Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I welcome you to your new position. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) on an excellent and very detailed maiden speech. No doubt he will represent his constituents very successfully.

I am the only Member in the Chamber today who served on both the Standards Committee and the Privileges Committee in the 2019 Parliament; all of the other MPs, bar one, are no longer in the Chamber. The amount of work that we had to deal with in the last Parliament was substantial, onerous and unprecedented. As such, I welcome the comments that the Leader of the House has made and broadly support the motions that she has brought before the House. However, I would like to make a couple of points that I hope she will take in the spirit of assistance in which they are intended.

In the time allocated to me, I will briefly turn first to the motion on curbing some elements of second jobs as they relate to parliamentary advice. The Leader of the House may not be aware of the background to that proposal and where it first came from. In November 2021 the Standards Committee published a report—the fourth of the Session—and annex 7 of that report contained comments made by the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Committee—myself and my colleagues —thoroughly looked at the matter on a cross-party basis and concluded that we probably wanted to recommend the banning of paid parliamentary advice or consultancy.

We looked at the wording in the House of Lords, because that is the wording that the then commissioner first looked at. That wording is broadly identical to the wording that we currently have, so in our May 2022 report we came forward with the proposal that the banning of paid parliamentary advice should align with the House of Lords code. My question to the Leader of the House is this: is it her intention to ensure that the code in the other place is amended, so that we do not have an oddity where, for instance, a Labour peer could carry on with the activities that she proposes to ban, but an MP in this House would be unable to do so? That was not the objective of the Standards Committee when we first made our proposal, so it would be very helpful if, in her summing up, she could confirm that the appropriate mirrored changes will be made in the House of Lords.

I will now turn briefly to the other, much more substantial motion. I am sorry that there is a time limit, because I had many things to say about this motion, but given that I have a very short period of time in which to speak, I will restrict my comments. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) touched on, we as a House should remember that the Standards Committee is unlike any other Select Committee of the House of Commons, because half of its members are lay members—people who are not Members of Parliament. The total membership of 14 means that, if we take out the Chair from voting, the lay members have a substantive jurisdiction on that Committee. Many of those lay members will undoubtedly be watching this debate.

I cannot believe that it is the Government’s intention to create a Committee that will be looking at standards—even at a strategic level—that excludes lay members. When the Leader of the House was on the Opposition Benches, she was a strong believer in having lay members on the Committee, so will she look again carefully at her proposal, not only taking into account the balance of political parties but, importantly, ensuring that this new Committee has lay member representation, at least when it is discussing standards issues? My proposal is that the seven current lay members of the Standards Committee could elect one from among their number to sit on that Committee.

The other points I wanted to make were made by the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and I do not propose to rehearse them again. Suffice it to say that the Leader of the House said that the Chair of the Standards Committee, the Chair of the Administration Committee and so on would be guested on to the Committee, but if the Committee is to be an effective body that can deliver change, as she hopes, we must ensure that these people are not simply guested but that experience and knowledge is somehow brought in, perhaps with ex officio members instead of full voting members. I suggest she looks again at that proposal, and perhaps makes some welcome comments at the end.

To conclude, the proposal is a welcome one, but I urge the Leader of the House to look carefully at bringing lay members on to the Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Chris Murray to make his maiden speech.

Business of the House

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and welcome her back to her place. She was not here long before she had to face the electorate again, and it is great to see that she has been returned so convincingly. She raises important matters about flood defence, as others have. I note that the King’s Speech debate tomorrow will cover rural affairs, so she might want to raise those issues with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who I believe will respond to that debate.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Double child rapist and murderer Colin Pitchfork was due to have his parole hearing last week in public, following my successful application to the chair of the Parole Board, who agreed to have it in public. The parole hearing has been rescheduled to an unknown date, and only last week the chair of the Parole Board said in public, without writing to me, that she had cancelled her decision to have a public parole hearing for Mr Pitchfork. I welcome the Leader of the House to her place. Could we have an urgent statement on this matter or, better still, an urgent meeting with the Minister to discuss why the Parole Board is acting in this way?

[Lucy Powell]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important issue. For new Members who do not know, he has a strong track record in this place of raising such matters. I will ask the Minister to meet him urgently to discuss this important issue.

Privileges Committee Special Report

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fabricant]

I certainly agree that it is completely unacceptable to say:

“We urge you to take action and protect your integrity by resigning from this committee immediately.”

Incidentally, if hon. Members received 600 emails just like that, with hardly any change in the wording, I hope that those emails ended up where many of the identical emails we get end up, which is in the bin. That is what they deserve.

But this Committee was particularly difficult. I think it is fair to say that there is nobody in this land who does not have a view, one way or another, about Boris Johnson; I think possibly Margaret Thatcher is the only other person to have fallen into that category. It is perfectly human. Whether someone is a judge in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, or whether they sit in a quasi-judicial role, they are bound to have views. I totally accept that members of the Committee will try hard, often with success, to put those views in the background while trying to make a fair and decent judgment.

So why did I say what I said? I will read it out in full:

“Serious questions will need to be asked about the manner in which the investigation was conducted”—

I was talking about procedure.

“These were no jurists as was apparent by the tone of the examination. The question of calibre, malice and prejudice will need to be answered now or by historians.”

I think people will ask these questions, and they may well exonerate the Committee. They may well say that there was no malice or prejudice and that the calibre was excellent, but I think it is fair to pose the questions.

The next question one might ask is why I tweeted those questions at that time. Well, I attended the hearing at which Boris Johnson gave his evidence, and I was there for the whole period. When he gave his evidence, the Committee had a quasi-judicial role. He had to raise his right hand and swear an oath, and he did. Some of the Committee’s members—I will not single out any individuals because some of them are very close friends of mine—behaved with absolute dignity and professionalism, but one turned his back on Boris Johnson as he gave evidence, another gasped in frustration and two looked heavenwards, as if to accuse him of being a liar. If it were a court of law, and we have heard that it was not, the judge would have called the jury to order.

Of course it was not a court of law, but when a witness comes along and swears the oath and a group of individuals give judgment, I would call it a court of law. I simply make the point that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Certainly on the day the evidence was given, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham pulled one of her faces, as she has just now. It is not in order to do that when taking evidence in a quasi-judicial role.

I simply suggest that members of a Committee sitting in a quasi-judicial role, whether it be the Privileges Committee, the Standards Committee or a hybrid Bill Committee, such as the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill Committee, are not all professional lawyers. Many of them are not. There is a very strong argument that they should be trained in how to take evidence when sitting in a quasi-judicial role, not just so that it is fair—it could be argued that it was not fair—but because, as I said earlier, justice needs to be seen to be done.

Most journalists who were present, as I was, did not feel on that day that justice was seen to be done. The Committee may well have come to the right conclusions. I did not vote against the Committee’s original conclusions —I personally thought the sentence was a little vindictive, but I certainly was not going to vote against the main findings—but it is important that a Committee sitting in a quasi-judicial role is seen to be acting in a fair and proper way.

Was there collusion in the timing of my tweet? No, there was not. It was provoked by the behaviour of the Committee when it took evidence from Boris Johnson, and I still stand by my comment. I will say that if, because I sent that tweet during the hearing, it intimidated any member of the Committee in any way, and if they thought I had acted to put pressure on them, I apologise.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Thank you.

[Michael Fabricant]

I do not think for one moment that I intimidated my hon. Friend, in any way, with my comment, but if I had—I use the subjunctive, not the indicative—of course I apologise because that would have been a breach of privilege, as we should not interfere with the proceedings of any Committee.

[Alberto Costa]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The report, with its annex, highlights a sample of some of the tweets. I note that he tweeted on 31 July 2022:

“Harriet Harman determined to ‘stitch up’ #Boris by changing rules of Privilege Committee kangaroo court.”

Does he now accept that referring to the Privileges Committee as a “kangaroo court” is wrong?

[Michael Fabricant]

I now regret giving way to my hon. Friend. I do not remember that tweet, but the answer is yes, I do.

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to say that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant)—I say “Rhondda” correctly because I speak Welsh—had the integrity to stand down after the tweets he sent. Of course, it is fair to say that the House of Commons approved the appointment of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham as Chair of the Privileges Committee, but I wonder whether on reflection, given the comments she had made publicly, she might have said, “No, it is not appropriate for me to chair the Committee,” just as the hon. Member for Rhondda had.

I think I have now spoken enough. I believe the Committee attempts to behave with integrity, and I think it does behave with integrity. Whether it behaved without expressing some sort of prejudice beforehand is a moot point. Whether it was able to ignore prejudice is an interesting question, and one that historians may well ask in the future.

Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I think that the Chancellor should be able to come to the Floor of the House and outline his policies. This is a serious moment. We want to ensure that the markets are reassured, and I suggest that any questions that the hon. Lady has on economic policy are directed to the Chancellor.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

In her answer to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend abundantly demonstrated to this House what an enormous asset she is to the governing party. Does she agree that any single Conservative MP would make a fantastic Chancellor, well above any socialist or separatist on the Opposition Benches?

[Penny Mordaunt]

In terms of the Opposition’s performance, I think Larry the cat would give them a run for their money.

Business of the House

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Leader of the House to his place. I can see that business questions on Thursday will continue to be the highlight of the week, and I thank him for that. I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Thursday regulars will miss him, even though they might not admit to it. Members from across the House have certainly told me—

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)?

[Lucy Allan]

Yes, indeed. Members from across the House have told me how much they appreciate the diligence that my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset showed in following up on their questions, and in highlighting their local campaigns. He was ably supported by the wonderful Leader of the House team, who we see in the Box.

Today is the last day for Members to participate in the consultation on proposed changes to standards on the conduct of MPs. Members have expressed concerns that their names could be made public and their comments used against them if they were to submit them online. Can the Leader of the House suggest a mechanism for how Members can participate in the consultation anonymously?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

This is an important issue, and, as I have said, we all have a responsibility to try to ensure that we get our language right in the House. Hate crime of any nature should not be tolerated. I think it is always a good thing to debate it at any point and to highlight and condemn it, as well as working with our law enforcement officers who are out there on the frontline dealing with it on a daily basis.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

The good people of Sherwood must be very proud today that their Member of Parliament has risen to become Leader of the House of Commons. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the position that he now holds. As one east midlands Member to another, may I ask him to confirm that he will facilitate, whenever possible, any debate in the House that seeks to highlight the great work that the Government do in helping to improve the lives of people and businesses in the east midlands?

[Chris Bryant]

Say no!

Business of the House

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is right to say that the aim of the Government was to prevent evictions during the pandemic, but also to ensure a proper and fair relationship in these difficult times between landlords and tenants. It is very difficult, from the Dispatch Box, to answer individual constituent concerns without notice, but I will undertake to take this matter up with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

I am chairman of the all-party group on microplastics and, working with colleagues from across the House and the wonderful National Federation of Women’s Institutes, we are considering the impact microfibres released from textiles in commercial and domestic wash cycles are having on our marine environment. The UK has taken a global lead on tackling microplastics in our oceans, including the introduction of the ban on microbeads in 2018, but does the Leader of the House agree that debating this issue in Parliament would help us all to understand the potential risks posed by plastic microfibres entering our marine environment?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am delighted to hear about the work of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, which does such important work across the country. My hon. Friend is right to say that the ban on microbeads in shower gel and other similar products has stopped billions of pieces of plastic from entering the marine environment. It is also right to say that more needs to be done to tackle other sources of microplastics. The Government have been engaging with industry to encourage businesses to do more, including signing up to Operation Clean Sweep to prevent pellet loss. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue his good work, though he may in the first instance want to seek an Adjournment debate.

Business of the House

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The action taken so far has been absolutely unprecedented. Over £200 billion of taxpayers’ money has been dedicated to helping the economy; 12 million jobs have been protected through the furlough scheme and self-employed schemes, at a cost of £56 billion; thousands of businesses have been helped with over £100 billion-worth of support in loans, VAT deferrals, business grants, business rates relief and targeted grants and VAT cuts; the furlough scheme is continuing during this period for all parts of the United Kingdom until March; and the self-employed grant covers up to 80% of profit. A great deal is being done to help businesses, and local authorities have specific funds that they can use to help businesses that may otherwise not be able to achieve help through the specific schemes. A great deal is being done, the Chancellor has come to the House regularly and there will be a debate on covid on the Tuesday after we return.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

A very happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and indeed to all the staff and the Leader of the House. Two weeks ago, the inquiry I chaired for British Future, that respected independent think tank, published its “ Barriers to Britishness” report, seeking a new approach to British citizenship policy. Its recommendations included the awarding of honorary British citizenship to migrants who have contributed in an outstanding and exemplary manner to our British society. Would the Leader of the House support a debate on how we can improve on citizenship policy?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am tempted to go back to Don Pacifico, because he was a British citizen by virtue of being born in Gibraltar, yet his British citizenship was upheld by the then Government—by Palmerston—regardless. I think that British citizenship is equal among all of us, and that all British citizens, whether they have been British citizens through their families for hundreds of years or they became a British citizen five minutes ago, are equally British citizens, equally subject to the protection of law, equal in front of the law and equally part of our democratic society. We should all give that message, and everything my hon. Friend does to encourage that I fully support.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a dreadful position for us to be in as a House. The behaviour of a small number of Members of Parliament over years and decades has disgraced and shamed our parliamentary democracy, of which I, and many hon. Members, are so proud. Our ancient right that we should look after our own affairs is to be sacrificed, because the importance of restoring the trust of the British people in our system makes that the right thing to do. How we treat each other matters at all times in all places, but particularly in Parliament. It matters wherever people work together, for everyone should be able to perform their roles in an atmosphere of courtesy and respect, and it most certainly matters in the Palace of Westminster.

There are about 13,000 passholders with access to the parliamentary estate. In recent years, we have been trying hard to create the kind of culture that prioritises having a safe working place where people are afforded respect and which enables them to speak out and be confident that they will be listened to. My predecessors, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), made an enormous contribution to that effort by achieving cross-party agreement for the establishment of an Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. That we had to do so is an indication of how far some in this institution had failed and had not lived up to the standards required of them.

The ICGS has already been approached by a large number of people, receiving 201 calls and emails in the first quarter of this year alone from those who feel that they have faced bullying, harassment or sexual harassment. However, there are some complaints that have not yet come forward because of the concerns of the complainants that Members continue to play a role in the sanctions process. This is where we have the greatest challenge in restoring trust: not just between us and voters, but between us and those who work in this place.

The approach I am putting forward today is motivated by supporting those who need to make complaints and allows for the restoration, I hope, of our reputation. Since becoming Leader of the House, I have spoken to a number of complainants and potential complainants about the progress made so far. Every conversation I have had has left me profoundly moved and, in some cases, shocked and appalled by some of the things that have happened to people in this House, some of which seem to me to reach the threshold of criminal activity. This place, which ought to be the epitome of good behaviour, has been besmirched by that. I am therefore determined to do more to continue the momentum for sustained culture change that was begun in the previous Parliament.

I, of all people, cannot pretend that I like abandoning some of the ancient responsibilities and rights of Parliament, but it is our fault that we have to do this and so it is right to change. There is a problem of the power dynamic which can occur wherever those in a position of influence assume that they are able to act without consequences, so it is right that we seek to change the culture in order to challenge that assumption. In Westminster, we have introduced a behavioural code; established the “Valuing Everyone” training; replaced the Respect and Valuing Others policy with the ICGS; and extended the scheme to include historic allegations of some former members of the parliamentary community. The latter two steps were the result of Dame Laura Cox’s recommendations made in her report on the treatment of House staff. Her third recommendation, however, remains outstanding: that Members of Parliament should no longer be able to determine the sanctions imposed.

It is no coincidence that that outstanding recommendation is by some distance the most constitutionally challenging and the most significant, too. Under our current arrangements, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has the power to determine cases and impose sanctions up to a certain level of severity. Until now, more serious cases, including suspension and expulsion from the House, have been for the Committee on Standards to determine. In February, the House of Commons Commission agreed its preferred option of those presented by the staff team on a means of changing that: that there be an independent chair and seven expert panel members, none of whom will be MPs. The panel should be empowered to determine ICGS cases, decide on sanctions, and hear appeals by either party against the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ conclusions. That proposal has been the subject of consultation over recent months and Dame Laura Cox herself was among those who supported that approach.

While I am taking steps to strengthen it further, I am supportive of the House of Commons Commission’s proposed solution overall. Placing decisions of this kind in the hands of an independent expert panel is a fundamental break with the past that reflects our continuing efforts to make Parliament a better place to work.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I wholeheartedly welcome the momentum for having a system that is fair and transparent. The Leader of the House referred to the constitutional significance of the creation of this new independent body. Is he aware of an independent body in any part of the UK with such sweeping disciplinary powers over its members that is not justiciable? My concern is that if an accusation is made against Members, they will not have any recourse to a court of law, whereas if an accusation of bullying against a member of House staff or Members’ staff is upheld by the panel, they would have recourse to a court of law or an employment tribunal.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The question of parliamentary privilege applying to the ICGS is one that will have to be determined by a court, and it is not entirely clear whether they would be covered by the article 9 rights. The reason we have to have a final vote in this House is that there is no court outside Parliament that can question the proceedings in Parliament. That is at the heart of the constitutional dilemma that we have been facing. It is also why we are making this fundamental break with the past.

In allowing an independent body to take such action we are making a really important constitutional change. We are doing this—and we are right to do this—because of the way that some Members have behaved, and we have to stop that happening in the future. As Leader of the House, I am ashamed when people come to see me and tell me what they have suffered; I am appalled at the stories they tell me and shocked sometimes that they have not been to the police about them when they are so awful. That is why we have to have this change, which hits at the heart of our constitution. The House knows that I have an admiration and affection for our constitution that does not seek to change it lightly.

Let me come to the panel and the level of member that we expect. The panel’s members must bring significant expertise to the process, and we will expect it to be led by somebody who has a standing equivalent to that of a High Court judge. It must also include knowledge of human resources, employment law, bullying and harassment cases and sexual harassment cases. In a serious case, three of the independent experts would consider the sanction in the light of the report and recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. A further three would act as an appeal panel if necessary.

In cases considered by the panel that propose sanctions requiring action by the House, the panel would report directly to the House. At that stage, a motion would be moved by a member of the House of Commons Commission to implement the sanction, and it is at this stage where we find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, it is constitutionally proper that a decision of this magnitude—the expulsion or suspension of a Member—can only be taken by the House as a whole. It is removing, in effect, albeit temporarily, the democratic representation of tens of thousands of people, and we can only take away that democratic representation by a motion of this House. It does not seem right that a decision that could overturn the result of an election in a constituency could be taken by unelected individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for bringing the motions to the House today.

I want to start by thanking all the staff for their work on the independent complaints and grievance scheme, which is a testament to them all and to their hard work: they were working to tight deadlines in addition to their own work.

At the start of the process, it was about serious cases of sexual misconduct; it was then extended to bullying and harassment. We are now at the stage where there is a behaviour code. We have Valuing Others training in place, and I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members have signed up. I am not quite sure what is happening now, with covid—whether the training can be undertaken online or whether it is still going on.

I have mentioned numerous times at the meetings that we also need to have racial awareness training. Now that the Black Lives Matter movement is becoming centre-stage, I think that it should be an important addition to that training. The Leader of the Opposition has instructed everybody from the shadow Cabinet to undertake unconscious bias training. He has given us a deadline to do that, and the same should apply to the House.

Motion 4 confirms our commitment to the ICGS. It is worth hon. Members reading the ICGS annual report, which covers its first year and ends in June 2019. It was undertaken by Lee Bridges, the senior responsible owner. He and his staff have done a fantastic amount of work to ensure that the scheme is in place, and we owe them a great debt. The next report is due in October. Alison Stanley undertook a six-month review, and she has come up with recommendations. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House could set them out in a grid and tell us when Ms Stanley is likely to conduct the 18-month review, which I think is due in June.

I am concerned about the changes to the helplines, because I notice on the intranet that the two helplines have merged. The view when they were set up was that particularly for those who had experienced sexual misconduct, a specialist was required in the first instance so that the first person they spoke to could deal with them and they did not have to tell their story over and over again. I hope that that has not changed.

The other motions deal with setting up the panels, and that is about the end of the process. As the Leader of the House has said, and as we have discussed, the panels should have a level of judicial experience. They will set their own rules and processes, and it is important that transparency applies and everyone knows the rules.

[Alberto Costa]

The right hon. Lady and I have spoken about this over the last few months and years. As a lawyer, does she share my concern about the fact that, as she just said, the panel will make its own rules on disclosure of evidence? None of these procedures will be subject to review or oversight by a court of law. Why are MPs being denied recourse to the law in the event that they are subject to a complaint?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who deserves huge credit for moving this agenda on in the way it should have been, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), to whose amendment I will return.

First, I declare an interest as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Although the Committee takes no collective view on the specific questions put in the motions before us, it undoubtedly welcomes the determination of complaints against Members of this House, particularly serious ones, by a body that is wholly independent of it. I have spoken to my Committee colleague, the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), who cannot participate in this debate, and I know that she shares the views I am about to express.

I support the establishment of the independent expert panel and its determination of these cases, but it is right, as the Leader of the House said, that as a matter of constitutional principle the act of suspending or expelling a Member of this House can only be done by the House itself. There must therefore be a vote on the use of the most severe sanctions.

I am not, however, persuaded that there should be even the prospect of a debate about the sanctions, and I therefore declare my second interest as a former practitioner in the criminal courts, where I took part in a large number of sentencing hearings, which is in effect what we are discussing here. The panel would return a verdict, and we as the House of Commons would consider whether to impose the penalty that the panel had recommended.

[Alberto Costa]

My right hon. and learned Friend uses an excellent example, but in that example he must also accept that there is an appellate structure, which is being denied to MPs and only MPs in this proposal.

[Jeremy Wright]

I absolutely understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, which he has made before in this debate. I only say to him that he may find less comfort in his argument than he thinks, because as a distinguished lawyer he will know that the courts are extremely reluctant to involve themselves in the processes and penalties imposed by this place. It may be that the courts will not be as much help to him as he thinks.

I was going to go on to say that sentencing hearings can only be effective and fair if we have two sets of information: first, the mitigation available to the defendant, but secondly, information about the seriousness of the offence. More recently, the criminal courts have access to a third set of information, which is the effect of the offence upon the victim.

For good and sensible reasons, the Government are seeking in motion 6 to exclude from the debates we are considering not just the name of the complainant, but also

“Details of any investigation or specific matters considered”

by the panel. That is doubtless correct, but it would make it extremely difficult to assess the seriousness of the offence, and we would—again, quite properly—have no information at all on the effect of the offence on the victim.

I do not then see how we could do justice to what would effectively be a sentencing process in such a debate, and I do not therefore see what good having such a debate would do. It would certainly give rise to the risks that others in this debate have already set out, without deriving significant benefit. For that reason, I will be supporting the amendment of the hon. Member for Rhondda.

Business of the House

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

The hon. Lady is right to point out the importance of school sports. Part of the sports strategy published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is about encouraging everybody to be active. I agree with her that getting children to be active at a young age and keeping that activity going matters. I am sure the Backbench Business Committee would look favourably on such a popular subject.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

May I echo the calls of my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for a serious debate on respecting and thanking the 55% of the Scottish electorate—on a high turnout—who thoroughly rejected separatism? Mr Speaker, that is a serious matter: had the SNP won the argument, your position would have disappeared today, and you would no longer be the Speaker of the British Parliament—there would not be a British Parliament. May I therefore ask the Deputy Leader of the House to give serious consideration to holding a debate about having a national British holiday to celebrate unity day and to thank the Scottish people who said “No thanks” to the SNP?

[Dr Coffey]

The campaign is gathering momentum as my hon. Friend joins my hon. Friends the Members for Fylde and for Torbay. Most people in the House welcomed the result in 2014 and are glad that Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom, and that is something we can cherish. As to whether we need a special holiday, I look forward to the results of my hon. Friend’s campaign.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman says that we should listen. Let me say something that I have said before to him in this Chamber. The fact is that both of us greatly value the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we must address the simple fact that my constituents in South Leicestershire have repeatedly told me both before and after the election that they want a greater say in their own affairs. This is about fairness.

[Mr Carmichael]

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that his constituents are absolutely entitled to that and they should get it. I just do not think that what the Government have brought forward today offers that. It does nothing to address the fact that the people of England are still served by a model of government that is outdated and highly centralised, with everything being controlled from Whitehall. These proposals do absolutely nothing to change that.

On the question of taxation and Barnett consequentials, Lord Forsyth said that the proposals risk driving a further wedge between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) is sincere when he says that he is committed to the continuation of that Union, so I invite him to take a pause, have a think and look at this matter in its totality. That is why the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) is so important.

The message from the Lords invites us to set up a Joint Committee. That is a sensible way to proceed. I do not understand the position of the Leader of the House. He says that it is wrong for us to consult the other place, but at the same time he has invited, and has had an acceptance from, the Chairman of the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords to be part of a review. Yet again the Government and the Leader of the House in particular are seeking to have their cake and eat it.

The Leader of the House had said that this was not about creating an English Parliament within the UK Parliament, but then today in answer to a question he said that it was in fact devolution for England. It is no such thing. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire is right that his constituents deserve to have the same benefits of devolution that mine have had since 1999.

I reiterate the concerns previously expressed about the position of the Speaker being brought on to the field of play, which will be difficult for the holder of that office at any given time and will be justiciable. Let me remind the House of exactly what Lord Hope of Craighead said last night. He needs better respect than has been given to him either by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee or the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The process Tories are engaged in—it is fair enough; it is a political party and I understand that—would be all well and good and just so much political banter were it not for the point that in doing so they are trying to corrupt and degenerate the procedures of this institution.

[Alberto Costa]

The hon. Gentleman—the Member for Edinburgh East—does not speak for any constituency in England. It is the people of England who voted for the Conservative party. They voted for a manifesto that clearly said English votes for English laws.

[Tommy Sheppard]

And we know that you know that we know that you never thought you would have to implement this proposal. Now you have a dilemma on your hands. Here is the nub of the problem: the Tories are trying to make this Parliament be two things. As well as being the legislator for the United Kingdom, they are trying to make it be the legislator for England. That cannot be done without creating two classes of MP.