European Union (Withdrawal)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion, which would enable us to pass a Bill tomorrow to prevent our crashing out of the EU with no deal at the end of October.

Let us remember why we are at this point. This discussion is happening now because the Prime Minister is running scared of democracy. The Prime Minister knows that his reckless no-deal Brexit will never get the support of this House, but instead of his having the courage to make his case here and put himself up to scrutiny, Parliament is going to be suspended—brushed aside as an inconvenience to an Executive who are, frankly, lurching out of control.

I am proud that so many brave colleagues inside this House and so many of the public outside it are saying so loudly and clearly that they will not stand for this Prime Minister’s blatant power grab, that they will not stand for a no-deal Brexit being rammed through this House and that they will stand up to make sure that this legislature does what it is meant to do, which is to hold this Executive—this feral, out-of-control Executive—to account.

There has been a lot of talk about democracy tonight. [Interruption.] I have to say that the body language of the Leader of the House this evening has been so contemptuous of this House and of the people. For the benefit of Hansard, he has been spread out across three seats. He is laid out as if this is something that is very boring for him to listen to. He has been lecturing us about democracy, but we will have none of it. This Government have no mandate for the vicious form of Brexit they are pursuing. It was never on the ballot paper. More than that, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said as recently as March:

“We did not vote to leave without a deal: that wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped to lead.”

Let us hear no more of this posturing that, somehow, those on the Government Benches are standing up for the people and that we are not. Those of us on the Opposition Benches, particularly those who have been arguing for a people’s vote from the very start, are precisely the ones who are standing up for the people and want their voices to be heard in this debate.

Time is short, and I want to make two more very quick points. The first is that, in all of this debate about process and procedure, we are in danger of forgetting what a no-deal outcome actually means for the people of this country. What it means, as we know from Operation Yellowhammer, is shortages of food and fuel. It means people unable to get their life-saving medicines. It also means a nightmare for people in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who has made that case so many times. How dare we, in this Chamber, think that we are going to rip up the Good Friday agreement and that it is nothing to be concerned about. There is everything to be concerned about in that.

I also want to say a word about the 3 million—the people who have made their lives here in this country expecting that their contribution would be valued, instead of which they are now in an intolerable limbo, not knowing whether their rights will be upheld.

Finally, I want to make a point that I think is important, but that some may feel is boring. One of the many reasons why we are in this crisis is that we do not have a codified written constitution. It is only the unwritten, uncodified understandings that protect the body politic from regressing to government with minimal checks, balances and accountability. Up to now we have had to depend on people playing by the rules. Well, now we have a Government who are not playing by the rules. We now need more than ever a written constitution drawn up by a democratic citizens’ convention that will put people at the heart of our politics for the first time in UK history.

Business of the House

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I will give way to the leader of the Green party, and then perhaps I should make some progress.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and thank him for his work on the Bill. If ever there was a time to justify looking at a Bill swiftly, surely this is it, when we are on a cliff edge, about to fall out of the EU, which is not what 17.4 million people voted for. Does he agree that, as Bills go, this is pretty straightforward? It is not complex. It is a vital insurance policy that is needed just in case all these other processes, not least the discussions going on between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, fail.

Business of the House

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot speak for the Backbench Business Committee, but I can assure the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) that if he wants a debate on the matter in Westminster Hall, he will get it all right.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Tomorrow, thousands of young people will show their deep concern about the growing climate crisis by taking part in a climate strike. Since, shockingly, there was only one debate on climate change in this place last year, will the Leader of the House urgently find time for us to debate this, the greatest threat we face, so that we can demonstrate to young people that we are listening and that we take their concerns very seriously?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. I think the UK can be proud of our contribution to securing the first truly global, legally binding agreement to tackle climate change, which was the Paris agreement. She will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth is fully committed to doing everything possible to tackle the threat of climate change. She may be aware that our climate change record at home speaks for itself. Between 2010 and 2017, we reduced the UK’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 23%, and according to PwC, the UK leads the G20 for decarbonising its economy since 2000. There is a lot more to be done, but the UK Government remain committed to doing it.

Proxy Voting

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right; pairing has its uses. It is important that any parent on baby leave can choose to have either a proxy vote or be paired, if, for reasons of ill health or reasons associated with being a new parent, they do not feel in a position to make that decision. It is very important that they have the choice.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I join others in very much welcoming this important motion and the important step that is being taken. In the interests of keeping up momentum on the issue of reform, does the Leader of the House agree that, although this is a first step, what we really need in order to bring Parliament into the 21st century is electronic voting for all? I wonder whether she might explore that option.

May I ask the Leader of the House one question about the motion? I am sorry, but I have not had a chance to look at it yet. I know the Procedure Committee has suggested that there may be some exceptions where proxy voting would not be suitable in its view—for example, a decision on military conflict. I do not think I agree with it about that, but I am interested to know whether that is attached to the pilot that she is proposing.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I can say to the hon. Lady that this is a temporary Standing Order, and it follows the Procedure Committee’s view. I do not want to get this wrong: I know it will not apply to a closure motion, but it will apply to Government and private Members’ business. I suggest that the hon. Lady looks carefully at the Procedure Committee’s report for the finer details of exactly what is included and excluded.

The hon. Lady will obviously appreciate that the reason for making it a temporary Standing Order is so that the Procedure Committee can look at it after a year and decide, in hindsight, whether it is appropriate in scope, who gets to use it and who provides the proxy. In having such a pilot scheme, we will be able to address any residual concerns about its operation.

Committee on Standards: Cox Report

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I have already given way to him.

Secondly, the motion will modernise practices so that referrals can be made by email or in writing. Thirdly, it will abolish the current requirement for the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to consult the Committee on Standards on whether a case that is more than seven years old, or one involving a former Member, can be investigated by her. That will ensure that she can act independently. Many of us have raised grave concerns about appalling allegations that have gone without investigation as a result of the current arrangements. So ensuring that the PCS can operate independently of the Committee on Standards is vital and will better enable justice for those seeking recourse.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On the issue of the Committee’s willingness to remove any obligation on the standards commissioner to consult the Committee before going to the police, I welcome the Committee’s willingness to look at that proposal, but can the Leader of the House reassure us that it will still be a victim-centred approach? She will know from our discussions in the steering group that it is vital that a victim’s or a survivor’s wish not to have a motion go to the police should be overridden only if there are overwhelming cases of safeguarding. Can she reassure us that there will be some kind of protocol on that?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that this motion has been put forward as a result of the Standards Committee’s own recommendations—not something that I am in control of—but I absolutely reassure her that I remain as committed, as do all members of the original working group on the complaints procedure, to putting the complainant at the centre of this process and to ensuring confidentiality about their identity. That is vital to the success of our complaints procedure.

Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

As she often does, my right hon. Friend gives a really good, much-bigger-picture perspective, and she is absolutely right to do so. I have attended a cross-Commonwealth meeting of women politicians to talk about violence against women in politics, and the numbers are shockingly bad. She is absolutely right to highlight that report, and I will of course be delighted to read it. I have already had the pleasure of meeting the Llywydd in Wales and the Presiding Officer in Scotland, both of whom are interested to hear about the progress of our complaints procedure and what lessons they could learn. It was a good opportunity to share ideas.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

May I suggest that these proceedings are not the time for Members to indulge in a bit of bullying of their own? There should be independent processes, not innuendo.

I warmly welcome the report. The Leader of the House will recall that, as a member of the steering group, I repeatedly argued that we should be able to investigate historical allegations, and the legal advice was clear that bullying and sexual harassment had always been unacceptable. External counsel did not rule that out, and I am delighted that Dame Laura makes the same point, so may we have an explicit guarantee from the Leader of the House that she will personally support the idea that historical allegations, with no endpoint, should be part of our investigation? I take on board what she says about different Commission processes, but people want to know now that she and everyone else understands this and will treat it with the urgency it deserves.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady was fully engaged with the working group and will know that we unanimously wanted to be able to investigate historical allegations. I absolutely undertake that the recommendation from Dame Laura and her challenge to the advice we received will be fully taken into account in the review in January.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

That idea has been discussed a number of times through the working group. It was decided not to include that specific recognition, mainly because there are many different organisations in this place, all of which do a good job. Therefore, there is no non-recognition, but neither is there a specific formalised recognition of the Unite branch within the complaints procedure.

The motion asks the House to endorse specific changes that were identified in the working group’s report that was published and agreed by the House in February. Today, the principles of that report will become reality. First, today’s motion asks the House to approve the independent complaints and grievance scheme delivery report, and in doing so it will also ask the House to endorse a new behaviour code that makes it clear to all those who come here—whether an MP, member of staff, peer, contractor or visitor—the standard expected of everyone in Parliament.

Secondly, the motion asks the House to eliminate the threat of exposure that prevents many people from coming forward, by ensuring that all investigations are managed confidentially. Thirdly, it will provide the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards with a broader set of powers and make changes to the Committee on Standards, including to the voting role of lay members. Fourthly, it proposes that a further independent inquiry be established, with similar terms to the Dame Laura Cox inquiry, to hear historical allegations about Members, peers and their staff. Finally, the motion will make provision for a full review of those arrangements after six and 18 months.

In addition to the measures in today’s motion, the steering group has established two independent helplines—one to deal with bullying, and one to deal with sexual misconduct—as well as independent HR advice for staff, and there is an aspiration to improve the general culture of Parliament, including through a new programme of comprehensive training. Members, staff and the public can rest assured that this new independent complaints and grievance policy puts the complainant at the very heart of the process, while taking care to ensure that the principles of innocent until proven guilty are upheld. The ICGP will be fair and transparent, and I believe it will win the confidence of everyone.

Following an intensive period of implementation, today is the final parliamentary hurdle to getting this much needed new scheme up and running. This is the first step, not the final step, towards the culture change that we all want. That is why we have built in a six and 18-month review of the scheme, to ensure that it achieves exactly what we set out to do. Importantly, the six-month review will take careful account of the findings of the independent inquiry by Dame Laura Cox QC and the further independent inquiry that we are establishing today.

Let me turn to the key elements of today’s motion. First, the new behaviour code will apply to everyone on the parliamentary estate. It has been drawn up following extensive consultation with trade unions, staff associations and the public, who were asked for their views about what behavioural expectations we should have of those working for and within Parliament. It seeks to ensure that everyone in and working for Parliament is respected and valued and that we take a zero-tolerance approach to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. Unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with seriously and with effective sanctions.

Today’s motion will also make changes to the Standing Orders for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and to the Committee on Standards. We propose that the commissioners of both Houses keep their investigations entirely confidential until such time as there is a finding. That is crucial if individuals are to place their trust in the new system. There is clearly a balance to be struck between public interest in transparency and putting the complainant at the heart of the process by protecting their identity, and that is vital. In deciding whether to publish any findings, the PCS will also put the complainant’s wishes at the heart of the decision.

I thank, very sincerely, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) for the extremely thoughtful and collaborative way that he and his Committee came to their position. I must point out, however, that we have had to respectfully disagree on one issue, which is about whether confidentiality should also be observed during an investigation in non-ICGP cases. I would be the last person to want to avoid transparency, but for this scheme to succeed, it is vital that we achieve consistency. The amendment by the Committee on Standards would effectively mean that there is one process for ICGP cases and a different one for non-ICGP cases.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

As the right hon. Lady knows, we have agreed on nearly everything in the report. On this issue, however, I wish to put on record that I did not agree with the position of the group, which was to say that we did not want the amendment tabled by the Committee on Standards. Consistency is not the most important issue, and the optics of this House rolling back transparency are deeply worrying. I would far rather live with a bit of inconsistency, particularly since it essentially means that—quite rightly—MPs are under more of a spotlight. That to me is a much lesser concern than the fact that it looks to the outside world—indeed, to some extent it is true—that we are rolling back transparency at exactly the time we should be expanding it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for her considerable efforts on this scheme but, very respectfully, I disagree with her on that point. She and I have had a number of conversations about the matter, and we have always been clear that the confidentiality at the heart of this policy must be observed so that a complainant will have the confidence to come forward. As I am sure Members will appreciate, a difference in process between ICGP and non-ICGP cases will be lost on those who observe it, which will inevitably lead to confusion. People will not think, “Oh well, this procedure must be for one issue, and that must be for another issue.” They will just see the naming of an individual, and that will have repercussions for those who want to come forward in confidence to a complaints procedure, feeling that their confidentiality will be upheld.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Westminster is the first Parliament anywhere in the world to have tackled bullying, harassment and sexual harassment so comprehensively, and huge progress has been made towards making this place a safer, more respectful and more equal environment. I join those who have thanked all members of the working group for their contributions. In particular, I pay tribute to its chair, the Leader of the House, for her commitment to change, her leadership and her seemingly unending patience. I also want to thank the secretariat, our special advisers, the staff representatives on the group, and those who came to speak to us on behalf of their trade unions to increase our understanding of the issues we were seeking to address. As others have said, more than anyone else we need to thank those who were brave enough to come forward and put in the public domain the kind of experiences they have had to go through, because that has been a driving force for all of us to work with the urgency and commitment that we have.

The report, and its policy and procedures, are really important steps, and it is welcome that we have built in from the outset mechanisms to ensure this is the start rather than the end of an ongoing process—others have referred to those. Although we are rightly celebrating what we have achieved, we must be mindful of what more there is still to do. I hope that the Leader of the House will forgive me if I concentrate on the areas where I think we have further to go, rather than simply celebrating what we have achieved. That is not because I do not think we have achieved a lot, but if we are to be the best we can be, we still have a bit of a way to go.

I wish to start by discussing making the final stages of the new system more independent—truly independent. I know that every effort has been made to guarantee independence at the point when reports are made and investigations are carried out. I hope that that will give everyone in Westminster renewed confidence in the system, and that all bullying, harassment and sexual harassment will be treated with the seriousness and objectivity to which all workplaces should aspire.

The principle of full independence is still somewhat undermined by allowing MPs to play a role in final decision making about serious complaints involving colleagues. The motion goes some way towards addressing that, for example by recommending that lay members of the Standards Committee are allowed an indicative vote, but the final decision to trigger the recall of an MP will still be subject to a vote of the House of Commons and, at least as it stands, lay members of the Committee still do not have full parity with MPs. I note with much approval that the Chair of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), is in favour of looking again at the role of lay members and has put on record that he is in favour of primary legislation to establish the absolutely equality of lay members in a Standards Committee vote.

Some aspects of the process are still left in the hands of MPs. One of the obstacles to further reform and making the system genuinely independent was concern that an MP might launch legal action if someone unelected had a say in a recall decision. I remain of the view that, with the right political will, that and other objections could be overcome. Recall rightly leaves the ultimate decision in the hands of the electorate, so a mechanism that, for example, gave the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards the power in some instances to trigger the recall process herself, could offer a way for MPs to be further removed from the process. I appreciate that that is a radical proposal and I do not expect it to find agreement in the House at the moment, but to my mind it is the logical consequence when we say, again and again, that MPs should not mark their own homework. Only such a radical proposal would ultimately ensure genuine independence from party political influence from start to finish.

I very much hope that the possibilities I have outlined, and others, to build on what has been achieved to date will be reviewed as a priority, because staff otherwise risk continuing to lose out through a system that still protects MPs just that little bit more. That risk is also there when it comes to the handling of historical complaints. It is important to be clear that the new independent inquiry will hear reports of historical complaints. The new system will allow those affected to access emotional support and signposting to next steps. That will mostly be either to party political grievance mechanisms, the police or, in the case of House staff, the previous Respect policy. It is widely agreed, however, that the Respect policy was not fit for purpose in respect of such issues. Historical complaints referred to the new process cannot result in outcomes or sanctions other than those that were permissible at the time of the incident. That is even more the case for behaviours that have clearly always been wrong, such as sexual harassment or bullying, but which Respect has been shown to be unable to deal with fairly.

Staff employed by MPs were never covered by Respect, and those not employed by their party have no prior system to have recourse to in the case of a historical complaint, if they seek more than the opportunity to be heard and to get emotional support. Those employed by political parties have that route but, as we know, there are signs that the promises made by every political party to get their own houses in order have not yet been properly fulfilled. In other words, the decision to impose an arbitrary 2017 cut-off point for historical complaints, alongside the independent inquiry, does not take us far enough. It leaves many people still unable fully to resolve their historical complaints.

There are some important and potentially game-changing provisions in the new policy and procedures, including those allowing multiple offenders to be identified and pre-2017 allegations to be referenced if a live case involves the same parties. But we should not let those real positives cloud the fact that some staff continue to be let down. The working group received legal advice noting the increasing difficulty of delivering fairness the further back in time one goes. That is true, but the advice also made it clear that, if there was enough political will, ways could be found to accommodate that. In some instances, for example, there may be written evidence that makes wrongdoing very clear. I hope that the six-month review will look again at the 2017 cut-off date and that historical allegations will come before whatever group is set up to look into allegations, because I do not think we have got it quite right yet.

Let me say a few words about promoting long-term cultural change. Although some voluntary measures have been put in place, reforms that will deliver real and meaningful culture change, such as compulsory consent training and meaningful good employer training for all MPs and peers, have been delayed until after the next election. Apparently, the justification is that nobody knew when they stood for election that they would have to undertake such training. To that I say that nobody knew that when they came to work in Parliament they might have to put up with furniture being thrown at them or being groped. Action after the next election—probably in 2022—is better than never, and Parliament’s committing to taking action at all obviously sends a powerful and positive signal, but it is still hugely frustrating that there is not more understanding of how a culture of mutual respect and accountability benefits everyone. I hope that that time will come, because we urgently need a politics that is more equal, transparent and ethical —one that tackles all kinds of bullying and harassment, and which in particular moves us beyond #MeToo and #TimesUp by helping to dismantle privilege and what are all too often male-dominated hierarchies. That will be possible only if we keep up the pressure and continue to face up to ongoing obstacles to change, which are, in too many instances, vested interests and political self-interest.

If we want genuine confidence in the new system and the ongoing commitment to transforming the Westminster culture, we need to signal clearly that we want to continue to learn and improve, and we also need to be less risk averse. This is about leadership and setting an example. We need continued bold action, and if there are fears that that will upset some of our more regressive colleagues, so be it, frankly. The new behaviour code, by which all of Westminster will be expected to abide, asks that individuals recognise their power, influence and authority and do not abuse them. I would have liked that to be included in the motion, as it goes to the heart of what we need to see.

Finally, let me address the amendment with which we are all grappling as we try to work out the best way forward. Let me say loudly and clearly that if I thought for a moment that by deleting the part of paragraph (4) of the motion proposed in the amendment we would in any way put at risk the confidentiality of victims in ICGP cases, I would not support it, but I do not believe that that is the case. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) that, in a sense, we are in a position of trying to weigh up options when none of them are optimal. None of them absolutely gives us everything that we want regarding a firm guarantee of confidence and confidentiality for victims. Right from the start of my involvement in this process, I have been among the foremost of people saying that individuals should have their confidence respected. That has to be the bottom line. I do not believe that the amendment would undermine that.

What is at stake is the issue of whether consistency is more important than transparency. To my mind, transparency is more important in this instance. Consistency is nice to have, but I think we can explain why there is a difference between the way in which we treat someone who fiddles their expenses or who fiddles paperclips, and the way in which we treat people who have made allegations of sexual harassment and bullying, with follow-up investigations. We can explain that inconsistency an awful lot more easily than I would find explaining why we were rolling back on transparency. I do not think this is about optics versus the protection of victims—if I thought that, I hope everybody would know that I would of course have the protection of victims as the overall objective—but I do share the sneaking suspicion voiced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) that there are perhaps other forces at play that are leading us in this direction. I have no evidence of that either, but it feels like that is the more likely explanation for why we find ourselves in this difficult position.

I shall continue to listen to the debate, and particularly to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because she seems to be on top of the Standing Orders, but from what I have heard so far, I do not believe that the Standards Committee’s amendment would undermine victim confidentiality. If I did believe that for one moment, I would not support it.

Treatment of House of Commons Staff

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House about the treatment of House of Commons staff.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She and I worked together on the cross-party working group on an independent complaints and grievance policy. I thank her sincerely for her work on it.

Reports of bullying of House staff are of huge concern to me and to hon. Members right across the House. I am committed to stamping out all kinds of bullying and harassment in Parliament in order to create an environment in which everyone feels safe and is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. We can only achieve our goals in this House with the support of others. A great debt of gratitude is owed by us all to the House staff who support us behind the scenes.

I myself have worked with a large number of civil servants and staff of the House during my time in Parliament. From the Clerks of the Treasury Committee to my private offices at the Treasury, Energy and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the team in the Leader’s office and the excellent secretariat who supported the working group, I have always been impressed by, and am very grateful for, the dedication, professionalism, high standards and courtesy that all the civil servants and House staff have shown. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members across the House, and in the other place, would say the same.

The House will be aware that significant progress has been made in recent months, following the shocking reports at the end of last year of sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation in this place. The working group I chaired, set up by the Prime Minister, has now published its report, and it has been agreed by both Houses. The work streams are now in place to get the new independent complaints procedure up and running within the next three months.

The hon. Lady will recall that the working group wanted House staff to be included in the new complaints procedure from day one. However, following evidence taken, and in consultation with the trade union representatives of House staff, it was agreed that the staff of the House would not immediately be covered by the new independent procedure, because they were already covered by the House’s own Respect policy. It was believed that the Respect policy was working well and that House staff were satisfied with it. However, it was acknowledged during the working group evidence sessions that the Respect policy did not cover complaints of sexual harassment and violence. The aspiration of the working group is to take up the question of whether House staff should have immediate access to the new independent complaints procedure now that the report has been agreed by both Houses. Following the “Newsnight” allegations and others, it is clear that the Respect policy may not be sufficient to protect House staff.

I am aware that, today, the Clerk of the House of Commons has written to House staff, saying that there are clearly unresolved issues over bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, that need to be addressed, and this will include a review of the Respect policy. The Clerk of the House of Commons has also reassured staff who wish to come forward with complaints of bullying that they will be dealt with in the proper manner, with the support of their managers and colleagues. It is right that everyone working for or with Parliament, regardless of position or seniority, should have the same rights and protections and should be held to the same high standards.

The House Commission next meets on Monday 19 March and I have given notice to my fellow members that I will be recommending a short, independently led inquiry by the House Commission looking into allegations of systemic bullying of parliamentary staff. I will propose that the inquiry should hear from past and current staff members about their experiences and help to provide them with closure wherever possible. I will also propose that it should take soundings from current and former House staff on whether the Respect policy is fit for purpose and whether House staff would be better served by having access to the new independent complaints and grievance policy from day one. Mr Speaker, I am more determined than ever that we banish all kinds of harassment and bullying from this place, because make no mistake, there is a need for change.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent, cross-party question. This is not about party politics and it is not about political gain; it is about doing the right thing by the staff who support us on a daily basis and ensuring that the House of Commons leads by example when it comes to robustly tackling workplace bullying and sexual misconduct.

Members and the public will have been shocked by the revelations of bullying at Westminster that were highlighted by “Newsnight” last week. I commend the Leader of the House for her ongoing work to establish an independent complaints and grievance procedure. The need for that arose in part because the 2014 Respect policy did not apply to large numbers of those working in Parliament. There are now considerable grounds to assert that that same Respect policy does not have the confidence of the staff that it is intended to protect and that the new independent procedure must immediately be expanded to avoid a two-tier system.

I am grateful that the Leader of the House broadly agrees with that and I am pleased to hear about the new short inquiry, but will she also confirm specifically that there will be a presumption in favour of historical allegations being thoroughly investigated, should those affected choose to make formal complaints, either under the Respect policy or the new procedure? Will she acknowledge that the positive work that she has led to date risks being undermined if we continue to allow sanctions to be determined by a Committee on which MPs effectively hold all the power? Will she agree that the whole process, including sanctions, must be handled by an independent body? Will she revisit whether good employer and consent training as an important part of culture change should start before the next election? I think the evidence is clear that it should, and in the meantime, can she assure staff that any further complaints will be treated with the seriousness and respect that they deserve and will not be dismissed, as they were last Friday, as grotesque exaggeration?

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)]

I beg to move,

That this House endorses the recommendations of the Working Group on an Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy; and asks the House of Commons Commission to authorise House officials, reporting regularly to a steering group of Members and others, to undertake the work necessary to establish:

(1) a Behaviour Code for Parliament that covers bullying and harassment, and sexual harassment, and applies to all persons working for or with Parliament, or who are lawfully on the parliamentary estate;

(2) an independent complaints and grievance scheme to underpin the Code, together with associated policies, appropriate sanctions and the contractual arrangements necessary for delivering the scheme;

(3) particular procedures to deal with reports of sexual harassment, including the provision of a specialist Independent Sexual Violence Advocate;

(4) a system of training to support the Code;

(5) a human resources support service for staff employed by Members of Parliament or jointly by political parties, delivered by a third-party provider, and a handbook for these staff;

and to identify any amendments that may be necessary to Standing Orders and the Code of Conduct, for the approval of the House.

The working group was convened by the Prime Minister last November—supported by all party leaders—to address the serious allegations of abuse and harassment in Parliament. I announced the publication of the group’s report before the February recess, and I hope that Members have now had the time to consider the report’s recommendations in more detail.

We are all agreed that there is no place for harassment, abuse or misconduct in Parliament. We need to ensure that there are robust procedures in place so that everyone is able to work with the dignity and protection that they deserve. I believe the working group’s proposals do just that.

During its work, the group took extensive evidence, both in person and in writing, from a wide variety of stakeholders, including parliamentary officials, staff of MPs and peers, trade unions, academics, authorities on sexual violence, and legal professionals. The group also conducted its own survey, which was open to a wide range of people and included a number of passholders who had not previously been asked for their experience of bullying and harassment.

Many people have devoted a considerable amount of time to this work, and after more than 100 hours of discussion, consultation and consideration, I believe we have a set of proposals for the House to consider today that will fundamentally change the working culture in Parliament for the better.

I would like to turn now to these proposals, and I will briefly set them out for the House. They are as follows. First, Parliament will agree a shared behaviour code. This will apply to everyone on the estate, or engaged in parliamentary business regardless of location, and will underpin the new policy. It will make clear the expectations for the behaviour of everyone in the parliamentary community, and will be consulted on on that basis. Secondly, the new complaints and grievance procedure will be independent of political parties.

Thirdly, it was acknowledged that sexual harassment and sexual violence are different from other forms of inappropriate behaviour, such as bullying and intimidation. Therefore, separate procedures will be agreed for those looking to raise a complaint regarding sexual harassment and those with a complaint of bullying. This is an important distinction, and while everyone has acknowledged the significance of complaints of sexual harassment, evidence from staff made it clear that instances of intimidation and bullying are in fact more prevalent. Fourthly, therefore, MPs’ staff require proper human resources advice—something that has previously been lacking, and that will go a long way to helping prevent and resolve workplace grievances.

Importantly, the new system will be based on the principles of equality. It will be confidential and fair to all parties. It will be in line with the laws of natural justice, and it will command the confidence of all those who use it. The working group took advice at an early stage that, rather than reinventing the wheel, we should work with, and build on, the many sound processes and systems already in place.

Today, we are bringing forward a motion that will enable the House Commission to authorise House officials to take forward the group’s recommendations and implement our proposals in full. This is a big step towards creating a more professional environment and a Parliament that is among the best in the world in treating people with dignity and respect at work.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I commend the Leader of the House for all her work on this important report. She will agree that Parliament should be a beacon of best practice, rather than running to play catch-up. Will she confirm that that means we need to make sure that these procedures relate to everybody on this estate? That includes, crucially, making sure that they extend to our constituency offices—to visitors to constituency offices—as soon as possible. I know we debated that in the group, but will she reassure us that this is a real priority for her going forward?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who was an assiduous contributor to all the work of the working group, and I thank her sincerely for her dedication to it. Of course, we recall the happy hours spent debating that very point, and we concluded in the end that it is a priority to ensure that the behaviour code—the protection—extends to all those who come into contact with Members of Parliament. But we concluded that, in the immediate future, we should focus on bedding in a new complaints procedure that will deal with the Palace of Westminster and our work as part of our parliamentary duties, and that once that is bedded down, we should have a review six months into its operation of how we should deal with others who come into contact with MPs, where there is that tricky grey area of where someone’s public life is and where someone’s private life is. I hope the hon. Lady is reassured by my once again making a commitment that we must look at that. She is exactly right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is just a few months since Parliament faced a wave of allegations of bullying and sexual harassment, in an atmosphere in which it was at times hard to distinguish real and serious cases from the proliferation of accusations and rumours. It exposed the lack of a credible, transparent and robust system for addressing legitimate complaints and grievances about bullying and sexual harassment. It led to the establishment of the working group and its report, which I fully support. The report is carefully drafted and reflects a great deal of thought and discussion.

The working group has proposed first, the adoption of a new shared behaviour code for all who work in Parliament and its Members; and secondly, the introduction of a new independent complaints and grievance policy to underpin the behaviour code. This, not surprisingly, concentrates on creating new rules and new procedures for investigating incidents and complaints, not least to try to address the present hotch-potch of arrangements for different categories of people and the glaring gaps in the system, such as the oversight of how we MPs employ and care for our staff.

The working group has rightly spent a lot of its time discussing and defining what constitutes the bad behaviour that must be called out. But there is also a need to address how Parliament arrived at this situation—how a culture of tolerance towards bullying and sexual harassment has become embedded and was left substantially unchallenged until now. Very few people who come into political life and to work in Parliament—at whatever level and whatever capacity in this building—are bad people, and most are appalled by the culture that has been exposed.

So how have we let this happen? After all, MPs are already subject to the House of Commons code of conduct. As employers, we are already covered by employment law, and there is the Respect policy to protect staff of the House. It is clear, however, that there needs to be a wider and continuing discussion about the positive attitudes and kinds of behaviour that we want to promote in Parliament and in public life, and what the values and principles are upon which those positive attitudes and behaviours should be based.

The remit of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair, includes oversight of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the ministerial code, the civil service code and the special advisers’ code. More broadly, much of PACAC’s work is concerned with leadership and governance in the civil service and public bodies, so we have done a lot of work on this area.

In December, PACAC submitted evidence to the working group, drawing on the work that PACAC has carried out in other areas. This was in the form of a letter to the Leader of the House, which she kindly acknowledged, although it was not included among the record of written submissions received by the group. I know that it was substantially discussed, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the spokesman for the Opposition, for drawing attention to it, too.

Some of the reasons for our failures are practical and procedural, and the working group has made great strides to address these. However, it is also clear that there is confusion among MPs and others about what behaviour should be subject to public scrutiny and what should be regarded as entirely private. As we argued in our submission to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ review of the House of Commons code of conduct last year, this confusion is not resolved by our current Commons code—far from it. PACAC set out the fundamental ambiguity about whether our Commons code of conduct was intended to function as a set of principles governing the whole of Members’ behaviour, which would naturally extend, to a degree, into the private sphere of MPs’ conduct, or simply as a set of regulations, mostly about financial disclosures, relating only to an MP’s public role. The 2015 code states that it does not seek to regulate what Members do in their private and personal lives, yet it is clear from the recent controversies that it is not always possible to keep the two as separate as many of us would like.

The risk now is that the new behaviour code will again be mainly concerned with rules and regulations and new enforcement procedures, but if that is just patched on to the present system, which has manifestly failed on at least one of its main objectives—to promote public confidence in the standards we observe in Parliament—we should not be surprised if problems continue to arise. The working group is right to promote a system of training to support the new code—there might be problems with persuading some colleagues that they should be subject to the training, as I will come to; it is easy to put such a thing in a document, but there might be practicalities when it comes to persuading colleagues to participate—but what about extending that to training about what the seven principles of public life actually mean in the lives of all public figures in this place?

[Caroline Lucas]

I cannot wait to find out whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that in order to persuade colleagues to undertake training some kind of sanctions might concentrate people’s minds—for example, having pay docked, or something similar.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am so much more in favour of persuasion than coercion. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. We could force MPs to attend a training session, but what kind of attitude would they have towards that training if they did not want to do it? Let us take a step back and think about how we want to do this. I agree with the hon. Lady, however, that unless we promote conversation and understanding about the principles and values that should guide behaviour, the risk is that confusion about what is acceptable will persist.

Rules and regulations are, of course, important, but PACAC’s work has shown so often that when rules are not underpinned by clear principles and values that are understood, discussed and talked about, the outcome is a preoccupation with compliance with the rules rather than with upholding what reflects the values and principles we want upheld. The road to damnation is all too congested these days with people arguing how their conduct was “within the rules”.

[Mr Jenkin]

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady, and I so much want her to win this argument and win hearts and minds, rather than have to resort to coercion, which would be so counter-productive.

To avoid just being preoccupied with compliance in the future, both the regulations and the principles and values that we want behaviour to reflect must be clearly set out and adjudicated. Perhaps only a breach of the rules should attract sanction, but nevertheless there needs to be some authority—we suggest, in respect of MPs, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—who would at least call out people who are failing to live up to the principles and values we have all signed up to. We also argued in our submission that the rules should be adjudicated by a separate person with appropriate legal expertise—the appointment of legal advice to the commissioner is a really good step in that direction, because the role of the commissioner as a thought leader is perhaps more important than her role as an adjudicator of rules.

The working group recognises the need for comprehensive training for MPs, peers and staff to help them to understand and prevent harassment and sexual abuse and to assist professional practice and Members in their position as employers. It is essential, however, that the work to embed the values outlined in the behaviour code throughout the parliamentary community be led by leaders, including MPs and peers themselves, and not delegated to support staff, who will not have the authority to carry out the kind of training that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to earlier. The culture of an organisation is the responsibility of its leaders. We parliamentarians must be the champions of change, or it will not happen, and we must be held accountable for its success. We cannot delegate this vital governance function to anyone else, and nor will Parliament secure public trust if we seem incapable of exercising effective governance.

[Caroline Lucas]

What concerns, if any, does the hon. Gentleman have about the role of the Standards Committee in identifying what is a relevant sanction? Does he share my concern that the Committee, being partly made up of MPs, might be open to the accusation of MPs marking their own homework, if essentially it will be MPs making the final decision on whether a colleague is expelled for long enough to lead down the road to recall?

[Mr Jenkin]

All these ideas for what sanctions should be available are good ideas, but the accusation of marking our own homework is an unavoidable consequence of the constitutional position of this House and the other place. The advice on the basis of which we mark our own homework must, however, be much more explicit, which is why the provision of legal advice to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is important. In the end, adjudication on far clearer legal principles by someone with juridical experience of judging evidence and rules, such as a retired judge, is preferable to this rather vague arrangement at the moment. That is not to criticise any past or present commissioner; it is just that we ask that person to take on an enormous responsibility—adjudicating rules and evidence—for which they might not have had much training or experience. It is only “one” of the qualifications of the job, as opposed to “the” qualification in respect of a legal adviser or separate adjudicator. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s question.

On the introduction of an independent complaints and grievance policy to underpin the behaviour code, I am delighted that the working group has recognised the need to change procedures to ensure that all levels of inappropriate behaviour can be addressed proportionately and effectively. It has also recognised the need to ensure that appropriate support be available for both complainants and alleged perpetrators and, crucially, the need for a human resources service for MPs’ and peers’ staff. I would like to endorse these conclusions, the latter of which was also included in the PACAC submission to the working group.

Like the expenses failure in 2009, the recent scandal is largely about a failure of our own governance, and this stems, to a significant degree, from a failure by Parliament to establish means by which we can be more mindful of ourselves as an institution. As always, in reaction there is a cry for tougher, more comprehensive rules and tougher sanctions against those who break them, and this is undoubtedly important. Good governance is also, however, about much more than this, and we now have an opportunity to have a much more positive conversation about the values we want to promote and which we expect public leaders to live by. I hope that the proposed behaviour code will clearly set out those principles and values, and that the review and scrutiny of the new system’s success will assess how successfully they are being embedded in our attitude and our behaviour.

This reform also needs to be properly integrated into a reformed House of Commons code of conduct. I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said that there will be changes in the code as a consequence. She emphasised that the working group had agreed that there should be a review of these recommendations once they are implemented, and I am grateful for that. PACAC recommends that the review should be overseen by a Joint Committee of both Houses, which should also include representatives of unions and employees’ organisations such as the working group. Its work should also cover the codes of conduct of both Houses. I fear that if such a review is not conducted and we fail to integrate the new arrangements fully with the existing arrangements in both Houses, we will not have established the stable and robust system for the future that we all wish to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I am on slightly thin ice here, because I am not 100% sure of my facts, but I am fairly sure that the lay members do not vote. Although I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that having them there is a great step forward, I still have concerns that MPs will be seen to be voting on their colleagues, even if we have had a perfectly independent and good procedure up until that point. I still think that is a weakness.

[Mr Harper]

We just need to think through how this works. The ultimate sanction of either expelling a MP or suspending them for a period where the recall provisions would kick in would be a decision for the House, not for the Committee on Standards—the whole House would be voting on it. Obviously, the House would be furnished with the report from the parliamentary commissioner and the report from the Committee on Standards. The valuable change we made when we introduced lay members was making MPs aware that, even if the MPs on the Committee had taken a certain view, the lay members can have their views expressed in the report of the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a sad irony that, in a year that marks the 100th anniversary of the first women winning the vote, Parliament has been under the spotlight as a place in which women, in particular, face so much harassment and mistreatment. As we know, one in five people working in Westminster report that they have experienced or witnessed sexual harassment in the past 12 months, and twice as many women as men report incidents of harassment. It was a privilege to serve on the cross-party working group that was set up to respond to that routine sexual misconduct and, indeed, the concurrent routine failure to handle complaints either fairly or, in some cases, at all. I join others in paying particular tribute to the Leader of the House for her leadership and commitment to seeking consensus on the recommendations from the working group.

The report will set up a support system where previously there was none. It will also set in train the process of establishing an independent framework in which complaints can be heard. Crucially, anyone who reports sexual misconduct will have access to a complaints process that is specifically designed to differentiate between such cases and bullying. That was the first and arguably the most important change that the working group pressed for. Complainants will have access to someone with expertise in supporting those who have experienced sexual misconduct—someone who understands that complainants must be in control when it comes to the next steps and who will fight for their rights to be upheld.

Parliament should lead by example and not take yet more power away from those who make complaints, as happens repeatedly elsewhere. I am pleased that that is reflected in the working group’s recommendations. I think that this is progress, and it was possible largely because one of the country’s best-qualified experts in sexual harassment had an advisory role on the group, which meant that our work and decisions were informed by both evidence and best practice. Huge thanks must go to her, but also to the whole secretariat for its tireless work and to all the experts who supported us. I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about the importance of the participation of staff representatives in our deliberations: it made the process far more effective and inclusive.

A complainant-centred approach is just the start of this procedure. The next steps are of equal importance, especially the question of sanctions. To some extent that is in the hands of political parties, and I welcome the commitment that all the parties have made to reviewing and improving their own processes. We in the Green party have committed ourselves to referring sexual harassment cases to an external body with relevant expertise. That is how we will try to ensure that there is independence and transparency.

I would like to make the case, however, that smaller parties are at something of a disadvantage in resourcing those more robust systems for training and constant evaluation, and I ask that Parliament be encouraged to look at this on the grounds that there should be some element of funding for political parties and this will be a good place to start. I made that point at the working group meetings. Previous complainants and MPs have told me that they have zero confidence in their parties dealing with cases fairly or taking appropriate action against perpetrators and that the threat of a by-election will be enough to kill off the prospect of suspension or other sanctions.

A vast amount of work must be done to overcome the years of sweeping under the carpet that have brought us to a place of such distrust and despair. No political party is perfect, and I am certain that my party will have its ongoing learning to do as confidence in procedure and a more vocal discourse on harassment rightly encourages more people to come forward. Today, I want to pay tribute to Labour and, in particular, to all the women who have shown the courage to raise this in the Labour party. The challenge for all political parties is to be brave enough to accept that no party or organisation is exempt from this, but that together we can work to challenge the culture of harassment and it can be changed if we are committed enough to doing that, and we must prioritise the voices of those coming forward over party reputation.

The working group is clear, however, that many people experiencing sexual misconduct would not be protected by party policies even if those policies were the very best possible. That is why we have recommended the development of a shared and binding behaviour code that covers everyone working in Parliament, including all MPs, peers and parliamentary staff. That code, which will be developed in the coming months, is absolutely crucial. Volunteers, staff employed by political parties, contractors and officials working in Parliament will all be entitled and held to the same high standards of treatment, and it will cover behaviour in any designated place of work, or in the course of parliamentary duties or activities at home and, crucially, also abroad. The working group was not able in the timescale to reach agreement on how best to protect visitors to constituency offices, but I was reassured that the Leader of the House said earlier in the debate that that would be a priority for her.

We have had quite a bit of debate about the role of the Standards Committee, and while I appreciate that the inclusion of lay members on it improves the situation, the recommendation in the report about looking again at how it works is important. There is a risk of how this looks to people looking in from outside this place, and if it seems to them that the outcome of the complaint is in the hands of politicians who might well have a vested interest in not taking it any further, that will undermine all the good work we have done to date. There may be a perception that the system is left open to abuse by the Whips or political parties, the political string pullers and the other career makers or breakers. That flies in the face of what constitutes best practice and is utterly at odds with the stand-out principle of an independent system that underpins the working group’s report. This risks perpetuating the lack of trust that is already keenly felt by the staff these new procedures are supposed to protect and risks further reputational damage for Parliament by opening us up, quite rightly, to accusations that we are dragging our feet or letting perpetrators off the hook.

We may have made huge strides in the past 100 years, but we still have a patriarchal political culture that denigrates, bullies and discriminates against women. A complaints mechanism that is fit for purpose will not radically transform things overnight, but it will make a big difference, and it will send a loud signal that we recognise the problem. That difference and that signal will, however, be fatally undermined if the independence test falls at the last hurdle and MPs are left deciding on recall and other sanctions.

I want to say a few last words about culture change. I have been heartened by the number of Members on both sides of the House who have stressed its importance. It was not formally within the remit of the working group, but I am glad that we strayed into it, because that was the right thing to do. That shows that we have an opportunity to start to dismantle the power inequalities that exercise such a damaging grip on politics and to replace them with a culture founded on dignity, equality and safety from harassment—a culture that goes further than merely sanctioning those who have not yet grasped why grabbing someone’s knee without permission is a problem but that also seeks to educate.

I am sorry that we did not manage to get agreement for compulsory consent training during this Parliament, although I am glad that we have the famous kitemark by any other name—we decided not to call it a kitemark—and I think that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire should be glad that we still have the idea of a naming and shaming device. None the less, that could still mean that proper, compulsory consent training does not start until 2022, and it is not right that staff and visitors to the parliamentary estate should have to wait another five years to be guaranteed safety in the workplace.

I want formally to put on record that I believe we will have failed all those who have experienced sexual misconduct and all those who experience it in the future if we do not continue the momentum that has been started in this working group to take radical steps when it comes to culture change. The immunity once enjoyed by the very powerful and influential is starting to wear off, but perhaps only because we are under a spotlight and because right now there are loud, strong voices for change. Those loud voices need to continue to be heard, and this issue must not be allowed to be kicked into the long grass.

We have heard the argument that only those who employ staff should need to undergo training, but those kinds of arguments must not be allowed to gain traction. Every peer and MP must learn about consent and about bullying. They must understand the power that they hold and the weight of their actions. That education must be ongoing, and delivered by experts in tackling misconduct and bullying. Crucially, and sadly, I believe that this training has to be accompanied by a system of financial penalties imposed on those who fail to co-operate—as has been recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—that could include withholding pay and allowances. The systems and processes have to have teeth; otherwise, they will be rendered meaningless.

Unfortunately, serious sexual harassment and bullying are endemic in Westminster, and we have to call this out, name it and shame it at every turn. The behaviour in this Chamber is part of the problem, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that you and your colleagues will continue to show leadership in that respect, as well as demanding much more of colleagues.

I want to echo those hon. Members who have already talked about the importance of ongoing evaluation, review and development. We must ensure that, as we go along, we are tracking to see how effective our new procedures are. That good tracking must also include cases that are not taken forward. We need to devise mechanisms for capturing the ones that do not even come into contact with the system. I disagree profoundly with the witness whose evidence to the working group was essentially that we do not have a problem because no one has ever reported one.

I shall say a final few words about complainants who wish to remain anonymous. We have protected that right and at the same time reflected the importance of being able to build up a picture that includes those cases. For example, if one individual is accused by a number of people, that is a pattern of behaviour that can be investigated further, whether or not formal complaints are made. We must of course uphold data protection rules, but I am pleased that we have found ways within that framework to pay attention to cases where the complainant chooses to remain anonymous.

The working group report does not go as far as I would like in some areas, but I am proud of the extent to which we have signalled a zero-tolerance approach to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. Making politics a world that is genuinely attractive, accessible and safe for all, irrespective of gender, race, sexuality or background, is a prize from which society as a whole can only benefit. I am reassured by the response that we have heard from both sides of the House today that this is something that we can do and that we can make a real difference.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, for his Committee’s contribution. It made a very useful written submission with recommendations on the establishment of a joint committee, with staff representation, to review the workings once this system is up and running. I am very sympathetic to that idea, and the report indicates that we would like to see such a review take place once the new system has been up and running for six months. The behaviour code for all in Parliament, including visitors to this place, is designed to sit alongside existing codes and not to interrupt them. I look forward to working with him in consulting on the behaviour code.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

My Plaid Cymru colleague, the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—she could not be in the Chamber today, but she is a member of the working group—asked to be associated with my comments. We very much thank the Leader of the House for the way in which she has conducted this incredibly important inquiry.

I welcome this report, which is a potential game changer. The shocking figure that almost one in five people working in Westminster have experienced some form of sexual harassment is testament to the fact that the ongoing political culture is toxic. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need not only the consent training she mentioned, but for it to be mandatory, with sanctions available for Members who might not be persuaded to take it up? Quite frankly, Members who are most likely to be resistant to taking up the training are probably those who need it most.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am so grateful to the hon. Lady, who has been so diligent in ensuring that we come to the right decision. She is tempting me to go back into some of the debates we had in our sessions. I share her concern. We want to invite all Members across this House—in fact, everybody who works in this place—to properly understand what it is to treat one another with dignity and respect. So the training we have mentioned in consent and unconscious bias, how to recruit and employ people, and what constitutes bullying and harassment are all absolutely vital. They will be available as compulsory sanctions and we will be seeking means to encourage people across the estate to take them up voluntarily where we cannot make them mandatory.