Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Charlotte Nichols Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I certainly do not think that we need the amendments. The assurance board is made up of representatives of both Houses, the HR department and other appropriate people, which is as it should be. It also includes a Member of this House, who I think will be contributing shortly and who is also a member of the House of Commons Commission. The make-up of the assurance board as proposed is right.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I make a declaration of interest: Max, in my parliamentary office, is one of many trade union reps across this House. In fact, he is so very good at what he does that 77 hon. and right hon. Members signed an early-day motion in the last Parliament recognising his service. What consideration has been given to representation of the unions of House staff and MPs’ staff on the ICGS assurance board, either as permanent members or in how the board engages with the unions in this place?

[Lucy Powell]

I put on record my thanks to Max, Ken and many others who have done great work representing those who work in this House, whether it is for an MP or as House staff. The role that the trade unions play is absolutely important, and their role in this process should be recognised.

Both the House staff and Members’ staff trade unions are represented on the ICGS stakeholder group, and the ICGS has an obligation to consult with that stakeholder group before any proposals are brought to the assurance board. I put on record that I hope the ICGS continues to do that very closely, because the trade unions provide an invaluable voice in the operation of the ICGS, and that should continue. The assurance board will scrutinise the day-to-day performance of the ICGS and ensure that investigations are timely and of a high quality. It will also have responsibility for updating the ICGS procedures document, but only that document.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I thank all Members for participating in the debate, and for the spirit in which they have done so. I particularly thank the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), for his work and that of his Committee in this space and, indeed, many other spaces. They do a huge service to the House in upholding standards and ensuring that we are operating under the very best behaviour requirements at all times. I also join him in thanking Andrea Leadsom—who I have a great deal of respect for—for her initial work in setting up the ICGS.

The Chair of the Committee was right to say that there have been concerns, especially when the scheme was first set up, about timeliness, about some of the processes and about the quality of some of that work. As the Kernaghan review found, that is improving significantly and steps have been taken, but I want to make it clear that the motion will accelerate progress in ensuring that processes are as effective as they can be. I expect the Standards Committee to take a keen interest in the work involving the ICGS as part of its remit, and I look forward to any further recommendations that it wishes to make about the make-up of the assurance board or, indeed, any other aspects of its operation.

I want to make it clear—and the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), referred to this—that the policy of the ICGS remains a matter for the House. That includes the definitions of what might be deemed bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct; the parameters and scope of the scheme at all times; the obligations on people who make complaints and on, for instance, witnesses; the right to make collective complaints; the right to receive draft assessment reports; and the right of decision-making bodies to reject reports. Those all remain matters of policy and not procedure, in respect of which the House will retain a right.

[Charlotte Nichols]

My right hon. Friend has said that scope is an issue that the Modernisation Committee is looking at, and that it forms part of policy rather than procedure. Can she give an indication of when the outcome of that consideration might be coming forward, so that the Kernaghan recommendations can be taken forward further?

[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.