Business of the House

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I have always advertised the differences across the nations of the United Kingdom and regional differences in England as one of the strengths of the Union, as well as the things that we have in common. The hon. Lady accuses me of talking Scotland down and not celebrating it. Au contraire, if she looks back at my speeches from the Dispatch Box, she will know that is not the case. I am not talking Scotland down but about the SNP running Scotland down.

I am happy to compare our record of stewardship of public services against that of the SNP. Not a week goes by without the SNP messing up some particular sector or service. This week, highlights include the SNP pressing ahead with short-term lets licensing, which on 1 October will see thousands of businesses potentially close in Scotland and put some people in jeopardy of losing their homes, clobbering Scotland’s tourist sector, too. It has also emerged this week that complaints about SNP-administered benefits have increased by 350%, and while the economy recovers and people still have to tighten their belts, the SNP Government think it is a brilliant idea to introduce a congestion charge.

Scotland deserves better than socialist separatist parties. Yet again, the hon. Lady has demonstrated that the SNP is yesterday’s people talking about yesterday’s grievances. It is yesterday’s party.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, which was set up and agreed by this House in 2018 following careful cross-party working for more than a year, has not been implemented faithfully, and has had bits added on that are doing damage to the reputation of our politics? Does she agree that it needs a thorough review to get it back on track, so that everyone who works in this place can have confidence in the scheme, and so that it can restore the reputation of our democracy?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she did to ensure that this important step forward for the House was established. I agree that there are serious concerns about the timeliness and quality of investigations, and other concerns. I and other Commission members look forward to working with the new director and the new Parliamentary Commissioner to ensure that the system operates effectively and as it was intended to do. The Commission took some important decisions regarding the upcoming governance review at its meeting on Monday. I hope the review will also lead to some important improvements that will restore trust in the system. I encourage all colleagues to feed into the review and the Committee on Standards. I thank again my right hon. Friend for the attention she is still showing to this very important body.

Privileges Committee Special Report

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harman]

Is the hon. Gentleman, in what he has said, withdrawing what he said on Twitter, which was that the Committee was a

“witch-hunt which would put a banana republic to shame”?

That is what he actually said.

Committee members are entitled to the support of the House, because it is the House that has asked them to undertake this work.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

As a former Leader of the House, and having both spoken for and voted for the report by the Privileges Committee, which the House did commission, I am afraid that I do not accept the premise that the right hon. and learned Lady, for whom I have a great deal of time and respect, is putting forward today, which is that the Committee, as a result of being asked by the House to look into the behaviour by one of its Members, should therefore be absolutely immune from any form of free speech whatsoever. I cannot agree with her on that basis and will not be supporting the Committee’s report today.

[Ms Harman]

Perhaps I may reiterate that we are not saying that the Committee is immune. We are saying that it is evident that any Member of the House can challenge the appointment to the Committee of any member of the Committee, which frequently happens; that any Member of the House can challenge a reference to the Privileges Committee, and that, too, does happen; and that Members can challenge the terms of reference to the Committee and raise concerns about the procedure. But what Members cannot do is say that something is a witch hunt and a kangaroo court, and that there is collusion; impugn the integrity of the individual members of the Committee; and also undermine the standing of the Committee, because that is undermining the proceedings of the House. If hon. Members are not sure what “impugn” means, they can look at “Erskine May”, which goes into it in great detail—

Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The motion before the House today is of the utmost importance. Yes, it is about the behaviour of a Member, but there is also a huge degree of controversy about the process and the make-up of the Committee. I want to say from the outset that it is entirely reasonable for right hon. and hon. Members to have differing opinions on both the findings of the Committee and the sanctions imposed by it. However, where I part company with those who would vote against today’s motion is that I strongly believe this House must uphold the processes and Committees that we create.

As a former Leader of the House for two years during the 2017 to 2019 hung Parliament, when the harassment scandal hit this place, colleagues from every party—many of whom are in the Chamber today—and from the other place worked for the best part of a year to put together the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. I certainly do not defend that scheme as being perfect; I myself have some grave concerns about how it has been implemented, which are not for discussion today. However, what I believe the original ICGS, as agreed by this House in July 2018, got right was to uphold the principle that those who are elected to this place should only ever be removed by those same electors. The second principle that underpinned the ICGS was that the House should be responsible for its own affairs, ensuring a collective responsibility to uphold standards and giving all Members the right to be judged by a group of their peers.

The Committee of Privileges, which is responsible for this fifth report and is the subject of today’s debate, has in my opinion been entirely properly established, and has carried out its duties with great care and with every opportunity for the provision of both evidence and opinion to be taken into account. I thank all members of that Committee, and congratulate them on what I am certain will have been an exhaustive, and exhausting, process.

I remind colleagues, the vast majority of whom will have been involved in cross-party Committees such as Select Committees and inquiries, to recall that all the participants on a Committee have an equal voice, and that this particular Committee—with its majority of Government Members—simply cannot reasonably be accused of political bias. Our Standing Orders, while far from perfect, ensure that Members are judged by a politically balanced group of their peers, and that the ultimate sanction available to them gives the right and the obligation to that Member’s own electors to decide whether to call a by-election in the first place. If that 10% threshold is met, it is for those voters to return or reject that Member.

What is the alternative to our Privileges Committee? The only alternative is a Committee made of non-Members. That might address the fears about political bias, but surely the risk of lay members having their own agendas is also great, and with lay members there is a vital constitutional issue around unelected people having the power to dismiss those who are elected. If we do not uphold this crucial principle of our democracy, we risk undermining the preferences of voters by appointing unelected assessors to wield power. That would be a dramatic change to one of the world’s greatest and longest-lived democracies, and we would effectively be saying that we are unable to govern ourselves, overturning a precedent that is hundreds of years old. That is a reality that many right across the country would be deeply uncomfortable with.

In my opinion, the time to challenge the make-up or the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges for its fifth report is long past. Colleagues with concerns about that Committee quite rightly raised those concerns before the House instructed the Committee in April 2022, but they were overruled by a significant democratic majority. The procedures and processes of this House are in constant need of review and reform—of that, there can be no doubt. However, we must make sure that a proper process of reform is followed, not seek to rewrite the process at the eleventh hour because some do not like the conclusions.

For my own part, I will be supporting today’s motion to approve the fifth report. I am sad that it has come to this, and I am particularly sorry to all of my constituents who have written to tell me that they kept the rules when others clearly did not. I urge all Members across the House to approve this motion without a Division.

Business of the House

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

First, on behalf of all Members, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that joke—a joke that only the Secretary of State for Levelling Up would appreciate. He will know that the Mayor of Teesside has called for an NAO-led inquiry—he has done that—and it is right that a lot of money has gone into that area. Just to briefly recap: £80 million to kick-start an investment zone; regeneration projects and levelling-up projects in Darlington, Redcar and Cleveland and Middlesbrough; more levelling-up funding for Stockton South, Hartlepool, Redcar and Cleveland; in the Tees Valley Combined Authority, a £107 million investment, the first investment by the UK Infrastructure Bank; freeport status, a carbon capture cluster and a devolution deal; £46.3 million for the combined authority from the shared prosperity fund; millions for Middlesbrough rail station, Central Park business and lab workspace, and Teesworks gateway infrastructure; town deals for Darlington, Middlesbrough, Thornaby-on-Tees, Hartlepool and Redcar; and future high streets funding for Stockton, Loftus and Middlesbrough —all delivered by a Conservative Government and a Conservative Mayor, in contrast with what Labour did in the preceding 13 years, which was the square root of diddly squat and a disgraceful attitude in taking such communities for granted.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I send my love and best wishes to the family of our good friend Karen. She will be greatly missed.

My right hon. Friend will recall that, back in 2018, both Houses voted to decant from this place so that vital mechanical and engineering works could be carried out, yet the Public Accounts Committee has recently said that we are now spending £2 million a week on patching and mending. Does she share my concern and frustration at the lack of progress, and what more can she do to make sure that we preserve this globally important UNESCO world heritage site for future generations?

[Penny Mordaunt]

First, I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work she did to move this forward when she was in this role. She is right: we all understand that this building is not just somewhere we work, but a national heritage site and an international, world-renowned UNESCO heritage site. It must be kept safe and preserved, and on a good day with the wind behind us, it should be enhanced, too.

My right hon. Friend will know that changes have happened to the governance of the restoration and renewal programme. That is making good progress. She is absolutely right, and I know that the Commission, the Speaker, and others at the other end of this place want us to get cracking on that programme. There should be no impediment to that, and I thank all Members of this House who are on those new governance structures and are helping us get there. We hope to get there by the end of this year.

Business of the House

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work to facilitate this important debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. I know that many Members will want to contribute, and this debate provides an opportunity to do so.

The hon. Gentleman knows that, since the Christmas recess, we have had one debate on the importance of community sport. It is a subject that is very much recognised, and obviously we need facilities in which to do those activities. I know that the questions to that Department are not until a little later in the year, so I will write again encouraging Ministers to engage with the hon. Gentleman to see what other funding streams could be accessed for his constituency. We have offered him some further time next week for the Backbench Business Committee. I know that that is short notice, but I hope that he will consider taking it up, because there are clearly bids from many Members on a whole range of topics.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

This Government have a fantastic track record on their commitment to achieving net zero. I am very proud of our determination to achieve net zero from the tailpipe by 2035. It is world beating, and I applaud the Government for their ambition, but can my right hon. Friend please have a chat with the House authorities about possibly offering more superfast chargers in the carpark here so that many more staff and people who come here each day can achieve their own net zero ambitions?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend not just for that question, but for all the work that she has done in this area. She held the brief in ministerial office, but, on leaving that office, she has continued her interest and has worked on a number of policies to help move on this agenda. She is absolutely right: we cannot expect people, including Members of this House, to make those changes to their lifestyle—the kind of car they buy, how they heat their homes and so forth—unless we have the infrastructure in place, and unless we have the innovation and the support for that innovation to bring forward products that people will want to take up. I shall certainly take up that suggestion, and she will know better than I who I should take it up with.

Standards: Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and his cross-party Committee for all the hard work that they put into their comprehensive and far-reaching inquiry into the operation of the code of conduct for MPs. They worked diligently, thoughtfully and cross-party with their external members. They came up with sound proposals, consulted carefully and revised their proposals further. It then fell to the Government to table the motion—I will come back to that. I also thank the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and her team for all their dedication to making sure that rules are understood and, when not adhered to, thoroughly and fairly investigated. I also thank them for their recent review.

Since 1695, as my hon. Friend once told me, Parliament has had rules against lobbying and taking payments for conferring or attempting to confer benefits on an individual, business or organisation. Until 2015, those rules only ever got stronger, which is the right and only reasonable direction that the public would expect. When a respected Select Committee does its job—consults, revises and employs independent judicial expertise—and makes its recommendations, my view is that that should be respected fully by the Government. So it is bittersweet to be debating the Government’s eventual motion today. After months of many of us calling for the full set of recommendations to be implemented as recommended, the Government have tabled a motion, but in the process they have ditched crucial elements that would have strengthened parliamentary standards still further. I am dismayed but hardly surprised, because this is, unfortunately, a Government with form.

Let us remember how, just over a year ago, the Tories took an approach to standards taken by no Government before them. The then MP Owen Paterson had been found absolutely bang to rights, having taken a large amount of money for a large amount of access to benefit the company who paid for him. Most importantly, the Commissioner for Standards and the Standards Committee had investigated the claims carefully, reviewed the evidence, considered every angle and concluded a sanction. That is the backdrop to the motion: a Government who, within the past 12 months and roughly three weeks, did that to their system of standards—and there was more to come.

The Government, led by the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—I have notified him of my intention to mention him—along with many others in the Cabinet and on the Government Benches, tabled and supported a motion as recommended, but in name only. The then Leader of the House spoke for 40 minutes in support not of the motion in his name but of the amendment in the name of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). In so doing, he simultaneously tabled a motion and undermined the standards system and the case in hand by trying to introduce a new process.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member accept that the amendment tabled was designed to set up a Select Committee to look exactly at the problems that we are debating? That was its intention.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. It may have been the amendment’s intention in the abstract, but, by introducing it during that process, the Government undermined that existing, living process. Their case when approaching matters of standards is affected even now by that decision to propose a motion and then basically speak in support of one undermining it in the middle of a live process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I am really pleased that this debate has returned to the House. I refer to my submission to the Committee on Standards’ review of the code of conduct in February 2022; I had asked if I could give oral evidence to the Committee, but sadly that did not happen. I will refer to some of the points that I made, because I think they are important and I do not think that anyone else has mentioned them yet.

In short, we need a review far broader than the one before us tonight of how the standards processes work in Parliament. All our constituents want to be able to hold us all to account. Most importantly, we want to hold ourselves to account. Members across all parties have said that almost all of us are doing our best at all times, working with honour and integrity and doing the best job we can, yet somehow the drip, drip, drip of bad behaviour is destroying the reputation of this place on a constant and ongoing basis. The measures before the House this evening, which with one notable exception are frankly trivial, are just not going to change that.

As colleagues will know, I was closely involved in a cross-party attempt to create an Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. There are no other colleagues present who were closely involved, but all seven political parties in this place were represented. It was intended to create a change in the culture. What we always see when we come to this place is people pointing fingers—“The Government have done this, the Standards Committee has done that, the Opposition have done this”—and all we do is make it worse.

The ICGS was designed to change the culture by doing things like proper induction for new members of staff, so that people know what to expect; proper exit interviews, so that when a Member has a group of staffers leave every three months, something can be done about it; and proper training programmes for staff and Members. Sometimes people laugh and say, “I don’t need to do unconscious bias training.” Well, my challenge to them is: “Okay, define it, then. If you don’t need to do that training, you define it. Show me how good you are at that.”

The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme was set up to tackle those issues, but what we have now is a scheme that has sucked in every single complaint—“So-and-so won’t let me go for lunch on time,” or, “My holiday was cancelled.” Those frankly more trivial workplace grievances, which have nothing to do with the serious challenges, overload the system, so that when there is a serious complaint of serious bullying, sexual harassment or even worse, there is not time for it. The system is too slow. It delivers neither the confidentiality that it was supposed to deliver nor the speed of justice.

I am afraid that, in coming up with this review, the Committee on Standards is looking thoroughly only at non-ICGS complaints, although it has certainly indicated its interest in the ICGS. Since 2018, the ICGS, which is independent—the clue’s in the title—and non-ICGS complaints, which are presided over by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, have got sucked into one amorphous blob. It has become a punishment routine that embarrasses us all, drags us all down and is destroying our reputation.

[Andy Carter]

May I clarify a point that my right hon. Friend has just made? I think she said that the Standards Committee had not looked at the independent complaints system. That is because, as she probably knows, the Standards Committee has no remit to look at it.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

As a matter of fact, the Standards Committee can look at whatever it wants. It was not established to look at the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. In a sense, however, my hon. Friend has made my point for me: the fact that the Standards Committee is looking at how we can improve the conduct and the reputation of Parliament without looking at the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme is a nonsense, and that is my thesis this evening. We need a much broader review.

I am sorry to say this, because I am extremely fond of the Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers, but the Committee concluded that the behaviour of the Speakers and the Deputy Speaker was untouchable. The fact that behaviour in the Chamber is a matter for the Chair and should be above investigation by the Standards Committee is extraordinary. In very recent history, someone in the Chair was the person who wound up the Chamber the most, making people miserable and bringing the whole House into disrepute, yet for some reason the Committee will not consider the behaviour of those in the Chair. Nor will it consider what is going badly or well in respect of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wants to intervene, he is welcome to do so.

Now, under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has some sort of authority over that. It was intended that the investigation would be carried out independently and confidentially, but we are finding that investigations are now being presided over by the commissioner, who is requiring Members to stand up in the Chamber and apologise. That is outside the remit of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. Some may say, “Fine: if you have been rude to someone, you should stand here and apologise.” My response would be: “You try saying that to someone who works at John Lewis or McDonald’s. Are you seriously going to make them apologise to the entire firm, so that that will be on the record forever?”

There are serious issues involving the mental health of MPs and the way in which we behave in this place—the way in which we protect colleagues from the problems that occur and bring us all down. So many people say to me that they are sick and tired of the fact that we are all tarred with the same brush. It is very easy for people to be tribal and say, “It’s you”, “No it’s not, it’s you”, but actually it is all of us. We are all held in incredibly low esteem, and it is because we have not sorted this out.

While I am on the subject of big subjects, let me say that in my opinion—this is open to discussion and challenge; does anyone want to intervene?—it is all about the House of Commons Commission. Talk about a totally opaque organisation! It is chaired by the Speaker, it has appointments, and it is simply extraordinary. It is not accountable, and it makes financial decisions with very little transparency. Ultimately, all the authority in this place to establish Committees, to appoint Committees and so on, comes from the House of Commons Commission. In my opinion, we should have a fundamental review of that and then take it from there. The Standards Committee should look again at the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme and make sure it is doing what it was set up to do.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making some very good and important points, and I hope that those who are listening to the debate may come up with a mechanism whereby we can review some of these issues. We are always told that they are issues for the House to decide, but what is never obvious to me is the process we can undertake to effect the discussions to which my right hon. Friend is referring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

That—I say this slightly tongue in cheek—was the point of the amendment that was tabled last year, but nevertheless that did not happen during the debate on standards that took place then. It seems to me that we need something like the Straw Committee, which, back in the day, reviewed the way in which the processes of the House worked much more fundamentally than this review.

The one development that I genuinely think has been brilliant is the new appeals process. It was essential and has been a long time coming, and I hope it will get the balance right between just punishing MPs and trying to change the culture in this place and give people fairness.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Standards Committee.

Business of the House

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

As the hon. Lady suggests, I am a simple girl. I read the evidence from the Committee sitting to which she referred, and I understand that Secretary of State for Scotland will clarify the matter that she mentioned. I can tell her that the Scottish Government’s spending the unrestricted funds that they get on their project of a further referendum is a colossal waste of money. The Scottish Government and Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved Administrations in the world, with huge authority that the SNP has done its best not to take up, with responsibilities that the SNP has done its best to shirk, and with the largest budget it has ever had that the SNP has done its best to squander.

The reason Scotland has low job creation is that it has the lowest PISA—programme for international student assessment—ranking since that measure was created. It has 700 fewer police officers than a year ago and the worst A&E wait times on record. That the hon. Lady’s constituency has the lowest funding settlement per person in Scotland is not because of the UK Government, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Supreme Court, the good people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Brexit or Britain, but because of her party, the SNP, and its obsession with issues that the Scottish people wish it would leave aside to focus on what matters to them.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I know my right hon. Friend worries, as I do, about the cost to every family of filling their car. She will have seen media reports that, despite wholesale prices going down, the prices on garage forecourts remain stubbornly high. Will she allow Government time for a debate on FairFuelUK’s excellent idea for a new PumpWatch commissioner to monitor and stop bad practice on garage forecourts?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My right hon. Friend will know the Competition and Markets Authority published its road fuel report in July, and it recommended that the Government consider a scheme to increase transparency on fuel prices. The Government are looking at this, and I join her in commending the work of FairFuelUK, which has done a huge amount to champion the rights of motorists and to remind us that holding down fuel duty, and cutting it where we can, is good for the economy.

Business of the House

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I would be happy to raise that matter with the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman will know from the Prime Minister’s statement that the cost of living and related issues are a priority for this Government, and I will certainly take that up with the relevant Department.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I apologise for being slightly late because I had to hobble here as the result of a sprained ankle.

I hugely congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new post. I speak from experience when I say that it is the most brilliant job, and I am sure she will serve with great distinction. I also say a huge thank you to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). He was brilliant and funny as the Scottish Nationalists’ spokesman all the way through, and I wish his successor much luck, Can my right hon. Friend assure us that she will give them no possibility of doing anything to tear apart our great United Kingdom while she remains Leader of the House?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I hope that is my reputation. On the Government side of the House, we respect the results of referendums.

Committee on Standards: Members’ Code of Conduct Review

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the Standards Committee for a very interesting and incredibly useful report, and to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for his time yesterday; we were charging around the Lobby together trying to discuss this issue, which is close to my heart. He knows that in my opinion we need a much bigger review of standards in this place and I want to take a few brief moments to explain why. First and foremost, our constituents want to be able to hold us all to account. Secondly, we want to hold ourselves to account. Lots of colleagues from across the House have said, “We want to behave in a selfless way, with high levels of integrity. We want to be those honourable men and women that we are called to be as Members of Parliament.” We all know of colleagues who have been absolutely devastated—their mental health has been destroyed; they have felt bitterly ashamed; they have left this place under a cloud—because of things they have done. They were not doing those things deliberately or maliciously, but for whatever reason, they have not been up to the standard that this House requires, so it is right that those punishments take place.

For our constituents, too, it is absolutely vital that they understand what they can require their Member of Parliament to do. In these days of 24/7 social media, 24/7 news and theyworkforyou.com, with all of the accusations that are flying at us, all Members will agree: we get constituents saying, “I require you to vote this way”, and when we do not do so, they literally rant at us. We have constituents demanding that we take up their case when we are completely unable to do so because it is a matter for another constituency MP, and what those constituents will do—as this report clearly sets out—is go to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, saying, “This MP is a piece of rubbish. I want to complain about them.” What they get back from the PCS is, “I am very sorry. That is outside of my remit.” That undermines confidence and trust in Members of Parliament, and it is a classic example of how our constituents need to understand what they can expect of us.

What the Standards Committee seeks to do is uphold those principles and those rules, and to judge us against them. That is quite right and very worthy, but it is neither clear to our constituents what we should be doing—because there is no articulation anywhere of what the job of an MP is—nor whether we are here as their delegates or as their representatives. How many times have we heard people say, “I want you to vote this way”? My answer is, “I have 82,000 voters. They do not all agree with you. If you can get the other 81,999 to accept your view, I will vote in line with that absolute confirmation of how my constituents want me to vote.” There is a fundamental problem with how our constituents can hold us to account, and there is a lot more that we should be doing as a Parliament with things like theyworkforyou.com and lobby campaigns. Somebody will literally send me and all of us an email saying, “Dear (insert name of Member of Parliament here). Yours sincerely, (insert your name here).” I will reply to them courteously, and they will say, “Why have you written to me about this?” I have to prove to them that it is because they wrote to me in the first place, so there are some mad things going on, Madam Deputy Speaker—you are laughing because, of course, you get it too, Deputy Speaker or not. There are real problems.

The other key point I want to make is that in this House, we set up the independent complaints and grievance scheme. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is in his place, was a part of it. It was entirely cross-party, it carried the support of this House, and what it was intended to do—rather than what the Standards Committee does, which is set out the principles and judge Members against them—was change the culture of this place. It was intended to make sure that people took on board a behaviour code that did not apply just to MPs, but to everybody who works here. There are 15,000 people who work here; there are only 650 MPs, and there are problems at every level in this place, as we saw only too well when the terrible #MeToo scandal hit Westminster. That is in large part down to the multiplicity of contracts and reporting lines that we have, and the HR processes that we do or do not have. The ICGS set out very clearly that, based on the evidence we took, 80% of the problems we were suffering in this House were workplace grievance issues. Yes, 20% were very serious bullying and sexual harassment issues, but nevertheless we have a culture issue, and the ICGS set out to change that.

It also set out, absolutely fundamentally, the need for proper induction courses for everybody who comes here, so that they know where the Table Office is and what it does; they know what sitting hours are and how to read an Order Paper; and, very importantly, they know what kind of behaviour they are expected to show to each other. Is it appropriate to go down to the bar with a junior member of staff and chat them up? As one Member has already said, issues such as those are taught in business environments: those things are made very clear, not just to MPs but to everybody who comes here, but it is not so at the moment in this place, even though the ICGS said it should be. The second point is about training as a sanction: rather than always reverting to an apology in this Chamber, which serves to devastate a Member of Parliament, or a sacking of a member of staff—which obviously devastates them—what is wrong with implementing the training that the ICGS envisaged? It is simply not happening.

The final point is about exit interviews. We know that there is huge turnover, and in some MPs’ offices there is very great turnover. We all know who they are, but why are their staff not undergoing exit interviews when they leave, so that measures can be put in place, not always to punish, humiliate and destroy people’s mental health, but to make things better, to make this a Parliament that everybody can be proud of? As Members we agonise about how we drag ourselves through the gutter all the time. None of us wants that to be the case. It is soul-destroying for all of us. In recent days we have heard some really good Members say, “I’ve had enough. I’m leaving this place.” A new colleague came to me and said, “I spent 25 years working in the public sector. I don’t want to risk being an MP for any longer, because if you make a mistake, your name and good reputation will be taken through the gutter and you’ll never live it down.”

It is slightly as if we have created a system of disaster, and our constituents cannot rely on it either. I would like to see a big review to address what an MP is there for. How are we actually helping MPs and those who work for us to do their job better, and what can we do to actually make people proud of their MPs and of their Parliament?

Business of the House

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for Government policy in relation to Ukraine. Her Majesty’s Government have made it absolutely clear that should a further Russian incursion into Ukraine happen, allies must enact swift retributive responses, including unprecedented sanctions. It is obviously right that any statutory instruments that come to the House are considered fully and I note the hon. Gentleman’s request for a debate.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

We have a debate this afternoon on the Standards Committee review and report, which my right hon. Friend will know makes copious reference to the independent complaints and grievance scheme that was established in the House across party lines only a couple of years ago. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to look at the ICGS and non-ICGS complaints systems together, to make sure that our constituents and those who want us to serve them can see what is going on and that there is full transparency?

In particular, my right hon. Friend might be aware that the introduction of the ICGS was really focused on changing the culture of this place, which meant training and proper induction for new Members and staff who come into this place, and it also meant exit interviews to find out why people do not stay. Those things are not happening; what can my right hon. Friend do to make sure that the system is properly in place and that the two different processes are aligned once and for all?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her work to foster culture change in the House of Commons and in the setting up of the ICGS, which would not have happened in the form in which it has without her energy and drive. It has been enormously to the advantage of the House of Commons. I am glad that the Chairman of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is present in the Chamber, because I am sure he will have heard what my right hon. Friend had to say. There will be a debate later and it is important that all views about how things can be done better and differently are sent into the Standards Committee so that it can produce its report. My right hon. Friend’s comments are extremely helpful and her experience makes them particularly valid—[Interruption.] I think the Chairman of the Standards Committee is indicating that he has taken them as a formal representation.