Committee on Standards (Lay Members)

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I will be very brief, too, but I felt that I ought to say a couple of words, since I am the only person in the House who has met all the candidates, as I was a member of the panel. We were very impressed by the standard of the candidates who came forward. Sir Francis Habgood, who if the House agrees tonight will be joining the Committee this week, will be a splendid addition to the Committee. One of the advantages of the four members that we will be agreeing tonight is that it will mean, for I think the first time, that the Standards Committee will have members from all four home nations of the United Kingdom, and therefore it will embody the Union in a more dramatic way than perhaps it has done in the past.

I pay tribute to the outgoing members who have already outgone, including Arun Midha, who sat on the panel, and the three members leaving at the end of March. With that, I very much hope that the House will agree the motion.

Christmas Adjournment

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I do not know how you feel, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it seems to me that everything in this country at the moment is broken and bust, including the Passport Office, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the asylum system, which even the Home Secretary says is broken. The Royal Mail never seems to deliver letters in a timely fashion any more, including those from GPs or for doctors appointments. There are repeated medicine shortages in several key areas. People cannot get an appointment with their GP, an ambulance never turns up on time and cancer results turn up weeks late. Trains are cancelled all the time—and that is when there are no strikes.

We have ploughed millions of pounds-worth of crops back into the fields because there are not enough people to harvest them. We are not training enough people to be GPs, dermatologists, radiologists or radiographers. We are wasting millions of pounds on agency staff, meaning nurses are working alongside agency nurses who are not able to do the same job but are being paid twice as much. We have a 7.1 million-person backlog in the NHS in England, and that is not all the fault of covid: it was 4.8 million before covid even arrived. Bars, restaurants and people who work on building and construction sites are desperate for additional staff. Lots of bars and restaurants are not opening on Monday evenings, or are closing early, because they cannot get enough staff.

Inflation is running at 10.7%, despite the fact that in February the then Prime Minister—it was a few of them ago—said we should not be worrying about inflation. Well, lots of families are, because they have also seen mortgage rates rise, in large part due to the actions of the crazy Government we had a few weeks ago. Public sector staff are understandably angry, worried and determined, because they have faced real-terms cuts in their living conditions year on year for 12 years now. People are losing their homes: the number of people who have turned up in my constituency office in recent weeks who are terrified of eviction over the next few days is worrying.

Frankly, I just think it is time we pressed the reset button in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, I do not think that will happen until there is a complete change of Government. We need not just the endless recycling of Government Ministers we have had this year but a proper change of Government, so I want to say to everybody on the Government Benches, in the words of the Sugababes: “Push the button”—it is time for a reset.

I want to talk about energy, because a quarter of the constituents who have come to my office recently are really worried about the price of their energy. Everybody knows that the cost of energy has grown very dramatically, but the service that some of the energy companies are providing is absolutely shocking. I am sure other Members will have heard the same. The customer service from OVO, British Gas and ScottishPower is just terrible. Replies to MPs’ correspondence regularly take several months—even to correspondence market “Urgent” or “Extremely urgent”. One constituent of mine died waiting for a reply from her energy company; another is still waiting for the resolution of a relatively minor matter six months after they got me involved. Companies make it very difficult for people to move to prepaid meters, which is what many of my constituents are desperate to do because they want actual control of their energy costs. Energy companies give up on a case after a single missed call; that is not customer service. They need to completely rethink it.

In addition, Rhondda homes are often very difficult to insulate. It sometimes sounds like a kind of Dickensian television programme but it is true: I have constituents who will sit all day long in a onesie, covered by a duvet, and who will put an electric bar on for only 20 minutes in the morning and 20 minutes in the evening to take the absolute chill off the house. That is going to lead to people in my constituency losing their lives.

Another problem that the Government have failed to address relates to local authorities, many of which have enormous gaps in their budgets for next year. They do not know what they are going to do about keeping open swimming pools, leisure centres and schools. Lots of schools are thinking about letting staff go because they simply have to pay very much increased bills. It is shocking that the Government have not yet come forward with a plan for what is going to happen in relation to non-domestic properties after March.

I want to talk briefly about what I call the botched, bungled Boris Brexit. Let us face it: it has been an absolute disaster for this country on every single level. It is not just that UK performing artists are not able to put together a viable tour around Europe any more—something that we used to be really good at and that the Government repeatedly say they are going to sort but still have not. It is not just the fact that we were promised frictionless trade—that was a fiction, not frictionless trade.

Even the Office for Budget Responsibility says:

“Comparing our recent overall trade performance with other advanced economies suggests that the UK saw a similar collapse in exports as other countries at the start of the pandemic but has since missed out on much of the recovery in global trade.”

In fact, we are 12% below pre-pandemic levels. The Minister who was talking about trade the other day could not decide whether we had done £800 billion or £80 billion of trade deals in recent years. That is leaving out the fact that since the Minister who was in charge of some of these trade deals was sacked, he has now confessed that he thinks they were terrible deals in the first place.

Let me turn to two final things. First, on standards, we still do not have an independent adviser on ministerial interests. That means we still do not even have a correct list on the Government website of who Ministers are and their financial interests. The most recent list was produced in May, which is obviously quite some time ago and several rounds of Ministers ago.

Secondly, the Government’s arguments about personal protective equipment contracts have now completely collapsed. They kept on saying that they were all fine and hunky dory and that everything was done properly. We have been arguing for a long time that there was massive corruption in the way the contracts were dealt out. We now know that even the Government largely agree with us, because they are suing one of the companies in question.

Finally, as you may know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very committed to trying to get a better result for people in this country with acquired brain injury. I have been co-chairing the Government’s programme board, which is trying to get a national strategy together. It is great to see that rugby and football are just beginning to take the issue seriously, but there are far too many people in this country whose lives we magnificently save and who could be given a real quality of life if only we put in place all the support that they need. Up to now we have failed to do that. I hope that by next summer I will be able to say that we have a national strategy for acquired brain injury.

I wish the House a merry Christmas and a prosperous new year.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

There is a reason why we have consultations on these matters—it is so that people can express their views, and I urge the hon. Lady to contribute to that. I put this consultation forward with other members of the Commission, and it is a very important principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. Clearly, for certain charges, there would be concerns about workplace safety and so forth, but it was felt that having the point being at charge rather than arrest would be a better balance between that important principle and the potential damage to an individual who is perhaps falsely charged and has claims made against them. There is a reason why we are consulting on this. Members should respond to that and encourage their members of staff to respond. My door is open to all Members, as I am sure is the case for other members of the Commission, the shadow Leader of the House and Mr Speaker too.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House check whether Ministers are on strike? I ask because, as she knows, I have been trying to get a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport for many months—the Secretary of State keeps changing—about the Rhondda tunnel. The Leader of the House is still very welcome to come and be dangled down my hole.

I am meant to be co-chairing, with a Minister, the programme board on creating a national strategy for acquired brain injury. I have been trying to get a meeting with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care since July. Admittedly, he was sacked in September and reappointed in October; but none the less, it has been many months and I still cannot get a meeting with even the junior Minister for social care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). It really does feel as if they are not taking their job seriously.

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair to my colleagues. I had an incident in my constituency yesterday about which I needed to contact the Health Secretary, and he responded within the hour. I am always here to facilitate such meetings. I have to say, the hon. Gentleman’s previous invitation to Rhondda did not sell it to me. It sounded like I might be taking my life in my hands, but of course I am always happy to visit his constituency.

Standards: Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I think the Leader of the House means that the Government now agree with the Committee, because the Committee certainly has not changed its position on initiating and participating. I think that that was the tenor of the letter that she sent me last week.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I understood that it was the other way around, but the important point is, I think, that we agree. My remarks will, for the benefit of Members, focus largely on the areas in which we disagree, because I think those are what people would like to hear about.

The first area is in relation to the seven principles in public life. Amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda seeks to reinsert into the code customised descriptors of the seven principles in public life. The Government have chosen to leave out those recommendations from the Committee and maintain the status quo in relation to the seven principles. The Government believe that those principles and their descriptors should remain the basis of the MPs’ code of conduct, and that the principles, as set out in the code, should be updated to the version published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2013. The strength of the principles lies, in part, in the fact that they are a long-standing and widely understood set of standards expected of all public office holders. Adjustments of the kind suggested to the descriptors would undermine that universality. It is therefore preferable to retain the descriptors put forward by the Committee on Standards in Public Life when the principles were last updated as a whole.

The second area of disagreement is in relation to ministerial declarations. The hon. Gentleman has claimed that there is an exception for Ministers. That is not the case. We have two systems of reporting interests. First, there are MPs’ interests, which are in accordance with the rules of this House and subject to oversight by the commissioner, the Committee on Standards and, ultimately, the House. Secondly, there are ministerial declarations, the basis of which is the ministerial code. The rules regulating Members’ interests and ministerial interests are distinct for a good reason, reflecting the underlying constitutional principle of the separation of powers and the operational differences between the role of an MP and that of a Minister. In addition, Members should not have to use the resources of their parliamentary offices, which should be focused on constituency business, to declare ministerial interests.

The hon. Gentleman is asking in amendment (b) for dual reporting. He wants, by March, to make Ministers and envoys—trade envoys and others—report on a monthly basis information that will, at that time, be available only quarterly. If an MP is in breach, they may face two possibly concurrent investigations—one on the ministerial route and one by this House. Nor is it clear how that would be applied. Perhaps in his remarks, the hon. Gentleman could clarify for the House what the threshold for a Minister would be. If the hon. Gentleman wants parity between Ministers and MPs, is he asking for the threshold to be £300 or the current, more stringent threshold for Ministers of £140? Could he confirm whether that applies to shadow Ministers?

Despite the problems that I have outlined, and the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rhondda, I agree that there needs to be more parity between MPs’ and ministerial reporting. I will set out the changes that the Government intend to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have had those discussions with the propriety and ethics team. This needs to be taken in steps, and we have to get Departments producing the right data in a consistent fashion for that to happen, but I have already had discussions with them about how we would design a system that puts all this in one place. I am very clear that the objectives the Standards Committee have are that this information is as accessible as the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and on a par with the timing of the register. In amendment (b) the hon. Member for Rhondda proposes a system of reporting immediately in March, when this comes into effect, that the Whitehall machine will currently not be able to deliver on.

[Chris Bryant]

Really?

[Penny Mordaunt]

It will not, but we can move to that system. At the moment Departments can produce this information only on a quarterly basis, and by March that will still be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) knows that I agree with nearly everything that she has said, and in particular what she said about the Commission. Indeed, further to the point that was made earlier by my fellow member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), I think we on the Standards Committee would like to look more at the independent complaints and grievance scheme. We were conscious that when she set it up, part of the rationale was that MPs should not get their sticky fingers on this area of the work, so I feel as if I have been charged by her to carry on looking at this area of work. She and I have had quite a few conversations about this and, as she knows, I have some concerns of my own. It is important that we get this absolutely right.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

We need to remember that the ICGS came into being because Members of Parliament were not trusted to adjudicate on these matters. If the Committee is going to look at this, will the hon. Gentleman join me in making an undertaking that in no respect are we going to interfere with the process or the adjudication of cases, but that we are possibly going to look at the governance of the process and the governance of the scheme as a whole?

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely; I completely concur with every single word that the hon. Gentleman has said, not only just now but in his speech earlier. He and the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire have made the point that we are in the business not only of setting up rules but of trying to change the culture. That is normally a more difficult process, and I will come on to that.

If I might irritate the House briefly, a constituent has asked me to remind everyone that we pronounce “Rhondda” as “Rhontha”, with the “dd” sounding like a “th”. I apologise to everybody.

Advent is, as we know, a penitential season, and it was the 35th anniversary of my ordination as a priest last week, so let me start with my traditional confession that I am no better than any other Member in the House, with not just feet of clay but ankles, calves and thighs. I have to say that, as I look round the Chamber every day, I see colleagues of different stripes and from different parties who have made considerable contributions, often way beyond the call of duty, to our national life. Politics really is an honourable profession, but it is also true that the public want us to do better.

I am painfully aware that 18 Members of this House have been suspended or have withdrawn for a day or more during this Parliament. That is quite a significant number. That may in part be because we are getting our act together, and that things that were formerly swept under the Pugin carpet are now dealt with not secretly and behind closed doors but through a proper process. I am also conscious that on top of that we have 15 Members in the independent group who have been suspended from their political parties, and justice sometimes comes through these processes very slowly. That is not fair to complainants, and it is not fair to the Members either. I want to make sure that Members are entitled to fairness. That is why I want us to have a set of rules that is clear, simple and unambiguous, and it genuinely worries me, as I know it does the whole Committee, that we now have 12 separate bodies that regulate Members of Parliament, and that we are now even considering creating a 13th. Whether that is right, I hate to think. I am sightly conscious, however, that other countries have it even worse. The House ethics manual in the United States of America consists of 456 pages, so I think we have been remarkably concise.

I am grateful to the Committee, and especially to its lay members: Mehmuda Mian, Tammy Banks, Rita Dexter, Michael Maguire, Paul Thorogood and Victoria Smith, plus the former members who played a part in getting us to this point, Arun Midha and Jane Burgess. This has been a long, iterative process, and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin)—who I sort of think of as the deputy Chair of the Committee—is absolutely right to suggest that the lay members often bring an insight, as we bring an insight to them, that results in a creative mix that is in the interests of the whole House.

Let me deal briefly with a few important changes that we are making as a result of today’s motion, because it is important that Members understand them. First, we are completely banning MPs from providing paid parliamentary advice, including providing or agreeing to provide services as a parliamentary adviser, consultant or strategist. I believe that that always was, effectively, selling the title of MP on the open market.

Secondly, we are requiring a Member who takes on an outside role to obtain a written contract or a written statement of particulars detailing their duties. The contract, or a separate letter of undertaking, must specify that the Member’s duties will not include lobbying Ministers, MPs or public officials on behalf of the employer, or providing paid parliamentary advice, and that the employer may not ask them to do so. I think that is a very good defence for a Member who takes on outside earnings.

Thirdly, we are significantly tightening the rules on conflicts of interest resulting from outside interests by extending, from six months to 12 months, the period during which an MP cannot engage in lobbying on a matter in which they have a financial interest.

Fourthly, we are closing the “serious wrong” loophole that Owen Paterson sought to exploit. From now on, if a Member wants to claim this exemption when approaching a Minister or official, they must show that any benefit to their client is merely incidental to the resolution of the wrong or injustice. They must state at the outset that they are providing evidence of a serious wrong, and they may not make repeated approaches, otherwise it just becomes a loophole through which they can drive a coach and horses. I am glad the Government now agree with us on that.

We are also ending the false distinction between a Member initiating and participating in a proceeding and an approach to a Minister or official where they have an outside financial interest. It is not enough simply to register and declare an outside interest. It is surely axiomatic that a Member who is in receipt of outside reward or consideration should not seek to confer a benefit through parliamentary or political means on the person or organisation providing that outside reward or consideration. That is paid advocacy and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, it has been banned in some shape or form since 1695.

I now turn to the matters on which the Government disagree with the Committee. First, like the other members of the Committee, I simply do not understand the Government’s argument on the Nolan principles. They have got it wrong, and it is not in the interests of the House or of individual Members to stick with the Government’s position. Acting on the advice of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which originated the Nolan principles, the Standards Committee drafted and consulted on more detailed descriptions of the individual words—selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership—as they apply specifically to Members of Parliament. Lord Evans, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told us:

“We strongly support the idea that although the seven principles remain central and important for standards issues right across the public realm, they need to be interpreted for particular institutions and organisations.”

That is why, for instance, the police have gone down precisely this route and produced their own set of descriptions.

More importantly, the Nolan principles need fleshing out in a parliamentary situation. What does “selflessness” mean in the context of Parliament? I would argue that a Member cannot be entirely selfless, unless they renounce any form of payment, unless they travel to London every single day from their constituency, wherever it is in the land, and unless they eschew any ambition whatsoever. But if they have no ambition, would they want to come to Parliament in the first place?

We have written descriptions to help explain not only to us but to our constituents and to members of the public, who might be the people complaining about our behaviour, precisely how those principles apply to how we do our business. Put simply, I think the Standards Committee’s version is more helpful to MPs and the public than the Government’s version.

Secondly, I think ministerial declarations are a no-brainer. I understand the arguments, but I do not think they particularly wash with the public. I start from three basic principles. First, Ministers in the House of Commons owe their position to their membership of the House, and they are answerable to the House. Secondly, all MPs should be treated equally under the rules. And thirdly, the public have a right to know, as close to real time as possible, of any financial interests that might reasonably be thought to influence an MP’s speeches, actions, decisions or votes. As Ministers actually make decisions, whereas most of us in the Chamber just talk about other people’s decisions, transparency is even more important for them, not less important.

Following those principles, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West said, the 1993 Select Committee on Members’ Interests—at around the time of cash for questions—concluded that

“Ministers are and should be subject to the House’s rules for the registration of financial interests in exactly the same way and to the same extent as all other Members of the House.”

That was the House rule under the Major Government. On the back of that, the new ministerial code in 1997, under Major and then under Blair, said that Ministers should register hospitality received in their capacity as a Minister in the House if it was

“on a scale or from a source which might reasonably be thought likely to influence Ministerial action.”

The 2007 ministerial code provided that ministers should register hospitality both with their permanent secretary and the House.

It was only in 2015—really quite late in the day—without any announcement, discussion or debate in the House, or any comment in a Select Committee report, that the rule was changed to grant Ministers in the code of conduct of this House an exemption from registering anything that they considered they had received in a ministerial capacity. The theory is, as the Leader of the House helpfully explained, that in exchange for that exemption, Ministers register through their Department any gifts, hospitality and travel that they have received in their ministerial capacity. That is published somewhere between three and nine months later, but without the value, which is a key point. That means that a member of the public cannot judge whether the hospitality was on a scale that might reasonably be thought likely to influence ministerial decisions.

The Committee, Transparency International, the Institute for Government, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the 1922 committee, the Labour Front Bench, the Scottish National party Front Bench, a substantial number of Ministers and I think that the system is manifestly unfair for the ordinary Back-Bench MP. They declare it all within 28 days and can be investigated and sanctioned if they fail to declare it correctly. However, the Minister’s declaration, without details, appears months later and cannot be investigated. It is not uncommon for a group of MPs—some of whom are Ministers and some are not—to go to the same event, which might cost more than £300. The Back-Bench MPs all declare it and the Daily Mail writes a story about it, but the Minister’s attendance is recorded nine months later and nobody notices. That seems somewhat unfair to me.

Incidentally, in answer to a point that the Leader of the House made, the Committee has said that the Government could set a lower threshold for further ministerial registrations if they wanted to—lower than £300 threshold in the House of Commons. However, it is worth pointing out that, though the ministerial threshold at the moment is said to be £140, since the Government do not publish the value of what is received, we have no idea whether that threshold is being met. I have been to events with Ministers that I have registered, but which the Minister has never subsequently registered anywhere.

I am not convinced that the system is working. I have a great deal of time for the Leader of the House. I love ministerial promises, especially when they come before Christmas and they talk about spring, but previous Leaders of the House have said to me that this would be sorted out by spring—a different spring. That spring has now sprung, and now we are into the winter. It seems extraordinary that Government Ministers will not be able to work out for themselves—not the Department —whether they have been to an event or received hospitality worth more than £300, and to register it in two minutes by sending a quick email to the registrar of interests in the House. I simply do not understand the logistical argument from the Leader of the House.

I urge colleagues to support my amendment, first, because the public expect full transparency and openness, and wonder what Ministers are trying to hide. Secondly, Ministers, in effect, now choose whether to register with the House or the Department. That does not make any sense at all. Thirdly, even if the Leader gets her way, the information will not all be in one place.

Fourthly, nobody presently or in future, so far as I can see, is expected to regulate or monitor the ministerial declarations. Fifthly, there are bizarre anomalies such as the previous Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), going to a Bond premiere, supposedly in their ministerial capacity because, as another Minister explained, James Bond exercises Executive functions. That argument simply undermines the whole system. I am not making that up, incidentally.

My next point is that this is the bare minimum that the public expect of us. I have had many emails, texts and helpful pieces of advice on Twitter saying that we should not be taking any hospitality or gifts whatsoever. If a person was working in local government or in most of the private sector today, they would have to declare everything. I do worry that sometimes our belief in our own exceptionalism, and Ministers’ belief in their own exceptionalism, grows with every extra day that we are an MP or a Minister.

Ministers have a habit of becoming ex-Ministers, but under the present rules, their registered interests do not come with them to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. So if we stick with the Government’s proposals, they could easily and inadvertently fall foul of the new paid lobbying rules, which now apply for 12 months after the interest is accrued. They might have accrued the interest when a Minister, but then end up not being a Minister any more and wanting to lobby Ministers. They would be precluded from doing that, but then they would not have registered the interest with the House. That is yet another reason why it is simpler—far, far simpler—to return to the system that we had from 1997 to 2015, instituted by both Conservative and Labour Governments on the back of the cash for questions crisis, of treating all MPs equally.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am very near the end, the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know, but of course I will give way.

[Tim Loughton]

I have been listening very carefully, but I am undecided on this subject. When I was a Minister, the difference was that I had a permanent secretary who was on my case to make any declarations that I needed to make on outside interests, shareholdings and so on. An ordinary Back Bencher does not have that. A Back Bencher may take hospitality because it is quite a fun thing to do, but a Minister may have to attend something that could be seen as hospitality but is actually part of their brief. He or she might not enjoy having to do that, but that comes along with the job. The hon. Gentleman is trying to group everything together as if it were the same, but, actually, receiving hospitality is different case for a Minister and a Back Bencher.

[Chris Bryant]

I have heard the argument, “Oh, we go to lots of events that we don’t really enjoy”, but let me put this case to the hon. Member—it is not a real case, but it is a perfectly possible case. Let us say that Formula 1 invited three MPs: the shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Minister; the Minister; and the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The event was at the weekend and the value of the hospitality was about £2,000. The shadow Minister would have to declare it. They might not particularly like Formula 1— They might be going because it is part of their work in that role. I personally cannot imagine anything worse than going to a Formula 1 event—[Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Gentleman agrees.

The Chair of the Select Committee would also have to register the Formula 1 weekend. They would have to register who had paid for it and how much it was worth, which is an important part of judging whether it might be of such a scale that it could influence a person’s decision making. Furthermore, those two people would not then subsequently be able to lobby on behalf of Formula 1. That is a really important part of the rules of the House. However, the Minister merely tells the permanent secretary that they have been on this weekend and does not register the value, and it appears many months later, even though the Minister might be the person who is making executive decisions that affect Formula 1. That is our fundamental problem.

What we have at the moment is a lesser degree of transparency and openness for Ministers who make decisions than for Back Benchers who do not make decisions. The Leader of the House has been very helpful on many of these issues and I do not have a big beef with her, although she is still yet to visit the Rhondda tunnel, but if I am honest, her arguments sounded a bit like Augustine of Hippo saying, “Make me chaste and continent, but not yet.”

There is no reason why we cannot do this. I have heard Ministers promise many things over the years—indeed, I might have promised a couple of things that never came to pass myself when I was a Minister. The easiest way for the House and for Parliament to deal with this is to go back now to the system that we used to have, then if the Government come back to us in six months’ time having sorted out ministerial transparency, they can have the exemption back. All MPs should be treated equally under the rules, just as every member of our society should be treated equally under the law, and that is why I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support the two amendments I have tabled.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I do not wish to curb debate at all, but this debate has to finish in about 40 minutes and I want to give the Leader of the House a good amount of time to respond. I ask colleagues to bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will try to respond to all the points made by hon. Members. I appreciate everyone being in the Chamber at this late hour and listening as well as contributing to the debate. I turn to the points made by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). She was disappointed that it has taken this long to get to the motion. If we had debated it earlier this year, we would have had not two points of disagreement but five. I hope she recognises that we have not been idle and that we have spent our time well. It has been my mission to try to find consensus on all these issues; that is the best thing for the House.

The hon. Lady made comparisons to the situation involving Owen Paterson. I would dispute that and point to the fact that the votes that we will have are free votes. It is controversial, but people can make up their own minds and decide what they think is the right thing to do. The Government clearly need to have a view, and that is what I set out. I also point out that we accepted the serious wrong issue put forward by the Standards Committee.

If the hon. Lady is to support amendments, I hope that she will be consistent in her party’s policy. The Labour Welsh Government’s hospitality threshold is higher than that for this House, and certainly that of ministerial thresholds. The Welsh Government also publish an annual list of gifts. So if she, as I do, wants us to move to monthly reporting, I hope that that Government will follow. I will also give her this quote from page 130 of Gordon Brown’s report, “A New Britain”, in which he says:

“The Ethics and Integrity Commission dealing with Ministers should be…separate from the system which investigates ethical breaches by MPs and members of the second chamber, comprised of the Committee on Standards, the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards, and the Independent Grievance and Complaints System.”

That is a sensible approach.

It is difficult for us to conflate the two systems. I have tried to eradicate the word “soon” from my vocabulary—although I hope that the hon. Lady appreciates that, when I have said “soon”, I have delivered—so I did not say “soon”. I have said, “summer”. Looking at these issues, I think that is a reasonable timeframe—[Interruption.] That is to move to monthly reporting.

With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about bringing forward guidance and publishing it, the motion originally would have come into effect on 1 January. He suggested that we push it out until March so that everyone can be brought up to speed and know where they are. That is a sensible approach. I will do my utmost to ensure that the civil service meets that deadline of when the motion comes into effect, which I think is reasonable. If hon. Members want this to work well and orderly, that is the timetable that we must work to.

The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) pointed out that it is incredibly important that we take care of hon. Members’ wellbeing. It is in our interests to remind anyone who might be listening to the debate that whatever motion is voted on tonight—amended or unamended—it will improve and strengthen the standards of this place. That is an important point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who is also a Member of the Standards Committee, was pleased that we had acted swiftly on the appeals process. We have a different view from him on the Nolan principles, but, as I explained to him earlier, people can vote on it. This is House business. Hon. Members can listen to different viewpoints and vote on that. That is how we should be doing things, and that is how we will do things tonight.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) also supports amendment (b), which would move us immediately to monthly 28-day reporting. That came as a surprise to me, because my understanding is that the Scottish Parliament reports on a quarterly basis. I look forward to the Scottish Parliament moving in line with amendment (b). Maybe we could have a race and see who gets there first.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) spoke about many issues, some directly related to the motion, and she was supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller). She is right that we have to build trust in Parliament. We want to be the best legislature in the world. We have to continually address those issues, and I have heard what she has said.

Turning to the hon. Member for Rhondda, the Chairman of the Committee on Standards, I will not repeat the arguments I have made before, but I will just touch on a few points. First, I agree with him when he says it is important that justice is served swiftly. I have shared some concerns with him on how quickly we carry out investigations, and we want to do better on that. I was grateful to him for outlining the many positives that I hope the House will support tonight. We still disagree on the Nolan principles issue. I looked into the police issue he raised; I do not think the police have done as he outlined. What they have done is produce a code of ethics, which was signed off by the Home Secretary, but that is different to what is being proposed for Ministers.

On ministerial declarations, I completely agree with the three principles that the hon. Gentleman set out. What I am interested in doing is getting there in an orderly way, to ensure parity with the House’s reporting system. I am telling hon. Members, having looked at this in detail and probably more than any other Leader of the House, that if they wish this measure to come into effect in March, they will have a problem. It will be a problem not just for Ministers, but for anyone undertaking an envoy role, including Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman also helpfully proposed a manuscript amendment earlier this evening, which chimed with the sentiments of the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West, with regard to having “scale and source”. Again, I think Members want clarity. They want an amount, a threshold. They want clarity on the rules. I do not know whether it would be means-tested. Is something that is materially important to me materially important to someone else?

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but it seems to me that the clearest outcome for all right hon. and hon. Members is a single rule of £300 registration for everybody within 28 days, with the full value shown. Everything else is muddying the waters.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am just addressing the point that he and the shadow Leader of the House raised earlier. The bottom line is that the Government agree that the system has to improve. We agree entirely with the principles that the hon. Gentleman set out. If amendment (b) goes through, he will be requiring Members who are also Ministers, or envoys of some description and trade envoys, to report in March at a pace that he knows the Whitehall machine will not currently be able to deliver on. In a few months after that point, it will. I suggest that we wait until Whitehall can deliver, which will not be far away—I did not say soon; I said summer—and we can move towards that in an orderly way.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I barely know where to start, but let us try with this morning’s chaos, which is not the only example but the latest example of a Minister failing in their duty to provide a copy of a ministerial statement to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Opposition leads, so that they are left listening to a statement that bears no resemblance to the one to which they were expecting to respond. It happened twice last week, and I asked the Leader of the House if she would drop her colleagues a note to remind them of their duty. I am dismayed at the absolute shambles we saw this morning. It is just not on.

In relation to the quality and timeliness of ministerial responses to correspondence from MPs, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) first contacted the Home Office on behalf of his constituent on 1 October 2021, and he received a response this week, 14 months later. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) waited 17 months for her response, only to find out that more information was needed before a substantial answer could be given. The civil servants do their best—an incredible job, in fact—in tackling the backlog, but it has been created by successive Tory Ministers. The Leader of the House has previously spoken to the permanent secretary about this, and I thank her for that, but it needs political leadership. Can she please speak with the Home Secretary about the importance of treating our constituents with respect and highlight the importance of meeting the 20-day service standard for responses?

In our successful Opposition day motion on Tuesday, we called on the Government to end the 200-year-old non-domiciled tax status, which costs taxpayers £3.2 billion a year. We would invest that in one of the biggest NHS workforce expansions in history, which is so desperately needed, but I know that the right hon. Lady seemed to side with non-doms over the NHS. What does she have to say to the 5,000 people in her constituency who faced a wait of 28 days or more to see a GP just in October, or the further 8,000 who had to wait more than two weeks? Does she not think that the great people of Portsmouth North deserve a guaranteed face-to-face appointment, which they would get with a Labour Government? Our motion called on the Government to implement Labour’s plan by doubling the number of medical training places, delivering 10,000 more nursing and midwifery clinical placements and 5,000 more health visitors, and training twice the number of district nurses. Our motion was successful, so when are the Government going to get on and deliver it?

Our Humble Address calling on the Government the same day to release documents relating to the awarding of Government personal protective equipment contracts was also successful. The VIP lane for PPE is a scandal of epic proportions and has encouraged a shameful waste of taxpayers’ money, and we want it back. Ministers have flushed billions down the drain on gloves, gowns and goggles that were overpriced, unusable or undelivered, and even now, the British people are picking up a daily tab of £700,000 for storage of PPE that is unfit for use. A Labour Government would get a grip on this, end the waste and provide sound management of taxpayers’ money.

Meanwhile, in the Lords last week, a high turnout of Conservative peers voted to keep the VIP lanes for direct award in procurement. When the Leader of the House brings the Procurement Bill back to this House, will she at least restrict the use of VIP lanes? Given that our motion was successful, can she tell us when, how and where the documents about these contracts will be released? It is really important, and I hope for a direct answer.

I return to Government chaos on the handling of legislation and their sofa down the back of which Bills seem to be disappearing at a rate of knots. Never mind Bills not making progress—some, like the Online Safety Bill, are heading back in time and going back upstairs. We hear that others are never going to happen at all. Just yesterday, the Government dropped two more. The Education Secretary confirmed that the Schools Bill is gone. Could the Leader of the House tell us why? The Transport Secretary admitted that the revolving door of Government Ministers in his Department was not “ideal” —quite the understatement!

Later today in the Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, continues her fantastic campaign against the antisocial use of e-scooters. Despite a commitment from the Government in the Queen’s Speech this year, the Transport Secretary now says that there will almost certainly be no transport Bill in this Parliament.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There is no transport!

[Thangam Debbonaire]

As my hon. Friend says, there is no transport. The sofa just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Could the Leader of the House confirm whether that is true? Are the Government planning to break yet another promise to the British people? Is there any government actually taking place?

Whether it is the NHS or procurement, schools or transport, this Government’s incompetence and chaos know no bounds. Their inability to govern is quite literally bringing this country to a grinding halt. Nothing is working, and it is on them—ripping apart public services and crashing the economy, and working people are paying the price. The voters deserve a proper say on the country’s future and a Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. In the last few years, in part because of what happened during the pandemic, we have been able to halve rough sleeper numbers. There is, I understand, advice on gov.uk relating to shelters and other facilities. I think there is advice on Shelter’s website, too. However, I shall write to the relevant Department and make sure that advice is up to date and that all such organisations are aware of it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to the announcement of the debate on Monday on the code of conduct, there have been 50 MPs in the Chamber since the Business statement started. If all 50 of us were taken away for a plush weekend in a hotel, taken to the Brit Awards together, or invited by the Qatari Government to a football match later this week, 47 of us would have to register that in the House and declare it publicly within 28 days, along with all the details. According to the motion from the Leader of the House for Monday, however, three of us would not have to do that—the three who have been sitting on the Treasury Front Bench. The 1922 Committee, the Committee on Standards, the Institute for Government and all the transparency bodies in the country have called for us to end that exemption so that all MPs are treated identically. Would that not make far more sense?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Gentleman is being slightly unfair. In addition to the motion we are bringing forward on House business, he will know, because I have spoken to him on several occasions, that the Government are also planning to do something on ministerial interests. [Interruption.] We can talk about it now, but we have a debate on Monday so I might leave it till then. What is important is the principle he sets out: that there should be parity on such matters. What I do not think is reasonable is that should he become a Minister—I sincerely hope that is never the case—his parliamentary resources would have to be used to do things that are Whitehall’s responsibility. I am bringing forward a practical solution. On the principle, there should be parity both in terms of transparency and on timetable.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

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

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If we could reopen the Rhondda tunnel, which goes from Blaencwm to Blaengwynfi, it would be the second-longest cycle tunnel in Europe and a great local asset in some of the poorest areas in Wales. It belongs to the Department for Transport, so I have been trying to secure meetings with Ministers. I met with the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who was very enthusiastic. Unfortunately, he was sacked, and then he became the Home Secretary and then the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I met with a Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), but he was then made the Europe Minister, then Chief Whip and then Northern Ireland Secretary. I met with another Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who then became Chief Whip, resigned, un-resigned and was then sacked. I was going to meet with the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), but she is now a Minister at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

Therefore, can the Leader of the House do two things for me? First, can she ensure that I do meet a Minister, and that whichever Minister I meet stays in place long enough to make sure we get the money? Secondly, as she is the fixed point in this Government, as far as I can see, will she personally come to the Rhondda tunnel? We can dangle her down in a hole, right down to the bottom, so she can see it for herself. We will let her out again—probably—but it will be amazing; there will be lovely chaps who will look after her as she goes down, and she will not hit her head or anything like that. It is amazing. We need to make this project happen; will she help?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I shall do my utmost to help the hon. Gentleman. We often talk about a whole-of-Government approach, and it seems that he has done all the legwork to secure that. I will be happy to flag the matter to the new Secretary of State, who I saw this morning—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Who?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I hear the hon. Gentleman’s frustration and I shall do my best to ensure that the matter is prioritised by the relevant Department.

Points of Order

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Speaker and the entire Deputy Speaker team deprecate any taking of photographs, whether in the voting Lobby, the Chamber or certain other areas. Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear, but let me emphasise it again: do not take photographs in areas where they are forbidden. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, and it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to behave better as role models to those outside looking in.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for telling me that he was going to raise this matter. I want to be absolutely clear that I took a photograph, and I did so knowing that I was breaking the rules of the House—the etiquette of the House, certainly. I did so because I believed that the example being set, when we are trying to change the culture of bullying in Parliament, was such that it was necessary to override the normal course of action. I apologise to the House for doing so. However, it is very important to understand that if 12 Members were to stand around a member of staff in that way, they would probably end up being suspended from the House for a long period for bullying. We have only just started taking bullying seriously in this Parliament.

I am not questioning what you just said, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I gently suggest that there is a good argument that one of the rules we have had for a very long time—that there is no photography and no filming in the Lobby or adjacent areas—is now out of date, and it might actually help us to stop some of the bullying—[Interruption.] I am only suggesting it gently, but it might stop some of the behaviour. Some of the behaviour changed in this House when the Chamber began to be filmed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member has made two points. One was an apology, which the House has heard. The second was about rule changes. That is not for the Chair; that is for the House, and there is a procedure to do that. The hon. Member has made his views known, and he will know how to progress that. It is then up to the House to decide whether it wishes there to be a rule change.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I want to ask about brain injury. Yesterday morning, I hosted a roundtable here with lots of people who have been engaged in the issue of concussion in sport. The Leader of the House may have seen recent stories about rugby players and football players who are suffering from depression, anxiety and a series of different mental health complaints—many have suicidal or dementia problems—resulting from sub-concussive events: so not even when they have been knocked out, but repeated shaking or minor blows to the head. Can we have a debate on what the Government are going to do about this? When will we have proper protocols for all sports so that we protect every single child, especially as their brain is developing?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I shall certainly raise it with both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. But he will know how to apply for a debate.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Appointment)

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Me again. It would be fair to say that the search company found it quite difficult to get lots of good candidates to apply. In fact, significantly fewer applied than five years ago. I asked it why that was and it said, “Well, you’ve only got to read the newspapers to see why.” Kathryn Stone has faced pretty ferocious, sustained attacks in the media, including from quite a number of colleagues in the House. There have been times when I have felt such admiration for her because she has managed not to soldier on—that is not quite the kind of person she is—but to keep going with clarity and without any sense of bearing a grudge or anything like that. However, it must have been tough for her. That has made it difficult for us to find candidates.

When we went through the process, I felt that only one person was really appointable. Although the Commission had asked us to take forward two names, the second name dropped out. All that being said, we have an absolute corker to take on the job.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Chris Bryant]

Daniel Greenberg is quite phenomenal; my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) knows him from his advice to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He has advised the Standards Committee several times, and done so with considerable wit, rapier intelligence and sometimes rather frighteningly.

More importantly—I do not think that I am breaking a confidence—we were advised by those who did the initial interviews that he might be a little shy about providing his opinions. I do not think that is the issue at all. He was absolutely magnificent at interview; I was giving him 10 out of 10 on every single one of the key criteria on experiences and abilities needed to fulfil the role. I am certain that he will do a splendid job for the House.

I do, however, want the House to embrace the appointment. Part of what I said earlier about upholding the standards of the House and maintaining its reputation for future generations involves not attacking those whom we have entrusted with managing that job. Sometimes, he may need additional financial and staffing resources to be able to do the job properly.

I pay tribute to Kathryn Stone for the magnificent way in which she has done her job—I hope that we will have an opportunity to do that properly before she departs later in the year—and the phenomenal members of her team. In particular, I have worked closely with Helen Reid, who is clear, concise and fair. Kathryn has managed to create a team that I think she will hand on in very good nick to Daniel Greenberg when he starts on 1 January.

There is just one area where I hope that Daniel will be able to work clearly. I have some sneaking concerns about the operation of the ICGS. Sometimes, the quality of people who have been employed to do the early investigations has not been up to scratch. Because the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has a sideline to that role, it is important that Daniel can work closely with whoever will be running the ICGS in future. Having said all of that, Daniel is a magnificent appointment and I am glad that the Commission has agreed with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and myself.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Deputy Leader of the House.

Standards

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The House is being asked to consider the creation of an appeals process for non-Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme cases to be heard by the Independent Expert Panel. The motion would introduce the formal appeals process that Sir Ernest Ryder recommended and proposes that the panel would hear appeals against the decisions and sanctions of the Committee on Standards. The motion also puts to the House the new procedural protocol, which would sit alongside the new appeals process.

I am grateful to the Committee on Standards for its work reviewing the code of conduct for Members and the overall operation of the standards system in the House of Commons. Since becoming Leader of the House, I have had some discussions with the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who I look forward to hearing from today. I assure him and the House that the Government have carefully considered his Committee’s recommendations, alongside the procedural protocol and covering report.

I am sure that the whole House agrees that Members of Parliament must uphold the highest standards in public life and that the procedures we have in place must be fair, robust and command the respect and confidence both of Members and the wider public. I believe that today’s motion takes a positive step in the right direction.

There are other issues that are not covered in the motions today, and I plan to seek consensus on a wider package and to come back to the House in due course, but it is good to make progress on the issues as we can.

Before coming to the substance of today’s motion, I wish to briefly cover some areas in relation to the wider proposed package of changes from the Committee on Standards that we are not debating today. Let me be clear: I am very conscious that there is further progress to be made and the House should have the opportunity to consider the additional recommendations proposed by the Committee. I reassure the House and the Committee that we are seeking to identify solutions that can command cross-party support on those outstanding issues.

Specifically, the Committee made recommendations on measures to improve the transparency and timeliness of ministerial declarations. The Government are clear in their views that the rules regulating Members’ interests and ministerial interests are necessarily distinct, reflecting the underlying constitutional principle of the separation of powers. There are differences between the role of an MP and that of a Minister and, reflecting that, the rules differ on what interests are permitted and how potential conflicts of interest are managed. There are clear rules regarding the registration of interests and the receipt of gifts in the ministerial code and Ministers should, and do, take their responsibilities very seriously. Nevertheless, I recognise the concerns of the Committee. Since being appointed Leader of the House, I have raised those concerns and have instructed officials to bring forward proposals for an improved system.

I can confirm to the House that revised guidance on ministerial transparency data will be published in the coming weeks. We will also publish it on gov.uk for the first time. The guidance has been updated to more closely reflect modern working practices and Ministers’ obligations under the ministerial code.

It is important that the Government conduct ourselves openly. I will continue to work with the Cabinet Office and across Government to ensure that we are fulfilling our obligations. In doing so, I keep very much in mind the challenge set for me by the Chair of the Committee on Standards: that a Member who attends an event such as the BAFTAs should report in a particular way, so a Minister who attends the same event should report in a similar way and their interests should be transparent to the public. I hope that the House and the Committee will support these changes; I will happily engage with the Committee should they not have the desired effect. [Interruption.] For the benefit of Hansard, the Chair of the Committee chuckled knowingly.

The House will be aware that an appeals process is already in place within some aspects of the parliamentary standards system. Those who are subject to investigation under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme have the right of appeal to the Independent Expert Panel, which is chaired by the former High Court judge Sir Stephen Irwin. The ICGS and the IEP have been an essential part of achieving positive culture change in the House and demonstrating its rigorous judicial process, its transparency of operation and the right to appeal.

The Government have therefore welcomed Sir Ernest Ryder’s report and his timely review of the Commons standards system and its compatibility with the principles of fairness and natural justice. As we set out in a letter to the Committee on Standards, the Government supported the majority of the proposals, including the introduction of a formal appeals process. We note that the Committee has accepted all the recommendations, with a few minor modifications. I welcome the proposal that appeals be heard by an independent body with judicial expertise. We also welcome Sir Ernest’s consideration of the grounds for appeal and the acceptance that the Independent Expert Panel is the appropriate body to hear appeals.

We propose two main amendments to the procedural protocol. First, we propose to amend paragraph 118 to allow MPs to inform their own staff in the event that they are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Secondly, we propose to leave out paragraph 62 on Members recusing themselves if not present for all but a “small proportion” of evidence sessions. These amendments reflect the Government’s position, as set out in our response to the Committee; I hope that the House and the Committee will support them. The other proposed amendments are purely technical changes to ensure that the protocol works with the current version of the rules and guide.

I wish to speak briefly about amendments (a) and (b) in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and others. The amendments stipulate that

“no Member shall be eligible to participate in any division on such a motion where it relates to their own conduct.”

That stipulation would apply both to conduct motions related to breaches of the code of conduct and to motions related to the ICGS. This is, of course, a matter for the House to consider. I note that the Committee on Standards chose not to pursue the issue in detail as part of the inquiry.

I am aware that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), has raised the issue of Members being permitted to vote on their own suspension. My predecessor wrote in response to her that there would be benefit in the Committee’s looking into whether such changes are needed. If necessary, they could be put to the House for consideration. Hon. Members will be aware that there is a convention that Members should not participate in such votes. In our parliamentary democracy, conventions guide how we work in this place, and codification of these norms should be carefully considered; I would therefore welcome it if the matter were considered by the appropriate Committee. Subject to its approval, the Government would be happy to bring the matter back to the Floor of the House for approval in due course.

If there is no objection from the Chair of the Committee on Standards or from other hon. Members present, I would certainly be content to support these amendments.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I see no reason why we should not simply put what is already a convention into, as it were, the statutes of the House—the Standing Orders. I support the motion and, looking around the Chamber and seeing other members of the Committee who are present, I think that they will as well. I think it would save us all a bit of time if we just got on with it and agreed to the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I start by being slightly pernickety, which is to say that I am not a right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether the Lord President of the Council can do anything about that, but I note that she referred to me as such, for which I am grateful.

On a serious point, historically, we will probably be considered the standards Parliament, because standards have been such a prominent part of the politics of this whole Parliament. As a colleague of 649 of my closest friends, I feel quite painfully the fact that, in this Parliament, 16 Members have already been suspended for a day or more, or have withdrawn from the House before any investigation was completed. That puts this Parliament as having suspended more people than any Parliament in many decades. That, I suspect, is partly because we have put in place the ICGS, which is dealing with work that would previously have been swept under the carpet. Even in my own time in the House, these issues would have simply been dealt with by the Whips and somebody would have been either quietly paid off or told not to complain. I am really glad that that culture is changing, that people feel able to complain when they feel bullied or sexually harassed and that behaviours that were thought to be acceptable 15 or 20 years ago are no longer considered so in the House. We may have more of this before the end of this Parliament, and we just need to bear cognisance of that. Even if we look only at the code of conduct cases, we have ended up suspending more in this Parliament than for a very long time.

I had some very wealthy relatives. When I was young, they taught me that if a person ever inherited money, it was because it had been held in trust. As Members of Parliament, we inherit our seats—not normally hereditary seats, but in some cases they are—and we inherit the reputation of the House that came from previous generations. It is important for us to hold that in trust and pass it on to the next generation of Members of Parliament burnished rather than tarnished. We will have to do a job of work throughout the rest of this Parliament to be able to do that effectively.

The system, I believe, also has to be fair to Members of Parliament. It is phenomenally complex and sometimes, in addition, complicated. An individual Member will be subject to rules of their own party, the ICGS rules, the code of conduct, the Electoral Commission, and the law of the land, and sometimes it is difficult for them to have all those things in their mind. That is why it is so important that the system for Members of Parliament is completely fair, embodies natural justice, and makes sure that the individual complainant—if there is a complainant—and the Member themselves are given an opportunity to put their case and for it to be heard fully. The court of public opinion is not often a fair place. It often jumps to conclusions and decides things far too rapidly. My worry is that, sometimes, our processes happen far too slowly, and that is not justice for either the complainant or the Member, especially as politics has a shelf life—we have elections, for example—and sometimes cases keep going for years, which is not fair on anybody’s mental health either.

Ever since I joined the Committee, I have always wanted us to have some formal process of appeal. I have argued that the system that we have had heretofore provides a sort of form of appeal: if the Commissioner finds against the Member, the Member is allowed a very full opportunity to make their case to the Committee in oral or written evidence. To be honest, it is better that we have a much clearer definition of the roles of the Commissioner and the Committee. That is what Sir Ernest Ryder has provided us with. He gave us a clean bill of health on how we have been operating in the past. He was quite clear in saying that there is not only one way of having a fair trial or hearing; there are many different ways. It might be an inquisitorial system such as we have, but it might be a confrontational system, or an adversarial system, as we have in a court of law. Of course, Committees of the House of Commons are not a court of law; they are fundamentally different. If we went down an adversarial route, the costs would increase dramatically and the length of proceedings would be very different. We have also always had a fundamental principle in the House that a Member speaks for themselves; if they cannot, then I would argue they have slightly lost the plot.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I want to put on record my thanks to the lay members on the Committee. It is a unique Select Committee in Parliament and lay members—members of the public who are selected—play an important part. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the Committee is much stronger for having lay members sitting there alongside parliamentarians.

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed; that was the next point I was going to make. The hon. Gentleman is very good at doing that in Committee, incidentally, and persuading me of the view that I already hold, but that may just mean that we proceed very much on a consensual basis in the Committee and there is no partisan divide at all. Nor is there a divide between the lay members and the Member members.

There was a point at which people were arguing that MPs should not be involved at all in any of these processes, but I think that is wrong in relation to code of conduct cases. We often end up having a discussion about what casework really involves, or what an all-party parliamentary group does, and I think we make better decisions thereby. However, I do not think we could do that without the lay members and without their having a vote. The balance between the two, the seven lay members and the seven Members, is a good one, and it is sometimes a genuinely fascinating debate, with people offering different perspectives.

On the motions before the House, first, I hope that introducing a procedural protocol that lays out all the processes and what a Member can expect if they have to go through an investigation that ends up going all the way to the Committee will be helpful to all Members. We have laid all that out.

There has been some criticism in the past about whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is an adviser to the Committee, should be present when the Committee is considering a memorandum and producing a report on an individual Member. We have decided that from now on—and we are already operating this—the Commissioner will not be present. If we have questions for the Commissioner, we will send them in writing and receive answers in writing, and that will also be available to the Member under consideration.

Secondly, as the Leader of the House has already said, we are introducing an appeal through the Independent Expert Panel. That is a formalised process, and some people may find that that process is stricter than the previous system, because Members cannot appeal just to have a regurgitation of the facts or the argument; there are clear reasons why someone might be able to proceed to appeal, and the appellate body, the IEP, might decide, “I’m sorry, that doesn’t really count. You just want to rehearse the arguments all over again.” Members may find that this is a stricter process, but it closely parallels the situation in many tribunal systems and Sir Ernest Ryder, who had responsibility for the tribunals system in England and Wales, has helped us to get to that position.

There is one other thing that the Leader of the House did not mention, but which I am grateful that the Government have included in the motions. Let us say that the Commissioner recommends that a Member has breached the rules and the Committee decides that there has been a breach of the rules and wants to impose a sanction. We will publish our report, in the way we have done, with the Member concerned getting an embargoed copy an hour before it is published. They will then have a period of time in which to decide whether to appeal. If they do, that goes to the Independent Expert Panel. However, at the end of that process, if the IEP upholds the Committee’s decision and the sanction, the motion should be put to the House forthwith—that is to say, without debate and without amendment, exactly like any other recommendation from the Independent Expert Panel in relation to independent complaints and grievance scheme issues. That makes for perfect clarity and simplicity.

I am grateful, in a way, that the Government have corrected our homework in two regards. The first is in relation to Members’ being allowed to inform their own staff. I think the Government have made that perfectly sensible amendment, which was a sin of omission of ours rather than a sin of commission. The Leader of the House referred to the issue of members of the Committee recusing themselves, which is mentioned in the report and has been raised by some Members. If a member of the Committee has attended only one of the sessions at which an individual case is considered, should they be able to take part in the final decisions? There is nothing in Standing Orders that allows a Committee to prevent a member from taking part; in the end, it is a matter for the member’s own conscience. Broadly speaking, in most of our minds, someone who had not attended the individual Member’s oral evidence would not be able to give them a fair hearing. It is not in the motion—we are relaxed about that—but I wanted to give the House an indication of where we are going on that issue.

I thank both Sir Ernest Ryder and Sir Stephen Irwin. I feel a bit surrounded by knights of the realm sometimes, but it is good to have a new knight of the realm on the Committee—the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), who joined us today. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain); her measure is perfectly sensible. The trouble with conventions and gentlemen’s agreements is that if there is no longer a gentleman on the other side of the agreement, it is no longer an agreement, so it makes perfect sense to put that on the face of the Bill.

The Leader of the House referred to some other issues. Obviously, I would have preferred it if we were dealing with the whole of our report. She referred to how she wants to achieve consensus. We on the Committee think that we have done so, we are open to discussion, but there are some issues I want to raise.

First, we want to ban the provision of paid parliamentary advice, including providing or agreeing to

“provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.

That is self-evident. I think everybody supports it and I would like to make that the rule—it is not yet the rule.

We also think that Members who have second jobs, especially if they are ongoing, should have a contract saying what they and cannot do, because sometimes people will put in a contract, “You will provide contacts with Government on our behalf.” Well, Members cannot do that as that is, expressly, paid lobbying. We think they should be able to provide a contract; the Government disagree.

We want to clarify the serious wrong exemption, which Owen Paterson tried very aggressively and assertively to use as his excuse last year. It just did not wash, but it needs to be clearer for Members.

We want to clarify the paid lobbying rules, which would help out hon. Members a bit, because they are not clear in some areas. At the moment we draw a distinction between a Member “initiating” or “participating” in an approach to or a meeting with a Minister or an official. That is a completely false distinction and we need to get rid of it.

The one big difference I have with the Leader of the House is in relation to the registration of ministerial interests. I know the previous Leader of the House used the line about the constitutional principle of the separation of powers a lot. That is complete and utter baloney. It is nonsense. That phrase has carried on from the previous Leader of the House but one, now I think about it. We do not have a separation of powers. By definition, Ministers are Members of this House. My anxiety is that ministerial offices quite often get the rules about the House wrong, and sometimes Ministers or Members leave staff to do the registration when it is the responsibility of Members. I hope we can get to a better place on that.

It is a fundamental principle that a member of public should be able to look online for a Member—whether they are Minister now, were a Minister a month or six months ago, or have not been a Minister at all this year—and see all the facts about their registrable financial interests, so as to be able to judge whether that Member was acting “without fear or favour”, or was acting with some other consideration in mind. It is, in a sense, even more important for a Minister than it is for others. If two Members, one an ordinary Member of Parliament and one a Minister, go to an air show, with the hospitality, the accommodation and so on paid for by an arms company—it might come to £3,500—it is probably more important for us to know that the Minister was given that hospitality, because it is the Minister who might be making decisions on procurement from that company. Transparency and equality between all Members is really important, and all the information needs to be searchable and findable. We need to do more work on that.

The Government need an adviser on the ministerial code, and I hope that that will come as soon possible. I am very fond of Lord Geidt, who is a magnificent man. I think he felt crushed by the events of the last of years. If we are to hold in trust the reputation of Parliament and of the whole of politics, we must get someone in place as soon as possible.

Like the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), I thank the lay members of the Committee. I shall mention only two fully by name, because they have just left: Jane Burgess and Arun Midha have served out their time, and we are recruiting new lay members at the moment. We are one down, and we will need another three next year. Paul, Rita, Mehmuda, Vicky, Michael and Tammy do a magnificent job, and I am enormously grateful to all of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified that there is nothing fishy about his declarations—[Interruption.] It is late.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not an unreasonable man when it comes to these issues. The key thing is getting transparency. I am more anxious about getting the rest of the Committee on Standards’ changes to the code of conduct in place; I would love us to be able to say that we will start the new code of conduct on 1 January next year. We will need to do some training and preparation for hon. Members so that they fully understand the new rules, but I hope that the Leader of the House will help us to get to that place.