not too big. I reiterate to the smaller parties my commitment to having ongoing, meaningful engagement, and to having them come regularly to the Committee to give evidence and views. Of course, the proceedings of the Committee will be fully transparent; we will have calls for evidence, and our deliberations will be regularly published for the whole House to see.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has just made a very good case, and has asked you a specific question: is it fair? From your lack of reply, I think it is implicit that you agree that it is not fair. You have it in your power to change that, as a matter of fairness and of listening to smaller parties. If you do not agree with that, I think constituents all over the country will find it absolutely astonishing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)
Order. Will Members refrain from using the word “you”? You are speaking through the Chair.
Lucy Powell
What is fair is that this House is made up of Members of Parliament who are elected by their constituencies, and Select Committees or Sub-Committees are made up of proportions of those Members. That is fair, and it has always been the case. As an incoming Government with a clear mandate for change—a clear mandate to rebuild trust in politics and restore respect for Parliament—and with a very large majority in the House, we could have proceeded without trying to take the House with us, not setting up a Committee but simply tabling various motions on a diktat basis, but I did not want to take that approach. I wanted to take the House with us and to represent Parliament as a whole—all parties and all Committees. That is why I commit myself again to enabling the smaller parties to have regular, meaningful engagement with the Modernisation Committee on issues of particular concern to them.
Ellie Chowns
Given that this is a Select Committee that you are setting up—[Interruption.] I am sorry. Given that the right hon. Lady is setting up the Committee specifically through a motion on the topic of modernisation, is this not an opportunity to demonstrate a tiny bit of that modernisation by ensuring that the smaller parties—not necessarily one member of each of them—are represented in its make-up? Would that not serve as an indication of good will towards the concept of modernisation?
Lucy Powell
As I have said, the Committee will engage with the smaller parties regularly and meaningfully. Let us say that there was one more place for a representative of a smaller party. Who would that place go to? Would that Member represent the various views of all the smaller parties? Would they represent Reform, the Greens, the Scottish National party, or the Democratic Unionist party? Everyone would have strong and differing views about that. When it comes to representing properly the range of views across the smaller parties, the commitment to ongoing, meaningful engagement, regular dialogue and inviting all the smaller parties to address the Committee on a regular basis reflects that range of views far better than having one representative on the Committee.
I also want to reassure the traditionalists among us. As I have said previously, this is not about altering the traditions and customs of this place; rather, the Modernisation Committee will build on the work of its namesakes, appointed in earlier Labour Administrations. Those predecessor Committees achieved great reforms in the way in which the Commons works: the introduction of Public Bill Committees, the arrival of Westminster Hall debates, and changes in sitting hours and recess dates. All those reforms improved scrutiny, and helped to make Parliament a more inclusive and family-friendly place of work. I would welcome suggestions from Members of further changes that it might be useful for the Modernisation Committee to consider in order to make Parliament a more effective, modern working environment that better reflects the country that it serves, and to help the public understand better the work that we do and the fact that we are here to serve them.
Let me turn to the Committee’s initial work. I hope that, as one of our first steps, we will look further into the question of Members’ outside employment. We will aim to consider, in conjunction with the Committee on Standards and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, whether any more changes to the rules or the code are necessary, particularly changes intended to ensure that a Member’s private or personal interests do not impede his or her principal duties to the House.
However, the scope of the Modernisation Committee will extend further than second jobs. Beyond reforms of the standards system, the Committee will consider the culture, procedures and working practices of the House. Parliament’s ability to hold the Government to account is essential. Our goal should be to maximise the time available for scrutiny of the Government’s legislative programme, while also ensuring that Back-Bench voices remain prominent and effective. Our constituents are best served when parliamentary time is spent both on robust scrutiny of legislation and on debates in which the issues that matter most to Members and to our constituents can be raised. I look forward to hearing the views of all Members when assessing how we can best achieve that, and whether changes are required.
Making Parliament accessible to all Members is of paramount importance. Over the years, good work has been done on seeking to tackle the inappropriate and wrong behaviour that we have all heard about and suffered from. The Speaker’s Conference in the last Session did important work on the conditions for Members’ staff. I am also grateful to Paul Kernaghan for his recent review of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, and to Alison Stanley, whose reviews preceded his. We will look at taking his recommendations forward. As recently as May this year, the Committee on Standards produced an excellent report on the standards landscape in Parliament, bringing together analysis of, and recommendations on, all elements of the standards system. Those pieces of work are essential, and they cannot be considered in isolation; we need to take a strategic approach to these issues, so that gaps in the system do not develop.
Today we have an opportunity to set out, clearly and firmly, the standards to which we should all aspire in this House—the standards that the public expect of their elected representatives. We have an opportunity to put politics back to service, and signal an immediate end to the politics of self-interest through a tightening of the rules on second jobs. We have an opportunity to establish a body that will examine the House in the round and bring it up to date. I look forward to this debate, and I am grateful for the huge amount of interest that the Modernisation Committee has already garnered.
Lucy Powell
May I congratulate you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on having already made good use of the parliamentary hairdressers? I hope that you will maintain that tradition.
I thank so many Members of this House for taking part in this debate. We have heard some excellent maiden speeches. My hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Telford (Shaun Davies), for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) and for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) all made excellent contributions. There is always a competition about who represents the very best constituency, but of course we all know that it is actually me.
Trust and dedication to constituencies, constituents and public service have been a common theme today. Substantive points have also been raised about the modernisation agenda, for which I am really grateful. The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), raised several issues. I welcome his engagement, which I have sought over recent days; I discussed our proposals with him well in advance of tabling them.
The size of the Modernisation Committee, which is the subject of Opposition amendment (c), has been part of the conversation about representation across the House. The current proposal is to have 14 members; under the current algorithm, which is based on the make-up of the House, that will give nine places to the Government, three to the official Opposition and two to the third party. Expanding the Committee to 18 members would give 12 places to the Government party and three to the third party, but the official Opposition would still have three. I looked at all the numbers and I felt that having 14 members would give the fairest distribution among Government and Opposition parties. Going bigger still would not bring the smaller parties into the mix, which is why I have made a very firm commitment to have ongoing dialogue and meaningful engagement with them. If the numbers included Chairs of other Committees, the shadow Leader of the House might actually lose his place on the Committee, because the other Committee Chairs would take up the official Opposition places, so I ask him to think about the numbering.
The shadow Leader of the House asked about the Modernisation Committee’s relationship to other Committees. It is essential to be clear about this. I have been very clear that it will be a strategic, overarching Committee. It will not seek to duplicate any of the work of other Committees, which would be a waste of everybody’s time. Instead, it will work closely with those Committees, commission their work, seek their views, ask for their reports and their input and carefully consider their recommendations on all matters.
I see this as a sort of clearing house, a “task and finish” group that can more quickly bring recommendations from some of those Committees to the Floor of the House and take a strategic overview of how the different issues interrelate. The Standards Committee itself recommended that in its most recent report, in which it described the siloed and disjointed context in which we operate.
Chris Philp
The right hon. Lady’s comments are extremely welcome, but, for absolute clarity, can she confirm that when the new Modernisation Committee intends to consider a matter, it will first invite the relevant other Committee of the House to prepare a report and come back to the Modernisation Committee with it?
Lucy Powell
On the whole, yes; that is the intention and the hope. Some of those Committees do not yet have Chairs, but that is certainly the modus operandi for which we are hoping. We do not expect to be doing that work ourselves, or duplicating it.
The Standards Committee, which was raised earlier, has a completely distinct and different role because of the relationship with the lay members and with the Standards Commissioner. As I have said to the Leader of the House privately—I am sorry; I mean the shadow Leader of the House. [Laughter.] I am still getting used to this gig. As I have said to the shadow Leader, I sought the advice of the Standards Commissioner when considering how we would tighten the rules on paid advocacy, and I have followed his advice to the letter, because I think this is critical. The Standards Commissioner would not want to sit on the Committee because it would conflict with his role, but I see his role as being central to the drawing up of any further advice, because he has to police it—that is his job. I hope that satisfies the shadow Leader of the House.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and I have worked closely together, and I greatly value her input on these issues. I think that we largely agree on most of them. We do need to take forward the recommendations on the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme review, and that would be a first task for the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) made an erudite speech, as usual, about trust and cleaning up politics, and I thank him for his contribution. That is very much what we are seeking to do. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) has done invaluable work on this matter in the past in his role as a member of the Standards Committee. As I have said, I am very conscious of the work that the lay members do and the need for that to play a separate role in this context, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the landscape review pointed clearly to the need for a more strategic, joined-up approach to some of these issues. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), as a newbie, presented some welcome ideas. She reflects the enthusiasm of many other newbies and, I think, the frustration of many of them as well.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) from outside the Chamber. I really do value her contribution to this debate, and I look forward to working with her. I would love to have her on the Committee, but I am hopeful that we can find a way for that ongoing relationship to be meaningful and regular, and that she will be able to contribute some of the ideas that she mentioned today in a more formal manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), in a very short space of time, gave some very good advice about the implications for safety and human resources on the estate, and she was right to do so. We did not hear many comments on second jobs, but I think we all agree that we need to take action in that regard, and I am glad to see the extent of the cross-party support for such action.
I hope we will not divide the House on these issues, because I think it important for us to stand together today. We have seen plenty of enthusiasm and support, and I hope that Members will now support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, with effect from 25 October 2024, paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members be amended to leave out:
“a) advice on public policy and current affairs;
b) advice in general terms about how Parliament works; and”.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We now come to motion 5, relating to a Modernisation Committee. I remind the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e), as listed on the Order Paper. If amendment (b) is defeated, amendments (c) and (d) automatically fall, and I will not call anyone to move them. I call the Minister to move the motion formally.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to be called the Modernisation Committee, to consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices; and to make recommendations thereon;
(2) The Committee shall consist of not more than 14 Members, of which 4 will be the quorum of the Committee;
(3) Members shall be nominated to the Committee by a motion in the name of the Leader of the House;
(4) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the Committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament;
(5) The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report from time to time; and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee’s order of reference;
(6) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.—(Lucy Powell.)