Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Lucy Powell(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme: Policy Framework and ICGS Assurance Board (HC 579), further notes the Decisions of the Commission on 12 May, and agrees:
(1) That the ICGS Policy Framework in respect of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct annexed to the Commission report shall have effect from 14 July 2025.
(2) There shall be a body called the ICGS Assurance Board.
(3) The ICGS Assurance Board shall conduct assurance of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme on behalf of the parliamentary community, in accordance with terms of reference published by the House of Commons Commission on 17 December 2024.
(4) The terms of reference of the Assurance Board may be varied by agreement between the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission.
(5) The ICGS Assurance Board shall consist of:
(a) the Clerk Assistant,
(b) the Clerk Assistant of the House of Lords,
(c) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,
(d) the Chair of the Independent Expert Panel,
(e) a Member of the House of Commons who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, appointed by the Commission,
(f) a Member of the House of Lords who is a member of the House of Lords Commission,
(g) a representative of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, and
(h) a representative of the human resources department from each House Administration.
(6) The ICGS Assurance Board shall have authority to approve ICGS Procedures, in accordance with the ICGS Policy Framework, provided that:
(a) nothing in the ICGS Procedures document may amend or override provisions in the Policy Framework;
(b) procedures cannot create new obligations for individuals’ conduct.
(7) The policies and procedures relating to bullying and harassment and sexual misconduct endorsed by the House on 19 July 2018 and amended on 17 July 2019, 28 April 2021 and 26 April 2022 shall cease to have effect on 14 July 2025, save that they shall continue to apply to any complaints received on or before 13 July 2025.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this we shall discuss the following:
Amendment (a), in paragraph (1), after “2025” insert
“, subject to the removal of paragraphs 7.1, 9.4, 10.3, 13.2, 14.3, 17.7, 17.8 and 18.7”
Amendment (b), in paragraph (5)(e), leave out—
“a Member of the House of Commons who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, appointed by the Commission”
and insert—
“two Members of the House of Commons, elected by the House of Commons”
Amendment (c), in paragraph 5(f), leave out—
“a Member of the House of Lords who is a member of the House of Lords Commission”
and insert—
“two Members of the House of Lords”
Amendment (d), leave out paragraph 5(h).
Amendment (e), leave out paragraph (6) and paragraph 1.4 of the ICGS Policy Framework.
Lucy Powell
The establishment of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, known as the ICGS—the first scheme of its kind in any legislature in the world— was an important step forward in tackling inappropriate behaviour in Parliament. Its establishment was agreed in 2018 with cross-party support.
The ICGS provides a dedicated, independent mechanism for handling complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct in both Houses. It deals with those complaints assiduously and anonymously, with a professional, well-resourced team, and has a range of appropriate sanctions and mechanisms at its disposal. The ICGS works alongside the independent expert panel, which determines appeals and sanctions for cases that have been brought against Members of Parliament. These arrangements ensure complaints are investigated fairly, objectively and to a high standard.
The ICGS has been an important driver in establishing higher standards and improved culture in Parliament and we should all support it. I thank the ICGS for its continued work, and in particular the contribution of its director, Thea Walton, who will be stepping down from her role later this year.
Last year, Parliament published the findings of an independent review into the effectiveness of the ICGS, conducted by Paul Kernaghan. The review broadly praised the ICGS’s performance, with Kernaghan being clear the ICGS is making a difference to standards in Parliament, and has demonstrated its ability to hold people to account for unacceptable behaviour. He said that the ICGS is something
“the parliamentary community should take pride in”.
The review found that the scheme has continued to take positive steps to improve timeliness and the quality of its service. Of course there is always more work to be done. It should rightly have the ambition to be the gold standard in workplace grievance schemes. In total, the review made 26 recommendations. Of those, eight have already been delivered, and a further eight will be taken forward should the motion before the House be agreed. Work on the remaining recommendations is under way. These are recommendations from an independent review of the independent grievance scheme of this House: they really should not be contentious.
Kernaghan’s first recommendation is to consolidate the various policy and procedure documents into one policy document and one procedure document, and that the existing ICGS assurance group should become a permanent ICGS assurance board.
Lucy Powell
It is important that we advertise this service—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to do that. Any member of staff, any Member of Parliament or anybody working in the broader parliamentary community who has been subject to bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct should get in touch. There is a helpline, and there are well-advertised ways of getting in touch with the ICGS, not just to make a complaint but to get advice about whether a complaint is in scope and can be taken forward. As I said earlier, the ICGS has a range of means: it does not always involve a full investigation with sanctions. The ICGS might often come to some resolution, and there are other means through which any such behaviour could be resolved. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because it is important.
To be absolutely clear with the House, the policy framework of the ICGS remains a matter for this House. That includes the definitions, parameters, obligations and key rights and permissions of the scheme as well as its scope. I have laid in the Library and attached to the motion on the Order Paper a letter from the ICGS that sets out the difference between policy and procedure, because I know that is of concern to people.
Colleagues may want an update on a couple of other recommendations from the Kernaghan review that are not a matter for the motion today. Recommendation 3, which asks that political parties work more closely with the ICGS when dealing with complaints through a memorandum of understanding, is being taken forward by the Modernisation Committee with the co-operation of the political parties, and I thank all those concerned for that. The House has also taken forward recommendations on behaviour training. As of the end of March 2025, 639 out of 650 new and returning MPs have attended behaviour training.
Taken together, the recommendations from the Kernaghan review will improve ICGS performance and accountability, provide greater clarity about where complaints should go and how they should be dealt with, and speed up necessary changes to its day-to-day procedure. In total, they will improve behaviour and culture in this place. This is an important moment for the House to come together, I hope, on a cross-party basis, to show that we stand behind the ICGS, what it stands for and the work it does, and to show that we will improve and take forward the independent recommendations to keep improving its work.
I am disappointed that Opposition Front Benchers have broken with years of consensus on this matter to oppose some of the changes proposed, which came from an independent reviewer. I see that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is not in his place, despite his amendments being selected. His amendments, which are supported by Members on the Conservative Front Bench, undermine the integrity of the Kernaghan review recommendations, and I cannot support them. I hope the shadow Leader of the House will take the opportunity to distance himself from those amendments. The reputation of Parliament is low, with poor trust in politics and politicians, and it is for all of us to turn the page on that era.
The safety of those who work on the estate is paramount. I am clear, as I am sure everybody is clear, that there is no place for bullying, harassment or sexual harassment in Parliament. Those who perpetrate it should be accountable and sanctioned where necessary. I commend these recommendations to the House and call on all Members from all parties to support these improvements.
Lucy Powell
The issue of scope was covered in the Kernaghan review. Kernaghan made it clear that the scope of the ICGS in when a case involves any two or more members of the parliamentary community. Perhaps there have been times when that scope has been unintentionally narrowed operationally. What the Modernisation Committee is considering is recommendation 3, which relates to a memorandum of understanding between the political parties and the ICGS in relation to how they deal with complaints. I think we can all agree that when complaints are within the scope of the ICGS, they should go to the ICGS and not to political parties, which, unfortunately, have shown themselves not able to deal with such complaints in the same way. That is not just a matter for the Modernisation Committee; it is a matter for the political parties as well, and we are making progress in that regard—particularly with the Labour party, which is keen to engage with the issue.
I will not detain colleagues much longer, but I will pick up on a few points that have been raised. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for her brilliant contribution, and for all the work that she is doing on the House of Commons Commission and the assurance board. As ever, I thank my colleague on the commission and the Modernisation Committee, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), who made an excellent contribution on why the amendments are gutting amendments, which we should not support.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), I put on record my thanks to the trade union reps who operate in this House. They should absolutely be involved, through the stakeholder group, in a formal consultation about any changes to procedure. After this debate, I will approach the ICGS to ask it to consider allowing the trade unions to attend meetings of the assurance board in the same capacity in which they come to the House of Commons Commission to make representations, because that will be important.
Finally, I want to take on the arguments made by the shadow Leader of the House. First, these are not my proposals—they are not Government proposals. This is a motion on the business of the House in my name, because that is how such motions get to the Floor of the House. These proposals were put forward by an independent review—to which all political parties and all Members of this House had the opportunity to contribute—of an independent grievance scheme, which has rightly improved behaviour and standards. They are not my proposals; they are independent proposals. This body will not be setting the rules—that is just wrong. It will be looking at procedures, and at how they can be streamlined and made more effective. As I have just said, the rules—that is, the policies—will continue to be set by this House.
It is about time we moved on from the age-old argument that Members of this House have a right to behave however they want and the only time they are accountable for that is at the ballot box five years later. That is the argument that the shadow Leader of the House was proposing—I am sorry, but we put that argument to bed a long time ago, as I think the Chair of the Committee on Standards agrees.
If colleagues, cross-party, support the ICGS and the improvements in behaviour and culture that it has brought to this House, and if they want to see that body becoming more effective and having more timely and quality investigations, they really need to support today’s motion. As others have said, we all have a duty to ensure that this is a workplace where people can work safely and securely, free from bullying, harassment and bad behaviour.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Amendments (a) to (e) have been selected for separate decision. However, I understand that no Member wishes to move them, so I will move straight to the main Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme: Policy Framework and ICGS Assurance Board (HC 579), further notes the Decisions of the Commission on 12 May, and agrees:
(1) That the ICGS Policy Framework in respect of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct annexed to the Commission report shall have effect from 14 July 2025.
(2) There shall be a body called the ICGS Assurance Board.
(3) The ICGS Assurance Board shall conduct assurance of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme on behalf of the parliamentary community, in accordance with terms of reference published by the House of Commons Commission on 17 December 2024.
(4) The terms of reference of the Assurance Board may be varied by agreement between the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission.
(5) The ICGS Assurance Board shall consist of:
(a) the Clerk Assistant,
(b) the Clerk Assistant of the House of Lords,
(c) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,
(d) the Chair of the Independent Expert Panel,
(e) a Member of the House of Commons who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, appointed by the Commission,
(f) a Member of the House of Lords who is a member of the House of Lords Commission,
(g) a representative of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, and
(h) a representative of the human resources department from each House Administration.
(6) The ICGS Assurance Board shall have authority to approve ICGS Procedures, in accordance with the ICGS Policy Framework, provided that:
(a) nothing in the ICGS Procedures document may amend or override provisions in the Policy Framework;
(b) procedures cannot create new obligations for individuals’ conduct.
(7) The policies and procedures relating to bullying and harassment and sexual misconduct endorsed by the House on 19 July 2018 and amended on 17 July 2019, 28 April 2021 and 26 April 2022 shall cease to have effect on 14 July 2025, save that they shall continue to apply to any complaints received on or before 13 July 2025.
Business of the House
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Lucy Powell(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming those from Astwood Bank’s Royal British Legion to Parliament today. I am sure the whole House is grateful for the work that they have done, for the thousands of pounds that they have raised, and for all the service that they have given over many years.
Lucy Powell
This issue is raised with me regularly at business questions, and by my own constituents, as I represent many leaseholders across Manchester Central. The situation my hon. Friend describes is all too familiar, and I am sorry to hear what FirstPort is doing in her constituency. She will know that this Government have real ambitions for leasehold reform. We want to end the feudal system of leasehold and bring forward a system of commonhold. That is why we have published the White Paper, and we have also laid regulations to make it easier for leaseholders to get the right to manage. Later this year, we will bring forward a draft leasehold reform Bill, which will be a comprehensive package to change the system for good.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Business of the House
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Lucy Powell(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
Those issues absolutely remain central to our diplomatic relations. The Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), are here, and they will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question. We stand firm on human rights; we make that very clear in our discussions with China, and with anybody else.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We have a very important statement coming in just one minute. Final question: Chris Webb.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Blackpool pleasure beach in my constituency was named the best seaside park at the UK theme park awards. World-class attractions such as the pleasure beach brought an estimated 23 million people to Blackpool last year. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising the pleasure beach and all the attractions in Blackpool, and encourage everyone to have a staycation in the UK this year?
Lucy Powell
I can absolutely encourage everyone to go to Blackpool, have fish and chips on the promenade, and perhaps go on the Big One, which I am too scared to go on. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend there soon.
Business of the House
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Lucy Powell(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I shall. The business for the week commencing 3 February includes:
Monday 3 February—Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.
Tuesday 4 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025, followed by debate on motions to approve the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025 and the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2025.
Wednesday 5 February—Motions related to the police grant and local government finance reports.
Thursday 6 February—General debate on Government support for coalfield communities, followed by a general debate on financial education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 10 February will include:
Monday 10 February—Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.
Tuesday 11 February—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Arbitration Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 12 February—Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 13 February—General debate. Subject to be announced.
The House will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 13 February and return on Monday 24 February.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call Joy Morrissey, I think it appropriate to wish her a happy birthday.
Business of the House
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Lucy Powell(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I know from my own constituency experience that the people of the north have been let down over many years of under-investment and mismanagement by Northern, and its current performance is unacceptable. That is why we have a plan to take the franchises back into public ownership, so that we can improve reliability and ensure that people can get the trains that they need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
And now, a final pithy question from Sir John Hayes.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Problem gambling first breaks people and then costs lives. It is a far cry from the weekly pools coupon of my father’s day, and it is devastating people in Lincolnshire and elsewhere. Given the announcement of a new £30 million statutory gambling levy, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate so that we can discuss how to guarantee that that money is spread fairly, and is not eaten up by organisations sponsored by the gambling industry?
Lucy Powell
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. Online gambling in particular has completely changed the whole industry and increased people’s susceptibility to problems such as gambling addiction. This Government are taking forward the recommendations made previously to tackle the scourge of gambling, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister comes to the House at some point to talk about these issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House for a comprehensive session of business questions.
Business of the House
Debate between Caroline Nokes and Lucy Powell(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
May I welcome my hon. Friend back to her place? She was always vocal and committed in the last Parliament, and I have no doubt she will be so again in this Parliament. As she rightly points out, our education and care systems are not meeting the needs of children with special educational needs, often leaving them without the support they need to thrive. That is one of the issues being tackled in our children’s wellbeing Bill, announced by His Majesty the King yesterday. As she will have heard this morning, there will be a debate on education in the business next week.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Immediately prior to Dissolution, the excellent Backbench Business Committee had granted a debate in the Chamber to discuss the performance of Southern Water. I know that the right hon. Lady will want to respond about sewage, but in fact the debate was to be about its failure to deliver clean water to significant parts of my constituency in addition to its failures on sewage. Will she please reassure me that in the absence of the Backbench Business Committee and the Petitions Committee, the Government will find time for Back Benchers to bring forward important issues that we wish to debate in the Chamber?