Business of the House

Andy Carter Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. He will know that the Finance Committee of the House recently did a review of the travel subsidy for different parts of the country, and there are some changes that will be made to that with regard to school visits and the opportunity for people from all parts of the UK to come to this place. I suggest that he speaks to the Chair of the Finance Committee about that. She sits on the House of Commons Commission and her recommendations come to us.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

Homeowners on two recently built housing developments in my constituency were promised a GP surgery. The development at Appleton Cross has been completely finished and the section 106 money paid across, but there is no GP surgery. That is putting extreme pressure on the existing facilities that are provided elsewhere in Warrington South. May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time to look at how we can ensure that, when planning permission is agreed and the infrastructure that is needed to go with it is agreed, the local authority responsible for approving that planning permission ensures that the GP surgeries are delivered as required?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter on behalf of his constituents. He will know that in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 we introduced powers to create a new infrastructure levy to replace the existing system of developer contributions. It aims to generate more funding for infrastructure such as he mentions—GP surgeries and shops, for example—to mitigate the impact of new development and ensure that the needs of new people moving into the area and increasing the population size are served. We have committed to further consult on the design of the levy before drafting regulations. He may wish to raise the matter directly with the Secretary of State on 4 March.

Correcting the Record

Andy Carter Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Sunderland]

The technical detail of how this will work is yet to be thrashed out, but I have no doubt it will be subject to further work between the Procedure Committee and the House authorities.

As I have said, the visibility of any corrections will be improved in the official record and the exact mechanism for that is being worked through. It is, for example, possible that the format of cross-referenced hyperlinks in Hansard will be improved so that they are much clearer, whether in relation to a point of order or through other oral contributions. Thirdly, there will also be an easily accessible corrections page, probably on the parliamentary website, and linked elsewhere, where anyone will be able to see a bespoke record of parliamentary corrections.

While we believe that existing mechanisms to challenge the accuracy of contributions made in the House are sufficient, and that understanding those mechanisms can assist Members in effectively and creatively challenging accuracy, these improvements are necessary. Importantly, the Procedure Committee does not believe that distinction between Ministers and non-Ministers justifies any difference in the means by which Back Benchers may seek to correct themselves when they discover that they have made an error. We have therefore concluded that the rules should apply equally to all MPs.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I am supportive of the Procedure Committee’s report, and I wonder if I could pick up on the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington—[Interruption.] I apologise. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight)—I will correct the record. If a Back Bencher chose not to correct the record when they were made aware of something, would the Procedure Committee consider that that may be a contempt, and as a consequence of not correcting the record, would there be a referral to the Committee of Privileges?

[James Sunderland]

The Procedure Committee considered that issue carefully, and we concluded that the existing procedural mechanisms to challenge the accuracy of contributions made in the House are sufficient. It is difficult to compel any Member to do anything, but we hope that with the new improvements to the process, Members may be feel obliged to do so.

Business of the House

Andy Carter Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman will know how to apply for a debate, but he has accomplished his mission today and we are all disappointed to hear about the company walking away from its obligations. I hope it will make good on those obligations, but I will ask the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities whether it can provide the hon. Gentleman’s office with any advice about how he can help the company to come to that conclusion.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will know that Birmingham City Council was the latest to have to declare an effective bankruptcy because of excessive debt and mismanagement. I have raised my concerns about borrowing at Warrington Council in this House many times. With its borrowing amounting to almost £2 billion—10 times core spending—Warrington Council is not just an outlier, but off the Richter scale in terms of the level of debt that the council has racked up. Is it not time that the Government stopped councils acting like hedge funds? Can we have a debate in Government time on what we can do to effectively manage this situation in local councils? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time to send in commissioners when councils do not take effective action to reduce their indebtedness?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. He is right that, in Labour-run Birmingham, the council blamed everyone else rather than taking responsibility for the situation. It blamed the IT system, the Government and women expecting equal pay. It really must stop passing the buck and take responsibility for its own mess. This comes as a stark warning to Labour-run Warrington Council, which I understand is in debt to the tune of nearly £2 billion and has just approved a £145 million loan to another council, despite that terrible financial situation. I know that my hon. Friend has raised this many times and that the Secretary of State has also asked for an independent review. With regard to other councils that are managing their budgets well, we know that there are still tough times ahead. There are many demands on their services, which is why we have confirmed an almost £60 billion package for local authorities this financial year.

Privileges Committee Special Report

Andy Carter Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

It is important that there is due process, and it seems to me that the report does not deliver the guidance and the processes that would be helpful to the House when dealing with matters that have been considered by the Privileges Committee. That is because the report is not concerned with establishing or recommending new processes and protections, and we should not sit here pretending that it is. This report has been used by the Committee to criticise and censure individuals. The House should reflect on that in the light of my comments.

The House will set, in my view, a dangerous precedent if it approves a report that censures and passes judgment on Members of the House without granting due process—fair due process, I should add—to the Members it makes allegations about.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend knows that I was a member of the Committee. Along with every other member of the Committee, I was clear that there is no censure in the report. Will she clarify what she means by censure? That was certainly not what the Committee intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

Would the hon. Lady like to intervene? She is very welcome to. She has spoken. With respect, she also asked for civility in the Chamber and in the way in which we engage with one another. Everyone has strong opinions and, with that, it is right and respectful that we listen to each other.

[Andy Carter]

rose—

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will give way to my hon. Friend first and then I will come to the hon. Lady.

[Andy Carter]

I think every member of the Committee firmly believes that every Member of Parliament has the right to share their opinions in this House, but the 2019 House of Commons code for Members is very clear: Members must not lobby the Committee, or the Commissioner in a manner calculated to influence their consideration of issues related to conduct. The current Members’ code of conduct does not mention that the Privileges Committee should be included in that. This report suggests that that should be amended so that Members serving on the Privileges Committee are also afforded those rights. I do not want any Member of Parliament to be prevented from saying what they believe once a report is published, but not during the process of producing a report.

[Priti Patel]

With respect, I have heard what my hon. Friend has had to say, but if he had listened to what I have had to say, he would know that I am worried that this will set a dangerous precedent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) for his comments on the Privileges Committee. I will make a few short points in relation to comments that have been made in the debate.

First, having spent more than a year considering the privilege matter referred to the Committee, I am certain that every member of the Committee believes in the right of MPs to speak their minds. However, MPs have special rights, and it is those rights that the Privileges Committee considers. The Committee is there to ensure that those rights are used appropriately and protected.

Members are perfectly entitled to say what they think about a Privileges Committee report once that report is published—in fact, we expect that—but while the investigation is taking place, I think, and I think the House believes, that Members should refrain from making public comments. In fact, the House approved the Commons code of conduct, which is clear that that is the intent of this House. Chapter 4 states that Members must not

“lobby the Committee or the Commissioner in a manner calculated to influence their consideration of the matter. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has regarded any breach of this rule as particularly serious and it alone has led to suspension from the House.”

Members are perfectly entitled to speak out when they do not agree with the Privileges Committee’s findings. They have the right to object to and to vote on Members appointed to the Committee, and subsequently to raise any alleged conflicts on a point of order. They can vote against the motion of referral or seek to amend a motion; they can comment on the Committee’s procedure to the Committee itself or to the House; and they can submit evidence to the Committee and debate, vote and comment publicly on the Committee’s final report, as Members have done.

In the three and a half years that I have been a member of the Privileges Committee, I have never once been lobbied directly by a Member of Parliament, but I have received more than 600 emails attempting to influence on this particular motion. My view is that the rule in the Members code of conduct is there to protect both Members and Committee members. Those appointed to the Committee should be free to deliberate without interference, and those who face allegations should know that anyone’s attempts to interfere will be rejected and they could face contempt proceedings. There is a belief that such interference would always be aimed at reducing the sentence, but there is no reason why Members cannot lobby to increase the sentence; were anyone to try to do that, they would equally be rejected.

I am aware that some Members believe that the Committee overreached by making this special report, but I do not agree. Any Committee has the right to make a special report commenting on matters of concern that have arisen during an inquiry. The 1947 resolution of the House makes it clear that the Privileges Committee can consider and report on not just a matter specifically referred to it, but facts surrounding and reasonably connected with it. This is the matter that has been referred here. The special report deals with matters in the public domain; it is not an investigation into alleged contempt by any Members named in it. It does not explicitly say that the Committee believes the Members named committed a contempt; nor, therefore, does it recommend any sanctions. Were any Member of this House referred to a future Committee, it would be incumbent on all the members of the existing Committee to resign, because we would not be able to consider any issue that arose from this report.

Finally, I want to say a few words about fairness of process. The Committee received excellent advice, impartial and authoritative, from Clerks of the House and, most importantly, from Speaker’s Counsel and Sir Ernest Ryder, a Lord Justice of Appeal and Senior President of Tribunals. Both have ensured that the process we undertook allowed natural justice and was fair to all involved.

There is a risk to the systems of this House. Members will simply not be willing to serve on a Committee if they are not allowed to take decisions in an environment that affords them space to do so in a fair and appropriate manner. I approached this case with a totally open mind—in fact, I believe that all members of the Committee did. In a previous determination in July 2021 in relation to Mr Johnson’s declarations of a holiday he had received, we approached that, too, with a completely open mind. In that case, we challenged what was being reported by the commissioner; we sought more information, and ultimately, despite the commissioner recommending a finding of a breach of the code, the Committee decided not to accept that and overturned the findings. In this case, before the case had begun, Members of the House of Lords were making allegations of bias, suggesting that we had already prejudged the report. The allegations are simply without merit and there is no evidence to support them.

The special report is about ensuring that this House can continue to follow the procedures and rules that are set out for this House. I urge Members to support the motion.

Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion

Andy Carter Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). He made a thoughtful contribution to the debate, and he is absolutely right: this is not plain sailing. It is not simple. There are complexities here, and there are moments when different principles clash. We just need to make sure that, in so far as we possibly can, we align those principles rather than let them clash.

For me, there are two principles. The first is that everybody who works in Parliament—whether as a chef, a cleaner, a contractor, a journalist, a Member of Parliament or someone who works for a Member of Parliament, or a Clerk—should have absolute certainty that this is a safe place to work in relation to both bullying and sexually inappropriate behaviour. I know there are colleagues who think that it is a safe place, but there are lots of staff who do not think it is. The ICGS is a great thing; I would argue that we are probably the first Parliament in the world that has introduced such a confidential system. It is still in its early days, but it does not entirely have the confidence of all the staff yet. One has only to look at the polling that has been done by the GMB and Unite, or speak to any of the other trade union officials—or, for that matter, those who are not members of any trade union here—to know how staff feel about some of the practices and the way we do our business in Parliament. There is a job of work to be done.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Can I just do my second principle and then give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he does not mind? They fit together in my head.

The second principle is that an MP, just like any other member of the public, is entitled to due process and a fair hearing. It is unfortunately true that the court of public opinion is in permanent session, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There are no rules of evidence or proceeding in that court, and everybody involved in it thinks that they are the judge, the jury and the executioner. I want to make sure that everything we do in this House ensures that those two principles are met: first, that it is a safe place to work, and secondly, that there is fair due process for MPs just as for anybody else.

[Andy Carter]

I am in complete agreement: those two principles are incredibly important. The point I wanted to raise with the hon. Gentleman is one we have discussed before in the Standards Committee. Quite often, there is media reporting that 56 MPs are being investigated in relation to bullying or sexual abuse. Those figures are just completely wrong, and they give a completely misleading perspective on issues in this House. That would be around 10% of Members of Parliament. In fact, that figure relates to the total number of employees on the estate—about 7,000 Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when reporting like that takes place, the Commissioner has a responsibility to correct those figures in order to ensure that the people who work here appreciate that safety and security are important, and so that people understand that those sorts of figures are not accurate?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I think it was Tom Lehrer who wrote a song that goes:

“Plagiarise,

Let no one else’s work evade your eyes…so don’t shade your eyes,

But plagiarise, plagiarise, plagiarise,

Only be sure always to call it please, ‘research’.”

The hon. Member must have seen my notes, because what he said is what I was about to say, almost word for word. I am disturbed by his eyesight, frankly. What he says is true. I have rarely been so cross as when I saw reports, repeated in several newspapers, that 54 or 56 MPs —I am not sure which—were under investigation by the ICGS at that time. I spoke to the ICGS, and I knew that the figure was absolutely untrue. I spoke to the journalist concerned, who insisted on publishing the report because they had been told by a Member of Parliament that it was true. It was not true; it was utterly untrue, and it cast the whole of Parliament in a much worse light than is necessary.

As the hon. Member knows, I am one to try to insist on fairness and to ensure that when somebody has broken the rules, they are dealt with properly. My anxiety is that if people keep on writing stories that are untrue, unsourced or no more than gossip or rumour, it will undermine people’s confidence in the ICGS and the system, and that makes it more difficult for us to get a place where we have a safe workplace for everybody involved.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for what she said about what I call the crazy paving of different bodies in Parliament. I am slightly worried that at the end of this process we will add another body to the many bodies that presently govern how we operate. It is difficult for an ordinary Member of Parliament to understand, but it is even more difficult for staff and the public to understand the different sets of rules that we have. Sometimes they do not fit together properly, and that undermines confidence in democracy and therefore is a problem. That is why I hope we can do a big piece of work in the Standards Committee, and I am grateful for what the Leader of the House said about the work she will do, to see whether there are ways we can at least align things better.

I am aware, for instance, that the way a complaint might be dealt with by the police or the ICGS might remain entirely confidential right the way through to the very end, or until charge in the case of the police. In the ICGS, confidentiality will remain right through until the end. For instance, we had an ICGS case that started in the last Parliament. The person knew they were under investigation, they stood for Parliament, nobody in the political party knew that was happening, they got re-elected and the ICGS process finished and that person left Parliament. However, if someone complains to the political party, the party will suspend the Whip immediately and that is publicly known. Somewhere in that, it is not quite right and fair, and that is a place where we need to do a piece of work.

Business of the House

Andy Carter Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point. As he will know, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Prime Minister are very focused on ensuring that those who are renting are protected. As well as the circumstances that he has described, there are knock-on effects for kids attending school. It is an incredibly difficult situation, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we are focusing on it, and we will continue to focus on it as we go into the fourth Session.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Manchester ship canal runs right through the middle of my constituency. There are three main A-roads crossing it, in addition to the M6 Thelwall viaduct, which opened 60 years ago this year. Three of the roads that cross the canal via swing bridges are regularly opened and boats pass through, but they are all controlled and owned by the ship canal owner, Peel Ports. This is regulated under the Manchester Ship Canal Act 1885, which set out the original obligations at a time when there were not many cars on the roads.

The bridges need urgent, essential repairs, but because the council and Peel Ports cannot agree on a closure schedule, they frequently break down and are stuck open, so cars cannot cross the canal. May we have a debate on reviewing the 1885 Act to ensure that the highways infrastructure in Warrington is no longer under the control of a business that is not playing its part in minimising delays and disruption in my town?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and for knocking heads together. It sounds as though the council and Peel Ports need to sit down and work this out for the benefit of all. If my hon. Friend’s question today has not had that result, he will know how to apply for an Adjournment debate, but I hope that that will not be necessary.

Business of the House

Andy Carter Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The facts as I understand them are that Scotland has received the largest ever settlement in its history. The dividend to taxpayers in Scotland from being part of the Union is £2,000 per head and, according to Audit Scotland, the Scottish Government have had to raid capital budgets to meet shortfalls in their revenue budget and day-to-day spending, so I think a debate on this subject is a very good idea.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

As well as wishing you a happy Easter, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you a happy Cheshire day, on 30 March, when we celebrate the great people, businesses and traditions of a wonderful county in the north-west of England?

More than 6,000 people have signed a petition calling on Warrington Labour councillors to scrap the low-traffic neighbourhood in Latchford and reopen Grange Avenue to through traffic. The council, I am afraid, has dug its heels in and even today has launched another consultation, simply kicking the can down the road. Local residents are clear: the scheme has created longer drive times and increased congestion in Warrington town centre. Will the Leader of House grant a debate in Government time on how councils can encourage local people to be more active, and perhaps walk and cycle more? Instead of spending money on planters in the middle of the road, perhaps councils could spend that money on resurfacing pavements, so that local people can walk safely in their local neighbourhoods.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I think my hon. Friend has achieved his ambition by giving that advice with both barrels to his local authority. The responsibility lies with the local authority, and it is disappointing that it is not able to deal with the things that would really make a difference to people’s lives by helping them to be more active and to walk and cycle more, and to ensure that those local services are protected. I also join him in wishing everyone a very happy Cheshire day. For an even happier Cheshire day next year, I think the conclusion is: vote Conservative.

Christmas Adjournment

Andy Carter Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

Before we enter the Christmas recess, I want to take the opportunity to look at some of the progress that we have made in the last 12 months in Warrington South and at some of the things that we have still to do. I start by thanking the nurses in Warrington who did not back strike action in the latest industrial dispute and pay tribute to all those who work in the NHS, as the Prime Minister did when he came to Warrington to open a new MRI and CT scanning centre at Warrington Hospital. Since then, we have opened a new same-day emergency care centre at Warrington Hospital, with about £6 million of investment at the Lovely Lane site to try to take the pressure off A&E.

However, I have to say that we need a new hospital and have been working with NHS leaders to submit a £317 million bid to build one. Two weeks ago, the Health Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and said that we would get an answer as to whether the bid had been successful by the time we went into recess. So when we get to the wind-ups, the Leader of the House may have some great news for me. If not, I look forward to speaking to the Secretary of State in the new year. We really do need a new hospital in Warrington, because there is lots of development planned—I have seen recommendations for another 14,000 homes to be built over the next 10 years—and we simply cannot manage with the capacity of the current hospital. There are not enough beds and the facility is really not fit for purpose.

When I was elected, I promised to campaign to secure better facilities for schools in Warrington South, too. We are making some progress on that, working with headteachers, academy trusts and governors. I congratulate the team at Penketh High School, led by Mr Carlin, who earlier this year secured £6 million from the school rebuilding programme. Through his leadership, we have seen the school really making improvements. I recently attended its student council elections. It is a fantastic learning environment where young people really are able to flourish. I support and encourage the work done there.

I turn briefly to levelling up public transport in Warrington. We are looking forward to the delivery of 120 new zero-emission buses under the Government’s zero-emission bus regional areas scheme. When I added up all the money given to Warrington’s own buses in the last 12 months, it totalled about £42 million, in addition to investment in supporting bus services and extending routes off peak and at weekends. We are absolutely engaged in levelling up to help people get around our great town.

There is one issue I want to see more action taken on next year. Some time ago, I raised my concerns about the mis-selling of leasehold homes to families who bought new properties from David Wilson Homes 12 years ago on Steinbeck Grange. I raised the experience of my constituent Mr Mike Carrol and about 50 families who had also purchased homes thinking they were buying freehold when they later found out they were actually leasehold. The solicitors they used had been provided by the builders. All have since folded and simply cannot be traced.

I am very grateful for the investigation undertaken by the Competition and Markets Authority, which came to Warrington and interviewed some of those who had been mis-sold houses. However, I have to say it was a great disappointment to receive information from the CMA advising that it was not pursuing the Steinbeck Grange cases because it could deliver only limited remedies, and because it would be difficult as the unlawful conduct of David Wilson Homes had since stopped. Well, I say to the CMA that a limited remedy is still a remedy and that if there is evidence of unlawful conduct, even though it has now stopped, it should perhaps be taking action to put those errors right. I share the disappointment expressed by many of my constituents.

During the investigation, I was approached by an ex-member of staff from David Wilson Homes who was involved in the sale of houses on the Chapelford estate. The former staff member shared with my office evidence that highlighted properties were sold without pertinent information being disclosed to residents on Steinbeck Grange. They were not in receipt of that information until after the Steinbeck Grange development had been sold in its entirety. The individual also highlighted that sales staff received cash incentives for promoting to buyers conveyancers who all subsequently went bust. The director of the company that now owns the leasehold was also contacted by David Wilson Homes, with a view to buying back the freeholds for Steinbeck Grange residents so the matter could be resolved for residents. We certainly do not have a resolution here. I think there is evidence of unlawful conduct and negligent practises by the developer. I am very pleased that Cheshire police is looking very closely at this matter. I urge the Serious Fraud Office to consider whether it, too, should be looking at an investigation.

I am in no doubt about the tough times we are facing as we recover from the long tail of the pandemic and stand up to the aggression shown by Putin in Ukraine. My focus remains on tackling the many challenges facing constituents in Warrington South, trying to make life better for everyone, securing a new hospital, keeping families safe, and backing business small and large to create jobs for today and the skills for tomorrow. I wish everybody in Warrington South a very merry Christmas and extend my thanks to everybody here in the House of Commons, and particularly to my team in this place and in the constituency: Stephen, Stewart, Lyndsay, Julie, Oliver and James. I am very grateful for their hard work and the commitment they have shown over the last 12 months. I look forward even more to a productive and proactive 2023.

Standards: Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

Andy Carter Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I am grateful for the way in which the Government have moved on many aspects of the report by the Committee on Standards, but I hope that the Leader of the House agrees that there is a problem with ministerial reporting. On many occasions, Departments fail to deliver their quarterly reports. I understand that the Government have some proposals and I am looking forward to hearing them, but will my right hon. Friend assure us, given that we will vote tonight, that the proposals will be delivered in a timely manner so that there is transparency about the way in which Ministers publicly report their receivables?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right: the current situation is unacceptable and the Committee has a valid point. I hope that I will suggest a way in which we can address that. However, it is important to say that if we do it in the way that the Committee suggests, we will end up in some difficulty, which I shall explain.

First, we have extensively reviewed the existing guidance on transparency data. I have also audited each Department’s returns and sat down with the propriety and ethics team to look at ways in which we can improve the timeliness, quality and transparency of Ministers’ data and ease of access to it. The guidance, which we have reviewed, will be published online on GOV.UK for the first time. It commits Departments to publishing data within 90 days of the end of each quarterly reporting period. That is a modest, but necessary first step.

Our goal will be first to ensure that all Departments are complying with their current obligations consistently, as reflected in the new guidance as soon as it comes into effect. We will then look to move to a system of reporting that provides the parity that the Committee on Standards is seeking on transparency and timeliness. That means monthly reporting.

The Cabinet Office will also consider the alignment of ministerial returns with the House’s system and the frequency of publication, as part of the Government’s wider consideration of the Boardman and Committee on Standards in Public Life recommendations. It is reasonable to conclude that work by the start of the summer. My plan is therefore about three months’ adrift of that of the Committee on Standards.

The Government are fully committed to transparency and to ensuring that all Ministers are held to account for maintaining high standards of behaviour and upholding the highest standards of propriety, as the public rightly expect, but we need to avoid creating a system that delivers further confusion and unintended consequences. That is why I have outlined the alternative proposal from the Government today. I have worked closely with colleagues across Government to set out how we will improve our system, and if the Committee on Standards remains concerned, I commit to revisiting the issue and engaging with ministerial colleagues to drive further improvements.

--- 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.

Business of the House

Andy Carter Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Yes, it will. The faces change but the Government continue. If there is a delay in the hon. Lady getting a timely response, as she has indicated, I will always follow up on behalf of hon. Members. That is one of the main reasons for having business questions, so that we can ensure that urgent cases in particular are followed up. She has that assurance.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

In June, Warrington Council introduced a low-traffic neighbourhood zone in the Latchford area of my constituency—an area that is totally unsuitable, because it is constrained to the south by the Manchester ship canal and to the north by the River Mersey. Roads have been closed to traffic, resulting in longer journey times and more congestion. In a survey I conducted, 87% of residents who were impacted by the changes say they want things to go back to how they were. May we have a debate in Government time on low-traffic neighbourhood zones, and does my right hon. Friend agree that local councillors need to listen to local residents and scrap those changes?

[Penny Mordaunt]

We do need to listen to local people, not only because that is what their representatives are supposed to do, but because quite often they will have the best ideas on how to manage particular situations. I would tell my hon. Friend how to secure a debate, but I know that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who is sitting next to him, he has already managed to secure an Adjournment debate. I congratulate him on that, but I shall also flag the fact that he has raised the matter with me to the relevant Ministry.